Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16459
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: KC-46 now cleared to operationally refuel some aircraft

Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:09 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
After all we've been through, I'd hope you wouldn't just point to a brochure... There's a world of difference between a manufacturer's brochure with carefully chosen words vs. reality.

There's a world of difference between being certified to wear AERPS gear, which is what that brochure says, and being specifically designed to operate in that sort of environment. The MRTT is a lot like the KC-10: you can wear the gear and transit through a radiological/chemical area, but you're not designed to stay there. The MRTT (and KC-10) aren't hardened against EMP, there are no flash curtains, etc.

Australia's deployments to the middle east have nothing to do with whether the airplane can operate in those environs. You know Emirates flies 777s out of there, too, right?

I'm not an Airbus-hater, but its capes against the KC-46 in this subject are not strong.


I pointed to the brochure to provide a source to confirm what I have stated, you have made a lot of claims regarding the KC-46, yet you have not shown one source of evidence to back yourself up. Anyone can make unfounded claims. Fact is the MRTT could meet or exceed every requirement the USAF had for KC-X.

The KC-46 is not cleared to deploy into any adverse environment.

The MRTT went up against the KC-46 where NBC was a requirement, the MRTT was selected over the KC-46.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: KC-46 now cleared to operationally refuel some aircraft

Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:54 pm

Ah, I think I see where your logic train jumps its rails: when you read MRTT, you seem to think it's synonymous with the KC-45 or KC-X. Unfortunately, they're NOT THE SAME AIRCRAFT! The MRTT never competed against the KC-46; the KC-45 did. The MRTT was never selected over the KC-46; the KC-45 was. That, of course, was overturned and the KC-46 was declared the winner. OVER THE KC-45, since the MRTT never competed against the KC-46.

What's the difference between the MRTT and the KC-45? A LOT!!! Off the top of my head, the MRTT doesn't have a main deck cargo door/config (the KC-45 would have). The MRTT has no EMP hardening or real ability to operate in an NBC environment, except for the ability to utilize AERPS gear (the KC-45 would have). The MRTT has no centerline drogue if there is a boom installed (the KC-45 would have). As you can see, they're NOT THE SAME AIRCRAFT, so please stop insinuating such.

What's my source? I'm in the conversion program to fly the KC-46. My source is the FCOM (-1), 3-3, the 11-2KC-46V3, etc. Can I send you a screenshot of what I've read, have access to, and done? No. Can I take a pic in the vault to sate your ignorance? No. If you can't understand the difference of the brochure's "compatible with NBC suits" verbiage vs. the actual ability to fly near an EMP and everything important stays working, then I can't help you.

Have you flown the KC-46? Have you flown the MRTT? Have you flown the KC-10 or KC-135? I have. Do you have access to any of those aircraft's T.O.s? Probably not. I don't know everything, but I think I know quite a bit more about this topic than you do.

Edit: as a point of concession, here's an article of the KC-46 passing it's EMP certification:
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/02/23/air-force-kc-46-testing-showed-tanker-could-withstand-electromagnetic-pulses/
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4333
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: KC-46 now cleared to operationally refuel some aircraft

Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:21 pm

:old: Hey Lanley, and I'm here thinking you are retired.

Good to have you here now that TopBoom doesn't post very much any more.

bt
 
FGITD
Posts: 1808
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: KC-46 now cleared to operationally refuel some aircraft

Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:48 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
What's the difference between the MRTT and the KC-45? A LOT!!! Off the top of my head, the MRTT doesn't have a main deck cargo door/config


Whole post is phenomenal. Nothing better than having the experience to throw down.

But I’m curious regarding this point, how often is the ability to carry cargo used on any of the refuelers? Is it a major point for these aircraft or just sort of a bonus feature?

I may have asked a similar question before but I can’t recall, if so…my apologies.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: KC-46 now cleared to operationally refuel some aircraft

Tue Oct 05, 2021 1:53 am

Thanks gents. Hopefully not retired for a long time!

Cargo on a tanker is really just a bonus, these days. If you’re not dragging fighters cargo on a tanker is great. Free real estate. Dual roles are another matter: It used to be the AF was keen to do both at the same time, but there are too many moving parts, so with the plethora of easy airlift (free real estate!) the dual role went away. Is it more efficient to have the tanker take the cargo? Depends on where you want the efficiencies. Overwater drags would often entail a force extension tanker to tank the fighter’s tanker, since that tanker can’t carry as much gas because it’s also carrying cargo and people (talking cargo!). If that tanker broke (very real possibility), or the other tanker couldn’t get their gas, everyone diverted. Now you’ve got a lot of iron on the ground. It’s easier to send a tanker with the fighters in one shot without a force extension and have the ESTA bird behind them, without having to worry about the force extension tanker. Smaller air forces are better off with the dual role tanker, but the USAF can easily get by without it and reap the advantages of dedicated tankers.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16459
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: KC-46 now cleared to operationally refuel some aircraft

Tue Oct 05, 2021 11:33 am

LyleLanley wrote:
What's the difference between the MRTT and the KC-45? A LOT!!! Off the top of my head, the MRTT doesn't have a main deck cargo door/config (the KC-45 would have).


MRTT can have a main deck cargo door (eg Germany), France have opted for main deck cargo doors on their follow on order. The door is a just a STC that can be applied to any A330. It is be put in place during production, or as a post production modification. Nothing stopping any MRTT customer opting to add a main deck cargo door.

The KC-45 was simply just another MRTT, they will configure the MRTT to what ever specification the customer wants. The MRTT has different engine choices, it has different choices for survivability, it has choices on refueling configurations.

LyleLanley wrote:
The MRTT has no EMP hardening or real ability to operate in an NBC environment


Please provide a source. FYI all aircraft to meet CS/FAR certification have to have High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) protection. The article you linked stated the systems were tested to 6 dB, that is a reasonably low threshold. In CS 25.1317/FAR 25.1317 6 dB between 100 MHz to 18 GHz is the sort of standard attenuation you would expect through a cockpit window. Aircraft wiring looms particularly those use for critical functions are designed for 32 dB.

LyleLanley wrote:
The MRTT has no centerline drogue if there is a boom installed (the KC-45 would have).


That is just a customer option, it is not an aircraft limit.

LyleLanley wrote:
What's my source?


That is not a source for the MRTT, you are making a lot of claims of what the MRTT cannot do based upon an FCOM of another aircraft ??

LyleLanley wrote:
If you can't understand the difference of the brochure's "compatible with NBC suits" verbiage vs. the actual ability to fly near an EMP and everything important stays working, then I can't help you.


Refer to my comments above regarding High-Intensity Radiated Fields, this may help provide some useful background information https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-lib ... ns?page=26

LyleLanley wrote:
Have you flown the KC-46? Have you flown the MRTT? Have you flown the KC-10 or KC-135? I have.


Who did you fly the MRTT for ? Did you fly the A310 or A330 ?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8595
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: KC-46 now cleared to operationally refuel some aircraft

Tue Oct 05, 2021 3:41 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
Thanks gents. Hopefully not retired for a long time!

Cargo on a tanker is really just a bonus, these days. If you’re not dragging fighters cargo on a tanker is great. Free real estate. Dual roles are another matter: It used to be the AF was keen to do both at the same time, but there are too many moving parts, so with the plethora of easy airlift (free real estate!) the dual role went away. Is it more efficient to have the tanker take the cargo? Depends on where you want the efficiencies. Overwater drags would often entail a force extension tanker to tank the fighter’s tanker, since that tanker can’t carry as much gas because it’s also carrying cargo and people (talking cargo!). If that tanker broke (very real possibility), or the other tanker couldn’t get their gas, everyone diverted. Now you’ve got a lot of iron on the ground. It’s easier to send a tanker with the fighters in one shot without a force extension and have the ESTA bird behind them, without having to worry about the force extension tanker. Smaller air forces are better off with the dual role tanker, but the USAF can easily get by without it and reap the advantages of dedicated tankers.


Nothing like showing up on Lajes Approach and find yourself in the hold, number 12 for landing. Overflew Wake when one of those 2am diverts was in progress. Wow! I was bored, tuned up the Wake VHF and was stunned to hear the number landing.
 
TUGMASTER
Posts: 1497
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 8:56 pm

Re: KC-46 now cleared to operationally refuel some aircraft

Wed Oct 06, 2021 9:29 pm

There’s a good/real reason why the A330 won the bidding 1st time around.
Too Much politics making too many wrong decisions .
 
estorilm
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: KC-46 now cleared to operationally refuel some aircraft

Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:02 pm

TUGMASTER wrote:
There’s a good/real reason why the A330 won the bidding 1st time around.
Too Much politics making too many wrong decisions .

I agree - even then it must have been difficult to select a mostly "foreign" aircraft over a BOEING (!!! omgpolitics/economics) product. Yet they did.

This time around not only is Boeing in general looking questionable as far as being able to deliver on time/budget (that's an understatement) but their ACTUAL proposal aircraft has been a complete nightmare! Meanwhile other nations have been operating the aircraft they declined previously.

The more I think about it, the better chance I think Lockheed has with this one. The US government / military HAS to send Boeing a message, as they just don't seem to be "getting it" anymore. They simply can't get a another chance like this. Actually it frustrates me personally that they CRIED FOUL at the KC-45 win, lobbied a bunch of politicians, then finally got the contract, and STILL proceeded to royally and completely screw up the entire process from start to finish.

I don't mind a company fighting for something that they know is better, and know will be a better choice for Americans - but doing so with complete ineptitude and lack of management or capability is an entirely different story.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: KC-46 now cleared to operationally refuel some aircraft

Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:31 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
Edit: as a point of concession, here's an article of the KC-46 passing it's EMP certification:
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/02/23/air-force-kc-46-testing-showed-tanker-could-withstand-electromagnetic-pulses/


I'm surprised a certain moderator hasn't swept in and claimed "politics!" since something nice was said about the KC-46.
 
TUGMASTER
Posts: 1497
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 8:56 pm

Re: KC-46 now cleared to operationally refuel some aircraft

Thu Oct 07, 2021 8:10 pm

and, IIRC, they were going to build the KC45's in the US.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: KC-46 now cleared to operationally refuel some aircraft

Fri Oct 08, 2021 1:02 am

TUGMASTER wrote:
and, IIRC, they were going to build the KC45's in the US.


These things are important, but the JCIDS process flow chart explains the quick, easy path for major weapons systems acquisition in the US.

The brochure level deep analysis is for Congressmen and journalists to say "Well, it said that Plane X does this better than Plane Y. Why are were buying Plane X again?"

The thing is that answer isn't always obvious, and the OEMs have lots of perverse incentives, honestly.

Image
 
af0777
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2021 1:11 pm

Re: KC-46 now cleared to operationally refuel some aircraft

Fri Oct 08, 2021 1:24 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
The MRTT has no centerline drogue if there is a boom installed (the KC-45 would have). As you can see, they're NOT THE SAME AIRCRAFT, so please stop insinuating such.[/url]


Let's be honest, this is a pointless comparison/argument. The KC-46 still doesn't have operationally employable WARPS, the MRTT does. And with WARPS installed, the KC-46 can't use both the CDS and WARPS simultaneously anyway. The MRTT also has more operational AR certifications than the KC-46....we could both make sensational arguments all day long.

Source: I've been flying the KC-46 since 2017
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10993
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: KC-46 now cleared to operationally refuel some aircraft

Sat Oct 09, 2021 1:58 pm

af0777 wrote:
Source: I've been flying the KC-46 since 2017

Not according to A.Net experts, with the FOD in the a/c, wiring issues, boom, not matching the MRTT etc etc etc there is no way the KC-46 has been flying since 2017, would actually be shocked if that were the case.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: KC-46 now cleared to operationally refuel some aircraft

Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:01 pm

zeke wrote:
MRTT can have a main deck cargo door (eg Germany), France have opted for main deck cargo doors on their follow on order. The door is a just a STC that can be applied to any A330. It is be put in place during production, or as a post production modification. Nothing stopping any MRTT customer opting to add a main deck cargo door.

The KC-45 was simply just another MRTT, they will configure the MRTT to what ever specification the customer wants. The MRTT has different engine choices, it has different choices for survivability, it has choices on refueling configurations.


Now it can. Before it didn't. You can't say the MRTT is the same jet from 2011 (or the KC-45) and be intellectually honest.

LyleLanley wrote:
Please provide a source. FYI all aircraft to meet CS/FAR certification have to have High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) protection. The article you linked stated the systems were tested to 6 dB, that is a reasonably low threshold. In CS 25.1317/FAR 25.1317 6 dB between 100 MHz to 18 GHz is the sort of standard attenuation you would expect through a cockpit window. Aircraft wiring looms particularly those use for critical functions are designed for 32 dB.


It was verbal from the crew. I also don't have a source that there are no flash curtains or wire-meshed windows. But I could see there weren't. Nor for the hatch that leads to the aft cargo hold being designed so the RAAF dog handlers could have access to their dogs in flight, but it's there. Nor that their F/A's don't fly on their Operation Okra flights. I'll call up my mates when I'm in town and wanting to have some pints, not because i want to win an a.net argument with someone who thinks HIRF protection is synonymous with the EMP-hardening required for a military aircraft to effectively operate in the vicinity of a nuclear weapon's after-effects. The KC-45 would have had that protection. The MRTT does not.

zeke wrote:
That is just a customer option, it is not an aircraft limit.


Perhaps. But it's never been installed, let alone tested. Point being, unless the customer wants to pay for a new flight test program for the CLD because the boom will change the airflow and (probably) the CLD location they're stuck with what has been already done. The KC-45 would have done that, the MRTT has not.

zeke wrote:
That is not a source for the MRTT, you are making a lot of claims of what the MRTT cannot do based upon an FCOM of another aircraft ??


You wrote "you have made a lot of claims regarding the KC-46, yet you have not shown one source of evidence to back yourself up." I pointed to the KC-46 FCOM to back myself up. Either you weren't paying attention, your reading comprehension sucks, or you need to work on your strawman arguments.

zeke wrote:
Who did you fly the MRTT for ? Did you fly the A310 or A330 ?


RAAF A330 (KC-30)
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: KC-46 now cleared to operationally refuel some aircraft

Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:11 pm

af0777 wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
The MRTT has no centerline drogue if there is a boom installed (the KC-45 would have). As you can see, they're NOT THE SAME AIRCRAFT, so please stop insinuating such.[/url]


Let's be honest, this is a pointless comparison/argument. The KC-46 still doesn't have operationally employable WARPS, the MRTT does. And with WARPS installed, the KC-46 can't use both the CDS and WARPS simultaneously anyway. The MRTT also has more operational AR certifications than the KC-46....we could both make sensational arguments all day long.

Source: I've been flying the KC-46 since 2017


I fail to see the point you're trying to make here, especially with your CDS/WARPS comment (I wasn't even going there). The MRTT is an older and more mature jet, whose first flight was 8 years before the KC-46s. I should hope its WARPS would be operational by now. I should hope it would have more AR certs than a jet that hasn't reached FOC, yet. However, it still has no realistic option for a boom and a CDS. The KC-45 would have. With a centerline drogue you can still refuel probe-equipped jets without having to lug the pods everywhere. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: KC-46 now cleared to operationally refuel some aircraft

Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:14 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Nothing like showing up on Lajes Approach and find yourself in the hold, number 12 for landing. Overflew Wake when one of those 2am diverts was in progress. Wow! I was bored, tuned up the Wake VHF and was stunned to hear the number landing.


Been there! Was part of a 15-ship that diverted transatlantic. Shit show is putting it mildly.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: KC-46 now cleared to operationally refuel some aircraft

Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:48 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
zeke wrote:
MRTT can have a main deck cargo door (eg Germany), France have opted for main deck cargo doors on their follow on order. The door is a just a STC that can be applied to any A330. It is be put in place during production, or as a post production modification. Nothing stopping any MRTT customer opting to add a main deck cargo door.

The KC-45 was simply just another MRTT, they will configure the MRTT to what ever specification the customer wants. The MRTT has different engine choices, it has different choices for survivability, it has choices on refueling configurations.


Now it can. Before it didn't. You can't say the MRTT is the same jet from 2011 (or the KC-45) and be intellectually honest.


To clarify what I meant to write: you can't look at the MRTT of today, say it's the same as the MRTT of 2011, and also say it's the same as the KC-45. That would be intellectually dishonest. The KC-45 is to the MRTT what the KC-46 is to the Japanese or Italian KC-767. Externally similar, but the USAF requirements would've resulted in a very different jet. And it's own set of unexpected problems.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2124
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: KC-46 now cleared to operationally refuel some aircraft

Tue Oct 12, 2021 1:24 am

LyleLanley wrote:

What's my source? I'm in the conversion program to fly the KC-46. My source is the FCOM (-1), 3-3, the 11-2KC-46V3, etc. Can I send you a screenshot of what I've read, have access to, and done?


Can you tell us about what the most common flight(s) are in a KC-46? Are you all refueling operationally, are you carrying cargo, is it all just touch-and-go?
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: KC-46 now cleared to operationally refuel some aircraft

Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:15 am

There's a difference in meaning between refueling and refueling operationally. Day-to-day refueling has been happening for years with the KC-46. Training between 46 on 46, 46 and C-17, 46 and fighters, etc. has been ongoing for years during normal training events. Operational refueling, for instance, would be a fighter drag, or a KC-46 refueling a B-1 supporting the Bomber Task Force, or tanking a SOLL II C-17 going to wherever, or deploying to the AOR to support the COCOM's requirements. That's the difference between training and operational missions, and there are different rules for each. For instance, in the KC-10 if I have a rudder failure during a training mission I cannot continue AR, but during an operational mission I can.

Training missions here at Altus are pretty benign as we're simply learning how to fly and employ the jet, with tanker and receiver AR and touch and go's among other events, but that's nothing to go off of. I'd defer to AF0777 for that, as he/she is probably at McConnell or Pease and doing the real work.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SAS A340, TheF15Ace and 15 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