KC-46 Tail hook landing

[Sculprit]

These new tankers really can’t catch a break.
KC-46 makes emergency landing

 

[Minuteman]

can’t catch a break.

Reminder that Boeing sleazed this tanker gig away from the already-done Airbus deal.

They should be given no latitude for screw-ups.

 

[Skåning]

What an abhorrent waste of tax payer money.

 

[ChasenSFO]

Got to tour one at the Travis AFB show recently and chatted a bit with the boom operator. They are really not fans of how this boom operated compared to the KC10/135...they made some valid points about using a camera vs being there with a real sense of depth and whatnot in the back of the bus. Do the A330 tankers also use that system or do they have a traditional boom?

 

[BobDDuck]

Obviously the weight of all of the paint on the tail caused the boom to tip out.

 

[MikeD]

The USAF is retiring KC-10s at a fast rate, which is odd because they are far newer and far more capable than the KC-135s that they are keeping. And with an outstanding safety record. Of the 60 KC-10s produced, only one was lost in a maintenance ground fire at Barksdale AFB in the 1980s. Currently of the remaining fleet of 59, the 20th one has arrived to the boneyard here for storage, leaving 39 in the fleet. The KC-10 is longer range, carries more cargo and does it more efficiently, and has better air refueling capabilities as it has both its flying boom as well as an extendable drogue to accommodate both refueling styles. A few current R model KC-135s have been retired to the boneyard, but there aren’t many of the older A/E model -135s around as those have been scrapped. Those R models may have nice CFM engines and modern avionics on them, but they’re still late 1950s to mid 1960s airframes.

 

[Murdoughnut]

The USAF is retiring KC-10s at a fast rate, which is odd because they are far newer and far more capable than the KC-135s that they are keeping. And with an outstanding safety record. Of the 60 KC-10s produced, only one was lost in a maintenance ground fire at Barksdale AFB in the 1980s. Currently of the remaining fleet of 59, the 20th one has arrived to the boneyard here for storage, leaving 39 in the fleet. The KC-10 is longer range, carries more cargo and does it more efficiently, and has better air refueling capabilities as it has both its flying boom as well as an extendable drogue to accommodate both refueling styles. A few current R model KC-135s have been retired to the boneyard, but there aren’t many of the older A/E model -135s around as those have been scrapped. Those R models may have nice CFM engines and modern avionics on them, but they’re still late 1950s to mid 1960s airframes.

You forgot that the -10 is also way cooler

 

[MikeD]

You forgot that the -10 is also way cooler

It’s easier to air refuel off of, that’s for sure. Even in planes that are somewhat of a pain in the butt for the receiver such as the B-1 and A-10.

 

[///AMG]

Yeah that decision never made sense to me. Was it a matter of commonality with E-3/E-6/E-8 on some level, that was more cost effective for the DoD? KC-10 being an oddball and all

 

[inigo88]

That landing looked like an ok 3 wire to me!

 

[Burrito]

It’s easier to air refuel off of, that’s for sure. Even in planes that are somewhat of a pain in the butt for the receiver such as the B-1 and A-10.

A few years ago, I'd see the A-10s that came up this way from MD. They REALLY preferred doing air refueling missions with KC-10s over the -135s from the 134th or 157th ARW. A bit odd, since the Maine and NH ANG didn't operate the KC-10. Gonna have to do some homework and see if VT or NY would come up this way to drill with them, but I definitely agree: the KC-10 beats the 135.

 

[NovemberEcho]

A few years ago, I'd see the A-10s that came up this way from MD. They REALLY preferred doing air refueling missions with KC-10s over the -135s from the 134th or 157th ARW. A bit odd, since the Maine and NH ANG didn't operate the KC-10. Gonna have to do some homework and see if VT or NY would come up this way to drill with them, but I definitely agree: the KC-10 beats the 135.

Tanker guard units go all over pretty regularly. They’re not really tied to their state or state units.

 

[Lawman]

Yeah that decision never made sense to me. Was it a matter of commonality with E-3/E-6/E-8 on some level, that was more cost effective for the DoD? KC-10 being an oddball and all

Avionics upgrade that would have been required to operate in EUCOM.

Somehow the money people used that as the motivator to get it when cut when the Air Force was talking about killing something big in the form of a whole MWS like B1 or Hawg.

And everybody knows you can’t actually retire the Hawg.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MikeD]

Yeah that decision never made sense to me. Was it a matter of commonality with E-3/E-6/E-8 on some level, that was more cost effective for the DoD? KC-10 being an oddball and all

E-3 and E-8 are being retired to the boneyard too.

Avionics upgrade that would have been required to operate in EUCOM.

Somehow the money people used that as the motivator to get it when cut when the Air Force was talking about killing something big in the form of a whole MWS like B1 or Hawg.

And everybody knows you can’t actually retire the Hawg.

Made me chuckle seeing the Hog brethren of mine when Ukraine didn’t want Hogs the CSAF hinted on offering.

 

[Falcon262]

The USAF is retiring KC-10s at a fast rate, which is odd because they are far newer and far more capable than the KC-135s that they are keeping. And with an outstanding safety record. Of the 60 KC-10s produced, only one was lost in a maintenance ground fire at Barksdale AFB in the 1980s. Currently of the remaining fleet of 59, the 20th one has arrived to the boneyard here for storage, leaving 39 in the fleet. The KC-10 is longer range, carries more cargo and does it more efficiently, and has better air refueling capabilities as it has both its flying boom as well as an extendable drogue to accommodate both refueling styles. A few current R model KC-135s have been retired to the boneyard, but there aren’t many of the older A/E model -135s around as those have been scrapped. Those R models may have nice CFM engines and modern avionics on them, but they’re still late 1950s to mid 1960s airframes.

Here in Greensboro, NC HAECO has been refurbishing the KC-10 for over the last 10 years.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

Reminder that Boeing sleazed this tanker gig away from the already-done Airbus deal.

Kinda.

It’s fairer to say that the sleaze killed the first KC-767A deal in which Boeing won, unopposed. So, Boeing won and forfeited.

After that, sleaze wasn’t an issue as the program was under close scrutiny. In fact, it was a sins of the father situation when Northrop Grumman + EADS successfully challenged the RFP. The Pentagon made compromises and lowered the bar for the Northrup Grumman + EADS entry.

Consequently, the Airbus tanker won the competition only to be challenged by Boeing in a legal and political fight. Some of Boeing’s claims were pretty legit.

Boeing is given credit for the hardball political win but most folks forget the other factors at play. As a result of a reduction in the number of aircraft in the bid, Northrup Grumman dropped out. EADS stayed in the competition but without an American partner, support waned.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

The USAF is retiring KC-10s at a fast rate, which is odd because they are far newer and far more capable than the KC-135s that they are keeping.

Boeing has the ability to poison the well regarding its enthusiasm to continue to support the aircraft. It’s not like the Boeing KC-10 team is handing out the best swag.