Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
FGITD
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Mon Apr 26, 2021 6:51 am

LyleLanley wrote:

I assumed 'mystery airlifter that is neither designed, prototyped, purchased, nor tested' wouldn't be an option. The C-17 and C-5 are long out of production. And the C-130 wouldn't really expand airlift capacity in a realistic way. Nor would futuristic drones, parallel-universe space shuttles, or giant genetically-engineered mosquitos be realistic options, much as we might wish otherwise.


What about cargo monorails? We can call it the Civil Reserve Monorail Fleet.

I believe it's safe to say that in a pinch, the capacity can always be found. Any conflict that would require an overwhelmingly massive and sudden airlift operation would most likely end minutes after it began (along with most of us, I'd think)

And of course as usual, these topics completely disregard just how much equipment is transported by sea. Good thing too, I'd hate to be fighting a war while flying tanks in 2 at a time.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:46 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
No, that's not what I said. I said you can "utilize the KC-46s you already have" and/or utilize the contract airlift the USAF is already utilizing, not "purchasing more KC-46s and expanding the Civil Reserve Air Fleet".

I assumed 'mystery airlifter that is neither designed, prototyped, purchased, nor tested' wouldn't be an option. The C-17 and C-5 are long out of production. And the C-130 wouldn't really expand airlift capacity in a realistic way. Nor would futuristic drones, parallel-universe space shuttles, or giant genetically-engineered mosquitos be realistic options, much as we might wish otherwise.


Again, strenuous agreement.

Also, I think people have a bit of a misconception on what CRAF really is, and how USTRANSCOM likes to utilize private contractors (not positively in my opinion, but that is an assessment in fairness not universally shared.)

I think people would be surprised how much civil air and sea lift is used right now, completely outside such mechanisms as CRAF and VISA.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:16 pm

The CRMF could work, although there is a chance the track could bend :D

Agreed with both FGITD and Ace. There's a lot of capacity in the contract market and so long as the powers-that-be measure the % ACL fulfilled by contractors against their contract as the most important metric, the training AF aviators get will be greatly diminished. I can't tell you the number of times I've flown in the Pacific empty and the 73* AMS ATOC guy says "the Kalitta poached all your cargo" as their 747 precedes all of our stops by 6-9 hours.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:07 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
UA857 wrote:
How about putting those half-breed C-46s in Reserve and ANG?


I'm not sure why you're hung-up on tossing these pieces of garbage onto the part-timers, but they're not interested, either. A bespoke mission, constantly supplanted by contractors, is not in AFRC/ANG long-term interests. And the USAF generally doesn't buy worthless aircraft.


Not all ANG members are part timers..
 
User avatar
cjg225
Posts: 2198
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:59 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Tue Apr 27, 2021 10:50 pm

Slug71 wrote:
Not all ANG members are part timers..

I don't believe that was his point, but while what you say is true, the vast majority of ANG members aren't full time. It's a common generalization and not sure many would get butt-hurt over it.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8305
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Tue Apr 27, 2021 11:26 pm

cjg225 wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
Not all ANG members are part timers..

I don't believe that was his point, but while what you say is true, the vast majority of ANG members aren't full time. It's a common generalization and not sure many would get butt-hurt over it.


Just spitballing but you weren’t either?
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:45 am

Slug71 wrote:
Not all ANG members are part timers..


Valid. But "the valued TRs, ARTs, AGRs, troughers, folks on RPA/MPA, mobilized (both title 10 as well as title 32), IMAs, IRR, and points-only professionals of the ARC/ANG" just doesn't have the same ring as "part timers", so let's overlook that one shall we? :)

The OP's implication was this supposed C-46 would be foisted onto the ARC because that would help decrease costs and keep the jet in cheap reserve in case a shooting war kicks up and we need HHGs and pallets of fresh fruits and veggies moved to the rear. Part and parcel with the "part-timers already rated in the 75/76 with the airlines would keep training costs low" argument that people always fall for.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8305
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:32 am

Always a good time when there’s 3 or 4 pay statuses on the crew. ART pilots wants to hang and see if the fix works, clocking comp time. The loads are on AFTPs, if they can log a “double”, they’re good but that means hanging in for an hour. The guys on AD are ready leave the jet as soon as it looks broke. I shut down an engine once on a local, aft flight deck asked if we could long to get an AFTP because he ran out grounds. I was the O&T, trying to do the best to balance it all out without be stupid.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:42 am

Free lunches for the pilots if the loads and FEs are on 22 or 33!
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:55 am

LyleLanley wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
Not all ANG members are part timers..


Valid. But "the valued TRs, ARTs, AGRs, troughers, folks on RPA/MPA, mobilized (both title 10 as well as title 32), IMAs, IRR, and points-only professionals of the ARC/ANG" just doesn't have the same ring as "part timers", so let's overlook that one shall we? :)



You're welcome for our service.

"But what about us brain dead slobs?"

"You'll be given cushy jobs!"

Also, you're now my favorite A-netter for the use of the term "trougher" in a sentence.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Wed Apr 28, 2021 3:01 am

LyleLanley wrote:
Part and parcel with the "part-timers already rated in the 75/76 with the airlines would keep training costs low" argument that people always fall for.


I'd love to get your hot and spicy take on the UPT2.0 plan I've heard coming up for the MAF.
 
FGITD
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Wed Apr 28, 2021 3:24 am

acecrackshot wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
Not all ANG members are part timers..


Valid. But "the valued TRs, ARTs, AGRs, troughers, folks on RPA/MPA, mobilized (both title 10 as well as title 32), IMAs, IRR, and points-only professionals of the ARC/ANG" just doesn't have the same ring as "part timers", so let's overlook that one shall we? :)



You're welcome for our service.

"But what about us brain dead slobs?"

"You'll be given cushy jobs!"

Also, you're now my favorite A-netter for the use of the term "trougher" in a sentence.


Nearly posted that same quote. Hard to resist, but it’s simply one of the best television episodes ever made.

Reading the ins and outs almost makes me wish I went military. Instead I keep my feet on the ground in the civ av world, and have to wear a nice polo to get my $20 business class seat to Europe. What a nightmare
 
User avatar
cjg225
Posts: 2198
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:59 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Wed Apr 28, 2021 11:19 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Just spitballing but you weren’t either?

I don't follow the question?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8305
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:06 pm

cjg225 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Just spitballing but you weren’t either?

I don't follow the question?


I’m guessing you were neither an ART, a TR, or a trougher?
 
User avatar
cjg225
Posts: 2198
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:59 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:22 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I’m guessing you were neither an ART, a TR, or a trougher?

Ah, fair question. And, you're correct.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:18 pm

FGITD wrote:


Nearly posted that same quote. Hard to resist, but it’s simply one of the best television episodes ever made.


Conan O'Brien wrote it. That's why there always Easter Eggs of late night talk show hosts getting made fun of in the Simpsons.
 
User avatar
Nomadd
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:26 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Wed Apr 28, 2021 3:07 pm

scbriml wrote:
UA857 wrote:
Is it possible for the USAF to order up to 50 C-46 transport aircraft without tanking equipment to use as an increase in airlift capabilities given that the C-17 is out of production?

The C-46 went out of production in 1945. Not happening. ;)
Someone had to.

Remember when you could buy an old DC-3 for ten grand, spend another ten grand overhauling engines and fly it?
 
Max Q
Posts: 9065
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:01 am

Umm no
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2435
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:37 am

How much cheaper would the C-46 be compared to the KC-46?

Part of the current KC-46 price is going towards covering development costs. If we assume additional KC-46 aircraft where the development cost has been paid for, how much extra are the tanker parts? An extra 20% compared to a vanilla C-46?

I would rather the USAF pay the 20% extra and have extra KC-46 and then use the KC-46 fleet more frequently for cargo. The USAF could create a KC-46 squadron that only does cargo and run contracted pilots.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:08 am

RJMAZ wrote:
How much cheaper would the C-46 be compared to the KC-46?


This is very difficult to guess because a significant amount of the development work was to make the base modification to the airframe as part of an in-line manufacturing process instead (AKA P-8A) as opposed to post production mod (E-7).

Those cost would have been price with the initial contract and should not show up on follow on batch buy.

The other problem is that follow-on buy usually are priced with price reduced due to higher quantity and learning curve. Federal law prevent Boeing from overcharging to make up from previous loss.

If you want to simplify the comparison then just compare the per frame cost of a KC-46 with the regular 767-300F sold to UPS or Amazon.

bt
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:42 am

RJMAZ wrote:
How much cheaper would the C-46 be compared to the KC-46?

Part of the current KC-46 price is going towards covering development costs. If we assume additional KC-46 aircraft where the development cost has been paid for, how much extra are the tanker parts? An extra 20% compared to a vanilla C-46?

I would rather the USAF pay the 20% extra and have extra KC-46 and then use the KC-46 fleet more frequently for cargo. The USAF could create a KC-46 squadron that only does cargo and run contracted pilots.


The USAF does have a cargo only operation with daily rate contracted pilots. It’s called the Reserve component.

The problem is the business rules inside USTRANSCOM/AMC (some Congressional, some USAF self inflicted) that make contract lift “cheaper/faster” than organic grey tail lift, even as, when Lyle notes, the USAF tail is operating on the same channel/city pair and is a massive sunk taxpayer cost. I think I would once determined the pilots per hour crew training costs alone were on the order of $1500. Not fuel, maintenance, no O&M, not the kid handing out basketballs at the base gym, not the security forces guy checking IDs or any other associated Title X cost.

Ideally, you could just put stripped C-46 into every squadron and just rainbow tail (combined unit) or man day the flight. There are literally a hundred different ways to do it at lowered cost. Between Congress and the USAF there is no real appetite to revisit the business case for Strat airlift meaningfully.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8305
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:56 pm

That’d work best, but why a C-46? More pallet positions or seats in -300F with a floor mod for 463L pallets. Yes, in the old days of the Cold War, us and a charter 747 could leave the same to KDOV or KWRI. No more, not enough demand

Interestingly, every time AMC activated our base in the NE; the argument would break down, why is it so expensive to run the base? “Well, because you’re now making an AD base. You know the gym, 24/7 ops, transportation, mess halls, billeting, security, ATC, pretty close to AD”.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:39 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
That’d work best, but why a C-46? More pallet positions or seats in -300F with a floor mod for 463L pallets. Yes, in the old days of the Cold War, us and a charter 747 could leave the same to KDOV or KWRI. No more, not enough demand

Interestingly, every time AMC activated our base in the NE; the argument would break down, why is it so expensive to run the base? “Well, because you’re now making an AD base. You know the gym, 24/7 ops, transportation, mess halls, billeting, security, ATC, pretty close to AD”.


Man, we could discuss DOD costing for decades.

I had a discussion with a group of GOFOs about Reserve vs. Active cost, and one USAF GO was trying to argue there were no real cost savings to RC. I was to trying to explain in little words it’s not the Man Day cost (which I admit would be higher...older force) but the termination and total life cycle cost that really created our year savings.

I saw an analysis of the money available if 30% of the current AC moved to the RC.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Sun May 02, 2021 2:00 am

I've lost track of what it's called now: pilot training next, viper, upt 2.5, etc. If it's what I'm thinking of, it's not the dumbest thing A1 has ever come up with, but that's only because the list of idiocy out of their office is so long and distinguished. There are a lot of great ways to support and foment learning as new generations stand up - that's great - but A1 has no room for gradual changes and seems to swing from hard-core Christian to full-blown meth addict over to sharia Muslim to G-spot stripper and back every few years. No enlisted pilots, ever. Ok, enlisted pilots are sorta ok, but only if they wear this scarlet drone letter or if they promise to become respected members of society as soon as their degrees are finished. It's pure pragmatism without any underlying philosophy or logic.

"Can it outrun the flash??!!" "You bet!"
"Can Superman outrun the flash?" "Uhh, sure... why not?"
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2435
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Sun May 02, 2021 9:54 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
That’d work best, but why a C-46? More pallet positions or seats in -300F with a floor mod for 463L pallets.

The C-46 would have greater payload/range with the shorter and lighter fuselage.

With the same MTOW and landing weight the KC-46 should be able to carry 6-7t more payload or fly 700nm further with 6-7t of extra fuel. From your experience you might be able to provide a good idea of the stage lengths the USAF would prefer. Also do they have large and light cargo that requires the extra volume?

The 767-300F can fly 3,225nm with 54t of payload. I would think the USAF would prefer to fly direct from Europe to the US requiring 4000nm to 4500nm range. Nevada to Japan is 4500nm. The 767-300F would be dropping payload below 30t at that distance and it would struggle to fill the volume. The smaller C-46 fuselage would be able to bring 35t that distance and that the volume should be more than enough.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8305
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Sun May 02, 2021 11:55 am

Well, good points. I’d be curious as to whether it is lighter, even with the AR equipment removed. Somehow, militarizing planes adds weight in the past, anyway. Lots of variance in the volume/weight trade-offs. Most pallets come out in the 3,500-4,500 per 463L. Move munitions and that goes up dramatically. Add seat kits and equipped troops, a pretty heavy load. Thinking about it the shorter fuselage might work okay
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Sun May 02, 2021 1:15 pm

So are we talking about a standard 767-200F type with AF paint job or a KC-46 before the boom and the rest of the military hardware?

The difference is significant.

The 2C has all the EMI/EMC hardening including MIL spec wiring. It also has the internal ARR plumbing though not the boom. You are carrying extra weight, but do have the benefit if air-air refueling so you can top off once in the air and get better range than the 200F although it might be easier and cheaper to refuel on the ground.

The other benefit with the 2C is, if needed, you can attach the boom and get your tanker configuration for surge situation.

Not sure, but isn't the 767-200F only comes as a converted passenger frame. Boeing is only offering the 300F and 2C as new built?
bt
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Sun May 02, 2021 9:33 pm

If there is going to be a sister aircraft to the KC-46A, they will most likely be new build:
RC-46s to replace the RC-135s.
EC-46s to replace the USN E-6s.
E-46s to replace the E-3AWACSs.
There may even be 18-26 TC-46 dedicated trainers for all variants of the KC-46. A TC-46 can have the duel role of the training mission and cargo mission to help train Boom Operators.
All will have receiver air refueling capability. They may have different engines, perhaps the GEnx-2B engines like the VC-25Bs have.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2435
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Mon May 03, 2021 12:04 am

bikerthai wrote:
So are we talking about a standard 767-200F type with AF paint job or a KC-46 before the boom and the rest of the military hardware?

The difference is significant.

I think the USAF would want to keep the C-46 as close as possible to the KC-46 to keep maintenance low. The C-46 should simply have refueling systems removed but everything remaining on the C-46 should be the same as the KC-46. Wiring and cockpit should be identical in both.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8305
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Mon May 03, 2021 12:21 am

kc135topboom wrote:
If there is going to be a sister aircraft to the KC-46A, they will most likely be new build:
RC-46s to replace the RC-135s.
EC-46s to replace the USN E-6s.
E-46s to replace the E-3AWACSs.
There may even be 18-26 TC-46 dedicated trainers for all variants of the KC-46. A TC-46 can have the duel role of the training mission and cargo mission to help train Boom Operators.
All will have receiver air refueling capability. They may have different engines, perhaps the GEnx-2B engines like the VC-25Bs have.



Why would a TC-46 be needed, never had dedicated trainers for other non-fighters?
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7702
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Mon May 03, 2021 2:15 am

kc135topboom wrote:
If there is going to be a sister aircraft to the KC-46A, they will most likely be new build:
RC-46s to replace the RC-135s.
EC-46s to replace the USN E-6s.
E-46s to replace the E-3AWACSs.
There may even be 18-26 TC-46 dedicated trainers for all variants of the KC-46. A TC-46 can have the duel role of the training mission and cargo mission to help train Boom Operators.
All will have receiver air refueling capability. They may have different engines, perhaps the GEnx-2B engines like the VC-25Bs have.

I personally see the DoD assets eventually moving to a (K)C46 base as you point out. And maybe a GEnx-2B variant could make it's way to the civilian world for minimal development costs.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Mon May 03, 2021 9:56 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
kc135topboom wrote:
If there is going to be a sister aircraft to the KC-46A, they will most likely be new build:
RC-46s to replace the RC-135s.
EC-46s to replace the USN E-6s.
E-46s to replace the E-3AWACSs.
There may even be 18-26 TC-46 dedicated trainers for all variants of the KC-46. A TC-46 can have the duel role of the training mission and cargo mission to help train Boom Operators.
All will have receiver air refueling capability. They may have different engines, perhaps the GEnx-2B engines like the VC-25Bs have.



Why would a TC-46 be needed, never had dedicated trainers for other non-fighters?


It begs the question of having operational trainer aircraft in the first instance when sims are available and we are sundowning the T-1. Nothing like watching the E-4s out doing instrument approaches for currency.

I’d guess all of the RC-135 and E-3 missions will be disaggregated off single mission manned platforms or put on UAVs. The Navy has announced the TACAMO mission is going back to the -130.

Ultimately there is no justification for a C-46 in USAF service Vice a congressional mandate to field them. If we looking at a easy kill procurement wise that would survive JROC it would be doing the Nextant conversion to the T-1s for half the cost of 3 putative C-46s.

So the question is, how does BCAG convince Congress to buy a C-46?
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Mon May 03, 2021 1:00 pm

kc135topboom wrote:
EC-46s to replace the USN E-6s.
E-46s to replace the E-3AWACSs


The E-3 replacement inside track is the E-7.

The Navy would prefer the 737 platform to replace the E-6 because of commonality with the P-8A and all the interior system would have already been designed.

The Navy is already performing many of the RC-135 functions using the P-8A. And with the advent of smaller drones, the P-8 with the wing pylon and bomb bay, could be used as a spy drone mothership.

bt
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Mon May 03, 2021 3:11 pm

bikerthai wrote:
kc135topboom wrote:
EC-46s to replace the USN E-6s.
E-46s to replace the E-3AWACSs


The E-3 replacement inside track is the E-7.

The Navy would prefer the 737 platform to replace the E-6 because of commonality with the P-8A and all the interior system would have already been designed.

The Navy is already performing many of the RC-135 functions using the P-8A. And with the advent of smaller drones, the P-8 with the wing pylon and bomb bay, could be used as a spy drone mothership.

bt


NAVAIR already released the Analysis of Alternatives for TACAMO replacement. It’s going to be a -130J derivative.

E-7 replacement of the E-3 was “thinking out loud” moment from the PACAF commander, IIRC. Not that real.

The Navy is not responsible for the bulk of the RC-135 missions and the USAF/BIG SAFARI isn’t giving that up anytime soon.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Mon May 03, 2021 4:09 pm

The AF won’t buy a C-46 even if it makes its own gas and distills Jeremiah Weed. They don’t care about CASM or FedEx style cargo ton/mile range: leave that to contract air to figure out. When the AF’s biggest dilemma in a near-peer fight is not having enough booms they’re not going to buy a freighter for 90% the cost of a tanker and the manpower dump, but without any tanker capes. And 18th AF can’t properly utilize the airlift they already have without tossing 200F vs 300F numbers or reengineing a brand new jet. Boeing also has a big enough dumpster fire on its plate already without making it worse.

There’s some validity as an RC or (maybe) an E-3 replacement, but otherwise it’s a pipe dream. Same with pattern-beater slicks: that’s what sims are for.

To paraphrase Mean Girls, stop trying to make the C-46 happen. It’s not going to happen.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Mon May 03, 2021 4:28 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
The AF won’t buy a C-46 even if it makes its own gas and distills Jeremiah Weed. They don’t care about CASM or FedEx style cargo ton/mile range: leave that to contract air to figure out. When the AF’s biggest dilemma in a near-peer fight is not having enough booms they’re not going to buy a freighter for 90% the cost of a tanker and the manpower dump, but without any tanker capes. And 18th AF can’t properly utilize the airlift they already have without tossing 200F vs 300F numbers or reengineing a brand new jet. Boeing also has a big enough dumpster fire on its plate already without making it worse.

There’s some validity as an RC or (maybe) an E-3 replacement, but otherwise it’s a pipe dream. Same with pattern-beater slicks: that’s what sims are for.

To paraphrase Mean Girls, stop trying to make the C-46 happen. It’s not going to happen.


Well, that’ll just about cover the fly-bys.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8305
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Mon May 03, 2021 4:33 pm

pp
LyleLanley wrote:
The AF won’t buy a C-46 even if it makes its own gas and distills Jeremiah Weed. They don’t care about CASM or FedEx style cargo ton/mile range: leave that to contract air to figure out. When the AF’s biggest dilemma in a near-peer fight is not having enough booms they’re not going to buy a freighter for 90% the cost of a tanker and the manpower dump, but without any tanker capes. And 18th AF can’t properly utilize the airlift they already have without tossing 200F vs 300F numbers or reengineing a brand new jet. Boeing also has a big enough dumpster fire on its plate already without making it worse.

There’s some validity as an RC or (maybe) an E-3 replacement, but otherwise it’s a pipe dream. Same with pattern-beater slicks: that’s what sims are for.

To paraphrase Mean Girls, stop trying to make the C-46 happen. It’s not going to happen.


Well said, armchair generals, like armchair captains and armchair CEOs, won’t get stopped by facts.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Mon May 03, 2021 4:48 pm

acecrackshot wrote:
E-7 replacement of the E-3 was “thinking out loud” moment from the PACAF commander, IIRC. Not that real.


More real than a new 767 AWACs

bt
 
UA857
Topic Author
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Sun May 09, 2021 6:34 am

LyleLanley wrote:
acecrackshot wrote:
Hahaha. The entire Century series fighter procurement would disagree. There is a real argument to made that the USAF procured very few aircraft before 1980 that didn't have an as good/better NAVAIR analog.

Flying units, command billets and MILCON contracts are in the AFRes/ANG interest. If you came up with a justification that would survive JROC for every state to get an ATR or Bizjet squadron, Congress and the RC would be all ears.


Touche, but to paraphrase my earlier post 2021 ≠ the 1950s and 60s. And your NAVAIR analog argument doesn't work with tankers, transports, and bombers. And your every state getting an ATR or biz jet squadron metaphor is valid, but one state getting 12 biz jets (or 50 C-46s spread to one or two states) would very quickly be squashed by the other states wanting a piece of the action. Hence why predators/reapers, F-16s, and KC-135s are so popular: they're numerous and they have real missions, so their chances of being cut are low.

The OP looks at the history of the C-135 and the cargo-747 NYANG abortion and imagines the same thing happening today, but ignores the totally different contexts of those programs: the C-135 was born in an age where every other transport had props and would take days to get anywhere. The C-135 could be at any airfield in the world with a 10,000 foot runway in <24 hours, which was revolutionary. But even then the C-135 was quickly obsolete. Now <24 hours to anywhere is the standard, and many of those planes only need 3500 foot strips. A C-46 would be worthless. The AF 747 was tempting (to some) when the AF had a gaping airlift shortfall with too few C-5s and 141s. Now, with ~ 100 more C-17s than originally programmed, that shortfall is non-existent, and contract airlift moves the majority of the HHGs and beans, whilst the fat girls move the weird stuff.

The only all-cargo 767 the AF will ever see has ATLAS AIR painted on its side, and being contract airlift, the AF won't pay for crew training, gas, depot mx, training flights, etc. The DoD won't pay nearly the same price for a C-46, with no boom, hose, and RARO, and get nearly the same jet but with far less capability (i.e. no tanker role) when you could spend pennies on the dollar by contract airlift or just spend a few mil more and have an airplane with actual versatility, i.e. the KC-46.


ATI uses 767s for AMC charters.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8305
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Sun May 09, 2021 6:27 pm

UA857 wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
acecrackshot wrote:
Hahaha. The entire Century series fighter procurement would disagree. There is a real argument to made that the USAF procured very few aircraft before 1980 that didn't have an as good/better NAVAIR analog.

Flying units, command billets and MILCON contracts are in the AFRes/ANG interest. If you came up with a justification that would survive JROC for every state to get an ATR or Bizjet squadron, Congress and the RC would be all ears.


Touche, but to paraphrase my earlier post 2021 ≠ the 1950s and 60s. And your NAVAIR analog argument doesn't work with tankers, transports, and bombers. And your every state getting an ATR or biz jet squadron metaphor is valid, but one state getting 12 biz jets (or 50 C-46s spread to one or two states) would very quickly be squashed by the other states wanting a piece of the action. Hence why predators/reapers, F-16s, and KC-135s are so popular: they're numerous and they have real missions, so their chances of being cut are low.

The OP looks at the history of the C-135 and the cargo-747 NYANG abortion and imagines the same thing happening today, but ignores the totally different contexts of those programs: the C-135 was born in an age where every other transport had props and would take days to get anywhere. The C-135 could be at any airfield in the world with a 10,000 foot runway in <24 hours, which was revolutionary. But even then the C-135 was quickly obsolete. Now <24 hours to anywhere is the standard, and many of those planes only need 3500 foot strips. A C-46 would be worthless. The AF 747 was tempting (to some) when the AF had a gaping airlift shortfall with too few C-5s and 141s. Now, with ~ 100 more C-17s than originally programmed, that shortfall is non-existent, and contract airlift moves the majority of the HHGs and beans, whilst the fat girls move the weird stuff.

The only all-cargo 767 the AF will ever see has ATLAS AIR painted on its side, and being contract airlift, the AF won't pay for crew training, gas, depot mx, training flights, etc. The DoD won't pay nearly the same price for a C-46, with no boom, hose, and RARO, and get nearly the same jet but with far less capability (i.e. no tanker role) when you could spend pennies on the dollar by contract airlift or just spend a few mil more and have an airplane with actual versatility, i.e. the KC-46.


ATI uses 767s for AMC charters.


True, but that’s the point, it won’t be flown by the USAF
 
UA857
Topic Author
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Sun May 09, 2021 7:05 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
UA857 wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:

Touche, but to paraphrase my earlier post 2021 ≠ the 1950s and 60s. And your NAVAIR analog argument doesn't work with tankers, transports, and bombers. And your every state getting an ATR or biz jet squadron metaphor is valid, but one state getting 12 biz jets (or 50 C-46s spread to one or two states) would very quickly be squashed by the other states wanting a piece of the action. Hence why predators/reapers, F-16s, and KC-135s are so popular: they're numerous and they have real missions, so their chances of being cut are low.

The OP looks at the history of the C-135 and the cargo-747 NYANG abortion and imagines the same thing happening today, but ignores the totally different contexts of those programs: the C-135 was born in an age where every other transport had props and would take days to get anywhere. The C-135 could be at any airfield in the world with a 10,000 foot runway in <24 hours, which was revolutionary. But even then the C-135 was quickly obsolete. Now <24 hours to anywhere is the standard, and many of those planes only need 3500 foot strips. A C-46 would be worthless. The AF 747 was tempting (to some) when the AF had a gaping airlift shortfall with too few C-5s and 141s. Now, with ~ 100 more C-17s than originally programmed, that shortfall is non-existent, and contract airlift moves the majority of the HHGs and beans, whilst the fat girls move the weird stuff.

The only all-cargo 767 the AF will ever see has ATLAS AIR painted on its side, and being contract airlift, the AF won't pay for crew training, gas, depot mx, training flights, etc. The DoD won't pay nearly the same price for a C-46, with no boom, hose, and RARO, and get nearly the same jet but with far less capability (i.e. no tanker role) when you could spend pennies on the dollar by contract airlift or just spend a few mil more and have an airplane with actual versatility, i.e. the KC-46.


ATI uses 767s for AMC charters.


True, but that’s the point, it won’t be flown by the USAF


Can 767Fs currently enrolled in CRAF be used for aeromedical support missions?
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Sun May 09, 2021 7:13 pm

Aeromedical Evac is not a CRAF mission.

That said CRAF != USTRANSCOM contracted support. There are CRAF carriers operating day to day with no USG contracted missions in their day job and Vice versa; non CRAF carriers flying for the DOD.

The US government contracts all sorts of AE missions out currently outside of the CRAF construct.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Sun May 09, 2021 11:46 pm

UA857 wrote:
ATI uses 767s for AMC charters.


I stand humbly corrected. That post just changed my thoughts on the whole topic.
 
UA857
Topic Author
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Tue May 25, 2021 3:52 am

I found a picture of what a potential C-46 Pegasus would look like.



It´s basically a KC-46 without tanking equipment. It would still have air-refueling receptacles and can be converted into a tanker if nessary.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Tue May 25, 2021 4:35 am

No, that's a KC-46 with the boom not installed, yet. The boom fairing and CDL are still there but it's missing the thing that actually makes the KC-46 worth a $hit; i.e. the boom. You're also still thinking the DoD has an imaginary air freight shortage, rather than their very real boom shortage, so your "C-46" knocks out no birds for the cost of two, because not only can this not tank thirsty receivers, but the crews for your imaginary aircraft are now unavailable to fly a KC-46 whilst they're giving Amazon Air an easy jog for their money.

Let it go.
 
UA857
Topic Author
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Tue May 25, 2021 10:05 am

LyleLanley wrote:
No, that's a KC-46 with the boom not installed, yet. The boom fairing and CDL are still there but it's missing the thing that actually makes the KC-46 worth a $hit; i.e. the boom. You're also still thinking the DoD has an imaginary air freight shortage, rather than their very real boom shortage, so your "C-46" knocks out no birds for the cost of two, because not only can this not tank thirsty receivers, but the crews for your imaginary aircraft are now unavailable to fly a KC-46 whilst they're giving Amazon Air an easy jog for their money.

Let it go.



I´m saying that a C-46 can be converted to a KC-46 by adding in the refueling boom and drogue and hose systems. Similar to how an E/A-18 can be converted to a F/A-18.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3950
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Tue May 25, 2021 10:55 am

If you need relative cheap extra airlift, to be operated at the same infrastructure and by the same flight and maintenance crews, i would suggest a more straight forward military 767-300F*.

* 767-300F with KC-46A flightdeck and PW4062 engines. Only a STC for the "KC-46A style" flight deck has to be certified.

A future C-46A with all the KC-46A features (extra reinforcements, redundant wiring, etc.) has a relative high OEW (less payload) and is far more expensive, than a 767-300F with more cargo volume (more pallets)
 
VMCA787
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:31 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Tue May 25, 2021 10:57 am

UA857 wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
No, that's a KC-46 with the boom not installed, yet. The boom fairing and CDL are still there but it's missing the thing that actually makes the KC-46 worth a $hit; i.e. the boom. You're also still thinking the DoD has an imaginary air freight shortage, rather than their very real boom shortage, so your "C-46" knocks out no birds for the cost of two, because not only can this not tank thirsty receivers, but the crews for your imaginary aircraft are now unavailable to fly a KC-46 whilst they're giving Amazon Air an easy jog for their money.

Let it go.



I´m saying that a C-46 can be converted to a KC-46 by adding in the refueling boom and drogue and hose systems. Similar to how an E/A-18 can be converted to a F/A-18.


I don't think that is really true. IIRC, the KC-46 is plumbed for a tanker during construction and the ancillary equipment for refueling is added on later. I agree with LyleLangly in that there is no need for a C-46 and you get more bang for your buck with the KC. Time to move on.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Tue May 25, 2021 11:57 am

The only reason to get a 767 militarized F over a 767 tanker is the cost savings from not having extra weight of the boom and the the ability to haul a little extra cargo weight.

That cost argument goes full circle as civil contracting the freight would be the cheapest solution.

The only dedicated cargo I see the Airforce buying in the future would be a BWB frame. The next closest would be more C-40's.


bt
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Tue May 25, 2021 2:33 pm

UA857 wrote:
I´m saying that a C-46 can be converted to a KC-46 by adding in the refueling boom and drogue and hose systems. Similar to how an E/A-18 can be converted to a F/A-18.


Yeah, I get what you're saying. So does most every other poster on this thread who has been trying to tell you how dumb this C-46 idea is. The only person who doesn't clearly understand what's being written is you, because you don't bother reading and/or comprehending what those posters are writing. Many of whom actually know what they're talking about and have years of experience in the field.

Just like how very few think taking a valuable, precious commodity like an E/A-18 and converting it back to a stock F-18F is a good idea, very few similarly think that taking a valuable, precious commodity like a tanker and converting it into a freighter is a good idea. A solution for a non-existent problem, which also exacerbates an existing problem.

Possible ≠ preferred

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos