The dumbest thing about this aircraft is putting the boomer up front and relying on a camera system.

@reubenmorris487

2 жыл бұрын

You should see all the fly-by-wire hardware for the boom.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

There are advantages to doing it remotely. Cameras can get a better view than an operator looking out the back.

@AlaskaErik

2 жыл бұрын

@@GH-oi2jf You can still have cameras, but nothing beats a set of eyeballs looking out back.

@briancooper2112

Жыл бұрын

​@@AlaskaErikmodern technology

> It is intended to replace the oldest of the U.S. Air Force’s KC-135 Stratotanker fleet -- some of which are over 50 years old. The last KC-135 rolled off the assembly line in 1964, which mean ALL of them are over 50 years old. SOME of them are approaching 60 years old.

That very first clip is from Pease Airport. I have videos of KC46s, a C5, and other stuff flying that exact runway 34 approach. I also plan on getting my pilot's license at that airport in a few months. 8:21 is also Pease and the picture of the two pilots in the cockpit is Pease as well. Pease is a very important Air refuelling base because of it's location.

@thepropmachines1042

2 жыл бұрын

DONT SON,JUST REMEMBER NEVER FLY TO AFGHANISTAN.

@thekarmanline3748

2 жыл бұрын

Very cool! I saw them do test flights from KBFI Boeing field near Seattle the last time I was there

@briancooper2112

9 ай бұрын

Cana kc46 go backwards like the C5?

This is what happens when you try to go high-tech remote system instead of just staying with an old refueling system that worked nearly perfectly for decades. The USAF has just opened a search for a different tanker.

@henryzenke949

3 жыл бұрын

U R right... Like that phrase " if it's not broken don't fix it"

@wilburfinnigan2142

3 жыл бұрын

@@henryzenke949 You ae right !!!! Why change something that has worked for decades ??? Just to sell something more expensive ???

@Fergus_0703

3 жыл бұрын

An example is the A-10.

@StrelitziaLiveries

2 жыл бұрын

Cuz Just because something isn't broke doesn't mean it can't be improved

@rogerd777

2 жыл бұрын

And there is a good chance that the next contract will be for more KC-46 aircraft

Remember when Boeing wasn't a joke? I do.

@heritageimaging7768

2 жыл бұрын

Sad isn't it? Too much attention to shareholders at the expense of their over customers and product.

@thekarmanline3748

2 жыл бұрын

@@heritageimaging7768 yep one of my family members worked for Boeing and jumped ship just at the right time. He said that it’s all due to corporate moving out of Seattle and focusing more on their stock rather than airplanes

@ROMEROME1990

2 жыл бұрын

Boeing went downhill, once McDonnell Douglas merged with them.

@delten-eleven1910

2 жыл бұрын

If the USAF considers Airbus MRTT for KC-135 replacement, the blame lies squarely with Boeing, the 767 was obvious replacement choice and it's amazing how Boeing almost screwed it up to the benefit of Airbus just waiting in the wings.

@delten-eleven1910

2 жыл бұрын

@@ROMEROME1990 I agree and the result ultimately allowed Airbus to gain an increased market share in US airlines fleets, due to Boeings costs and delays in my opinion.

AMAZING! there's good news about this Tanker? wow.

Meanwhile the A330 MRTT delivers 30% more fuel on 50% more range to all military aircraft capable of inflight refuelling since many years now.

@yamspaine

2 жыл бұрын

It is important to have industry in the states... but we should have invested in making the product better.

@Rocketsong

2 жыл бұрын

Contract requirements were to be able to fly out of the majority of Air Force Reserve and ANG bases while using existing hangar space. The A330 failed to meet those criteria. Which is why Boeing bid a 767. They could have bid a 777 for more fuel and range. The problem isn't the aircraft though, it's the stupid super-fancy boom.

@andreinarangel6227

2 жыл бұрын

The A330 equivalent is the KC10. Not the KC135. Different animals/missions.

@Sedna063

2 жыл бұрын

@@Rocketsong It absolutely has airframe problems too! FODs...

@goachingoulding3926

2 жыл бұрын

ALOSIS IS SAVAN KRIANGKING

Good Job Guys

Thanks. Nice to know.

Talks about General VanOvost, shows a picture of her when she was a Colonel.

Excellent

I wonder if the USAF regrets selecting this aircraft over the KC-45 (Airbus A330 MRTT).

@thesupermaninthecloud6856

3 жыл бұрын

USAF never truly wanted this thing, they were pressured by the pentagon and congress to purchase this thing due to the incredibly corrupt power of our military industrial complexes.

@cornbreadfedkirkpatrick9647

3 жыл бұрын

Everyone has regrets, many many ones.

@mikek5298

3 жыл бұрын

@@thesupermaninthecloud6856 You’ve never spent one second serving your Country yet you criticize it. Real tough guy.

@JohnSmith-zi9or

3 жыл бұрын

Why would they? The A330 MRTT is not a suitable replacement for the KC-135 -- regardless of Boeing's missteps.

@DM05

3 жыл бұрын

@@mikek5298 What a dumb comment, anyone involved with the KC46 or who has bothered to research the Trainwreck knows Airbus had the contract first and Boeing pulled some strings with shady politics involved to steal it out from underneath them.

Another second hand aircraft selection for a Air to air tanker. And its a Boeing. Good luck . The USAF is going to need it.

@mattheww2797

2 жыл бұрын

They are new build 767's just as the Airbus program would have been new build A330 variants, so they aren't second hand aircraft

@phatkid6811

2 жыл бұрын

@@mattheww2797 it’s a platform that was extinct; it was going to shut down for newer models THEN the USAF drops in and buts them. How stupid. LeMay is rolling in his grave…..

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

@@phatkid6811 - It is an advantage that the B767 production was ending as the KC-46 was being designed. The production line was available to be dedicated to the military version, with a workforce familiar with the airframe.

@ronanderson4142

2 жыл бұрын

@@GH-oi2jf So that experienced work force knew where to leave all their tools and debris? Not their best moments.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

@@ronanderson4142 - True, not their best work. The South Carolina plant had similar problems with the 787. I think it is mainly a management failure. When there is low morale, leading to poor performance, it usually originates with management.

Amazing how planes are kept in service for so long. The DOD is trying to cover all the current issues and future issues leading to program delays and cost over runs.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

The US Air Force takes care of its aircraft.

Good news

Me, a civilian pretending to know what he's talking about: "Hmm...yess......the bong tanker 46.....it's...it has wings and carries fuel. Interesting, but is it modular?"

Thanks Sam. 👍 🇺🇸

Good news? So they are buying the cheaper, more capable and readily available Airbus KC-45 offer?

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

The KC-45 was not chper. The GAO debunked that.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

The KC-46 is less expensive over the life of the aircraft because of lower operating costs.

10 years after the awarded contract, it's still not fully operational. Boeing still struggles with the remote vision system for operating the boom and the boom itself for beeing not flexible enough for some AC like the A-10. Meanwhile Airbus has a working remote vision system and a working digital controlled boom in operation for 10 years and now even does automated refueling to speed up the refueling process. Let's hope for the USAF that the KC-Y competition will turn into a KC-45b.

@JohnSmith-zi9or

3 жыл бұрын

No. The KC-45 would not be a good contender for KC-Y. USAF needs a large strategic tanker like KC-10 or a new route of going stealth with a all new tanker design.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

The EADS (Airbus) fueler has not been qualified for all US aircraft types which support midair refueling. You don’t know whether similar problems would cme up.

@megaconda07

Жыл бұрын

The issue is that boeing told the air force to use the system the goggles they showed but the air force went with a cheaper version. They wanted new cutting edge technology but didn't want new cutting edge costs. So now they have a cheaper product THEY chose, that doesn't work as well. Imagine that.

No lighting system possible either on the boom or retractable on the receiver?

Is it true that the sheet metal skin on the tanker version is twice The thickness that of the civilian model?

They should produce new KC135's

@kirkmooneyham

2 жыл бұрын

Except that the tooling to make KC-135s is LONG gone, simply not going to happen.

@Inspadave

2 жыл бұрын

@@kirkmooneyham and 4 engine planes are on their way out

Its a Boeing? WOW, you are brave!

Sure are a lot of KC-46 experts in here…

@88Mobius

2 жыл бұрын

Not an expert, but this plane has had a lot of problems. I like Boeing, but it just seems like lately they have been putting the bottom line above all else. I want to see the KC-46 succeed, but I am doubtful.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

@@88Mobius - The problems with this aircraft have been minor. Consider the Lockheed C-5 transport, which needed new wings.

@kirkmooneyham

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I'd be curious to know how many have even seen a -46 in real life, much less flown on one.

🙏

Best air force in the world bar none. Keep it up. It's really insane to think how far ahead of the world the US air force is. Russia is still using 1950's technology PESA radars on their Su35s, China can't get aircraft to launch off their carrier with a full weapons pay load, etc. Keep it up US.

What about the WARPS? They have not delivered any Wing Air Refueling Pods to the Air Force. I heard it's a parts with the manufacture of the WARPS.

The old planes are wearing out and parts-especially engines- are monstrously expensive. 4 engines on the 135. 2 on the 46.

@TheJoeSwanon

2 жыл бұрын

I think the military prefers having four engines then just two

@michaelripperger5674

2 жыл бұрын

When 1of rye 2 go out … you have a problem

So its a glare issue....that should be pretty fixable with a polarizing filter....why would that take so long to fix?

@JohnSmith-zi9or

3 жыл бұрын

You've never been in the military or dealt with the government procurement system have you?

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

There was also an issue with the boom working for low-mass aircraft. One thing that takes a long time is testing the new design with all aircraft which will be refueled by boom.

"Welcome back everybody, today we're flying the KC-46..."

James...YET ANOTHER CHANNEL...wow...how many?

Our next tanker needs to come up with a stealth tanker.... One Idea is turn the B-1 into tanker

@troywalker8078

3 жыл бұрын

The B-1 is not stealth.

@heikojakob6491

3 жыл бұрын

@@troywalker8078 ... and way too thirsty. It will be half empty after takeoff.

@thepropmachines1042

2 жыл бұрын

DO WHATEVER NEEDS DONE BUT DONT COME /FLY TO AFGHANISTAN,THEY LIKE TO SHATTER WESTERN ASSES

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

@@thepropmachines1042 - Afghanistan had better behave itself. If they become a threat to the United States again, they will be attacked again.

@jamesrey3221

2 жыл бұрын

@@GH-oi2jf Afghanistan is left to the dogs, the world does not care about the Taliban....and what they are doing to their own people, back to the stone age

Bad News for the KC135 and KC10 as they will be replace

🙏🤝🙏

US . Militray . Power 🇺🇸 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

the next generation in-flight refueling should be based on the B767-400 ER which is an extended stretched variant of the B767-300 ER which itself is a stretched variant of the B767-200!!! Boeing will have to restart it's B767 production line temporarily for a limited run of 90 - 100 brand new B767-400 ER otherwise the limited production run won't be financially viable for Boeing Air & Space!!! Boeing will have to build an all cargo B767-400 ER Freighter type (no cabin windows except for a few) variant with some refinements & then adapting the new built B767-400 ER air frame as mid air refueling tanker aircraft with all necessary add ons!!! the stretched fuselage of the B767-400 ERF will enable the aircraft to carry additional fuel 40% more fuel than the B767-200 ER based KC-46!!!

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

The -400 probably would be the best option for a larger fueler, because it would have a lot of commonality with the KC46A. I don’t think they would need anther production line, though. The 767 production line was converted to dedicated KC-46 production, and a stretched version could be built on the same line. If not, why not?

The US should have just bought the MRTT. It is working, it can be delivered now and it would share common parts with more NATO ALlies than te KC-46.

@Sedna063

2 жыл бұрын

Blame congress. They could have pushed for Airbus to built 100% in USA but no... Better feed a company that had the inferior product.

9:19Rolex US

👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻

I saw one of these land at an AFB not far from me

I never understood why the Air Farce EVER used the probe system. It's insanely dangerous and I've been on KC-135 tankers while refueling Air Force aircraft including Buffs. A drouge system is much safer.

@GhostsniperAus

2 жыл бұрын

Transfer time of fuel volume was the big issue when the BUFFs were flying ChromeDome missions. The tanker had to be able to get back to the start of the racetrack before the next aircraft arrived.

@nola3864

2 жыл бұрын

drogue's so much slower no one likes using it

@billotto602

2 жыл бұрын

@@nola3864 but not as dangerous as the probe especially in turbulent air.

@nola3864

2 жыл бұрын

@@billotto602 Trust me probe is better.. lmfao

As long as they park at a fuel pit and or you can multi source them I’ll be happy -POL troop

Don't forget. The US Air force is looking to contract some of it's mid air refueling services to private companies.

@nocalsteve

2 жыл бұрын

They already do.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

Bad idea. They contracted with a private company to airlift military vehicles into Afghanistan, and the plane crashed because the load wasn’t secure. Both are jobs for experts, meaning USAF, in my opinion.

is this the guy from watop?

@lifelongpilot

2 жыл бұрын

I literally searched for this comment. It sounds EXACTLY like him

Good luck MRTT with the upcoming KC-Y competition, may your far superior platform win versus Boeing's influence in Wall St. and D.C. Boeing may also be entering a plane...

I'm amazed they didn't automate the boom control. It seems like the computer could hold it steady and aim for the "Refuel" marking without needing a crewmember flying the boom.

@joshschneider9766

2 жыл бұрын

Ask a drogue operator how realistic that is. Hint... Its not.

@CBeckMayberry

2 жыл бұрын

Seems like computers should be able to do lots of things humans can do, yet they still don't do many of those things.

ayyyy its watop

Mr. Narrator, I know that you work on at least 2 different channels WATOP and US Military News. I know there's at least two other channels you work on as well, though I can't find them off the top of my head. Can you please tell us about yourself?

Heyyyy i saw some 157th footage in there. PSM represent!

The Northrop Grumman KC-45 was head and shoulders better then the KC-46, and was chosen over this model, but being an Airbus platform the politicians got involved and canceled the order, ths plane has had nothing but problems since Boeing was chosen as the contractor.

@rogerd777

2 жыл бұрын

It was larger than the USAF original requirements. Then they changed the requirements.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

In fact, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed the procurement and sustained Boeing’s complaints. The GAO is not political. They do not favor either party or manufacturer. It is better to read the report before making such a statement, which is not supported by the report.

@davidcole333

2 жыл бұрын

NO to Airbus...Look around and see what happens when you outsource your supply chain!

Is this the same guy that dose WATOP

This is a great aircraft, based on the venerable 767. I’m sure they will work through the remaining difficulties.

@seanpruitt6801

Жыл бұрын

We always do.

Does Boing build anything that works?

@martincussell7939

2 жыл бұрын

No

@aviationphu9603

2 жыл бұрын

You guys act like airbus aircraft doesn’t have problems too 😂🤦🏻‍♂️

@larrykstanley

2 жыл бұрын

@@aviationphu9603 Who said anything about Airbus? BOING is a national disgrace!

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

@@larrykstanley - Poor spelling skills is a national disgrace.

@Maple_Cadian

2 жыл бұрын

@@GH-oi2jf Airbus didnt bury a problem Boeing did. Boeing forced Bombardier to sell the C series program to Airbus due to Boeing corrupting the trade office.

WATOP, is that you?

They passed on reverse thrust capable engines also… big mistake in the long run.

Thank god for those KC-135 last produced in 1965 (almost as old as the B-52) If it wasn't for them too many fighter jocks would be walking home and the troops on the ground would have been wiped out. Remember that this proposal request started in 2004 and politics , well you know what happened. But is still isn't ready.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

It is mostly ready. The boom system is being reworked.

JUST SIXTH BEST ,THERES A PROBLEM WHITH THIS ,OVER SPEND HOW MUCH .

Still think that this platform was a mistake. The Airbus A330 is a superior platform, but the military especially the Air Force loves its gadgets. I love technology too, but sometimes it overcomplicates things. They should have put in a conventional ARO or boom pod.

@wilburfinnigan2142

3 жыл бұрын

AG the old system has worked for decades....why change it !!!! Nothing wrong with the plane itself !! A well proven airframe with millions of hours of service !!!

@AG-un7dz

2 жыл бұрын

@@wilburfinnigan2142 Which airplane are you referring to? The 135 is old and I'm sure spare parts are an issue. The same thing stands for the -10 with the airlines retiring theirs. Not dogging on the 767, just think that the Airbus is a better platform for refueling due to fuel load.

@wilburfinnigan2142

2 жыл бұрын

@@AG-un7dz Nothing wrong with the BOOM system on either the KC135 or the KC 10 they both work and have for decades. and the 767 airframe is proven also its just the digital control system that has been problematic. Parts for Kc135 should not be a problem the desert at Davis Monahan in Phoenix is full of both kc135 and KC10 surplused !! As for fuel load Boeing offered the USAF a couple of versions, the 767 and the 777 version in a couple of sizes but the USAF found the smaller plane easier to work with !!!

@jaymasiello

2 жыл бұрын

@@wilburfinnigan2142 True...as a retired USAF ACFT mech. , and currently a civil service ACFT mech . on the new KC46, it is very hard for bone yard parts to still be in good working condition when you receive them from supply. Most need complete rebuild and some have warped or cracked. Over all this video is the best one I have seen in years that really give a honest assessment of the KC-46 and the issues. I was on the YF22 and YF23 program when I first entered the USAF, and the F-22 had 10x more problems than the YF23. But with any new ACFT there is always issues. But the KC-46 has 1/20th the issues the 6 gen stealth fighters have. Thank you commenting. Cheers!

Why is the a-10 never on the Aircraft carrier

@roydrink

2 жыл бұрын

No arresting hock?

@pauljohnson3340

2 жыл бұрын

No arresting hook, the wings don't fold, and the landing gear would have to be completely redesigned.

@theu.s.militaryshort905

2 жыл бұрын

Oh

The KC-46 is a beautiful airplane. I think the B767 had the best proportions of all the Boeing jetliners.

Should have modified retired MD-11s

I wanna know who is the narrator?

@lofidocs1155

3 жыл бұрын

Its WATOP.

@subz9192

3 жыл бұрын

@@lofidocs1155 Who is WATOP!

@subz9192

3 жыл бұрын

Is he just a professional Narrator? Kurzgesagt has one.

What a totally unnecessary mod putting the boom operator up front when they were fine in a boompod

Go forward, America! Long live the Nato! Long live freedom! Down with all dictatorships and terrorists all around the world! Best wishes from Germany!

At least it isn’t an Airbus

What? Boeing is producing buggy, unready, overpriced and underperforming systems? Unpossible!

@WootTootZoot

2 жыл бұрын

Boeing got caught up in that kick-back scandal during the George W Bush regime. I suspect they're on the shit list for a while.

@cmanlovespancakes

2 жыл бұрын

It's not the plane platform but the advanced refueling system that needs more debugging. The airforce is asking a lot for the capabilities of the system. Like always they want it do do far more than it was originally designed to handle. This would have happened with Airbus too since the airforce wanted a custom system for them that Airbus would had to redesign their systems to meet those new requirements.

@ariochiv

2 жыл бұрын

@@cmanlovespancakes I'm well aware that the 737 is a well-established platform... though that didn't help the 346 737-MAX fatalities much. What I mean is that Boeing can't seem to catch a break.

@camf7522

2 жыл бұрын

@@ariochiv Boeing Defence over promise and under deliver, at least that has been my experience.

god bless boe*ng.!.

Crazy basing a tanker based on an obsolete aircraft the B-767, meanwhile the KC-30 based on the A-330 goes from strength to strength.

"The service will either continue to buy KC-46s or buy non-developmental aircraft, likely the Airbus A330 aircraft ...." this is complete speculation on part of the narrator.

Why do they have to over-engineer everything? They've had what...75 plus years to develop aerial refueling technology?

I am watching your video about weapon . these are really good and interesting for me. thanks a lot. i want to be your fiend and i am from Bangladesh. can you allow me as your friend ?

Boeing invented the boom refueling system…how did they screw this up?

@JohnSmith-zi9or

3 жыл бұрын

They let the McDonnell managers take charge and the bean counters screwed up what was once a reputable company.

so the pilot is probably or named casey aged 46, female?

damn i tought i was gonna be first ;(

@Blaqk_8298

3 жыл бұрын

Your always first until you REFRESH. 🤣

I want to be optimistic about this acquisition, but for this aircraft to be a 'dominant force' into mid-century? At best, this aircraft is about 60% as effective the KC-10. BIG SEXY has longer mission legs, more cargo, about the same number of pax, 2 toilets.

@JohnSmith-zi9or

3 жыл бұрын

The aircraft wasn't supposed to replace Big Sexy. That decision came later as the lame ass USAF leadership put the KC-10 on the chopping block to try and save money. There's nothing wrong with the KC-10 except that USTRANSCOM treats it as two tankers. Would you rather have one KC-10 or two KC-46? I am not necessarily disagreeing with you but that's how the USAF employs the platforms.

@johnpage2935

3 жыл бұрын

@@JohnSmith-zi9or I appreciate the thoughts you have. It is such a loss.

Without this KC 46 and other tankers our air superiority will be in total CHAOS and LIMBO thereby, opening a big hole for the enemy advantage. Their versatility has been tested in time of peace and hostilities.

See you later.

WATOP voice 🤔

@kmmediafactory

2 жыл бұрын

Oh wow, you're right. And I've heard this guy's voice on other channels too. I guess he's a pretty high demand narrator

Boeing blows. Between this, Starliner, Air Force One, and the 737 MAX, idk which is the biggest dumpster fire.

@Predator42ID

3 жыл бұрын

You do understand that airbus has a higher accident record then Boeing right.

@CRAZYHORSE19682003

3 жыл бұрын

I think we can agree that Boeing is not the company they once were. Once they merged with McDonald Douglas Boeing as an engineering first company to a dollars first company. I have seen a few videos on how the culture of Boeing was changed by the merger and engineers stopped being in charge and bean counters started making all the decisions.

@Shadowfax-1980

3 жыл бұрын

Don’t forget the 787’s teething problems. They seem to have an issue of over promising.

@kennethbowden4129

3 жыл бұрын

You forgot SLS which may not survive past first test launch.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

The MAX fire is out. Those aircraft are in service.

Name everything but the BRRRThog..... typical air force PC

Should have stuck with MRTT Voyager, that works already !! USAF would have been using them now !! "If its Boeing, it isn't going"! A programme that has over ran, over cost and still not cutting it !!

@kdrapertrucker

2 жыл бұрын

How would have it not had the same problem? All the problems are with the virtual reality remote refueling system the Air Force specified.

Boeing and its chain of misconceptions on the 737max, the 787 and the KC-46 but are still stubborn to make it work some how…well the only one I am sad about is the 787 because it came from a blank sheet, sad but unfortunately. The only one well thought of for the conversion was the MRTT it is bang on more capabilities there was nothing to compare with and it would have cost far less money !

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

No, the Airbus would not have been less expensive in the long run. In any case, it was the Gneral Accounting Office who determined that the Boeing poposal was the best fit to the specified requirements.

@Sedna063

2 жыл бұрын

@@GH-oi2jf Which were changed after Airbus won the contract.

crazy that say screwed up this boom system and unable to fix it.....what a technological disaster....

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

It will be fixed, and it is hardly a “disaster.” That’s hyperbole.

Another Slicky Boy sale to the gullible USAF Air Staff Anytime you design a system with no backup (Putting the Boom operator position where they have NO capability to actually See the refueling operation.) you have create a system with a single point of failure and no logical reasonable backup. It's fine for normal operation of the boom to be up front but with no back up and being totally reliant on a set of video systems that currently give a distorted image of the situation. That's a non starter. I originally thought they would learn from the system on the KC-10. The physical location of the boom operator in decent seat with the "best view in the house" of the refueling process gave the KC-10 a leg up AND having that training seat and observation seat make the KC-10 the hands down winner.

@Turboy65

2 жыл бұрын

I do agree that it was a STUPID decision not to follow the KC-135's simple design called "a window the boom operator sees out of". Replacing it with a camera and a monitor that gives NO 3D feedback was just nothing short of STUPID. Even if the glass breaks, the purpose of SEEING THE PLANE BEING REFUELED can never be defeated if you have that window. It's "vision system 1.0" and utterly foolproof. Boeing has had a hard time doing today what they found to be pretty easy 60 years ago.

@windy49

2 жыл бұрын

@@Turboy65 I had the opportunity to fly with a KC-10 In Egypt and that was a fantastic plane for refueling. (I also flew on a KC-135 during my first 2 years in the service) There is no comparison between the two in my opinion. In the KC-10 there are 3 seats where the primary and a trainee can sit with an observer in the left seat ALL sitting in the back with a 'picture window' view of the refueling. PLUS the boom operator has a set of mirrors that show him the planes perched on the wings of the tanker. Actually the boom operator is the only crew member with a view of the wing tips. Regardless of any metal bending required, that is the best boom operator layout as far as I can see. NO disrespect for the tried and true KC-135 but if you have to drag a flight of fighters across the ocean or deal with iffy weather, I would want a clear real view of the situation not a camera view.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

There are two workstations from which to operate the boom, so there is some redundancy.

@Inspadave

2 жыл бұрын

@@Turboy65 The large window in the KC-10 is a structural weakness.

Boeing is actually good at designing critical deficiencies.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

The problems this aircraft has had are not exceptional for new military systems. They will be corrected.

“Good news” would be that the program is cancelled. It’s an over-priced, bug-ridden, under-performing embarrassment.

@kirkmooneyham

2 жыл бұрын

Got that Airbus stock, huh?

@Sedna063

2 жыл бұрын

@@kirkmooneyham You don't need stocks to see the better aircraft.

@kirkmooneyham

2 жыл бұрын

@@Sedna063, I'd love to know what sort of experience you have with the KC-46, that you can make that claim.

@Sedna063

2 жыл бұрын

@@kirkmooneyham And you? Do you have both A330 MRTT Experience and KC-46 experience? By the way, you blamed our support for us holding stocks. The Airbus works fine by the way. For a decade

@kirkmooneyham

2 жыл бұрын

@@Sedna063, I have experience with the KC-135, the KC-10, and the KC-46, so I do know a little something about tanker aircraft.

KC-135's . . . off to the boneyard - Davis Monthan AFB. This aircraft has been in service, since the 1960's. Almost as aged as the B-52 ! 💀🇺🇸

@kennethbowden4129

3 жыл бұрын

If I remember correctly a couple of the ones I worked on were built in 57.

@mcahill135

2 жыл бұрын

@@kennethbowden4129 KC-135 design and production began in the mid 1950s. Over 700 KC-135s were built until around 1964. Approximately 350 KC-135R/T models are still in service today - over sixty years of service!. R models are going to the Bone Yard now. Sad to see this. Structurally, the KC-135 airframe has no cycle or hour limitation due to the way the airframe was initially designed and built. Engineers normally design structures to stand up to 115% of the design limit. With the B-707/KC-135/B-52 systems, the structural design limit was at 150%. Heavy maintenance checks are accomplished at Tinker AFB about every 4-5 years. Areas/sections of corrosion are discovered and replaced. The KC-767 has a limited lifespan on the airframe. The parts are mechanically and chemically milled to last only so many hours/cycles - by design.The Boeing engineers learned so much from the B-47, KC-135, B-707, and B-52.

I was hoping this was about the cancellation of the program…. :(

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

Are you French?

A Boeing aircraft has technical issues. Who would have thought.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

Every major piece of military equipment has technical issues. The Ford class aircraft carriers had technical issues. They get worked out.

@jhill4874

2 жыл бұрын

@@GH-oi2jf Agreed, but Boeing has some serious issues from it's top. 737MAX, for example. Major changes, but a tactical campaign donation possibly resulted in a "suggestion" from SecTrans to the FAA not to require recertification. Starliner, after years of work and billions of dollars is still running into quality control issues.

Folks, if they just stop the remote 3-D station. Put back the manned pod in the back, like the previous others. Then they have little to no problems period!!!

@JohnSmith-zi9or

3 жыл бұрын

But they can't. The tail of the aircraft isn't built for that. Doing so would require extensive modifications and adding a lot of weight.

@henryzenke949

3 жыл бұрын

@@JohnSmith-zi9or I could be wrong...but several years ago. Japan order a tanker version of the 767 with a manned pod in the back... Do they have problems with it... Also a AWAC 767 version too.... The physical aspect is not the problem. Like you said... It's the jarheads and and bean counters are messing things up.

@JohnSmith-zi9or

3 жыл бұрын

@@henryzenke949 You are wrong. The KC767 has a remote air refueling station. No boom pod.

@henryzenke949

3 жыл бұрын

@@JohnSmith-zi9or wow... I'm wrong....boo hoo....If Japan has the same set up for last ten plus years.... THEN WHY ARE WE STILL HAVING PROBLEMS...TEN PLUS YEARS ISN'T ENOUGH TIME TO IRON OUT THE PROBLEMS....OR Is it because JAPAN have better CAMERAS and TVs... BTW the KC- 46 is a souped up freighter, like the KC-10. They took a DC-10 freighter model ( which means the structure is beef up) and added fuel bladders and plumbing and a boomer station in the back. All I want to see that this country have the best equipment with little to no problems when it rolls of the line. Remember, we design and build a rocket and sent man to the moon and back in less than ten years. During WW2 Grumman corp. design and built a fighter plane and rolling off the line in 9 MONTHS. SO DON'T TELL ME IT'S HARD OR DIFFICULT TO MAKE SOMETHING IN THIS GREAT COUNTRY OF OURS....

@JohnSmith-zi9or

3 жыл бұрын

@@henryzenke949 You can get mad all you want, mount and cry like a little school girl, and make childish arguments. OR, you can listen to me, someone who knows what they're talking about. Yes, the Japanese have KC767s. Yes they have RARO. Yes, as all camera systems do, there have some glare problems. However, with KC46, I think the test boomers just didn't like it. And when they had too many COTR, they went back to Boeing and said we need it improved -- which Boeing is doing. You also need to understand what's happened at Boeing and their culture. They aren't the same "its Boeing or I'm not going." They've had issues rolling out the 787. Then the 737Max where they knew the MCAS system wasn't safe but put it in passenger airliners anyways and killed 300+ people. Then the KC46 and all of its problems. Don't yell at the messenger.

Fubar starting from the original corrupted contract process -----How do you F-up a tanker ?!?!?

@jaysonpida5379

2 жыл бұрын

How come Boing-Boing can re-fit all sorts of offensive military gear on the 737 and hit a 'home-run' for the Navy.................but >snap< just can't seem to get things done for the Air Force?

So the green things it's dong?

If it were possible you need a nuclear miniature powered engine for the jet planes that doesn't need refueling for 20 years.

If they had bought the A-330 MRTT they would have replaced half of the tanker fleet already and it would have had more capabilities than this irrelevant piece of excretion.

@JohnSmith-zi9or

3 жыл бұрын

This is an incorrect statement. When replacing a smaller tactical sized tanker (-135), you do not replace it with a tanker bigger than your current strategic tanker (-10). Your statement above tells me that you've never employed large heavy assets into the battlefield. And if so, you've failed Employment 101.

@jacksonteller1337

3 жыл бұрын

@@JohnSmith-zi9or you are a complete ignoramus when it comes to air assets go back to school junior before you get too much butthurt on here. And get a real profile and treatment for your inferiority complex.

@wilburfinnigan2142

3 жыл бұрын

Wally BULLSHIT !!!! Replace American Aircraft with American !!! Forget the foreign crap and keep our tax money and jobs here at home !!! NOT in Europe !!!!

@jacksonteller1337

3 жыл бұрын

@@wilburfinnigan2142 another brain-dead nationalist. You can't use an airframe beyond a certain point, that's why they are green lighting the use of aircraft that aren't working properly. If they had added the A330 MRTT even if it was just for part of the replacement program they could have replaced the unusable aircraft a long time ago. But if you knew anything about aircraft you would have known that so get off snowflake before your tender bottom gets hurt some more.

@w8stral

2 жыл бұрын

You get the moron award... None of the features the Military is bitching about are on the Airbus option. The USAF made the problems, not Boeing. LIke always, Pentagon gives out the contracts and then changes the specs or decides some tiny nebulous useless crap is "necessary" and therefore it is a failure so we then get lawyers involved.

Should have gone with the original tanker winner - the KC-30A MRTT. Superior product in every way including fully operational state of the art boom system, superior loiter time, longer range, greater fuel capacity, smooth to slide up behind, greater cargo capabilities, greater passenger capabilities, would have employed more workers in factory in Mobile Alabama than the Boeing equivalent, already operational in the Middle East AOA, has already been cerified for every airframe in the US military including B-2, F-35A/B/C, F-22, F-16, F-15, B1-B, C-17, C-5, V-22, F/A-18, etc.......as well as all European aircraft such as Rafale, Tornado, Eurofighter, etc........... It's a no brainer, really.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

Read the GAO report.

The DOD originally wanted to buy the Airbus A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT), but that decision was made politically by stupid uninformed US Congressional memebers. The KC-46 by Boeing cost the US taxpayer 14 billion more than the Airbus A330 (MRTT) and as always it was behind schedule and over budget.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

@Alfred Churchill - It did not. It was greased through by Northrop-Grumman partisans in the Pentagon. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed the procurement and agreed that the Boeing proposal was the best fit to the specifications and had the lower life cycle cost. They said “Our review of the record led us to conclude that the Air Force had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman.” The GAO also wrote “As explained below, we find that the agency’s selection of Northrop Grumman’s proposal as reflecting the best value to the government was undermined by a number of prejudicial errors that call into question the Air Force’s decision that Northrop Grumman’s proposal was technically acceptable and its judgment concerning the comparative technical advantages accorded Northrop Grumman’s proposal.”

@Inspadave

2 жыл бұрын

The A-330 MRTT did not meet the specs for the original proposal. A large majority of the KC-135 fleet are USAFR and ANG. The new tanker had to fit into those bases and hangar spaces. The A-330 is too big.

Last

they had better done buing the airbus ^^

It’s just a 767

@johndaubner973

Жыл бұрын

Just a 767? And the corner Gulf station is just a parking lot. 👺

What is the good news? That they will gift me one?🤔