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.