AC&W

Concur. The vision system on their 707 tanker is well ahead of it's time.

Israeli boom operators are gonna love the KC-46 remote vision system compared to what they currently have, haha.

I think a combination of poor contract requirements, and Boeing intentionally delivering a product in need of an immediate upgrades is the recipe. Its a feature, not a bug. The upgrade Boeing has for the KC-46 vision system is phenomenal, they just need the cash stream to flow in.

Without major acquisition reform, even with its challenges, the KC-46 is the better platform for boom AAR. The KC-390 could potentially compete with the -130 for drogue AAR capes, but I'm not expert enough to compare and contrast it's cargo and AAR capes with the Herk.

I suspect you are aware the -46 will not be carrying 18 pallets ever, 10 is generous. ISUs are compatible, but commercial parts support is a pipe dream without acquisition reform. Unless we have a robust and diverse tanker fleet, 473L pallet compatibility with tankers is not a relevant capability for us (unpopular opinion). Potentially relevant for our allies.

Init qual check for the CO, and S1 for the Boom.

"At a distance of approximately 2,300 kilometers, the Air Force struck an Iranian refueling aircraft a short time ago at Mashhad airport in eastern Iran. The Air Force is working to achieve air superiority throughout Iran. This is the farthest strike since the operation began."

*looked like Appears the queen is dead.

If they cripple the Phantom fleet, maybe they can spare the Queen of the Tankers. https://theaviationist.com/2018/12/19/kish-air-show-a-unique-opportunity-to-see-the-worlds-last-flying-f-14-tomcat-jets-in-action-and-much-more/

Probably is too high, just lazy maths. Using more liberal assumptions of 5k per hour fuel burn, and 5k landing fuel, only adds 10k total offload capability for a one hour sortie. 6.9k for both assumptions, gets you 6.2k additional offload...so 1x Viper.

I suspect the "modification in the previous baseline" is hypothetical. I don't believe Embraer has actually modified the C-390 beyond its advertised specifications. The boom attached to the cargo door is hypothetical, and the Embraer engineer I spoke with used the 79,090 max fuel capacity when I queried. Anything beyond 79,090 would require engineering rework making a product with an "off the shelf solution" too big to fit on the shelf.

Per their website the max internal fuel is 52,690. Up to three auxiliary fuel tanks with individual capacity of 8,800 can be loaded in the cargo compartment, which brings the maximum fuel capacity to 79,090. I had the opportunity to chat with an Embraer C390 engineer at a trade show. I've since lost my notes on what he informed me was the fuel burn per hour and minimum landing fuel. But if you assume 10k per hour and 10k landing fuel, the hypothetical best case is about a 50k to 60k offload, assuming a one to two hour flight. I didn't get an as detailed explanation on how they plan to fit a boom on it, but he did mention the magic included some flexible and collapsible hoses and couplings. The 50k to 60k offload and boom sacrifice any cargo capability. My takeaway was this could be useful as a companion to a small fighter detachment. Remove the internal fuel tanks, leave room for six pallets and 36 maintenance troops. One pallet for bags, one pallet for boom equipment, four pallets for MX equipment. Land somewhere, reconfigure the cargo door to install the boom, have about a 30k offload capability, assuming one hour flight and landing gas (50k internal, 10k flight time, 10k land). Is the juice worth the squeeze?

No, but I used to live there. Canadian hockey fans booing the US national anthem is not unprecedented. Hockey to them is a cultural identity, borderline religion. They are also very proud of their whiskey (and maple leafs, and Timmies), American Bourbon will likely not cause a stir. I admire and respect our northern neighbors; political winds shift from time to time.

Would like to see some stats ranking senior leaders fired by MAJCOM. Anecdotal memory seems like AFMC experiences a high proportion of love games sackings.

I had the opportunity to work with a couple of Boeing line engineers on a project over a period of time. It was eye opening to work with some great motivated dudes who faced the same bureaucratic hurdles, and lackluster upper management we face in the AF.

When I began reading your post I thought you were referring to J6 of the Joint Staff and wondering what I was missing.

I'm not 100% certain, but I suspect accounts associated with a minor are required to issue paper statements. I experienced the same until my kids turned 18.

I know. The videos are what motivated my statement above.

Looks staged, despicable if in fact it was.

The structure is there, the incentive is up for debate. In a peacetime environment who has the most to benefit in advertising USSTRATCOM assets within the DoD? Is the leader of an organization with proximity to middle America included in the the answer? When you can't advertise the other two, the airborne asset is the lead singer, readiness and morale be damned.

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2452910/space-force-personnel-to-be-called-guardians/

Not bad for a sub $100 watch, nice find.

Swatch Moonswatch, mission to the moon, is a genuine, affordable replica of one of the most iconic aviation watches. Seiko, Sports 5 GMT, is likely the most affordable, quality automatic GMT movement on the market. I recently saw one at the BX so you can probably find it tax free. Casio is always an excellent choice, particularly if a model catches your eye. Citizen is an excellent choice above Casio. Both brands have some great options that offer a combined digital/analog face with solar charging and radio freq time synch. My must have in a watch for work is a date and GMT function, and I prefer automatic/mechanical movements. I have never used the E6B on a watch I own, however if that's your thing it can be a cool feature.

Biff's soccer commentary is clear and concise. Just the right amount to stay engaged without too much commitment.

Speaking for the MAF...as long as MAF pilots expect centralised flight management, but are unwilling to staff flight management duties with pilots, or unwilling to direct flight management standards, then continue to expect current excellence in planning products. Centralised flight management makes sense for inter theater assets/missions, less so for intra theater missions. AFGSC is worse than the MAF, but current GEO & Functional CCMDs nuances don't always play well with each other.