JayinKitsap wrote:

Are the F-117's officially back? I thought they were just doing 'aggressor' squadrons via a contractor.

CX747 wrote:

Coronet West conducted by KC-46s, with F-16s out of the DC ANG. Rota Spain in October, still in the 70s and beautiful country side. Wonder if any interesting combat markings are visible on the Vipers coming home...

https://www.airforcemag.com/kc-46-compl ... y-release/

AngMoh wrote:

Boeing delivers first KC-46A refueling tanker to Japan.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/busines ... an-2282066

usair1489 wrote:

The first two KC-46s to be assigned to Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst arrived at their new home on November 9, 2021.

Aircraft 19-46057 using callsign PUDGY01
Aircraft 19-46060 using callsign PUDGY02

Both aircraft operated BFI-WRI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu1vMSBOuFY


Photo courtesy JBMDL PAO.

Buckeyetech wrote:

Israel attempted to move ahead of the line in their deliveries. My question is, would it be possible for them to buy used KC-10s in the near term?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... bNancRGsD8

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Buckeyetech wrote:

Israel attempted to move ahead of the line in their deliveries. My question is, would it be possible for them to buy used KC-10s in the near term?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... bNancRGsD8

Not a smart idea but anything is possible. Lyle will confirm the retired KC-10s are the bad ones of the bunch, you probably don't want to take those on...

LyleLanley wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Buckeyetech wrote:

Israel attempted to move ahead of the line in their deliveries. My question is, would it be possible for them to buy used KC-10s in the near term?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... bNancRGsD8

Not a smart idea but anything is possible. Lyle will confirm the retired KC-10s are the bad ones of the bunch, you probably don't want to take those on...

It's absolutely possible, if 1.) Israel decided it wanted its IDF/AF to adopt a more expeditionary culture and be based all over the world, and the rest of the world somehow agreed to all this. 2.) Israel decided being frugal wasn't wise and decided to pay top dollar for mincemeat by not only bringing jets out of the bone yard that have pages upon pages of deferred maintenance, temp repairs, depot maintenance due, etc. but to also train the crews and (maybe) update the aircraft's systems on a very bespoke fleet. 3.) Israel looked at the absolutely revolutionary advancements in AR and C2 the KC-46 brings to the table and decided to wait a half century on the capes but spend the money now on a 40 year old airplane based on a 55 year-old design.

Possible? Yes, if all three of those stipulations were met. Probably? Not in the slightest bit.

Buckeyetech wrote:

I was a bit confused on the article stating that it would take a tanker larger than their 707s to successfully attack Iran’s nuclear facility, but then they already have an exercise planned soon to simulate an attack (which seems all but inevitable at this point).

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_ ... is-spring/

Buckeyetech wrote:

I was a bit confused on the article stating that it would take a tanker larger than their 707s to successfully attack Iran’s nuclear facility, but then they already have an exercise planned soon to simulate an attack (which seems all but inevitable at this point).

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_ ... is-spring/

Boeing on Jan. 26 reported another charge of $402 million on the KC-46, bringing the total cost overruns for the tanker to about $5.4 billion, and the way the company announced it highlights an ongoing rift with the U.S. Air Force.

Boeing and the service are working to fix the tanker’s biggest problem—its Remote Vision System—by overhauling the aircraft’s system of cameras, sensors and the boom operator’s station. But Aerospace DAILY reported earlier this month that a preliminary design review of the new system has been delayed because of deficiencies with a panoramic visual system.

usair1489 wrote:

It's been a little while since Boeing delivered KC-46s, and today 3/18/2022 two are flying to their new homes:

Aircraft 19-46064 to Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst as PUDGY06.
Aircraft 19-46066 to Seymour Johnson AFB as BACKY10.

With this, Seymour Johnson is almost at full strength and McGuire will be one-quarter of the way to full strength.

STT757 wrote:

I'm wondering if the 108th ARW will get the KC-46, if they do perhaps they will move back to the 514th/ 305th side of the airfield. The KC-46s will not fit into their KC-135 hangars. That would allow the Navy and Marines to expand on the Texas avenue side of the airfield. C-40s and P-8s would fit easily in the 108th's hangars.

LyleLanley wrote:

STT757 wrote:

I'm wondering if the 108th ARW will get the KC-46, if they do perhaps they will move back to the 514th/ 305th side of the airfield. The KC-46s will not fit into their KC-135 hangars. That would allow the Navy and Marines to expand on the Texas avenue side of the airfield. C-40s and P-8s would fit easily in the 108th's hangars.

No, that's not dumb enough. Remember, this is New Jersey; the same place that, when they went to turn on the runway lights to their brand new runway (06/24), they didn't work because the contractor never connected them. Why? Because that "wasn't in the contract" (they were right), so they had to tear up the brand new runway, connect the lights, and then rebuild it... They'll tear down the old-ish hangars, keep the 108th KC-46s on the 108th side, then build new hangars and squadron buildings for the 737s somewhere else. Probably on the Victor row. Why? Because it's New Jersey. Ohhh!!!

STT757 wrote:

usair1489 wrote:

It's been a little while since Boeing delivered KC-46s, and today 3/18/2022 two are flying to their new homes:

Aircraft 19-46064 to Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst as PUDGY06.
Aircraft 19-46066 to Seymour Johnson AFB as BACKY10.

With this, Seymour Johnson is almost at full strength and McGuire will be one-quarter of the way to full strength.

Hopefully JB-MDL gets a top up order, right now they are slated to get 24. They are replacing 32 KC-10s, hopefully 8 more can find there way. In person the KC-46 is appreciable quieter than the KC-10s. I'm wondering if the 108th ARW will get the KC-46, if they do perhaps they will move back to the 514th/ 305th side of the airfield. The KC-46s will not fit into their KC-135 hangars. That would allow the Navy and Marines to expand on the Texas avenue side of the airfield. C-40s and P-8s would fit easily in the 108th's hangars.

usair1489 wrote:

STT757 wrote:

usair1489 wrote:

It's been a little while since Boeing delivered KC-46s, and today 3/18/2022 two are flying to their new homes:

Aircraft 19-46064 to Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst as PUDGY06.
Aircraft 19-46066 to Seymour Johnson AFB as BACKY10.

With this, Seymour Johnson is almost at full strength and McGuire will be one-quarter of the way to full strength.

Hopefully JB-MDL gets a top up order, right now they are slated to get 24. They are replacing 32 KC-10s, hopefully 8 more can find there way. In person the KC-46 is appreciable quieter than the KC-10s. I'm wondering if the 108th ARW will get the KC-46, if they do perhaps they will move back to the 514th/ 305th side of the airfield. The KC-46s will not fit into their KC-135 hangars. That would allow the Navy and Marines to expand on the Texas avenue side of the airfield. C-40s and P-8s would fit easily in the 108th's hangars.

I believe the 305th and 514th will, in the end, have the 13 C-17s operating alongside the 24 KC-46s. I don't think the 108th will see KC-46s anytime soon. In fact I truly believe they will be one of the last Guard wings to fly the KC-135.

The squadron that flies the C-130Ts, VR-64, will probably get hand me down C-130Js or KC-130Js. I don't believe they'll get C-40s; had VR-52 never been decommissioned that would have been the C-40 squadron.

As for P-8s, I highly doubt we will see them at JBMDL unless we order more P-8s and decide reservists need them and VP-66 gets reactivated.

In my opinion the only other new aircraft type JBMDL could see in the next five to ten years would likely be the CH-53K King Stallion.

bikerthai wrote:

Boeing field is the delivery & flight test center for both the KC-46 and P-8A.

Next door to the south of the museum is the P-8A flight line.

North Boeing field is where they install the military hardware, in including the boom. Saw a Japanese tanker last week on the flight line. Not sure if it was a KC-767 in for upgrade or KC-46.

bt

JayinKitsap wrote:

Took my son's family to the Museum of Flight yesterday, hadn't been there in a decade, the cover was not over the display planes the last time I was there.

As we were leaving a KC-46 landed, quite cool. I couldn't read the numbers on it. Do they do much with the KC-46 at BFI? Always see AWACs and the like there.

RobK wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Took my son's family to the Museum of Flight yesterday, hadn't been there in a decade, the cover was not over the display planes the last time I was there.

As we were leaving a KC-46 landed, quite cool. I couldn't read the numbers on it. Do they do much with the KC-46 at BFI? Always see AWACs and the like there.

It was '46068 (N1794B) on contractual delivery (transfer from Boeing to the USAF tanker program, which takes place at BFI).

rlwynn wrote:

Right now there are two KC-46 doing tracks over Hungary. First time I have seen them in the region.

Kind of a funny callsign. FIAT30 and FIAT31 (Fix It Again Tony).

rlwynn wrote:

Right now there are two KC-46 doing tracks over Hungary. First time I have seen them in the region.

Kind of a funny callsign. FIAT30 and FIAT31 (Fix It Again Tony).

Spacepope wrote:

Well, the drogues should be fully functional on the -46 and the Truman should still be operating out of the Adriatic, right?

rlwynn wrote:

Right now there are two KC-46 doing tracks over Hungary. First time I have seen them in the region.

Kind of a funny callsign. FIAT30 and FIAT31 (Fix It Again Tony).

mxaxai wrote:

Today there was again FIAT30 doing tracks over Hungary, as well as a KC-46 with callsign PICO40 refueling a B-52 over southen Germany (both visible on adsbexchange).

Although Boeing first briefed the RVS 2.0 preliminary design in May 2021, Air Mobility Command recommended that the Air Force hold off on approving the preliminary design — a milestone expected to occur last fall — until it reached a consensus with Boeing on the panoramic camera system, AMC spokesman Col. Damien Pickart told Breaking Defense in January.

With the RVS 2.0 preliminary design now set in stone and approved by Air Force acquisition leadership, Air Mobility Command and Boeing, the Air Force now assumes financial responsibility for future changes to the system.

“In the coming weeks, the Air Force and Boeing will update the Engineering and Manufacturing Development contract with the Product Baseline Design Specification, which documents the jointly developed design and transfers technical responsibility to the Air Force,” Morrison said.  “The overall RVS 2.0 program is still on schedule.”

A critical design review for RVS 2.0 is currently on track for June 2022. The design for the new system — as agreed to by the Air Force and Boeing — will include a new Aerial Refueling Operator Station, improved visible cameras (as well as the addition of redundant cameras), better infrared cameras, redesigned image processors and a new full color 4k display.

The new design will allow the Air Force to resolve “significant portions” of two critical “Category I” deficiencies, Morrison said. Specifically, in its current state, the RVS doesn’t reliably convey to boom operators when the boom scrapes the surface of a receiver aircraft and therefore poses a safety risk.

Air Force leaders have stated that the KC-46 won’t be designated as fully operational until all critical deficiencies have been addressed — in 2023 at earliest, if current schedules hold. However, the service is gradually clearing the tanker to perform certain operational missions, with Air Mobility Command most recently sending four KC-46s to Europe, where it has supported refueling missions on NATO’s eastern front.

So far Boeing has delivered 57 KC-46s to the Air Force, the company said in a statement, with 179 tankers planned as part of the program of record. It has also delivered two KC-46s to Japan. Israel has also announced plans to buy two KC-46s.

texl1649 wrote:

So Boeing is off the hook now, but USAF still has to finish reviewing it around June.

Stitch wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

So Boeing is off the hook now, but USAF still has to finish reviewing it around June.

As I read it, the USAF and Boeing have agreed on a final design specification for RVS 2.0 and if the USAF wants anything beyond that, the USAF will have to pay for it.

par13del wrote:

So how much additional money did the Air Force cost Boeing by taking this long to agree on a standard? The RVS system is one of the major deficiencies which have to be cleared, it impedes full production and was the cost of much bashing of Boeing, some warranted, now we know that the Air Force could have finalized the design changes much earlier but chose not too. A number of us thought it was just the RVS, now we know there was more.....still a cluster fu****

Avatar2go wrote:

I suspect in reality, the USAF realized there would be a huge difference in clarity between the two systems, which they would have to pay to resolve eventually. So they declared a deficiency in order to include that work in the fixed-cost contract. They're getting a pretty good deal in the end, this is a full system upgrade with 10 to 15 year advancement in technology. It will be autonomous-ready as well. But it works for Boeing too, if they get KC-Y.

par13del wrote:

My question would be, since this is the first time the Air Force would deploy remote vision systems, is the panoramic view available on other nations tankers that presently have RVS or is this another new technology that the Air Force wanted in their low cost fixed price tanker replacement of the KC-135?