KC-46A Info

[Runr6730]

2 hours ago, Best-22 said:

Is there any place I can read more about this? Sounds Interesting.

https://www.amc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3223946/kc-46a-flies-36-hour-record-breaking-endurance-mission/

[Danger41]

21 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

Some Pease dudes just flew a 36-hour super sortie. Makes McConnell’s 24-hour sortie a distant second place. So, how long until these “tanker” guys do a48-hour sortie and destroy a jet?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Not a tanker guy so pardon my ignorance, but why the “tanker” in quotes? And is a 48 hour mission going to destroy a jet because that’s just absurdly long duration or what?

[08Dawg]

Yawn….in the Buff we call that “Tuesday”…

[Prozac]

2 hours ago, Danger41 said:

Not a tanker guy so pardon my ignorance, but why the “tanker” in quotes? And is a 48 hour mission going to destroy a jet because that’s just absurdly long duration or what?

I would think, unless some specific engine modifications have been made, that oil use/starvation over such a long duration is the potential issue here. There may also be some MX inspections and such that would have their intervals exceeded by an extremely long mission….maybe some of the maintenance/crew chief types on here can speak to that. 

[ThreeHoler]

Not a tanker guy so pardon my ignorance, but why the “tanker” in quotes? And is a 48 hour mission going to destroy a jet because that’s just absurdly long duration or what?

Because that thing is barely a tanker unlike the 135 or 10. I assume that fatigue would play a part since that’s a lot longer than AMC bubbas are used to operating. But maybe the bunks are super comfy or something?

[Prosuper]

21 hours ago, Prozac said:

I would think, unless some specific engine modifications have been made, that oil use/starvation over such a long duration is the potential issue here. There may also be some MX inspections and such that would have their intervals exceeded by an extremely long mission….maybe some of the maintenance/crew chief types on here can speak to that. 

RC-135's have extremely long missions, flying a KC-135 for long missions is hampered by the majority of the force is not receiver capable, the KC-135RT's are being retired, two are on the tarmac at Shepard as ground trainers plus the RT's center wing tanks are smaller and can't hold as much as a standard R model. The CFM's do use oil but if the proper servicing is done and maintained well, i.e., all oil leaks fixed 20 hr. missions should be no problem. 135's are on a calendar type inspection, every 5 years they go through a PDM, 72-hour preflight interval, 50-hour home station ck which includes landing gear strut reservicing, lowering the boom checking surge boots and shock absorber.  After a couple B-1, B-52 or C-5 offloads the 135 is RTB. But RT's can push fuel through its receptacle through the boom into a standard R model but can't remember that capability was ever used. Maybe in my old SAC days when we practiced for the end of the world, we did practice lowering a boom and hooking up a hose to it, firing up an engine to refuel Buffs. Q now T models had to do that for the SR-71 when they IFE'd and diverted. JP-7 was hard to find.

[Homestar]

On 11/18/2022 at 8:46 PM, Danger41 said:

but why the “tanker” in quotes?

because "the tanker" is the KC-135

[ThreeHoler]

because "the tanker" is the KC-135

And the KC-10 is the advanced tanker (and cargo aircraft)!

[Homestar]

3 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

And the KC-10 is the advanced tanker (and cargo aircraft)!

 

Maybe, but nobody calls the KC-10 "the tanker." 😎

[ThreeHoler]

Maybe, but nobody calls the KC-10 "the tanker." 

Nope but they call it Big Sexy!

[Lawman]

Nope but they call it Big Sexy!

It is a “wide body.”

I hear that’s what really matters.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sua Sponte]

17 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

Nope but they call it Big Sexy!

 

Called

[StoleIt]

Classic Boeing:
 

https://www.twz.com/air/cracks-in-kc-46-pegusus-tankers-halt-all-deliveries

[The46IsntThatBad]

40 minutes ago, StoleIt said:

Classic Boeing:
 

https://www.twz.com/air/cracks-in-kc-46-pegusus-tankers-halt-all-deliveries

I love finding this out from online news instead of leadership FFS. 

[Clark Griswold]

Just don’t buy more than the 179 ordered

AF get busy figuring out how to acquire this:

 

[LiquidSky]

45 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Just don’t buy more than the 179 ordered

AF get busy figuring out how to acquire this:

 

There's a reason why all of our allies are replacing their Hs and Js with them. Unfortunately it's a direct competitor with the million herks we've bought from Lockheed and is built outside the US so it will never happen.

Doesn't matter that it's a clean sheet design which goes faster, further, higher, uses less gas, less mx, cheaper, and is more modernized than the J. We'd rather keep throwing money at a 70 year old design that's been Frankensteined into the 21st century.

Edited March 2 by LiquidSky

[Clark Griswold]

There's a reason why all of our allies are replacing their Hs and Js with them. Unfortunately it's a direct competitor with the million herks we've bought from Lockheed and is built outside the US so it will ever happen.
Doesn't matter that it's a clean sheet design which goes faster, further, higher, uses less gas, less mx, cheaper, and is more modernized than the J. We'd rather keep throwing money at a 70 year old design that's been Frankensteined into the 21st century.

Damn it that’s perfectly awful and true


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Just don’t buy more than the 179 ordered

AF get busy figuring out how to acquire this:

 

You think that's going to refuel heavies at 50K+ with fuel?

[Clark Griswold]

4 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

You think that's going to refuel heavies at 50K+ with fuel?

What heavy is gonna refuel at that altitude?

No specifics here but there’s a sweet spot for most big jets and it ain’t that

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

What heavy is gonna refuel at that altitude?

No specifics here but there’s a sweet spot for most big jets and it ain’t that

50K+ of fuel, not altitude.

[Clark Griswold]

50K+ of fuel, not altitude.

Gotcha, Cleared Hot mentioned another time in another thread that with the engineering done for a KC-390, that 50k off load was way higher, I haven’t seen anything publicly released but it seems like a number that would be very relevant to a bomber, 4 ship or mobility platform

The short, austere field capability alone makes it relevant IMHO with the reactivation of remote small Pacific bases


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

@ClearedHot
Has Embraer released any projected specs on the boom equipped KC-390?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AC&W]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Has Embraer released any projected specs on the boom equipped KC-390?

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?

[Clark Griswold]

5 hours ago, AC&W said:

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?

I think so, I found the info CH relayed, it’s in the Tactical Tanker thread:

CH posted:

Before modification in the previous baseline configuration with three aux tanks it holds of 77,000lbs of gas. That number has gone up greatly after a big weight reduction mod and increased fuel tanks.

I could see this tanker being detailed out as a direct support element attached to det or deployed wing versus centrally planned allocated.

My two cents is that smaller, cheaper and agile is worth it.  That it’s not Boeing is another plus.

[AC&W]

55 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

I think so, I found the info CH relayed, it’s in the Tactical Tanker thread:

CH posted:

Before modification in the previous baseline configuration with three aux tanks it holds of 77,000lbs of gas. That number has gone up greatly after a big weight reduction mod and increased fuel tanks.

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.