1:40 ... are you sure it's the 'Army' that's planning to buy the aircraft? 🤔

@MrTornadoman97

5 жыл бұрын

Unless they plan to fly it at near stall speed with full flaps just to refuel some Blackhawks lol

@timothycook2917

5 жыл бұрын

@@MrTornadoman97 that could be fun to watch 🤣😁👌

@cakeadventure8412

4 жыл бұрын

@@MrTornadoman97 just attach some rocket boosters to the blackhawks and boom, problem solved! XD

@jonachaval1912

4 жыл бұрын

No. And I don’t think the problems with the fueling boom caused the B-2 bomber to become “unstealthy”.

you mean the kc-46 was the 2nd winner... after the airbus win and then subsequent re-run with "choose american" as a primary requirement.. ;)

@GH-oi2jf

4 жыл бұрын

Roland Lawrence - The initial decision was rigged. But, even if an American supplier was favored, in my opinion that would be entirely appropriate. Boeing have built and serviced fuelers for the U. S. for decades. Why would we choose a foreign supplier for military equipment when we have an experienced supplier at home?

@Sedna063

4 жыл бұрын

@@GH-oi2jf Well, the first process was rigged because Boeing paid for it. Corruption charges against a member of the Pentagon. The Air Force said they needed a new tanker again and then Airbus paired with Grumman to built it in Mobile. Was selected the winner. Then Boeing came along and proclaimed cheating (the nerve....) and in the meantime, the Democrats won the presidency and wanted to built a 30 bn $ project in Seattle Washington where they have a lot of party members, not in Mobile, Alabama, where Republicans are strong. Bad decision though, the A330 MRTT is in service with a number of Air Forces in the world, including RAF, French, Australian.... It was already developed in 2007 and would have been a very safe thing. It is larger than the 767 and could give a few more tons of fuel per run. Well, the USAF is not happy with Boeing at all. Quality control failed twice.

@kimberlywilliams7543

3 жыл бұрын

THE AIRBUS EUROTARD SPECIAL A330 IS A FLYING TURD MADE OF 100% EUROSHIT!!!

@Yautah

3 жыл бұрын

@@kurthaas4331 You're telling me korea/egypt/etc can operate it but it would be too expensive for the us ? OK.

@Yautah

3 жыл бұрын

@@kurthaas4331 I'm not saying you are wrong or that the reasons that you give say don't make sense, they do. I'm just saying the most important reason it wasn't chosen is because it's not made by an American company, that's all.

A year and a half after you made this video and we still don't have any operational KC-46A's

@Az21-

3 жыл бұрын

We do.

2:52 don't really notice how big the boom is till someone stands next to it.

I think that what he ment was that the Army would prefer the KC-135. But don't forget the KC-10, KC-135, C-130, C-5, and the 747 Mothership for Air borne duties. The KC-46 is probably just good for refueling missions.

@Turboy65

Жыл бұрын

Considering that refueling is such an important mission that needs to be performed far more frequently than any other application for larger aircraft, there is NO justification for the KC-135 or KC-46 to do anything but the refueling mission. It does not need to be multirole. In fact being multirole would be very inefficient.

great video

It's awesome in person!

Yes, absolutely. Boeing underbid the contract, and running a massive lose due to fix cost contract. Boeing is essentially paying the Air Force to use its tanker. Boeing may never make a dollar off the tanker.

@poruatokin

4 жыл бұрын

If that was a trade negotiation, it would be referred to as "dumping"

@pilarmorin4405

3 жыл бұрын

Pretty sure the same thing happened with the Kc-135... If you look at the specs the Kc-46 does not carry much more fuel than the Kc-135!

@pilarmorin4405

3 жыл бұрын

@@kurthaas4331 Not supposed to? At that cost I wou.d want everything under the sun... Maybe even an Airbus!!! So your telling me just a little bit more cargo, little bit more gas a d were good to go? Somebody's not playing with the best interest of the Air force in mind... At least give me, double the fuel offload of a Kc-135 please or something in the ballpark so I dont feel cheated!!

Interesting footnote the aluminum skin is twice as thick then it’s civilian counterpart which more than doubles its construction time

@w8stral

3 жыл бұрын

Different G requirement for wind up turns with payload than civilian.

@johnp139

3 жыл бұрын

Are you sure about that?

@w8stral

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnp139 The G rating? Yes, unless this is the first military transport plane where this is not the case. As for wing skin thickness? I do not know, but it makes sense.

Any new system goes through growing pains, it is just part of the process. Ten years from now, when the tanker is more mature, no one will remember these early hiccups!

@Sedna063

3 жыл бұрын

They are working on it for 10 years now. Meanwhile the A330 works fine for all other armed forces

@Sedna063

3 жыл бұрын

@@kurthaas4331 That’s bullshit. The runway requirements are virtually identical.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

Right.

Dude, was shifting gears in a car, lol! 3:09 That was funny!

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

Why is that funny?

@BlackWarriorLures

2 жыл бұрын

@@GH-oi2jf Because it has nothing to do with the video.

If your question is: was it worth it to replace the KC-135? Well yes, of course, this is overdue. But I think that the A330 MRTT is much better with a better value than the KC-46.

@kimberlywilliams7543

3 жыл бұрын

THE AIRBUS EUROTARD SPECIAL A330 IS A FLYING TURD MADE OF 100% EUROSHIT!!!

@AirShark95

3 жыл бұрын

@@kimberlywilliams7543 The KC-46 still isn't working after having dumped a fuckload amount of money into it. Meanwhile the A330MRTT is in operation with multiple countries without issue. Boeing is building absolute shit now.

@w8stral

3 жыл бұрын

@@AirShark95 767 tanker was operating just fine before the US pentagon ordered it. Japan was using it and they still are. What the dumb assery in the Pentagon wanted was an entirely new boom, boom operation, along with payloads for torpedoes, bombs, missiles, sono buoys etc and effectively new flight controls etc all of which were NOT in the original specification. All these changes were done AFTER Boeing got the contract. What is criminal is these Incompetents at the Pentagon would order all these gargantuan changes and NOT update the engines with modern equivalent which is sitting right there(GenX 2b) and ready to go giving ~20% payload/range & short field high hot operation capability. Boeing has done many stupid things, but this program was not their fault as everything was transferred over from their previous aircraft MMA and other tankers until Pentagon wanted new everything on the rear which tied into the old avionics suites at the nose...

@Dawgsofwinter

3 жыл бұрын

AF selected the A330's then Boeing threw a hissy fit and dropped a lawsuit. Then Airbus said fine we are not gonna play your game and left. Then dropped the offer in other countries laps. (not that I blame them and not that anyone had a real leg to stand on for stopping them) And that was what I considered one of the first events of Boeing blatantly showing their @55 that habit has slowly grown bigger and bigger over the recent years with Starliner being a big point in case. And that doesn't even mention the Max fiasco.

@dknowles60

3 жыл бұрын

So is the kc 10. The air force could have rebuilt the kc 10 very cheap

1:16 Clever.

They should of just gone with original winner the Lockheed built and supplied a330 mrt,tried and tested base aircraft still in large scale production further secured with the neo variant.Boeing threw there toys out the pram only to supply a tanker based on a aircraft in limited production meaning parts supply chain will dry up sooner rather than later evidently teething problems and 5 years later than if the airforce just committed to the A330 from Lockheed Martin

@walkertechie

5 жыл бұрын

Brownie.simon No sorry. Not interested in buying anything from Europe. Especially from Airbus who’s subsidized by France and Germany. The French are almost as bad as China with stealing US intellectual property and/or unfairly trying to block Boeing out of the market. Sorry but only American equipment for America’s military.

@captaindusty4884

5 жыл бұрын

@@walkertechie you talk about Airbus getting government subsidies when Boeing gets hefty tax breaks and R&D grants from DARPA which are basically the same thing

@walkertechie

5 жыл бұрын

Captain Dusty and your evidence is what exactly? Please provide a citation or link to your made up beliefs

@mikeblatzheim2797

5 жыл бұрын

@@walkertechie Funny that it is you that asks for evidence. What's the evidence of France blocking Boeing out of it's market (which isn't possible anyway, since it's part of the European common market meaning Boeing would be blocked by all countries in unison). And where did France/French companies steal intellectual properties? It is an open secret that Boeing, as well as other military companies, are heavily supported by the US government through military contracts and ludicrous tax breaks. Just to name a few, the development of the 707 and 747 were started as military planes, and funded by the government. Boeing is one of the biggest 'donors' in Washington, meaning they can make the government do what they want. Just look at the 300% tarifs that were imposed on Bombardier before they were struck down in court.

@scottwait3701

5 жыл бұрын

Royal Australian air force has the a330 mrt in service and refueled combat aircraft in the middle east for a few years now maybe usaf should have stuck with it's original choice

The USAF didn't "select" this aircraft. They actually selected the Airbus A330 MRTT, twice. Unfortunately, the US Congress couldn't handle the thought of their "All-American" Raptors & stealth bombers being refueled by a "French" plane, so they kept stalling & re-contesting the program. By the third time around, Airbus couldn't be bothered with such a rigged contest. But as I said, this wasn't the USAF's doing, it was purely the politicians. The competition was then won by a plane that didn't even exist compared to one already in service with multiple air forces.

@marshallpoe8087

5 жыл бұрын

Actually, you are wrong. The rank and file USAF overwhelmingly selected the Boeing aircraft. In the USAF, we commonly refer to the Airbus as 'AirPOS'. There was no way we were going to get 'pressured' into flying any tanker other than a Boeing. In the end, the few questionable USAF characters that were pushing the AirPOS were found out and replaced. And if Boeing had the illegal subsidies that made the cost of the AirPOS so low, those Air Forces would have been flying the KC-46 - no question.

@zeitgeistx5239

5 жыл бұрын

Meanwhile the Luftwaffe top general said the F-35 is the only choice. He was immediately fired, Airbus said if you buy F-35 Airbus military aviation is dead. Germany promptly rejected the F-35. Why should we buy their aircraft when they categorically refuse to buy ours even when it's the only viable option?

@theswordguy5269

5 жыл бұрын

Wrong. I posted above to this end. Boeing designed their plane to the Air Force's design criteria. Airbus did not. When the Airbus plane was selected despite not meeting the design criteria for size, range, etc.. Boeing objected, as they had a right to do. Was politics involved? Of course. Was Boeing hosed by the Air Force? Absolutely. They built what the Air Force wanted and then the Air Force switched its desires midstream. That's not fair. What is sad is that the A330 derived tanker may well have won the competition outright had the Air Force played fair during the competition from the get go. In many ways, it was superior to the Pegasus, but in some others not. Either way, the decision would have been narrow and tight. However, when you don't play fair, the aggrieved party possesses the right to appeal and Boeing did so. Exactly why the Air Force acted as it did has never been fully established. Instead, Boeing has been painted as a spoiled brat unwilling to lose a lucrative contract. There may be some truth in that, but there is also truth in the concept that Boeing had a right to be upset. For all of the wrong doing that Boeing later committed to get the eventual contract (money, booze and hookers, at a MINIMUM!), there have been rumors about what "benefits" certain people received on the A330 side. Can this be proven? No. Its all alleged, but it does serve as a reminder that the pot shouldn't be calling the kettle black. Remember, Airbus is the company that used to arrange preferential landing fees for US-based airlines using their products, and higher landing fees to those flying Boeing. Airbus' hands are hardly lily white, either.

@dundonrl

5 жыл бұрын

If the 330 MRTT is such a great aircraft, why doesn't France use it?

@wargey3431

5 жыл бұрын

Rexford L because you can’t fly a white flag from it

Great video.☺️

Boeing will have to fix a couple issues out of pocket but they will make it on the back end with parts over time.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

Actally, the AF is paying for boom redesign because they signed off on the first design.

KC-135 is an Air Force plane as well as the KC-46 and the KC-10. The army does not operate these and never has.

Never talked about capabilities or advances or comparisons to previous weapon systems: how can you then assess 'worth the headache' then?

@jdcarper7

4 жыл бұрын

Christopher Thompson why fix what’s broken why not make a tanker with a guy in the back operating a boom... much easier than what there trying to do

Would it be better to use a 777 or A380 for this purpose?

@charlesanzalone5846

4 жыл бұрын

380 too expensive to operate and it's size limits where it can land

@johnp139

3 жыл бұрын

No

@andrewlarson7895

2 жыл бұрын

@@charlesanzalone5846 380 would be way to heavy. Airframe wouldn't handle it

The tanker program has been in trouble since it’s inception. However, using modern engines and modern boom systems will eventually allow the USAF to recover the costs, although it will be more expensive than originally contracted.

Why don't they put the blended winglets on it?

@rogerd777

5 жыл бұрын

It interferes with some of the military (secret) sensors mounted on the wings. Remember, this aircraft has to fly into contested airspace.

@johnp139

3 жыл бұрын

It has different flight profiles due to refueling.

You should have said damage stealth coatings.

Why wouldn’t they use a 777-F? The extra size for fuel capacity. Probably a cost thing but when has that ever been an issue

@ellawhite5167

5 жыл бұрын

Also bowling has a huge backlog for the 777 and these are just coming off the 767 production line

@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs

5 жыл бұрын

The issue was not the fuel capacity but the number of refuelling booms. Two KC46s May have the same fuel as one “KC777” but you only have one boom. The Lockheed/A330 offering was a good compromise. It could complete the mission without extra fuel tanks and operate as a versatile transport of cargo and troops as well.

@SanseriIIDX

4 жыл бұрын

Operation costs for the customer is the thing to be considered.

@GH-oi2jf

4 жыл бұрын

Queerasthedayislong Love - The 767 airframe fits the size that was bid. The USAF already has larger fuelers. This one replaces the KC-135, a smaller airframe.

@MaximilianBocek

3 жыл бұрын

Using a Triple-7 airframe would negate one of the chief advantages of the 767 over the Airbus plane: being able to use shorter runways. A big deal in theater.

It may end up being an 80% solution that the service isn't really happy with.

@GH-oi2jf

4 жыл бұрын

Black Warrior Lures - It meets all the stated requirements. What are the 20% that you think it might not meet?

@BlackWarriorLures

4 жыл бұрын

@@GH-oi2jf Oh, I don't know. I haven't followed the development well. It seems like when they put too much tech or try to make one platform do too many things, it's doesn't go so smoothly.

@GH-oi2jf

4 жыл бұрын

Black Warrior Lures - This aircraft meets 100% of the specification, otherwise it couldn’t have been selected.

@BlackWarriorLures

4 жыл бұрын

@@GH-oi2jf Understood.

@reubenmorris487

3 жыл бұрын

@@GH-oi2jf It does NOT meet all the requirements...

Good plain and it's possible you can actually use parts from scrapped B767 aircraft for this tanker same can be said for the KC-135R replacement either A330neo or B777x since early planes being scrapped

@dknowles60

5 жыл бұрын

delta brought a used 777 for 10million dollars

@GH-oi2jf

4 жыл бұрын

EpicThe112 - These are all-new aircraft. You don’t build a new Air Force plane using recycled parts.

Jusf upgrade the kc 10 extender like rnlaf did on their kdc 10

First Boeing will need to get a handle on not incorporating FOD into their manufacturing process before passing it along to USAF.😬

I say they should just keep the kc135s around a little bit longer

@johnp139

3 жыл бұрын

They are. 179 won’t replace all of the 135’s.

Yes because it keeps the 767-200 in production

@91_C4_FL

5 жыл бұрын

With a 763 wing and 787 flight deck 😎

@johnp139

3 жыл бұрын

And 767-300 & 400 parts. The flight deck is closer to the 777.

It’s a Boeing 767 with tanks. How much money did Boeing spend to “create” this new tanker?

@wargey3431

5 жыл бұрын

Mike Parker enough Congress don’t know how much it costs to build one hide the money through the back door for bribes saying its research and development no one looks into it Boeing get a load of money Congress get their pockets line and it’s only a couple of million of your dollars

@silaskuemmerle2505

5 жыл бұрын

Enough to keep their investors happy.

@GH-oi2jf

4 жыл бұрын

Mike Parker - A lot. This isn’t the same as the first few fuelers that were built on 767 airframes. It was reworked throughout. It has new flight deck instrumentation and remote boom control, for example.

@johnp139

3 жыл бұрын

It a totally new aircraft that uses similar parts as other aircraft currently being built.

C-46? Isn’t that the military version of the Douglas DC-3? The USAF should have picked a different type number.

@GH-oi2jf

3 жыл бұрын

It’s KC-46. The C-46 is a Curtiss CW-20.

@duanepierson4375

3 жыл бұрын

@@GH-oi2jf the “C” in KC-46 stands for the Basic aircraft type, in this case “Cargo.” The “K” is a subtype modification, in this case Tanker. A KC-130 is still a C-130 Hercules, so KC-46 can’t be a C-46, which is as you correctly pointed out is a WW2 Curtis Commando. .

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

@@duanepierson4375 - When aircraft go obsolete, the number can be recycled.

Regardless of the selection, this is our next generation air tanker ac. Boeing and its customers will work out the bugs and move on..

So...what is wrong with traditional way of refueling?

@w8stral

3 жыл бұрын

Nothing, except Eggs and Braid need a new feather to advance their careers to make sure get past that 20 year mark, and therefore the contract Boeing won was completely changed after the fact as eggs and braid drug their heels forever wanting gadget after gadget not in original RFP

@johnp139

3 жыл бұрын

Not enough replacement parts and high operational costs.

I believe at one point Boeing offered to build more 135s. I don't get why they had to go with whole new plane. there's nothing wrong with the 135

@GH-oi2jf

4 жыл бұрын

Matthew Baxter - I think you are mistaken about offering to build more 135s. That doesn’t make sense.

@charlesanzalone5846

4 жыл бұрын

The 135 AKA 707 has been out of production for decades and 2 engine's are better then 4 to maintain

@matthewbaxter5825

4 жыл бұрын

GH1618 I talked with some guys that were around when this all started. Boeing offered to reopen the production line for the 135 with updated avionics. But the AF said no.

@matthewbaxter5825

4 жыл бұрын

charles anzalone in face value 2 is cheaper to maintain than 4 engines. But when ur fighting a war in the air, u want as much redundancy as u can. I suspect a 135 would be able to offload with 1 engine out. That would be much harder for a 46

The army? The army doesn’t fly KC tankers, the Airforce does.

This deal is a scam and goes against fair trade regulations. They launched a tender as the law requires it. Then as the Airbus A330 was winning (by simply being more fuel efficient and better over all) some decided that the US Air Force could not take on a non US aircraft even from a NATO Allie. So they edited the tended on just a few points so that the size of the 767 would be the only aircraft fitting the requirements. Either you stipulated in your regulations that the aircraft has to be US manufactured or you go through with a normal tender. But is this case it's simply corruption. Fun fact is that Karma is a Bit** : Now both Boeing and the US Air Force are both suffering badly from the complications that are all related to it being a "not so good" aircraft over all :-)

@mpc7440

4 жыл бұрын

You hit the proverbial hammer on the head. Now 6 months after u wrote this comment, they barred the aircraft from carrying passengers or cargo. Rediculous.

@fordwk

3 жыл бұрын

Airbus is not the better aircraft manufactured. Boeing 767 Tanker has been around since the 90s...what was the big issue?

@heybudi

3 жыл бұрын

@@fordwk 💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩

It can't fly as high as it's replacement. And is ridiculously expensive.

@GH-oi2jf

4 жыл бұрын

Mr. Popo - It flies as high as the specification requires, and this is the replacement. You must have meant “the aircraft it replaces.”

No, the USAF should have selected the Airbus MRTT.

That was kc 10

US Air Force is the purchaser (not Army). Thanks

The KC-135 and the KC-46A share almost identical ferry ranges, a hair over 11,000 miles, and the maximum fuel offload capacity is pretty close to the same, being 200,000 pounds with the KC-135, and 212,000 pounds with the KC-46A. The KC-46A can carry up to 65,000 pounds when used to haul cargo, while the KC-135 can carry more, 83,000 pounds. So....the KC-46A does not represent a major increase in real world capacity or range. In some respects it's inferior to the older KC-135.

@cheapskateaquatics7103

10 ай бұрын

And both are inferior to the KC-10. It has a fuel capacity of 356,000 lbs of fuel, a ferry range of 11, 500 miles, and cargo capacity of 170,000 lbs.

@Turboy65

10 ай бұрын

@@cheapskateaquatics7103 Cargo capacity on a tanker, which USUALLY takes off and lands at the same base, is kind of irrelevant most of the time. Anybody who thinks that refueling aircraft should also serve the cargo role is kind of dumb.

Sept 2019 and the problems are still coming, its now banned from carrying cargo or passengers because of production faults.

@GH-oi2jf

4 жыл бұрын

Tconcept 2001 - The cargo securement problem has been fixed.

2:42 ummm why is the guy pissing green liquid all over the plane?

@anthonyvallillo422

5 жыл бұрын

I rather think he is washing the green chrnomate primer off the airplane preparatory to painting it...

@anthonyvallillo422

5 жыл бұрын

chromate primer..

Yes, the project is worth it. You have to figure the USAF hasn't had to develop a new boom system since the KC-10 in the 80s and KC-135 in the 50s/60s. There are bound to be developmental issues. The 767 has proven itself as a reliable commercial and cargo aircraft. And with more spare parts flying to the desert every month from retiring fleets, the KC-46 will be around for another 50 years.

@dknowles60

5 жыл бұрын

that boom from the kc 10 would have got the job done. you can buy use dc 10's for a song and have made then in to kc 10's for a very low cost

@dknowles60

5 жыл бұрын

@sentrymechanic parts are very easy to come by. lots of dc10 park in storge. fed ex abd ups has no trouble in keeping the dc 10 flying. the air force love the kc 10

@dknowles60

5 жыл бұрын

@sentrymechanic wrong. the 46 is a rape of the us tax payers. while the 767 is a good plane you can get dc 10's a lot cheaper. the 46 may be good down the road but it was a rape of the us tax payers

@dknowles60

5 жыл бұрын

@sentrymechanic ups and fed ex has no problem in rebuilding. north west airlines kept 50 year old dc 9 flying

@91_C4_FL

5 жыл бұрын

@@dknowles60 This parts argument is precisely why the 767 is the best choice. DC-10s (and MD-11s) become more scarce with each year (in the air and in the desert). FedEx and UPS are even replacing their's with 767s. You mentioned above that the KC-10 booms might be able to be reused; while I'm not an aeronautic engineer, that sounds like a decent idea. I think the KC-46 program is necessary... the F35 on the other hand...

Fantastic aircraft, the teething problems will soon come to pass & the program will be a success ✈️

@celtic1522

5 жыл бұрын

Yep just like the Dreamliner and F 35!

@u.s.patriot3415

5 жыл бұрын

@@celtic1522 engines on Dreamliner not Boeing's fault and U.S. should be using U.S. made aircraft, not foreign.

KC135s don’t fly for the army, they fly for the Air Force National Guard or ANG

@MrPopo-bd1ix

5 жыл бұрын

CessnaSkylane and Active Air Force.

@eutimiochavez415

2 жыл бұрын

That’s right do ur research army is on the ground

Fixed price contracts are the best. KC-46 didn't cost the taxpayer a dime over MSRP.

Of course it will, beside the problems, we are talking about Boeing 767 one fo the best planes ever build! =)

@nemom225

5 жыл бұрын

If only it got a NEO

They over complicate a simple task.

And yet, the KC-10 is better than both these planes.

Well as it was nowhere as good as an Airbus it was chosen because it was badly made in the US rather than well made in the US by Airbus.

An Advanced Useless Machine. Thanks McBoeing.

Hard to believe any of this when the commentator can not decide if the aircraft is going to the AF or Army.......

What is criminal is not putting the GENx2b engine on it. Engine is Sitting right there with all engineering already done. Range/payload/shortfield would have increased by at least 20% with this change alone. After the stupid government wanted some idiotic FBW boom etc without manual control like the old KC135

@dknowles60

3 жыл бұрын

The kc 10 had the best boom

KC-46A PEGASUS could become a commercial airliner for boeing however Americans love the plane plus and we do not want the airbus flying turd to refuel US Aircraft?

@charlesanzalone5846

4 жыл бұрын

The 767 isn't as fuel efficient as the 787 and 777 ,and it didn't seat enough passengers, at AA WE RETIRED ALL OF THEM AND SOON ALL THE 767-300

KC46 the tanker that the Air Forced not want. The Air Force wanted the Airbus MRTT, it had greater range, more fuel capacity,could carry more passengers, & a greater weight of cargo. Then Boeing activated it lobbyists in Washington, & Senators & Congressmen started to put obstacles in front of the MRTT. Now the KC46 has had a litany of delays, bad workmanship, it is turning into a lemon.

@johnp139

3 жыл бұрын

Idiot

Same video, different name. Monetization is ruining the KZread experience.

The corruption behind this project is amazing. It saw a congresswoman and Boeing executives go to prison.

*Air Force

Dude you can just slow down you’re talking do you couldn’t follow what you were saying because you’re talking so damn fast

Kc 777 tankers or a330 mrtt will be the good choice for us air force to fill up more planes

@johnp139

3 жыл бұрын

Have you read the 600+ requirements for this aircraft? I have.

@rashdin

2 жыл бұрын

@@johnp139 where can i get that requirement?

There's really only one word to answer the question in your title: ABSOLUTELY! The KC-46 is a god send to the USAF. And best of all it's a Boeing aircraft.

@breakingdragon22

4 жыл бұрын

This jet is a piece of crap, You have no idea.

@Tarheel13

4 жыл бұрын

breakingdragon22 who do you design aircraft for? Armchair Air?

@breakingdragon22

4 жыл бұрын

NCTarheel13 inflight refueler. Sorry to bust your bubble.

@dknowles60

3 жыл бұрын

Junk

KC-10 much better .

Of course it was worth it. The US armed forces have to have refueling aircraft. Using the B767 airframe was the right choice.

I come from the future. USAF just barred the plane from carrying cargo or passengers. Garbage ass plane.

Airbus A330 MRTT is the best but USAF must buy Americans products...

@GH-oi2jf

3 жыл бұрын

The A330 was larger than necessary. The B767 is a reliable airframe and is the right size for the specified requirements. The A330 had an edge in the beginning only because Airbus/Northrop had friends in the Pentagon. Anyway, the US Armed Forces should buy from US companies when they can.

@Sedna063

2 жыл бұрын

@@GH-oi2jf The size difference is there but it isn’t overly dramatic. And don’t forget that there is an added advantage - more fuel to give. Anyway, the A330 MRTT is done. Boeing can’t keep quality controls

I do not understand why you need 100 tankers for the Airforce. You have a lot of money to spend.

@walkertechie

5 жыл бұрын

victor nderu well with an active fleet of over 10,000 aircraft, that’s a lot of thirsty birds needing tons of fuel.

@rogerd777

5 жыл бұрын

Right now the USAF has over 400 KC-135's, & 60 KC-10's. They will all need to be replaced eventually.

@charlesanzalone5846

4 жыл бұрын

That's over decades

@johnp139

3 жыл бұрын

179

Buy american. KC-45 was a better plane, but it wasn't "american".

@rogerd777

5 жыл бұрын

The KC-45 was actually too large for the USAF's requirements. Also, we will never know how long it would have taken to build a KC-45 to the USAF's very demanding specs. The KC-45 wouldn't have been the same aircraft as an A330 MRTT any more than the KC-46 is the same aircraft as the Italy/Japan KC-767.

@Sedna063

4 жыл бұрын

@@rogerd777 How was it too large for the Air Force?

@rogerd777

4 жыл бұрын

@@Sedna063 USAF specifically wanted an aircraft with about the same footprint as the KC-135. If they wanted a larger airplane, Boeing would have bid a 777 variant instead of 767.

@Sedna063

4 жыл бұрын

@@rogerd777 I have read myself into the topic. What I see is that it was mainly the price. And I doubt that the price advantage is large enough to pay for the delays in the last years and with the huge quality control issues Boeing faces. In the end, it is a done deal. Next we wait for the KC10 replacement. Airbus teams with Lockheed, the KC10 is around the identical size to the A330 so that would make it a suitable replacement indeed. Unless they will take a 777 variant.

Boeing is truly a aviation leader.

@Niven355

5 жыл бұрын

Mate boeing are shit

@mytree3979

5 жыл бұрын

@@Niven355 I think everyone has his own opinion so do not say that! 😊😑

@lyonrambo1789

5 жыл бұрын

ima fire ma lazer prove it

@nemom225

5 жыл бұрын

Ima fire lazer if Boeing is bad then everything else in the industry must crash on takeoff

@lyonrambo1789

5 жыл бұрын

NemoM22 Locust good explanation Boeing have been over 100 years in business.

Every plane is a deathtrap !!!!!!!

Boeing keep producing flying crap lately

@johnp139

3 жыл бұрын

Idiot

Finally USAF are modernizing it's fleet after long time sticking with older planes that is nothing but a waste for taxpayers

Nope.....the USAF should have gone with the Airbus MRTT.

@johnp139

3 жыл бұрын

Why?

@camf7522

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnp139 .. it’s a superior product based on a more modern aircraft and the USAF would have had the operational capability earlier. Apart from that my understanding is the MRTT won the original tender, but due to interference from someone on the tender evaluation team having a conflict of interest and Boeing’s influence over the US government the contract was awarded to Boeing.

Should have kept the Airbus order

@johnp139

3 жыл бұрын

There was no “order”, moron.

Pice of crap. The of 10 could have been done for 90 percent less

@dknowles60

5 жыл бұрын

@sentrymechanic wrong.

@dknowles60

5 жыл бұрын

@sentrymechanic how young are you. north west air lines reruilt very old dc9's. delta is now geting around to retireing then. a tanker does not fly much any way's. hint the dc3 is geting close to 100 years old and it still flys. the 767 is over 200 million per plane. you can get a use dc 10 for under 1 million per plane

@dknowles60

5 жыл бұрын

@sentrymechanic i am a lot older 91 ww2 vet. back then we did not have companys like boeing raping the tax payers. the us made companys earn the right to sell their stuf to the us tax payers

@dknowles60

5 жыл бұрын

@sentrymechanic wrong. like i said its a rape of the tax payers. unless i wrong a tanker i use to worked on then when i was in the air force but most of us tax payers can not see. now boeing dont make the jet turbins. who makes the boom a c46 up close. a tanker is jets turbins . body. and who makes the the boon. boeing is working on geting rid of the 767. why would not the 777 do it better. what make it worth over 400 milliom and dont tell me and thing you can not tell. as a air force vet i know there are not some thing you can not say. what is wrong with the a330. we know it works

@raptorshootingsystems3379

5 жыл бұрын

dknowles60 The DC10 has a cycle life due to be pressurized. The DC3 is not pressurized and therefore does not have the airframe stresses that any pressurized aircraft does. The reason the military needed new aircraft is that tankers do fly a lot of hours and the KC135 and KC10 are approaching end of life especially following extensive use supporting combat operations.

We can see all the Airbus losers here because they did not get the big contract to build their shitty Airbus A330-POS shit of tankers that coppied the Boeing KC-46! Airbus Sucks The Big Dick and loses!