Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Seems both have offloaded a significant chunk of their defence investment to a larger neighbour and ally. I guess we will see if this even remains a viable option in the coming decades...
USAF News and Discussion
- Thread starter RobWilliams
- Start date
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
WRT to Canada, our biggest threat may be an unstable US. A significant defence investment won’t help should this occur. In any event increased investment is unlikely beyond what is already planned and our debt problems may effect existing plans.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Interesting observation about Raptors deployed to the ME. While stealth may be impaired, it is unclear as to what extent the stealth coatings are damaged. As the article points out, the stealth capability is variable depending on missions. Hopefully the determination on how stealthy the F-22 has to be is very carefully considered due to the limited and irreplaceable number of Raptors the USAF has. Certainly would be interesting to know how much better the F-35 stealth surfaces stand up in harsh conditions.
theaviationist.com
F-22 Appears To Be Covered By Dust After About One Month Into Deployment To The Middle East
Pretty interesting photos show at least one Raptor with dust/sand deposits on most of its upper surfaces. A dozen U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors belonging to
theaviationist.com
When I was in the navy we always did a freshwater washdown when we returned back to home port as a preventative maintenance measure. It helped to reduce rust. Maybe the USAF will have to consider something similar when the F-22 operate in or near the sand pit.Interesting observation about Raptors deployed to the ME. While stealth may be impaired, it is unclear as to what extent the stealth coatings are damaged. As the article points out, the stealth capability is variable depending on missions. Hopefully the determination on how stealthy the F-22 has to be is very carefully considered due to the limited and irreplaceable number of Raptors the USAF has. Certainly would be interesting to know how much better the F-35 stealth surfaces stand up in harsh conditions.
F-22 Appears To Be Covered By Dust After About One Month Into Deployment To The Middle East
Pretty interesting photos show at least one Raptor with dust/sand deposits on most of its upper surfaces. A dozen U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors belonging to
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
….maybe really big ziploc bags. Seriously, I imagine this sand/dust mixture is in the air almost constantly. Flying through it must be very abrasive on stealth surfaces.
And therein lies the problem. If there is a wind blowing fine sand and dirt particles will be entrained in the air flow. Dust will be ever present and easily transported to higher altitudes in rising air during the day. It will act as a very fine abrasive when encountered at high speed. When you have higher wind velocities larger particles are entrained in the airflow. Then you get the sand / dust storms.
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
The are no photos taken on the ground of this runway excursion, but this is undoubtly a very expensive incident.
www.defensenews.com
Old, weak landing gear springs led to a B-2’s $10M skid off the runway
The B-2's pilots fought to keep the bomber centered on the runway as the landing gear collapsed, but it ultimately skidded onto the grass.
www.defensenews.com
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
If the Congress approves the idea, it would send all but three Block 20 Raptors to the “boneyard” at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson, Arizona, and shrink the overall fleet from 186 to 153 fighters.
This is not only a cost saving measure, but these stored F-22s can also be used for robbing spare parts to keep the active F-22s serviceable.
www.defensenews.com
This is not only a cost saving measure, but these stored F-22s can also be used for robbing spare parts to keep the active F-22s serviceable.
Air Force wants to send Tyndall’s F-22 jets to the boneyard
The jets and their crews have been in limbo since Hurricane Michael hit the base in 2018.
www.defensenews.com
I can see Congress resisting this. They'll be stubborn about this just like they have been with the A-10. One or two Congress critters will get a bee in their bonnet about it and they'll still be arguing about it in ten years time.If the Congress approves the idea, it would send all but three Block 20 Raptors to the “boneyard” at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson, Arizona, and shrink the overall fleet from 186 to 153 fighters.
This is not only a cost saving measure, but these stored F-22s can also be used for robbing spare parts to keep the active F-22s serviceable.
Air Force wants to send Tyndall’s F-22 jets to the boneyard
The jets and their crews have been in limbo since Hurricane Michael hit the base in 2018.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
This article makes a compelling case for a bridge tanker competition. Having Boeing offer a modified KC-46 down the road, why, because of their outstanding performance on the KC-46 program to date? MRTT for the Pacific, ready now, and proven. The Alabama Airbus plant can start the ball rolling while Boeing sorts it’s boom camera, FOD, and who knows what other quality assurance issues.
I
ive stopped over in Dubai and Abu Dalai about 20 times and only seen the sky a handful of times. The dust just seems to sit in the air there. I think a ground level wash down would be almost pointless as they would be covered again and that’s before even getting into the air…assuming they are parked in the open.
Terran
Well-Known Member
It’s one thing to have capacity another to actually do. Any “bridge tanker” would be a new type not an existing MRTT. It would basically be back to square one requiring certification. At the moment the USAF still has residual KC135 which mean Boeing has time as it would likely take just as long to phase in fixes and certify them. As the time Airbus would need to tool up the Ab plant, prototype, flight test, certify, submit, award, protest, arbitrate, rearward and begin initial low production. Considering how long the KC45/KC46 drama took by the time it was in initial production we would probably be taking about the new drama of having to gut all the tankers to use some new synthetic fuel fleet wide.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Why is it necessary to reinvent the wheel? The MRTT doesn’t need to be version 2.0, it is fine as is! Now ramping up the Alabama plant for MRTT will require time but a &uck of a lot less time than any Boeing enhanced KC-46….just my opinion based on their KC-46 performance to date.
Terran
Well-Known Member
Airbus is a commercial enterprise. They won’t shift production without a major investment. IE a large contact. it’s not as simple as flipping a switch. You are talking millions of dollars of tooling and hiring/ training.
The USAF is the largest Air Force on the planet. They don’t buy a product off the shelf without it being tailored to them unless they have no other choice.
Once a contract is issued unless the vendor completely is unable to meet the order you don’t get a do over. Procurement of A330 MRTT wouldn’t be a supplemental buy it would be a replacement.
For The USAF to shift and buy MRTT they would have to go before Congress to justify why it is they need MRTT and how KC46 has failed in such a manor that the product is not salvageable in any means. Congress doesn’t like overlap of systems. Even a small system buy like a 9mm sidearm has to be justified.
(may seem unrelated but it’s that in the weeds)
If the USAF was to do as you want them to do. They would have to issue first a cancellation of the KC46. As the overlap in capabilities is to great, the life span and costs such that one KC45 would be one KC46 not bought. The USAF would have to Issue an new RFI followed by a new bid then a sole supply contract well justification of such to Congress. They would then have to run the whole process all the while convincing the GAO that it’s legitimately worth it and having everyone in the USAF who sports a star on their shoulders sitting next to the Secretaries of the USAF, and Defense sitting before hours of grilling by both the House and senate with elected representatives from every state that has so much as a Boeing affiliated supplier or facility demanding answers for every pink slip.
Even Lockheed Martin’s draft LMXT isn’t the A330 MRTT even the KC45 wasn’t a straight A330MRTT. LMXT is a dedicated tanker that has traded off much of the cargo transportation capacity for more fuel.
Airbus lost. Boeing despite the problems is delivering. A330MRTT has potential, maybe even some commercial refueling cargo Military contractor in the US might buy some.However for the USAF that sun has set.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Is the existing KC-46 contract (179?) sufficient to replace the KC-135/KC-10 tanker capability (which has already seen a large contraction)? No need to cancel the KC-46 contract (unless Boeing has more setbacks). KC-46s can be used for domestic and NATO operations. A new MRTT order could be for Asia-Pacific. Surely 179 KC-46s isn’t sufficient as a complete renewal of USAF tanker capability?
Terran
Well-Known Member
Which might not even happen as a truly separate program but could and based on comments by Secretary Kendall, likely will just be a KC46B or KC46C.
Kendall: Potential for KC-Y bridge tanker competition appearing less likely | InsideDefense.com
As the Air Force continues to put the finishing touches on its requirements for the KC-Y bridge tanker, service Secretary Frank Kendall said a potential competition for the effort is appearing to be less likely.
As originally envisioned KC-Z is something else. More exotic. A Tanker able to operate closer to threats, probably smaller, Stealthier, possibly unmanned. Lockheed Martin Is Crafting New Stealth and Drone Tanker Concepts For The USAF
That’s a mission that neither KC46 derivative or MRTT would be suited to due to their airframes being about as ninja like as an Semi truck and full length trailer decked out in Christmas lights.
So in summary, USAF MRTT doesn’t seem web happening. The USAF has confidence in Boeing sorting KC46 sooner than a Potential follow on could be programmed. Unless Boeing suffers a final black swan that kills it it’s KC46 now and until the end of the century.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
A stealthy tanker sooner rather than later makes sense so as these would likely not be cargo capable, more KC-46s (modified) or MRTTs would seem to be necessary. A larger conventional tanker capable of refuelling stealth tankers would be a great range extender for thirsty fighters. Given Boeing’s issues, is placing all your eggs in a Boeing basket wise?
Terran
Well-Known Member
Allocation of resources. USAF is allowed so many aircraft per FY. As already gone over a MRTT buy would break the contracts with Boeing even if it didn’t frankly it doesn’t make sense to double order so it’s Boeing or Airbus. If they don’t order from Boeing’s products, here Boeing would probably be in worse shape leading to putting all the eggs in Airbus whom has their own sins.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Perhaps NG with a stealthy tanker then.
