Jump to content


Photo

Boeing Delivers First Kc-46


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,413 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 1026 AM

...sort of. Apparently the aircraft still has a list of defects to be corrected.

 

https://www.defensen...ill-years-away/


  • 0

#2 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,544 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 11 January 2019 - 1037 AM

Would it be terribly unfair of me to note that the worst defect is that its not built by Airbus? :)


  • 0

#3 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,413 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 1057 AM

Well, the USAF did originally select the Airbus product...


  • 0

#4 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,413 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 1059 AM

And it's been said "How can Boeing screw up what is essentially a 30-year old airframe design with a refuelling package installed"?


  • 0

#5 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,544 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 11 January 2019 - 1116 AM

Exactly.

 

And Boeing pretty much invented the jet powered  tanker. Its hardly new ground for them.


  • 0

#6 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nemui

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,708 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko da?!
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 11 January 2019 - 1203 PM

JASDF is waiting...
  • 0

#7 bfng3569

bfng3569

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 1234 PM

well, considering it cant refuel an A-10, sounds like they did what they were told......


  • 0

#8 Calvinb1nav

Calvinb1nav

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 527 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lexington, SC
  • Interests:military and aviation history, wargaming, shooting, travel, geography

Posted 11 January 2019 - 1720 PM

But hey, it still has a better RWR than the entire USAF Viper, F-15C/E, or A-10 fleets...


Edited by Calvinb1nav, 11 January 2019 - 1723 PM.

  • 0

#9 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,382 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2019 - 1813 PM

I'm baffled as to why the specifications required the RVS and elimination of aft operator position prior to making sure it's exactly what they wanted.   Why wouldn't they have hedged their bets and include the aft position, but make it optionally manned pending maturity of the RVS?


  • 0

#10 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,413 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 1824 PM

Did the specs require a RVS or was that Boeing's design decision? IIRC, The KC-10 doesn't have an aft position.


  • 0

#11 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,874 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 11 January 2019 - 1833 PM

Are there operations reasons why an aft operator is not required? Given the issues and hazards, I'd think a man in the middle of that would be most ideal.


  • 0

#12 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,413 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 1837 PM

Supposedly, technology has made the "aft mounted boom operator" unnecessary. Kind of like moving the B-52 tail gunner from the tail to the forward compartment.


  • 0

#13 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,874 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 11 January 2019 - 1901 PM

Hmm. I think if I have an option, I'd rather have a direct view of something supplemented by cameras/LCDs over just a camera/LCD view.

I'd be curious to see what operators who've done both locations say.

I guess there's probably something to be said to being able to be up in the front cockpit though.


  • 0

#14 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,382 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2019 - 1903 PM

Supposedly, technology has made the "aft mounted boom operator" unnecessary. Kind of like moving the B-52 tail gunner from the tail to the forward compartment.


That reminds me of the "Battle of Palmdale" where USAF interceptors attempted to shoot down an out of control F6 Hellcat training drone they feared was heading towards a populated area.    The F-89 Scorpions had a new automatic fire control system for their unguided rockets.... so the gunsights were removed because they were unnecessary.  When the system failed and the rockets wouldn't be released by the fire control computer, they attempted manually aiming without gunsights with predictably poor results, and causing all kinds of collateral damage including some UXOs, while the drone ran out of gas and crashed essentially harmlessly in the desert.  Mind you, it's mildly concerting not because the whole situation was a bit face-palmy in hindsight, but these were expected to be the point defense against strategic bombers penetrating into US airspace, so... sleep well at night!

Or, guns are unnecessary for the F-4 because missiles render them obsolete...  not hedging bets is sometimes penny wise and pound foolish, though I suppose everything is clearer in hindsight.


Edited by Burncycle360, 11 January 2019 - 1911 PM.

  • 0

#15 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,592 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 2312 PM

And it's been said "How can Boeing screw up what is essentially a 30-year old airframe design with a refuelling package installed"?

The same way Sikorsky failed to build a ASW Helicopter using a proven airframe without great anguish, pain and mistakes.  


  • 0

#16 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,114 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 12 January 2019 - 0313 AM

Skill and practice.


  • 0

#17 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,544 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 12 January 2019 - 0313 AM

 

Supposedly, technology has made the "aft mounted boom operator" unnecessary. Kind of like moving the B-52 tail gunner from the tail to the forward compartment.

That reminds me of the "Battle of Palmdale" where USAF interceptors attempted to shoot down an out of control F6 Hellcat training drone they feared was heading towards a populated area.    The F-89 Scorpions had a new automatic fire control system for their unguided rockets.... so the gunsights were removed because they were unnecessary.  When the system failed and the rockets wouldn't be released by the fire control computer, they attempted manually aiming without gunsights with predictably poor results, and causing all kinds of collateral damage including some UXOs, while the drone ran out of gas and crashed essentially harmlessly in the desert.  Mind you, it's mildly concerting not because the whole situation was a bit face-palmy in hindsight, but these were expected to be the point defense against strategic bombers penetrating into US airspace, so... sleep well at night!

Or, guns are unnecessary for the F-4 because missiles render them obsolete...  not hedging bets is sometimes penny wise and pound foolish, though I suppose everything is clearer in hindsight.

 

 

I think it may have been in that Tom Clancy book 'Every Man a Tiger' where they related an amusing incident. Supposedly they had put in the F4 a new computer for dive toss attacks if I remember rightly. They were getting reports of high accuracy with the system, and the Pentagon was very happy with it. As it turned out, and I forget what triggered the discovery, it turned out that it was a failed bit of equipment that never gave anything like the results promised of it. So because their superiors were expecting good results, they turned it off and did the attacks manually. :D

 

You wonder how many problems in Vietnam were caused by that kind of mindset.


  • 0

#18 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,855 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 12 January 2019 - 0953 AM

And solved by men doing what the whiz-bang gizmos couldn't.

----

The original KC-10s had a boomer who had a chair!  Has the position been removed?  Probe and drogue doesn't require an operator, but that's almost anathema for the zoomies. 


  • 0

#19 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,345 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 12 January 2019 - 1124 AM

A330MRTT boom operator seat is in the cockpit with rest of crew.


  • 0

#20 Kenneth P. Katz

Kenneth P. Katz

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,667 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Longmeadow, MA, United States of America
  • Interests:Miltary history and technology, flying, wargaming

Posted 23 January 2019 - 0703 AM

The RVS smacks of a solution to a non-existent problem.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users