KC-46A Info

[Clark Griswold]

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.

Gotcha
I’ve only got open source on the web info
The amount of fuel even if it’s not much more than 79k is still a relevant amount IMO because of the expeditionary capability of the aircraft and the additional booms in the air
They could do cyclic ops between big wing tankers and tracks / anchors closer to the fight in addition to small austere field ops.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Gotcha
I’ve only got open source on the web info
The amount of fuel even if it’s not much more than 79k is still a relevant amount IMO because of the expeditionary capability of the aircraft and the additional booms in the air
They could do cyclic ops between big wing tankers and tracks / anchors closer to the fight in addition to small austere field ops.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Factor in the fuel burn of the 390, so it’ll be even less.

[TreeA10]

10k fuel burn struck me as high.  787 fuel burn at lighter weights, 350k-400k lbs gross weight (don't quote me on this), is around 11k-12k-ish total.

[Clark Griswold]

Factor in the fuel burn of the 390, so it’ll be even less.

Copy that but it’s using IAE V2500 motors, just a guess as the drag is different from the Bus but methinks 6-7k per hour but that’s just WAG

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sua Sponte]

3 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

10k fuel burn struck me as high.  787 fuel burn at lighter weights, 350k-400k lbs gross weight (don't quote me on this), is around 11k-12k-ish total.

KC-135 is around 10K with four engines. I’d suspect the 390 is around 7-8K

[AC&W]

7 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

10k fuel burn struck me as high.

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. 

[Clark Griswold]

Let’s say it’s 70k instant off load at 500 NM, without going into too much detail that’s a relevant amount from say the Northern PI to a nearish Taiwan CP, just my opinion.

But to step back how do you wanna pass gas or will need to in a future fight against an opponent that can actually fight back?

My suggestion is a three part strategy:

Strategic tankers with 1500+ NM offload capability, at least 50k at range.

Operational tankers with 500 NM offload capability, at least 50k with an hour loiter, ACE capability.

Tactical tankers, manned and unmanned, reduced signatures or built to operate with supporting EW to maintain stations or additionally provide those capabilities within 200 NM of a GBAD.  Offload at least 20k.

Strategic gets you or supports assets across the tyranny of distance, operational can fight from allied countries near the fight, tactical is part of the strike package launching with.

To return to the KC-390, it may not be yet flying but it is close, the 46 will have to fill the strategic and get working on manned / unmanned tactical tanker duo.  MQ-25 is probably good enough and if king for a day I’d probably adapt a 5th gen to a manned tanker with an automated boom system.

[Majestik Møøse]

Strategic tankers, nice.

Deleting 59x KC-10s that could carry 340k lbs of fuel or 27 pallets was the #1 dumbest lack-of-foresight move the Air Force has ever made. Everyone knew it at the time and everyone knows it now, but the USAF is too proud and stupid to reverse a decision. Who to blame? Weak-kneed careerist staffers at HAF/A5 and A8 that told GOs that told Boeing what they wanted to hear. Every AMC/CC since Johns and every CSAF since Schwartz.

It doesn’t matter if you have 7G with APG-690s and telephone poles if you can only get 2-ships there.

[Prosuper]

23 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Strategic tankers, nice.

Deleting 59x KC-10s that could carry 340k lbs of fuel or 27 pallets was the #1 dumbest lack-of-foresight move the Air Force has ever made. Everyone knew it at the time and everyone knows it now, but the USAF is too proud and stupid to reverse a decision. Who to blame? Weak-kneed careerist staffers at HAF/A5 and A8 that told GOs that told Boeing what they wanted to hear. Every AMC/CC since Johns and every CSAF since Schwartz.

It doesn’t matter if you have 7G with APG-690s and telephone poles if you can only get 2-ships there.

Well the USAF bought C-130J's, never understood why they never asked Boeing to build a KC-135U new builds. Still have 57 models flying out there. Make it fly by wire, better hydraulic system, copilot has antiskid, modern fuselage design since the older ones were all built by hand. I.E. a 135 took off with cargo not latched, canned one out of AMARC and it wasn't close. Spent many nights trying multiple times to try to get the jet to pressurize, ended up repairing the original door and reinstalled it.

[Zero]

Standard playbook across the force for the last 20+ years... 

1. Cut to the bone. 

2. Demand Congress pay for newer and more expensive toys since you're now below critical capability and stalling.

3. Get denied.

4. Act surprised. Gnash teeth and tear garments at AFA.

5. Get promoted.

6. It's somebody else's problem. Return to step 1. 

[Clark Griswold]

Strategic tankers, nice.
Deleting 59x KC-10s that could carry 340k lbs of fuel or 27 pallets was the #1 dumbest lack-of-foresight move the Air Force has ever made. Everyone knew it at the time and everyone knows it now, but the USAF is too proud and stupid to reverse a decision. Who to blame? Weak-kneed careerist staffers at HAF/A5 and A8 that told GOs that told Boeing what they wanted to hear. Every AMC/CC since Johns and every CSAF since Schwartz.
It doesn’t matter if you have 7G with APG-690s and telephone poles if you can only get 2-ships there.

Concur
All you hear is Pacific Pivot, Great Power Competition, Tyranny of Distance, etc… from AF “leaders” and they then divest a platform suited to all of those problems/challenges in the expected title fight…
Just as a PACAF GO said he wanted the E-7 now with no acquisition shenanigans or BS to replace the E-3, we need a message from the top saying we need a strategic tanker now or a strategic concept now.
I say concept as while I’m always gonna say this new iron or that, I get that is likely a bridge too far in financially difficult times (8% budget cuts and the rest)
Concept to me would be new overseas basing, FMS and long term posture on west coast / sovereign pacific territory
Australia, NZ, Guam and a rotational presence in the PI. Some that already happening but just continuing this idea on this post…
KC-45 fleet if new iron were to be had would be my suggestion if Australia would host a new PACAF base(s)
A bit more fuel and interoperability with the RAAF


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StoleIt]

2 hours ago, Prosuper said:

Well the USAF bought C-130J's, never understood why they never asked Boeing to build a KC-135U new builds. Still have 57 models flying out there. Make it fly by wire, better hydraulic system, copilot has antiskid, modern fuselage design since the older ones were all built by hand. I.E. a 135 took off with cargo not latched, canned one out of AMARC and it wasn't close. Spent many nights trying multiple times to try to get the jet to pressurize, ended up repairing the original door and reinstalled it.

Restarting the KC-135 line was never going to happen. Little known fact, outside of the tanker TOAD community, is the -135 isn't even a 707 airframe. It's the 367-80 (B-717/720), which shares very little in common with the 707 besides general appearance. Completely different fuselage and wing.

[StoleIt]

1 hour ago, Zero said:

Standard playbook across the force for the last 20+ years... 

1. Cut to the bone. 

2. Demand Congress pay for newer and more expensive toys since you're now below critical capability and stalling.

3. Get denied.

4. Act surprised. Gnash teeth and tear garments at AFA.

5. Get promoted.

6. It's somebody else's problem. Return to step 1. 

You forgot:
1a. Manipulate slides to make it look like everything is green by lying/changing denominator to get boss promoted

[Prosuper]

4 hours ago, StoleIt said:

Restarting the KC-135 line was never going to happen. Little known fact, outside of the tanker TOAD community, is the -135 isn't even a 707 airframe. It's the 367-80 (B-717/720), which shares very little in common with the 707 besides general appearance. Completely different fuselage and wing.

Quite aware of that spending time crew chiefing plus 9 years in the Depot wrenching on E-3s, C-137s, almost every version of the and 3 different engines of the -135. BTW there was a proposal to retrofit the 135 fleet with the 707-300 wing in the 70s.

Edited March 14 by Prosuper
content

[herkbier]

Why don’t we let Omega buy the -10s in the boneyard and just contract out our Strat refueling capes. What could go wrong?

[Clark Griswold]

Brochure on the 777 tanker

https://bemil.chosun.com/brd/files/BEMIL085/upload/2007/05/KC-777.pdf

Not gonna happen but grist for the mill.

Since we’re discussing big tankers and potential missions for them, this is a video showing all the choreography that the RAF had to do to get a Vulcan down range in the Falklands War.

I think you can make an argument that more, smaller tankers give more redundancy than one or two big tankers but I think also you can say in the fog of war you might have more success with fewer variables to control.

If/When a contingency arises in the Far East, we might be doing our own version of this.  25 to 45 big tankers would really be helpful then…

[HeyEng]

On 3/14/2025 at 1:26 PM, StoleIt said:

Restarting the KC-135 line was never going to happen. Little known fact, outside of the tanker TOAD community, is the -135 isn't even a 707 airframe. It's the 367-80 (B-717/720), which shares very little in common with the 707 besides general appearance. Completely different fuselage and wing.

Yea the barrel sections for the 707,727, and 737 have a very slight figure eight cross section like the old Stratocruiser but very subtle from a casual glance. You have to dig into the maintenance manual diagrams for the FS, WL, and BL to really see it.

[Clark Griswold]

A bit old but if KC-Y is still being considered this is the way

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/11/airbus-exploring-development-of-future-tanker-based-on-a330neo/
 

 

[brabus]

10 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

A bit old but if KC-Y is still being considered this is the way

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/11/airbus-exploring-development-of-future-tanker-based-on-a330neo/
 

 

Absolutely. Multiple countries already using A330 tankers, it’s the best gas passer I’ve ever taken gas from, and it’s not a Boeing. We are retarded for not having done this years ago.

[Orbit]

You would think the efficency savings of the NEO would not outweigh the increased costs. The military does not put man hours on its airplanes (in comparison to the airlines).  Is there a significant increase in max gross with that new wing/engine combo? 

[Prosuper]

Should have bought into the KE-3A line when Boeing was still building them and before the McDonnell Douglas merger. All my buddies who worked the Peace Centinel program for Boeing loved the jet.  

[Clark Griswold]

You would think the efficency savings of the NEO would not outweigh the increased costs. The military does not put man hours on its airplanes (in comparison to the airlines).  Is there a significant increase in max gross with that new wing/engine combo? 

No extra gas but 8% fuel savings, will have an automated boom system too

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2024-07-24/airbus-a330-multi-role-tanker-transport-goes-neo

More gas, more range, less bullshit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

Absolutely. Multiple countries already using A330 tankers, it’s the best gas passer I’ve ever taken gas from, and it’s not a Boeing. We are retarded for not having done this years ago.

Yup, switched to the Bus from the 73, the MAX is good the Bus is great
I’m not usually for corporate welfare but I’ll just advocate here for some corporate welfare… buy 75 more or so -46s, come up with a new configuration to unfornicate the design to the maximum possible and help Boeing get its legs underneath itself again
We’re committed to it, replace the 135 with the 46, don’t call it a replacement for the -10 but buy the -330 NEO for the Y and get cranking on NGAS… for that I’d quietly ask NG if the B-21 could also have KC-21 variant


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

Should have bought into the KE-3A line when Boeing was still building them and before the McDonnell Douglas merger. All my buddies who worked the Peace Centinel program for Boeing loved the jet.  

Unfamiliar with the KE-3…
About the same fuel as a -135?
Modern cockpit and avionics at delivery?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Prosuper]

9 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Unfamiliar with the KE-3…
About the same fuel as a -135?
Modern cockpit and avionics at delivery?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is a Tanker that the Saudis bought along with their own E-3's, it has the same airframe as the E-3, 707-320 but a -135 boom and drogues on the wingtips with CFM-56-2 engines. Built along side with the Navy E-6's and RAF and French E-3's. The last 707's built.