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? I can see the USAF use the C-46 to airlift palletized cargo and given that it requires ground handling equipment and can only takeoff and land at the largest military bases or commercial airports, it would not be in service with the active-duty force and instead, be stored the Reserve and ANG fleets. Any thoughts?

Nope. Not possible.

I'm not sure what your opinion is of the reserve/ANG basing options or their ability to land and/or be based at shorter fields, but it's inaccurate.

LyleLanley wrote:

Nope. Not possible.

I'm not sure what your opinion is of the reserve/ANG basing options or their ability to land and/or be based at shorter fields, but it's inaccurate.

Didn't the USAF purchase a KC-135 transport aircraft without tanking equipment called the C-135?

UA857 wrote:

Didn't the USAF purchase a KC-135 transport aircraft without tanking equipment called the C-135?

I'm a little hazy on that but I think those were mainly a holdover until the C-141 became available? At any rate, I believe most of them were converted to various special mission configurations after a few years, though I'd be happy to hear correction on that if I'm wrong.

My main question was can the USAF order a C-46 transport aircraft without tanking equipment?

UA857 wrote:

Didn't the USAF purchase a KC-135 transport aircraft without tanking equipment called the C-135?

They did. They also once dropped napalm in 12 ship formations, had a B-52 and KC-135 do low-level aerobatics, and also thought the F-104 was a great idea. What's your point? 2021 ≠ 1960. There are more than 200 C-17s and the Air Force is more than happy to puff on the CRAF-pipe. If the AF needs rubber dog shit to be moved from Travis to Hickam during PCS season it'll fly in a KC-46 or on a Kalitta 747. They don't give a s**t about making a half-breed C-46.

Why not order more C-40 combi?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Why not order more C-40 combi?

bt

Aren't they? I feel like I read about a couple being prepared for the Marines from secondhand 737-700s.

Newark727 wrote:

UA857 wrote:

Didn't the USAF purchase a KC-135 transport aircraft without tanking equipment called the C-135?

I'm a little hazy on that but I think those were mainly a holdover until the C-141 became available? At any rate, I believe most of them were converted to various special mission configurations after a few years, though I'd be happy to hear correction on that if I'm wrong.

You're absolutely right! Even with all the bases the USAF had in the early 60s, and the wide proliferation of marijuana, the AF couldn't think to keep cargo-only C-135s flying on a daily basis.

LyleLanley wrote:

UA857 wrote:

Didn't the USAF purchase a KC-135 transport aircraft without tanking equipment called the C-135?

They did. They also once dropped napalm in 12 ship formations, had a B-52 and KC-135 do low-level aerobatics, and also thought the F-104 was a great idea. What's your point? 2021 ≠ 1960. There are more than 200 C-17s and the Air Force is more than happy to puff on the CRAF-pipe. If the AF needs rubber dog shit to be moved from Travis to Hickam during PCS season it'll fly in a KC-46 or on a Kalitta 747. They don't give a s**t about making a half-breed C-46.

How about putting those half-breed C-46s in Reserve and ANG?

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.

Well the USAF wish list is: F35's, F-15EX, KC-46, helicopters, unmanned flight, missiles, etc. Far, far down the list after new golf courses introduced at most bases would be freighters. They pay the civilian firms far less than it would cost itself.

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.

While we're along this line of thought, why not bring back the C-27Js to the Reserves and ANG just to make sure they have even more variability and options to supplant the heavily used C-130s. If the train of thought is the C-17s are old and overused, then certainly the C-130s are too.

I’d be surprised if the KC46 doesn’t have the ability to install passenger seats on pallets that can be locked down if necessary

aumaverick wrote:

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.

While we're along this line of thought, why not bring back the C-27Js to the Reserves and ANG just to make sure they have even more variability and options to supplant the heavily used C-130s. If the train of thought is the C-17s are old and overused, then certainly the C-130s are too.

Logic doesn't track, since C-130s are not the same as C-17s so there's no reason to think they are being used the same amount as each other.

The real logic is since the USAF has no interest in the C-27J they should go ahead and give them back to the Army.

Max Q wrote:

I’d be surprised if the KC46 doesn’t have the ability to install passenger seats on pallets that can be locked down if necessary

From May, 2017:
https://www.epicos.com/article/118873/a ... -air-force

AAR has been selected to provide the United States Air Force with palletized seating systems to accommodate passenger carriage in KC-46 aircrafts in 10- or 12-seat configurations. The contract with AAR’s Mobility Systems is valued at just under $5 million, with ordering periods through the end of DoD’s FY19.

This contract supports the USAF’s newest air refueling tanker aircraft, the KC-46 Pegasus...For the first delivery, multiple sets of 12-passenger and 10-passenger seat pallets, valued at approximately $2 million, have been ordered by the USAF to support the Initial Test and Evaluation of the KC-46 Tanker Program.

The USAF has to get their palletized lav/gally sorted first before any pax are thought of. The USAF was responsible for providing that equipment and it would seem they dropped the ball and provided a unit that does not work on the current KC-46 unless there is a redesign of the palletized units.

VMCA787 wrote:

The USAF has to get their palletized lav/gally sorted first before any pax are thought of. The USAF was responsible for providing that equipment and it would seem they dropped the ball and provided a unit that does not work on the current KC-46 unless there is a redesign of the palletized units.

It's already fixed: it just needed a valve to be redesigned since the orientation of the pallet on the jet is now 90 degrees off of what it was originally intended to be (logistics rail vs. ADS rail orientation). There's still the other john, it's just not usable if they're doing AR.

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.

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.

Beat me to it!

UA857 wrote:

My main question was can the USAF order a C-46 transport aircraft without tanking equipment?

Absolutely. It would likely have to go through the existing JCIDS process, unless they could piggy back off the existing KC-46 as some kind of spiral or block development.

The question is one of why, when they can get the same hull and ultimately effect from leasing civil aircraft through existing contract vehicles.

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.

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.

aumaverick wrote:

While we're along this line of thought, why not bring back the C-27Js to the Reserves and ANG just to make sure they have even more variability and options to supplant the heavily used C-130s. If the train of thought is the C-17s are old and overused, then certainly the C-130s are too.

The -17s and FRED really AREN'T overused. The -130s certainly aren't. Really, they don't answer many USTRANSCOM dictated requirements at all. Navy side requirements often are answered organically before JOSA/USTRANSCOM can process the request.

The C-27Js were land-grabbed because Schwartz wanted to get the Army out of the tac airlift business with the death of the -23, which was the SOCOM lift asset of choice in Iraq. That was insult to the C-130 community, esp. the SOF side, where Schwartz came from via USTRANSCOM.

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.

There is a flyable one in Bolivia I'd love to get my greedy hands on.

acecrackshot wrote:

There is a flyable one in Bolivia I'd love to get my greedy hands on.

I think Everts still has one flying out of Fairbanks too.

aumaverick wrote:

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.

While we're along this line of thought, why not bring back the C-27Js to the Reserves and ANG just to make sure they have even more variability and options to supplant the heavily used C-130s. If the train of thought is the C-17s are old and overused, then certainly the C-130s are too.

I guess I left out the emoji to clearly indicate my sarcasm. I know the C-27Js are dead and gone. I feel, like most of you, a sub-fleet of aircraft dedicated to moving freight that can, and is, already served by contractors, is not in the best interest of the Air Force.

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.

I'm talking about a Boeing C-46 Pegasus. Not the Curtiss C-46 Commando.

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.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It’s a joke, son.

LOL!

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.

Yeah, I’m in general agreement.

Honestly the only way I see a C-46 program would be save Boeing, kind of like the USAF did with the CT-43.

As long as Boeing is making 767s, they’ll be in tolerable shape.

This thread was inspired by this article from 2018: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... provide-it

UA857 wrote:

This thread was inspired by this article from 2018: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... provide-it

That explains it.

Let me put it this way: if you would like additional airlift you have three options: contract airlift, which is a lot like a zip car where if you only need a car for an hour or two a few times a month, it's way, way cheaper than buying, owning, insuring, maintaining, and fueling your own ride; utilize the KC-46s you already have, which with 18 pallet positions is not a small sum, and if you've got a jet going to Hawaii and 18 pallets of HHGs that'll fit no problem you're good-to-go; or buy your own C-46s, which can't do anything other than the occasional cargo/pax mission once in a blue moon. It'll be far, far, far more expensive than contract airlift, and won't lift as much , nor as reliably. Nor will it be able to do much else than carry your pallets of HHG, some C-5 MICAP, and some retirees looking forward to hitting the Hale Koa.

The first option makes the most sense, is efficient, and is comparatively cheap. The second option is certainly doable and cheap, but not as efficient. The third option is completely idiotic and in-line with many of Tyler Rogoway's articles.

LyleLanley wrote:

UA857 wrote:

This thread was inspired by this article from 2018: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... provide-it

That explains it.

Let me put it this way: if you would like additional airlift you have three options: contract airlift, which is a lot like a zip car where if you only need a car for an hour or two a few times a month, it's way, way cheaper than buying, owning, insuring, maintaining, and fueling your own ride; utilize the KC-46s you already have, which with 18 pallet positions is not a small sum, and if you've got a jet going to Hawaii and 18 pallets of HHGs that'll fit no problem you're good-to-go; or buy your own C-46s, which can't do anything other than the occasional cargo/pax mission once in a blue moon. It'll be far, far, far more expensive than contract airlift, and won't lift as much , nor as reliably. Nor will it be able to do much else than carry your pallets of HHG, some C-5 MICAP, and some retirees looking forward to hitting the Hale Koa.

The first option makes the most sense, is efficient, and is comparatively cheap. The second option is certainly doable and cheap, but not as efficient. The third option is completely idiotic and in-line with many of Tyler Rogoway's articles.

Then what do C-5 and C-17 aircraft do during peacetime do they carry cargo or are they used for training and Space-A flights?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

UA857 wrote:

LyleLanley wrote:

That explains it.

Let me put it this way: if you would like additional airlift you have three options: contract airlift, which is a lot like a zip car where if you only need a car for an hour or two a few times a month, it's way, way cheaper than buying, owning, insuring, maintaining, and fueling your own ride; utilize the KC-46s you already have, which with 18 pallet positions is not a small sum, and if you've got a jet going to Hawaii and 18 pallets of HHGs that'll fit no problem you're good-to-go; or buy your own C-46s, which can't do anything other than the occasional cargo/pax mission once in a blue moon. It'll be far, far, far more expensive than contract airlift, and won't lift as much , nor as reliably. Nor will it be able to do much else than carry your pallets of HHG, some C-5 MICAP, and some retirees looking forward to hitting the Hale Koa.

The first option makes the most sense, is efficient, and is comparatively cheap. The second option is certainly doable and cheap, but not as efficient. The third option is completely idiotic and in-line with many of Tyler Rogoway's articles.

Then what do C-5 and C-17 aircraft do during peacetime do they carry cargo or are they used for training and Space-A flights?

Usually haul pallets, as needed, but the need is way down from the glory days of the Cold War and 300,000 in NATO. Also, exercises, Banners, a few SAAMs, training missions for the Army doing static JA/AATs. At one time, my wing had 3 channel missions a week, two to Europe, one down range to Turkey or the Gulf, that was nominally peacetime. Often, leave KDOV with 36 pallets or Norfolk to Rota loaded. Now, barely two a month.

What type of cargo due they haul is it outsize or is it palletized?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Need that MICAP, I’m sitting in the Reef for 5 days , ETIC of parts + 2 hours.

This has become the more realistic a-net thread ever.

acecrackshot wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Need that MICAP, I’m sitting in the Reef for 5 days , ETIC of parts + 2 hours.

This has become the more realistic a-net thread ever.

Good answer...

“Alright boys. Tanker slipped 24 for a broken oven. We’re back in Charlie, with no expected legal for alert. Let’s hit the shoppette so the FEs can buy more primo and smokes. The bus is taking us back to the reef - rooms are still ours. Happy hour starts in 45, so let’s go before traffic on the H-1 backs up. Someone wake up the loads.”

acecrackshot wrote:

The C-27Js were land-grabbed because Schwartz wanted to get the Army out of the tac airlift business with the death of the -23, which was the SOCOM lift asset of choice in Iraq. That was insult to the C-130 community, esp. the SOF side, where Schwartz came from via USTRANSCOM.

I'm interested. Can you tell more?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Another trip thru, come in with an ALDCS problem. Line maintenance has an instant fix, they run over to a NYANG C-5, pull out the box, slide into our mount, instantly the smell of electrical burning permeated the aft flight deck. Still not convinced it more than the box, they start ordering one when I jumped in and yelled, “STOP, I’m just a dumbbell pilot, but even I know the problem isn’t the box.”.

Everything in aviation is powered by smoke. The trick is, keeping the smoke in.

LyleLanley wrote:

UA857 wrote:

This thread was inspired by this article from 2018: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... provide-it

That explains it.

Let me put it this way: if you would like additional airlift you have three options: contract airlift, which is a lot like a zip car where if you only need a car for an hour or two a few times a month, it's way, way cheaper than buying, owning, insuring, maintaining, and fueling your own ride; utilize the KC-46s you already have, which with 18 pallet positions is not a small sum, and if you've got a jet going to Hawaii and 18 pallets of HHGs that'll fit no problem you're good-to-go; or buy your own C-46s, which can't do anything other than the occasional cargo/pax mission once in a blue moon. It'll be far, far, far more expensive than contract airlift, and won't lift as much , nor as reliably. Nor will it be able to do much else than carry your pallets of HHG, some C-5 MICAP, and some retirees looking forward to hitting the Hale Koa.

The first option makes the most sense, is efficient, and is comparatively cheap. The second option is certainly doable and cheap, but not as efficient. The third option is completely idiotic and in-line with many of Tyler Rogoway's articles.

So your saying that the only way the USAF can expand airlift capacity is by purchasing more KC-46s and expanding the Civil Reserve Air Fleet?

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.