USAF's Spurlock on Introducing the KC-46A Tanker Into Service
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- Lt. Col. Wes Spurlock, USAF, the commander of the 344th Air Refueling Squadron at McConnell Air Force Base, Kan., discusses the introduction of the first Boeing KC-46A Pegasus tanker into service, training aircrew and maintainers with Defense & Aerospace Report Editor Vago Muradian at the 2019 Paris Air Show where our coverage is sponsored by Bell and Leonardo DRS.
KC-135R ferry range: Just over 11,000 miles. KC-46A ferry range: Just over 11,000 miles. KC-135R max fuel offload capacity: 200,000 pounds. KC-46A max fuel offload capacity: 212,000 pounds. KC-135R cargo capacity: 86,000 pounds. KC-46A cargo capacity: 55,000 pounds. Direct vision system (AKA, a "window") on the KC-135 is not susceptible to electronic failure (no camera or monitor in the viewing path) and offers natural 3D vision.
Nice landing, Colonel!
Pegasus, so, are the pilots going to nickname this the Happy Horsie? I'm happy to see we're finally getting new tankers, especially considering the fall out from 2003.
Black Warrior Lures personally they should’ve used the 777-200LR
This bird has the capabilities to refuel three airplanes at the same time once some of the deficiencies resolved (refueling boom, anti-glare visual cameras, locking mechanism on the cargo floor)
They should of picked Boeing 777F if they really want Boeing, like the FedEx has, the cargo version 777-200. Bigger payload, longer range. Why did they picked 767-200? 767-200 would of been excellent aircraft for US Air Force 30 years ago. They're going backwards in 21st century with 767-200 aircraft. New tanker should of definitely been bigger or equivalent to KC-10.
The triple-7 is bigger than necessary, hence more expensive to buy and operate. The 767 is the right size for KC-135 replacement and it met the specification. The AF can buy larger fuelers next time to replace KC-10s. They have enough KC-10s for the time being.
FAR too big for any mission requirement for a tanker. When you understand typical tanker refueling mission profiles, you'll understand why the KC-135 and the KC-46A are both well adapted to the mission and a larger aircraft is not usually needed.
He’s got an interesting surname like a Pseudonym. Spur-lock. (“Spur” is a Callsign of the tanker aircraft on a special priority urgent request flight). That he done so many times.
what about the KC10 Extender? it isnt that old, why cant they be the future of KC135? Not that useful or what?
I think it's no longer in production. Tooling may have been scrapped already.
The KC-46 is the ONE PROGRAM keeping the Seven Six line open.
The reason the KC10 isn't mentioned is that it is a McDonald-Douglas product. Both the KC 135 and the KC46 are Boeing products. Boeing doesn't want the KC10 mentioned. It is a much better aircraft than the Boeing products.
Anton Mothes - The KC-10 is still in use, despite its age. What does “the future of KC135” mean? The future of the KC-135 is to be retired and scrapped, as for most old aircraft.
Maybe Air Force just want to unify the tanker fleet. 3 type of tankers - that is so much! So different skills needed for airmen. Never before USAF had 3 tankers in actual inventory. Only 60 KC-10 built. Not so much as the 135. That’s why it would be retired.
The mission requirements that take a KC-10 to do the job are far different, and less common, than the typical refueling needs of the fleet. There's literally no justification for flying larger tankers for the bulk of the refueling missions needed.
Replacing the C-9A, eh?
Dude talks too fast and uses too many "uhhhh's"