The Good News about the KC-46 Tanker
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.ค. 2021
- The Boeing-built KC-46 tanker is a military version of the 767 commercial aircraft. 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 KC-46A will be able to refuel any fixed-wing receiver capable aircraft on any mission. This aircraft is equipped with a modernized KC-10 refueling boom integrated with proven fly-by-wire control system and delivering a fuel offload rate required for large aircraft. In addition, the hose and drogue system adds additional mission capability that is independently operable from the refueling boom system.
Other videos you might like:
1 Battle Made the F-15E Feared around the World ► • 1 Battle Made the F-15...
The World's Fastest Jet the USA Ever Built ► • SR-71 Blackbird: World...
Nothing Seems to Fight America’s Aircraft Carriers ► • Nothing Seems to Fight...
🔔 SUBSCRIBE TO US ► th-cam.com/users/USMilitaryN...
Thank You - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
> 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.
DONT SON,JUST REMEMBER NEVER FLY TO AFGHANISTAN.
Very cool! I saw them do test flights from KBFI Boeing field near Seattle the last time I was there
Cana kc46 go backwards like the C5?
The dumbest thing about this aircraft is putting the boomer up front and relying on a camera system.
You should see all the fly-by-wire hardware for the boom.
There are advantages to doing it remotely. Cameras can get a better view than an operator looking out the back.
@@GH-oi2jf You can still have cameras, but nothing beats a set of eyeballs looking out back.
@@AlaskaErikmodern technology
Meanwhile the A330 MRTT delivers 30% more fuel on 50% more range to all military aircraft capable of inflight refuelling since many years now.
It is important to have industry in the states... but we should have invested in making the product better.
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.
The A330 equivalent is the KC10. Not the KC135. Different animals/missions.
@@Rocketsong It absolutely has airframe problems too! FODs...
ALOSIS IS SAVAN KRIANGKING
Another second hand aircraft selection for a Air to air tanker. And its a Boeing. Good luck . The USAF is going to need it.
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
@@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…..
@@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.
@@GH-oi2jf So that experienced work force knew where to leave all their tools and debris? Not their best moments.
@@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.
I wonder if the USAF regrets selecting this aircraft over the KC-45 (Airbus A330 MRTT).
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.
Everyone has regrets, many many ones.
@@thesupermaninthecloud6856 You’ve never spent one second serving your Country yet you criticize it. Real tough guy.
Why would they? The A330 MRTT is not a suitable replacement for the KC-135 -- regardless of Boeing's missteps.
@@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.
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.
Thanks. Nice to know.
Good Job Guys
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
U R right... Like that phrase " if it's not broken don't fix it"
@@henryzenke949 You ae right !!!! Why change something that has worked for decades ??? Just to sell something more expensive ???
An example is the A-10.
Cuz
Just because something isn't broke doesn't mean it can't be improved
And there is a good chance that the next contract will be for more KC-46 aircraft
Talks about General VanOvost, shows a picture of her when she was a Colonel.
Remember when Boeing wasn't a joke? I do.
Sad isn't it? Too much attention to shareholders at the expense of their over customers and product.
@@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
Boeing went downhill, once McDonnell Douglas merged with them.
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.
@@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.
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...
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?"
Excellent
Good news? So they are buying the cheaper, more capable and readily available Airbus KC-45 offer?
The KC-45 was not chper. The GAO debunked that.
The KC-46 is less expensive over the life of the aircraft because of lower operating costs.
Is it true that the sheet metal skin on the tanker version is twice The thickness that of the civilian model?
No lighting system possible either on the boom or retractable on the receiver?
Good news
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.
The US Air Force takes care of its aircraft.
Thanks Sam. 👍 🇺🇸
The KC-46 is a beautiful airplane. I think the B767 had the best proportions of all the Boeing jetliners.
This is a great aircraft, based on the venerable 767. I’m sure they will work through the remaining difficulties.
We always do.
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.
Blame congress. They could have pushed for Airbus to built 100% in USA but no... Better feed a company that had the inferior product.
They should produce new KC135's
Except that the tooling to make KC-135s is LONG gone, simply not going to happen.
@@kirkmooneyham and 4 engine planes are on their way out
The old planes are wearing out and parts-especially engines- are monstrously expensive. 4 engines on the 135. 2 on the 46.
I think the military prefers having four engines then just two
When 1of rye 2 go out … you have a problem
Its a Boeing? WOW, you are brave!
Sure are a lot of KC-46 experts in here…
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.
@@88Mobius - The problems with this aircraft have been minor. Consider the Lockheed C-5 transport, which needed new wings.
Yeah, I'd be curious to know how many have even seen a -46 in real life, much less flown on one.
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 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.
It was larger than the USAF original requirements. Then they changed the requirements.
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.
NO to Airbus...Look around and see what happens when you outsource your supply chain!
Go forward, America! Long live the Nato! Long live freedom! Down with all dictatorships and terrorists all around the world! Best wishes from Germany!
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!!!
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?
Our next tanker needs to come up with a stealth tanker.... One Idea is turn the B-1 into tanker
The B-1 is not stealth.
@@troywalker8078 ... and way too thirsty. It will be half empty after takeoff.
DO WHATEVER NEEDS DONE BUT DONT COME /FLY TO AFGHANISTAN,THEY LIKE TO SHATTER WESTERN ASSES
@@thepropmachines1042 - Afghanistan had better behave itself. If they become a threat to the United States again, they will be attacked again.
@@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
So its a glare issue....that should be pretty fixable with a polarizing filter....why would that take so long to fix?
You've never been in the military or dealt with the government procurement system have you?
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.
James...YET ANOTHER CHANNEL...wow...how many?
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.
"Welcome back everybody, today we're flying the KC-46..."
Does Boing build anything that works?
No
You guys act like airbus aircraft doesn’t have problems too 😂🤦🏻♂️
@@aviationphu9603 Who said anything about Airbus? BOING is a national disgrace!
@@larrykstanley - Poor spelling skills is a national disgrace.
@@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.
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.
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.
drogue's so much slower no one likes using it
@@nola3864 but not as dangerous as the probe especially in turbulent air.
@@billotto602 Trust me probe is better.. lmfao
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.
I saw one of these land at an AFB not far from me
US . Militray . Power 🇺🇸
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
9:19Rolex US
As long as they park at a fuel pit and or you can multi source them I’ll be happy -POL troop
Bad News for the KC135 and KC10 as they will be replace
What? Boeing is producing buggy, unready, overpriced and underperforming systems? Unpossible!
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.
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.
@@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.
@@ariochiv Boeing Defence over promise and under deliver, at least that has been my experience.
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 !!
How would have it not had the same problem? All the problems are with the virtual reality remote refueling system the Air Force specified.
is this the guy from watop?
I literally searched for this comment. It sounds EXACTLY like him
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.
It is mostly ready. The boom system is being reworked.
Don't forget. The US Air force is looking to contract some of it's mid air refueling services to private companies.
They already do.
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.
JUST SIXTH BEST ,THERES A PROBLEM WHITH THIS ,OVER SPEND HOW MUCH .
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 !
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.
@@GH-oi2jf Which were changed after Airbus won the contract.
Heyyyy i saw some 157th footage in there. PSM represent!
🙏🤝🙏
They passed on reverse thrust capable engines also… big mistake in the long run.
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?
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 ! 💀🇺🇸
If I remember correctly a couple of the ones I worked on were built in 57.
@@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.
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.
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 !!!
@@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.
@@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 !!!
@@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!
ayyyy its watop
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.
Ask a drogue operator how realistic that is. Hint... Its not.
Seems like computers should be able to do lots of things humans can do, yet they still don't do many of those things.
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻
Why do they have to over-engineer everything? They've had what...75 plus years to develop aerial refueling technology?
Should have modified retired MD-11s
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.
Read the GAO report.
WATOP, is that you?
I wanna know who is the narrator?
Its WATOP.
@@lofidocs1155 Who is WATOP!
Is he just a professional Narrator?
Kurzgesagt has one.
god bless boe*ng.!.
Is this the same guy that dose WATOP
What a totally unnecessary mod putting the boom operator up front when they were fine in a boompod
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.
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.
@@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.
There are two workstations from which to operate the boom, so there is some redundancy.
@@Turboy65 The large window in the KC-10 is a structural weakness.
Boeing blows. Between this, Starliner, Air Force One, and the 737 MAX, idk which is the biggest dumpster fire.
You do understand that airbus has a higher accident record then Boeing right.
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.
Don’t forget the 787’s teething problems. They seem to have an issue of over promising.
You forgot SLS which may not survive past first test launch.
The MAX fire is out. Those aircraft are in service.
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.
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.
@@JohnSmith-zi9or I appreciate the thoughts you have. It is such a loss.
WATOP voice 🤔
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
"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.
At least it isn’t an Airbus
Why is the a-10 never on the Aircraft carrier
No arresting hock?
No arresting hook, the wings don't fold, and the landing gear would have to be completely redesigned.
Oh
Name everything but the BRRRThog..... typical air force PC
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 ?
crazy that say screwed up this boom system and unable to fix it.....what a technological disaster....
It will be fixed, and it is hardly a “disaster.” That’s hyperbole.
Boeing invented the boom refueling system…how did they screw this up?
They let the McDonnell managers take charge and the bean counters screwed up what was once a reputable company.
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!!!
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.
@@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.
@@henryzenke949 You are wrong. The KC767 has a remote air refueling station. No boom pod.
@@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....
@@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.
so the pilot is probably or named casey aged 46, female?
If it were possible you need a nuclear miniature powered engine for the jet planes that doesn't need refueling for 20 years.
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.
@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.”
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.
I was hoping this was about the cancellation of the program…. :(
Are you French?
What a fiasco. Yea. Load it up with a lot of high-tech, high maintenance, and questionable reliability electronics vs. an electro mechanical system controlled by the eyes of the boom operator. And besides, the boom operator has to use his eyes even looking at these screens. I'm sure there will be lots of medals and awards in this DEI woke USAF.
damn i tought i was gonna be first ;(
Your always first until you REFRESH. 🤣
Fubar starting from the original corrupted contract process -----How do you F-up a tanker ?!?!?
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?
See you later.
Boeing is actually good at designing critical deficiencies.
The problems this aircraft has had are not exceptional for new military systems. They will be corrected.
A Boeing aircraft has technical issues. Who would have thought.
Every major piece of military equipment has technical issues. The Ford class aircraft carriers had technical issues. They get worked out.
@@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.
So the green things it's dong?
If they come with a fuel that didn't take up space then refueling size wouldn't matter
Boom is stiff, stalls at the speed required for C-130s and A-10s, can't go on alert due to OBIGGS taking an hour or 2 unless waivered, RVS is trash, latrine leaks, can't fly if an engine goes out since there are only 2, requires manual input and reset after each individual receiver taking more time than necessary.....
“Good news” would be that the program is cancelled. It’s an over-priced, bug-ridden, under-performing embarrassment.
Got that Airbus stock, huh?
@@kirkmooneyham You don't need stocks to see the better aircraft.
@@Sedna063, I'd love to know what sort of experience you have with the KC-46, that you can make that claim.
@@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
@@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.
Great video! It’s good to hear the real information instead of the liberal media BS! Thanks.
What is the good news?
That they will gift me one?🤔