Nick underscore
Member
Not just Asia, USAAF recently deployed a detachment of F-22's to Poland related to Ukrainian crisis. Effective message to some degree
USAF News and Discussion
- Thread starter RobWilliams
- Start date
Point taken.
..and previously F-22s and B-2s giving pause to Pyongyang. Then there's that Raptor pilot with a Maverick moment, toying with an Iranian F-4 and telling it's oblivious pilot "best to,go home" or words to,that effect..
airwingspotter
New Member
I recall RAF Fairford got B52 and B2 presence during the initial Ukrainian crises ! kind of USAF show of force in europe area.
DaveC
DaveC
Curious comment. Why would an IRST offer a 'look first' capability during a 'merge'? All aircraft will be in visual range during such short ranged activities...
Super Hornet Tests New Infrared Air to Air Targeting Sensor - USNI News
I don't know if "Merge" is quite right as the technical term here, but leading up to to being inside visual range, you can see the general idea in the article above.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #28
The USAFs next generation tanker has made her maiden flight today.
The USAF's KC-46 Pegasus Tanker Finally Takes Flight
The latter is from the same source about when she was caught doing high speed taxi runs yesterday.
Exclusive: Meet*The USAF's Long Awaited*KC-46A Pegasus Tanker*
The USAF ultimately wants 179 of these, first production deliveries are due to start early 2016 with 18 to be delivered by August 2017.
If I've understood things properly, the KC-46 is down to replace the KC-135, but there's 400+ of the latter in their inventory?
EDIT: just reading about the procurement strategy, KC-X, KC-Y and KC-Z, very interesting.
The USAF's KC-46 Pegasus Tanker Finally Takes Flight
The latter is from the same source about when she was caught doing high speed taxi runs yesterday.
Exclusive: Meet*The USAF's Long Awaited*KC-46A Pegasus Tanker*
The USAF ultimately wants 179 of these, first production deliveries are due to start early 2016 with 18 to be delivered by August 2017.
If I've understood things properly, the KC-46 is down to replace the KC-135, but there's 400+ of the latter in their inventory?
EDIT: just reading about the procurement strategy, KC-X, KC-Y and KC-Z, very interesting.
Last edited:
Yep absolutely, but the previous poster seemed to be opining that the presence of a forward looking IRST would be an advantage during a turning WVR fight...
I don't think anyone here seriously thinks a forward looking IRST sensor provides 'first look first shot' capability in comparison to an APG-77 AESA radar (I hope!)
Which is why I found it a peculiar comment...
Why do I get the feeling that the USAF would have been happier with the KC-30?
In service with allies already, larger, more capable, previously selected by the USAF, better value for money.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #31
Well there seems to be *some* belief online that there is a chance for the KC-30 simply due to the current projected numbers for the KC-46 and the current fleet size it's replacing.
It probably comes down to how much Northrop Grumman wants to push it.
It probably comes down to how much Northrop Grumman wants to push it.
The USAF wanted Boeing all along. The initial attempt to replace the KC-135s with leased Boeing aircraft got caught up in a scandal that saw a Pentagon employee and a Boeing employee go to jail. The procurement then got caught up in a complex web of special interests complicated by an out of control John McCain and a DOD staff that was angry at Boeing and wanted to steer the procurement to Airbus. Boeing, which has very strong support on Capitol Hill, fought back and managed to beat off McCain and the DOD staff that was antagonistic to it. The USAF, all along, wanted Boeing and finally got their way. I doubt seriously that the Pentagon element that wanted Airbus could ever have gotten that procurement through the US House or the Senate, for that matter.
Whether the KC-30 is more capable than the KC-46 is a question that is arguable. The USAF will says it isn't.
Well considering the number of air forces that don't have a nationalistic interest in either manufacturer that have selected new strategic tankers in the last decade or so have pretty much all selected the Airbus. Also in spite of the USs traditional preference for a local product and it was only after political interference (not to mention a rewriting of the specification to specifically favour the 767 and disregard the strengths of the A330) that the original decision in favour of the KC-30 was overturned.
The other factor is how many commercial airlines are buying 767s these days? The A330 is still selling and so is the 777, it screams to the cynical (such as myself) that the only reason the 767 was ever considered was a politically motivated form of economic stimulus, specifically targeted to keep the 767 line going following, first the downturn in airliner sales following 9/11, then the GFC.
It was rumoured that what the USAF was actually after, before politics and industrial life support took precedence, was a smaller faster, tactical tanker, that would also go on to replace the KC-135 / 707 airframe in most if not all of its various specialist roles such as ELINT, AEW&C, specialist ISR etc. the sort of missions the 737 is falling into now, or the -135 is being life extended for.
Other air forces bought the KC-30 because there was no US alternative. The US was mired in a years long squabble between the DOD, USAF, Congress and the courts. In essence, there was no alternative to the KC-30. That doesn't make it superior to the KC-46.
Your "rumors" about the USAF wanting a smaller, faster tanker are erroneous. The USAF never wanted that.
The 767 was selected (with 787 displays and upgraded PW engines) because it is a proven freighter with many cost advantages. Often overlooked is that the USAF really likes the KC-10 refueling boom/system.
It will be interesting to see which tanker South Korea and Poland choose.
Italy selected the KC-767 in 2002 and Japan in 2003, all aircraft have been delivered and are currently in full service, so is very much a contemporary to the KC-30.
The USAF project is an evolution of this design which was also the subject of the original planned lease deal that was delayed by questions on its value for money (sorted out by a compromise buy / lease deal) then derailed by corruption claims when it was discovered that not only had inappropriate (corrupt) negotiations taken place but the A330 tanker design was a better fit to the specification than the Boeing KC-767A.
The smaller faster tactical tanker was being speculated about in specialist aviation and defence publications pre 9/11. The discussion, as I recall, was of a mix of large strategic tanker transports and smaller faster, more survivable, tactical tankers. It was discussion and speculation not a requirement or specification and disappeared altogether once the lease deal for 100 KC-767As was announced following the 9/11 attacks and the damage done to Boeings order books.
.
The KC-767 is hardly the KC-46a.
Speculation in trade publications is hardly the same as USAF desires, needs or requirements. One shouldn't equate speculation in trade publications, most often by people with an agenda or a product to sell, with the USAF requirements process.
But the KC-767 is certainly an alternative to the A330 MRTT. The development problems & delays which the Japanese & Italian models had, particularly the wing pod problems of the Italian variant, have all been solved. Thanks to the USAF selection of KC-46 & the large civilian fleet, any buyer of the KC-767 knows it'll not have an orphan aircraft. But even so, there's been no sale of a new-build 767 tanker to anyone except the USAF (a highly politicised choice) since 2003, while there have been six sales of the A330 MRTT, & it's been selected in five other cases (including twice by the same country).
Untrue. As Volkodav said - & see above.
Different times. The A330 MRTT wasn't ready then. Airbus had never built a boom. The KC-767 should have won on its merits, but Boeing & the USAF jointly ran such a crooked process that once it came out, it wasn't politically possible to go through with the purchase except via re-competing - & by the time that was done, the A330 MRTT was ready to compete, & won on its merits, until the political fix went in, changing the requirement to favour the 767, as Volkodav said.
Poland has chosen A330 MRTT, in a consortium with Norway & the Netherlands. They want four between them. Announced 19th December.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Didn't EADs promise a U.S. production line for the MRTT if there bid was successful? The Pacific pivot should favour a larger tanker especially considering that the USAF likes their large KC-10s. A KC-777 or KC-747-8F would have been interesting but perhaps unaffordable.
The KC-10 was actually selected over a 747 based option back in the 70s. I agree that 747, 777 and of course the A330 based tankers would be closer to the KC-10 the USAF likes than the KC-46 so who knows what will happen with future buys. Hopefully it wouldn't be too expensive or risky to migrate systems designed for the KC-46 to the 777, which ironically would vindicate the original KC-30 selection.
Indeed they did.
Good point. Perhaps the biggest selling point of KC-45 was that being bigger, it could deliver more fuel at longer ranges than KC-46, & if it was wanted by the customer, additional tanks could be fitted in the cargo hold to increase that advantage - though AFAIK no A330 MRTT has shown any interest in that option, so it's not been developed beyond the concept stage.