Clark Griswold

Same as to curious but basically I'm of the opinion that we've gotten to complacent lately, disruption is a good thing

So drunk...

Question CH reference the first article at the beginning of this thread of wonder Is there any formal RFP / RFI for this concept? Is this gonna windup being another Scorpion? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They (AMC) might not be the organization to figure this (tactical tanker out then). Rhetorical questions, when does mobility end and tactical begin? When are you enabling the fight and then really a part of it? Based on my experience with AMC, 4.5 years flying the mighty 135 tanker with a short TDY at TACC a long time ago, I'm not sure an organization that is operational but not steeped in the culture of direct combat is the right one. That's not a swipe at AMC or anyone in AMC impugning their character, courage or ability but as you said they see the world differently. They have a huge volume of routine, priority and contingency missions going on all at once all the time so in order to fulfill as much as they can on the to do list, the cost of doing business is very much front and center to them. If you're an organization that is culturally built around preparing for the big one, a big fight with all your forces or most of them brought to bear quickly to win the fight, the long term is not as important, I need to win this sprint, I'll worry about the costs later. Splitting off part of the Air Mobility mission set and giving ACC is responsibility for Tactical Air Refueling and defining for AMC Air Refueling's responsibilities as Theater and Strategic could be a COA. Or it could be the road to hell, IDK... Anyway, not sure if I got my point across and I would worry that if it (tactical tanker) got put into the ACC basket, it would get put on the back burner with resources siphoned off and executed poorly like other red headed step children in ACC. Anyway, another vaporware pic for the thread, the Israeli Smart Tactical Tanker IAI Reveals Tanker Proposal | Defense News: Aviation International News (ainonline.com) G550 based tanker, could operate out of 4000' dirt strip without issue I think with some mods like the PC-24 We need a fly off and two different designs

But what is the requirement exactly? Probably just a bit classified... but are looking to have more booms or more gas on-station? Those are not necessarily contradictory (considering limited resources not just financial but basing capability) but seem to compete with each other somewhat, the right mix is somewhere in between the extremes. My druthers even though I've mused about adapting / developing tankers from larger or different platforms this (tactical tanker) is about not just distributed basing but distributed risk, on the ground and in the air. In the air in that it gives some tolerance for attrition when inevitably some will become combat losses.

To my knowledge no but I’ve been out of the tanker world a long time I think it’d be worth the millions to try it on a 17 that’s approaching fatigue life and saving from just being flown to the boneyard, or alternatively as a joint venture on an early model 400 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With an expensively modified aircraft... KC-390 doing that with it's cargo door/ramp Or alternatively I wonder if you could modify a 400 (very expensively and extensively) under the ramp and add a semi-recessed boom? Seems like there's some clearance under it

Yup, more capacity more money The 400 just has such a limited customer base who want / could afford that much expeditionary capability, where as the 390 is looking way more affordable. Still at the airspeeds the 400 is capable of it's a bit surprising there was never a proposal for boom to be added Coanada effect is cool

Not sure if this story is legit but good vaporware nonetheless on the idea of tactical tankers, like the hard points with missiles, plumb for gas or extra power for ECM pods https://www.airdatanews.com/kai-plans-an-a400m-sized-jet-airlifter/ Gas, missiles, EW capes in an expeditionary capable platform Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good stuff, knowledge gained Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably but... to the extent that you can say has LM proposed a jet powered tanker version of the Herc? All sourced in America as an alternative to the KC-390? or with the straight wing and two engines? Just a bit of engineering to get this done but pods where the outboard engines used to be (simultaneous receivers might not have enough clearance though) but just to stir the pot

Related to the Tactical Tanker idea and to fuel the discussion THE CASE FOR A THREE-TANKER AIR FORCE Big - 777 tanker/freighter (I know Boeing but it's what is politically possible), buy 100+ and look at partial strat airlifter divestiture to keep acquisition inside the lines, keep the military modifications to a reasonable level to reduce risk, this will enable you to get close to the fight and it's not getting very close to the fight, keep as close the certified commercial aircraft as possible Medium - KC-46 / KC-135 (Shrink 135 fleet and buy a few more KC-46s, figure out one last comprehensive upgrade for the venerable 135 and then focus on the 46, not sure how many more 46s but buying another 20% sound right, saving the best 1/3rd of the 135s and cannibalizing the rest to support the survivors) Tactical - KC-390, not sure on the necessary fleet size and the real number just might be classified... but figure 75 at least. @ClearedHot - to the extent you can say, is this only an AF theoretical acquisition or have other services/allies looked into this? Maybe without the boom system but with the modified KC-390?

Software change / update for the ATCS to deal with Vmca issues if it is above rotation speed? No sea or float plane experience but I’m guessing there is a maximum in water taxi-takeoff-landing speed that is above but likely close to rotation or landing speeds so delaying rotation to get faster but still skiing in the water is likely not possible US-2 has a BLC system, can that be adjusted automatically to prevent roll over before full aerodynamic control effectiveness has been reached in a asymmetric thrust of flight control situation? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it will still have its ramp but I should have been more specific, I was envisioning a scenario where the beach is not suitable for landing necessitating a water landing and beaching to offload Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nyet on my conscription! Pranksters called the son of one of Putin's closest allies and told him he is being enlisted in the army — but he refused (msn.com)

Just saw this, seems like this is gonna happen Looking at this rendering which seems pretty close to what I'd imagine a real MAC 130 would look life IRL, could you drive that on to beach, embark / disembark troops / vehicles then launch again from that beach? Just considering it, high floatation tires in a side by side truck disperse enough weight to not get sunk / stuck on sand that's fairly compacted?

Good I’m glad I’m wrong as I think this worth it Just bring conservative in my WAGs Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

According to wiki (caveat emptor) in the current tanker version, the C-390 with Cobham AR systems can offload from a total 77k fuel capacity I assume that aircraft and mission fuel then are not segregated and that same wiki page says the max fuel load is with three aux tanks is 77k Just a WAG but after mods (adding equipment and getting rid of some not needed by deleting the cargo and paratrooper door/ramp mission systems) I think an instantaneous offload at launch of 65k seems reasonable Another WAG but guessing 5k per hour on station (averaging gross weight over the mission to a fuel burn) seems reasonable basing it off A320 engines/weights/me jumpseating on the bus and comparing it’s numbers to to the mighty 737 So guessing you wanna land with an hour of gas: 5k 2 hours to/from station 1000 miles away: 10k plus 10k is 20k 1 hour orbit on station: 5k So my guess is 35k at 1000 nm from launch refueling in the low 20s Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ll settle for ejection seats but if it’s technically feasible/deployable a DE weapon for self defense would be second If this presses forward with the strikers to some drop off that’s close or in the WEZ of something like PL-15, SA-5 or SA-400 some X percentage of the crew that fly it are unfortunately gonna need it sometime Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.defenseone.com/business/2022/09/l3harris-convert-embraer-kc-390s-aerial-refueling/377313/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not surprised, Castro did the same EXCLUSIVE: Venezuela Empties Prisons, Sends Violent Criminals to U.S. Border, Says DHS Report https://www.breitbart.com/border/2022/09/18/exclusive-venezuela-empties-prisons-sends-violent-criminals-to-u-s-says-dhs-report/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who would have thought a bunch of limousine liberals who live sheltered lives in an exclusive bubble would actually think this way? WATCH: Spanish TV Reporter Says Martha’s Vineyard Residents Privately Admitted They ‘Don’t Want Migrants Here’ https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/09/16/watch-spanish-tv-reporter-says-marthas-vineyard-residents-privately-admitted-they-dont-want-migrants-here/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To the shoe clerk(s) who thought this up...

Copy all Great advice, I've priced out some TL policies in addition to what I have now, probably gonna go with SBP but keeping in mind that it is not necessarily permanent Inflation is what is keeping me interested in SBP more than anything else but prices on 7 figure TL policies are still beating SBP, I think it just depends how long we are gonna be experiencing inflation rates we have been for the last year, 8-10% inflation year after year will wear down even a mil to a mil and half benefit

Probably already asked 69 times but SBP or a term life policy for wife and kids if Clark Griswold keels over day 1 into retirement? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk