KC-46A Info

[Velosprints]

On 4/23/2019 at 12:48 AM, Right Seat Driver said:

God, I forgot about this guy. While I was fortunate enough not to have too much interaction with him, the couple I had were bewildering. He stormed into tanker ops one day pissed that he had a showtime prior to 0700. My crew and I just landed after flying a 14 hour sortie only to see this short dude complaining about having to get to ops at 0700. We had no idea who he was until his crew stepped to their intel brief and Rat parked his ass in the Sq/CC's office and closed the door. The ADO filled us in that the short dude complaining about banker's hours was our warrior OG.

Fast forward a week later and an FCIF drops saying crews can't wear baseball hats. No shit 6-9 days later I'm doing the walk around and across the ramp is a B-1 crew stepping to fly all wearing baseball hats. Rat is with them to fly real combat with the Bones with a baseball hat on as well.

A second hand story I heard was the 340 EARS/CSS troop had to clean his O-6 parking in case the dude showed up to the squadron. Rat would apparently lose his mind if there was any sand on his spotless O-6 sign.

Lead from the front gents.

 

I may know why that FCIF dropped.....

 

So there I was, walking into caddy shack to fly my daily suckfest sortie out of the Deid. Looked at my flight orders and saw I had one Col Patrick Rhatigan flying with me on that fine day. Didn't know the dude, so whatever. Everything was going fine until he noticed I was wearing my Alma Mater's ball cap during my preflight. He asked me if I was going to take it off before we departed. Getting the hint, I said yessir. He then asked me "if you didn't take off your cap, how would you quick don your oxygen?" I thought to myself "The same way I don it every time I test it during the preflight..." Fast forward a a few minutes, and then he asked me if I was going to unroll my flight suit sleeves. Because "what if we caught on fire and your arms got burned?" I figured if we were on fire, and my arms were at risk, we had much bigger problems.

 

Don't remember much of the sortie, probably because no one did much talking, as we didn't want the Colonel to chime in. After we landed, I was on my way into MX debrief, and for some reason he followed along. Once we entered the outer door, he asked me why I didn't call the area to attention. I wish I remember how I responded. I probably just stared back at him with a confused look on my face.

 

The next day.......

So there I was, walking into caddy shack to fly my daily suckfest sortie out of the Deid. As I was scrolling through my seemingly endless FCIFs, I noticed one labeled "Approved Headgear." From Col Rat basically stating that ball caps were not authorized, and then went on to list all of the headgear that IS authorized.

 

That FCIF was because of me. I was so proud of it. 

[12xu2a3x3]

On 7/21/2022 at 3:05 PM, LiquidSky said:

Wedgie: Not great capes. Old. Still going to take 4-5 years to hit the production line per reports despite being an existing design.

a bit off topic and not disagreeing at all with your main premise but

1. wouldn't characterize the current capes that way, future is vague to say the least 

2. beats constant E-3 IFEs

Edited August 30, 2022 by 12xu2a3x3

[Sprkt69]

On 7/21/2022 at 1:05 PM, LiquidSky said:

Only because the other tanker we've got left is approaching 70 years old with an AP from Boeing that occasionally tries to kill everyone on board. 

The 46 was supposed to be operational years ago. Wasn't supposed to have tools in the fuel tanks. And a remote vision system that added not detracted. Meanwhile the 330 from LM is fully operational with added capes (and on time to buyers). Yet we're talking about passing it yet again for more 46s for some reason. 

Especially bad when Boeing has the following track record:

135: A/P tries to kill them. 

46: Years late. Fod. Non working boom. NMC. Over budget. 

New 747: Overbudget. Years late. 

737 Max: Grounded for 2ish years. 

787: Batteries caught on fire. Grounded for awhile. Also initially late to buyers. Now a great platform. 

777X: 5 years behind timeline so far.

Wedgie: Not great capes. Old. Still going to take 4-5 years to hit the production line per reports despite being an existing design.

P8: Seems solid? Off an existing airframe. Don't follow the navy too much. 

TX: TBD

 

Airbus recent failures:

380: Wasn't designed structurally for cargo. And economically not the best for airlines.

LM Recent Failures: 

Fat Amy over budget and behind. 50/50 on LM and the scope. 

 

From my perspective Boeing has put out nothing on time or budget in the last decade or two. Aside from the 787 they've rehashed new designs rather than push the envelope.

 

Don’t forget 787 production problems. No 787 has been delivered in like a year or so

[Guardian]

Because why?

[Danger41]

Probably all the tools that got left in other jets and not replaced to save money mean there aren’t any screwdrivers left to work on them.

[precontact]

C-17 was almost cancelled due to an array of designs issues but had emerged to be an excellent weapons system.

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1113line/

“But the project was hardly an engineering milk run. The C-17 was being asked to do things a giant airlifter had never done before, such as land on unimproved airstrips, land on short fields, taxi in a tight space, and even back up on a runway, all while delivering superheavy, outsize cargo at strategic distances.

The C-17 had to overcome flight-control problems, wings that were unable to carry their designed maximum load, automation growing pains, and a crew size reduced to just two pilots and a loadmaster. There were also teething problems in using new computer-aided design methods.

The program’s early years were troubled. Several generals and a host of company managers were fired during development and initial production.

The C-17 was threatened with cancellation, and Pentagon leaders delivered an ultimatum that if it couldn’t be shaped up, some other transport aircraft—such as a cargo version of the Boeing 747—would be substituted.”

 

Edited July 24, 2022 by precontact

[MCO]

5 hours ago, precontact said:

C-17 was almost cancelled due to an array of designs issues but had emerged to be an excellent weapons system.

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1113line/

“But the project was hardly an engineering milk run. The C-17 was being asked to do things a giant airlifter had never done before, such as land on unimproved airstrips, land on short fields, taxi in a tight space, and even back up on a runway, all while delivering superheavy, outsize cargo at strategic distances.

The C-17 had to overcome flight-control problems, wings that were unable to carry their designed maximum load, automation growing pains, and a crew size reduced to just two pilots and a loadmaster. There were also teething problems in using new computer-aided design methods.

The program’s early years were troubled. Several generals and a host of company managers were fired during development and initial production.

The C-17 was threatened with cancellation, and Pentagon leaders delivered an ultimatum that if it couldn’t be shaped up, some other transport aircraft—such as a cargo version of the Boeing 747—would be substituted.”

 

By excellent you mean an aircraft that is still dwarfed by a C-5 and is slow as a strat airlifter, and destroys the dirt airfields it lands on when performing the tac role. Good all purpose aircraft but not great at any one thing.

Edited July 25, 2022 by MCO

[Lawman]

By excellent you mean an aircraft that is still dwarfed by a C-5 and is slow as a strat airlifter, and destroys the dirt airfields it lands on when performing the tac role. Good all purpose aircraft but not great at any one thing.

From the Army side, we could not have maintained the constant deployed footing we did without the C-17….

Unless we had some sort of doubling of the 5’s we would never have been able to meet the movement requirement of width of cargo with the 141 or other platforms. The entire maintenance model for ARSOA is built around the fact we have a wide body stratair platform that can support a theatre requirement to move airframes back for major maintenance.

Not arguing that everything is a trade off… but we would have been solidly F’d on numerous occasions without something fat wide and capable in between the 5 and 130.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Prosuper]

12 hours ago, Lawman said:

From the Army side, we could not have maintained the constant deployed footing we did without the C-17….

Unless we had some sort of doubling of the 5’s we would never have been able to meet the movement requirement of width of cargo with the 141 or other platforms. The entire maintenance model for ARSOA is built around the fact we have a wide body stratair platform that can support a theatre requirement to move airframes back for major maintenance.

Not arguing that everything is a trade off… but we would have been solidly F’d on numerous occasions without something fat wide and capable in between the 5 and 130.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

When I was at OAMS we got tasked with helping 1st Cav move its birds back to Ft Hood, the whole op was given to C-5 FTU out of Lackland/Kelly the last hurrah of the A models. My boss was from the C-5 community, and he told me that the crews were given marching orders to not to be per diem hounds and get this job done, translation, don't break the jet at Rota. 1st Cav was already way past its rotation and the Army wanted them back in Texas. Jets did break at OAMS but the mx crews performed miracles to keep it going. We did have problems that C-5 crews didn't have up to date ramp survey info and didn't want to taxi to the same spots I had AN-124's and B-747's parked. The only time someone didn't act like a team player when a student loadmaster getting a check ride refused the very last of load of Blackhawks because a tiedown on the bird wasn't painted green. TACC called them to stay the night for them to certify the load, and they bedded down with an infantry company that just came inside the wire. 

[Fly4five]

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2022/08/26/kc-46-forced-to-land-with-refueling-boom-out-stranding-hill-staffers/

Boom not stowed and latched oops

Sent from my SM-F926U1 using Baseops Network mobile app

[Sim]

Looks like a perfect tail for stiff-boom DT. 

[Sua Sponte]

3 hours ago, Fly4five said:

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2022/08/26/kc-46-forced-to-land-with-refueling-boom-out-stranding-hill-staffers/

Boom not stowed and latched oops

Sent from my SM-F926U1 using Baseops Network mobile app
 

It’s almost like it’s in a emergency checklist to do that.

[uhhello]

6 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

It’s almost like it’s in a emergency checklist to do that.

I mean short of some squibs, I'm not sure what other choice you have.....

[Fly4five]

It’s almost like it’s in a emergency checklist to do that.

I'm sure they fly it down like we do in the 135 just curious how well that works with the new system

Sent from my SM-F926U1 using Baseops Network mobile app

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, Fly4five said:

I'm sure they fly it down like we do in the 135 just curious how well that works with the new system

Sent from my SM-F926U1 using Baseops Network mobile app
 

By fly it down you mean not stow it due to a snapped hoist cable that’s too long to stow? Then yes, it’s the same procedure as in the -135.

[arg]

How high can the boom be flown under those circumstances?

[Sua Sponte]

31 minutes ago, arg said:

How high can the boom be flown under those circumstances?

Dunno about the -46, but the -135 boom pretty much doesn’t fly below 170 knots.

[TreeA10]

I thought that thing could be wenched up if it quit working. 

[SurelySerious]

I thought that thing could be wenched up if it quit working. 

The cable for said system had the failure from what it looks like.

[Sua Sponte]

19 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

I thought that thing could be wenched up if it quit working. 

It can, however it’s done by the hoist cable. Rumor is that it snapped and in the EP checklist it says that if the cable is longer than a certain length to not stow the boom. This is so the broken cable doesn’t beat the hell out of the empannage.

[stract]

On 4/3/2020 at 11:36 AM, DirkDiggler said:

Would you describe AFNET or VPN as unbridled success stories?....

Well this comment aged well...

[LookieRookie]

I wonder if it snapped while letting staffers fly the boom.

[JimNtexas]

To be fair, isn’t Boeing eating most of the cost overruns on the 46?

[ClearedHot]

 

[Biff_T]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

 

"Boom stowed.  Leaving position"