Nothing looks more like what a plane is supposed to look like than a 135. My father spent the vast majority of his USAF career as the pilot in command of KC-135s and RC-135s.
I remember when the KC-135's began receiving their new engines and it was about time too. That was before I retired and the new KC-46A's was not thought of, but the KC-10's was new then. They was nice to fly on except for the noises coming from the cables running throughout the airplane. I might get to fly on the new KC-46 since I am retired and have the benefit and want to fly to Japan.
For those who don't actually know, the Air Force plans on keeping many 135s in the fleet alongside the 46. McConnell AFB in Kansas will continue to maintain it's fleet of 60+ planes and slowly phase in the 46 while phasing out older models of the 135, i.e. 57-59 model aircraft. I'm actually stationed at McConnell as a crew chief and work on the 135s here. The Air Force stands to lose more than it would gain from completely disbanding it's fleet of it's oldest and most reliable aircraft.
+Switchblade don't you think the MX reliability of the stratotanker is enough to justify a modern aircraft with parts that are still actually being manufactured? Fuel efficiency. Link-16 capabilities. Reliable MPRS that isn't based on fueldraulics. I think that might avoid all the engineering requests for parts/stock unavailable that are in the forms.
True, the 135 is showing it's age as it was designed in the 50s, however MX reliability/mission capable rate make it hard to beat in similar aircraft. The KC-10 is hard broken a lot more often the 135. I mean just this past week we had to launch out 19 aircraft because of an albeit ill-advised tornado evac and all 19 got up off the ground in time with no MX redballs. I will agree the MPRS system is inefficient. Also, what you said about the parts is VERY true. Sometimes we'll get parts on back order for years at a time only to find the supplier no longer makes the part or the supplier hasn't existed since say 1995. The reliability of the airframe is the biggest advantage it has. If the 46 performs as well as they say it will then it would be safe to assume they'll replace the 135 altogether. We'll just have to see how the Air Force handles the transition of the aircraft.
The 135 also has surprisingly little time flown. I read somewhere that even the oldest 135's in the fleet still have 30,000 cycles left on the airframes, which means the newer ones have even more time. For those who don't know a "cycle" is basically a flight, to be overly simplified. In reality it's about the number of times the Airframe is pressurized and depressurized.
Ever since I saw that 2 buffs over the north east of Aberdeen in 92 that’s the one thing I’d love to get a tour of, but I’m realistic enough to know that’ll never happen so instead I’ll content my myself to doff my cap to all past and present crews for your service. 🏴👍👍👍👍👍
As a former KC-135A Boom Operator, I can't understand why they put complicated & expensive electronic video equipment on that thing, rather than a relatively inexpensive & fool-proof boom pod with a simple viewing window. Maintenance? "Hey Chief, could you clean the boom pod window please?" (it was probably already done!)
It's all about which congressman wants to get credit for bringing some bacon to a manufacturer in his home district. You didn't think because they call it "Defense Department" that it's really about defense, did you?
You sure you were Air Force lol god when I was in I could totally see the brass doing this crap I’m surprised it isn’t being delayed because they can’t get the cloaking device and the photon torpedo launchers to work. They really love futuristic over complicated stuff even where it is in no way needed, I understand it on the new fighters and everything but it’s a flying gas pump and they managed to overload it with crap it doesn’t need.
Thomas Nelson Same reason they want a 100 million dollar stealth fighterbomber to perform CAS instead of a cheaper and more effective platform. Defence spending is about jobs and kickbacks. Not defence...
It will be a very sad day when the last KC-135 get's retired. They have served us very well, some dating back to the Eisenhower Administration and onward. Plate [C]
While in the Air Force, I worked with Life Support on the KC135s. I wonder if these new KC-46A's have as much equipment as the KC135s had? The only ones around when I was in the service was the KC-135 and KC-10s. Heck I still even miss the C-141's.
+American Airlines B777-300ER yeah true but with winglets on the 300ER and already 400ER with raked wingtips i dont think it would make much of a difference for the 46 tankaers
What does anything you just said have to do with the KC-46? When the Air Force was in need to replace the KC-135's, they contracted with Boeing to design a replacement tanker. Instead of spending billions of dollars for engineers to design a new aircraft, Boeing simply used one of it's old designs, the Boeing 767-200, as a base for the new tanker. I'm pretty sure that Boeing implemented the idea of adding winglets or raked wingtips to the KC-46's design. But when the US Air Force saw the extra costs of adding raked wingtips, and weighed it against the benefits, they didn't see it was necessary. Plus it probably would have exceeded the defense budget allowance. Now, surely if the US government was considerate about the environment and saving fuel, the KC-46's would have winglets or raked wingtips. But, they aren't paying the fuel bills, the taxpayers are. Winglets and raked wingtips improve an aircrafts overall efficiency, and reduce the fuel burn on the engines by reducing the wingtip vortices. Do winglets on the Boeing 737 make a difference? Boeing 767? Airbus A320? Embraer E-190? So surely they would make a difference on the KC-46, it is a Boeing 767 design. I think I typed enough out here. If you are interested in reading more, I'm publishing a book in the next couple weeks.
Interesting factoid: The KC-135 has a fuel offload capacity of 200,000 pounds of fuel. The KC-46A has a fuel offload capacity of 212,000 pounds of fuel. Ferry range of a KC-135 without in-flight refueling: 11,015 miles. Ferry range of a KC-46A without in-flight refueling:7,350 miles. Yes. This is true. The KC-135 has a longer range and nearly the fuel offload capacity of the much newer KC-46A. There are other factors to consider, however.
The new bird has a lot of shiny surfaces, usually all surfaces are subdued. I think the poseidon has some shine but I think they were going for making look like an everyday civilian 737.
"Trash," Ryan Buckley? The KC-135 has been the backbone of the USAF's global reach capability for half a century, and some of them could remain in service for another decade or two.
The 135 was built for the B-52 . It doesn't have the capability to fuel both types of boom and drogue at the same time . The wing tips aren't beefy enough and the boom operator is laying on there belly . Oh! by the way the Navy are flying drones as tankers
Drones with little fuel. Laid on my belly for 20yrs (A and R model) and would do it again! Screw computers and screens! What's the backup when both stations for the boom on the 46 go down? "Sorry, no fuel today... my system is down!"
Flew on both the 135A and 135R. 20yrs USAF Boomer. Nothing like having a Boomer "in the pod!" The 135's are still flying today and the KC-10 is retiring!
counting the # of steamjets in the boneyard, still looking for a Gucci 10. knuckle dragging 135 idiots are why the decrepit 767 was picked over the much refined A330.
It was a long time ago, but I believe it was a plane that had carried the Rolling Stones during a tour of theirs but must've liked leaving the lips on the aircraft.
So, what's the difference between the KC-46A and the Italian/Japanese KC-767? I know the KC-46A is based on the 767-200ER and has some upgrades from the -400ER model caked into it but is it a brand new aircraft or a conversion (more specifically from the civilian cargo model)? How does it stack up to the KC-767? This one seems like a conversion from a -200ER cargo model but I'm dumb as a nail. I noticed the KC-767 has the "passenger windows" painted over while the KC-46A has none. Did they replace the sheet metal on the latter (if it was a conversion) or stamped out brand new parts for a brand new ground up build?
Most likely, it's an instrumentation probe; probably part of an instrumented pitot-static system. We always used them on test birds when I was at Wright-Patt. It will be removed after the testing is complete.
Kind of looks like some of the equipment used to certify for RVSM (Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums). Aircraft was still designated as "Experimental", so they may have been in process of flight testing for certifications.
Looks like the USAF is considering putting lasers on the KC-46 that could blind the sensors on long range SAMs and fighter aircraft. www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/196114/usaf-envisions-laser-defense-for-kc_46-tankers.html
2 P&W 4000 x 4 CFM 56... "Flying walking stick" reunion? Despite reliability, some old, obsolete for new tankering and cargo requeriments. My suggestion: A330MRTT or KC 390...
No, when I say it should have been an Old A Model, I was not meaning an A Model that has been retrofitted to either an E or an E Model, I was meaning an actual A Model, still fitted with the old A Model Water Injected Engines. there are still plenty of them sitting in the Bone Yard from which one could have been brought back up to Flight Status within a few days, and used to compare the Changes over the years from the very first Jet Powered Tanker up to the Pegasus. I even believe that Boeing themselves might have a KC 135 A Model in Storage at their Field in a Hanger that only needs fuel and a flight crew.
Kev,. Had a LOT of hours in the A model with its 4 engines (even with water injection) probably put out the thrust of 1 of the current jet engines. However, it did its job, and did it well. I navigated that airplane all over the world. SAC MITO engine starts and takeoffs were a bit smokey, as were our normal water injected takeoffs. I still love the A.
Steam Jets! From the days when Man could burn water! They've been reliable beasts, but with a heavy A model on a hot day, a 10,000' runway was mighty short.
Truth of the matter is that there are not plenty of them in the bone yard. Been there lately? The hulls that are there are mainly just that as we have been resourcing the supply chain with those recovered parts for many years to the extent that even the AMARG has run dry in many PN's now. J-57's are on display in museums and there are NO new parts or any sustainment tail to support them whatsoever (including anyone left with MX experience on them). Also, while there was nothing quite as exhilerating as trimming a J-57 with the cowling off and squatting next to the fuel control with an allen wrench when we "hit water", I would NEVER want to fly on an A model in today's environment. Who ever mentioned needing a 10, 000 ft long runway was an understatement. Those jets were put in storage for a reason including corrosion beyond economic repair. Your assumptions about what it would take to bring jets back to life after long term storage is a bit short of the mark.
While that is true, also remember, that long before that R or even the Q 135 came along, it was either an A, or an E model, and when you say old, I tend to think of either an A or an E model. Just sayin. I live very close to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, and they actually have a KC 135 E Model on permanent display there at the Air Mobility Command Museum.
It's replacing the KC-10 not the -135 which is really stupid IMO. The -46 doesn't have half the cargo capacity of the -10, it is replacing an air frame that is only 30 yrs old vs an air frame that is twice that age, it doesn't have the unrefueled range of the -10 and it isn't any cheaper to operate than the -10.
Can someone explain to me why they produce this new aircraft on the base of the 767? That's a pretty outdated type of Aircraft. Wouldn''t it be better to use a 777? Thanks!
Because it is just as reliable and perhaps even more proven than the 777. Also, the 777 is too big. Keep in mind that many aspects of the KC-46 will be updated compared to the 767. For example, the cockpit instrumentation is 787 style.
Alex K 'official' - The 767 is a sturdy platform and it’s the right size for the requirements. And the assembly line was available with commercial 767s only recently discontinued. Everything came together.
he was fired for being a fighter pilot once again trying to figure out the tanker mission, hence the POS 30 year old 767 Boeing gave the Force, good riddance.
I logged almost 1000 hours as a boomer on the KC-135A models in the late 70's, water injection and all. I would have loved to have had the high-bypass engines. That and the glass cockpits really changed the airplane for the better. It was a great platform.
I really don't see the point of the boom refuelling method when USN Fighters in need of a refuel is the same as UK and some EU Forces ... Keep it simple so all Allied Planes can be refuelled by any tanker .. but the USAF wants to be different
I can’t get one thing out of my mind about the new kc-46 tankers that are supposed to be delivered starting in early 2018. Now the KC-46 is based off the 767. The max fuel load is 212,299lbs. Why did the (being the government) not insist on a heavier and better all around capabilities of the 777? (much higher MTOW, 320,863lbs max fuel, and still able to take on more fuel tanks or cargo and be under MTOW, more fuel efficient, etc.)? The only answer I can come up with is that Boeing is Lobbying hard for the 767 based tanker so it won’t throw off the delivery schedule for already purchased airlines of the 777 type. Also to keep the 767 line open (which was just an inch away from being shutdown) to keep more money rolling in under an airframe that they have basically figured out all the problems and gremlins. Then, in a decade or so, when sales start to slow for the 777, they can repeat the same thing on the 777 line to replace the KC-10. Then they can refit the vacant line for the new airliner, yet to be conceived, in the 767 former production line for the new boeing passenger model. Does anyone follow what I mean? It is a good idea from the business standpoint, but for every 767 model we buy over the 777 model, we lose the capacity to carry an extra 108,564lb of fuel EACH FLIGHT. Not even counting the lower maintenance costs, better efficiency and fuel mileage. I am not yelling at you guys or anybody, but can anyone explain why that is a maybe not considered a bad idea? Or even use the 747-8 line, which is looking bone dry on the sales, and here is where the numbers get big. Just using the civilian numbers for fuel, which we all know are a tad bit lower than a refueling model, the 747-8 can carry 213,810lb more fuel than the kc-46. Thats like having 2xKC-767 of fuel each time a 747-8 took off fully loaded, which it can, and doesn’t come near the upgraded MTOW of 1.15 Million pounds. I am not trying to be mean or a jerk, but was thinking that you guys understand why it would go this way and not the sensible way.
No, you're speculating. The AF--AMC-- established the requirements for it's next gen Tanker X--not Boeing. Other airframes were studied including from the operational perspective you seem to be coming from. Boeing could have saved money and avoided alot of headaches by shutting the 767 line down after it's last commercial delivery. Instead, and true to their history, Boeing stepped up to continue sustaining our national defence needs rather than allow that work to go to a foriegn competitor and the risk(s) that would have entailed in the out years. Remember....This was a fixed price, sole source contract ultimately awarded through an ugly competition with Airbus.
And Boeing has paid billions out of its own pocket, difficult, if not impossible, to make it back. Much the same as the 787 program. Outsourcing sub-systems and get faulty parts in return with delay, sometime I miss the old Boeing prior to its merger with MD.
Whilst delivery of fuel is an important consideration in choosing a new tanker there are other things to consider such as infrastructure. The KC-46 can fit into existing hangars. A tanker based off of a 747 would require millions of more dollars in facilities.
From a systems analysis perspective, it seems like putting 747-sized tanker aircraft into operation would be rather disruptive of overall operations. How often are 747 loads of fuel needed? What about the fact that the 747-tanker would still be refueling one aircraft at a time, a potentially serious bottleneck? How challenging would a 747-tanker be for flight planners long accustomed to KC-135 and KC-10 operations? Would there be crew rest implications for a tanker that would have a potentially small number of airmen per thousand pounds of fuel? It seems like a 747-tanker would have to stay airborne quite a while to distribute a full load of fuel. Also, in combat, a 747-tanker would be a lot of eggs in one basket, whether that's in the air or on the ground. I also wonder about the relative efficiency of a tanker aircraft burning fuel to haul the weight of so much fuel. In the water, a supertanker full of oil makes sense as the power required to move each additional barrel of oil is so minimal. However, in the air, I suspect the efficiency is lacking. I suspect many 747-tanker missions would see them take off with far less than a full load of fuel to distribute, negating much of the potential efficiency of the platform.
@@loganbright6620 For sure the 46 is better in any aspect, more capable, more modern, more efficient, etc. But I'm just talking about looks here. The 135 is simply more interesting to look at for me. Guess that's because I love old stuff, like cars, planes, boats, trains, etc. Plus there's the history stuck to those machines. They've seen it all.
Not having a boom pod and a way to put live eyes on the refueling and a way to manually control the boom is sheer stupidity. They have taken a system that has worked for over 60 years and turned it into a video game. What's going to happen when their video game refueling system fails over water dragging fighters and the fighters can't get any fuel. We will lose both planes and pilots. Can Boeing guarantee their system will work every time no matter where in the world the plane may operate, I don't think so. Being a retired Boom operator with over 2400 hours in KC-135A's we had our problems with the original systems on occasion. Putting all their eggs in one basket so to speak just seems stupid.
+Charles Pierce yeah.... no modern tanker has a boom pod. Its not stupidity. They have redundant boom control stations. How many times have hydraulic fluid on the sighting window on a KC-135 been a problem... more often than not. If the fighters can't get fuel over the ocean they divert... just like they would when the sighting door window pisses away all the hydraulics.
Love the clean, classic lines of the -135
Nothing looks more like what a plane is supposed to look like than a 135. My father spent the vast majority of his USAF career as the pilot in command of KC-135s and RC-135s.
I remember when the KC-135's began receiving their new engines and it was about time too. That was before I retired and the new KC-46A's was not thought of, but the KC-10's was new then. They was nice to fly on except for the noises coming from the cables running throughout the airplane. I might get to fly on the new KC-46 since I am retired and have the benefit and want to fly to Japan.
For those who don't actually know, the Air Force plans on keeping many 135s in the fleet alongside the 46. McConnell AFB in Kansas will continue to maintain it's fleet of 60+ planes and slowly phase in the 46 while phasing out older models of the 135, i.e. 57-59 model aircraft. I'm actually stationed at McConnell as a crew chief and work on the 135s here. The Air Force stands to lose more than it would gain from completely disbanding it's fleet of it's oldest and most reliable aircraft.
+Switchblade don't you think the MX reliability of the stratotanker is enough to justify a modern aircraft with parts that are still actually being manufactured? Fuel efficiency. Link-16 capabilities. Reliable MPRS that isn't based on fueldraulics.
I think that might avoid all the engineering requests for parts/stock unavailable that are in the forms.
True, the 135 is showing it's age as it was designed in the 50s, however MX reliability/mission capable rate make it hard to beat in similar aircraft. The KC-10 is hard broken a lot more often the 135. I mean just this past week we had to launch out 19 aircraft because of an albeit ill-advised tornado evac and all 19 got up off the ground in time with no MX redballs. I will agree the MPRS system is inefficient. Also, what you said about the parts is VERY true. Sometimes we'll get parts on back order for years at a time only to find the supplier no longer makes the part or the supplier hasn't existed since say 1995. The reliability of the airframe is the biggest advantage it has. If the 46 performs as well as they say it will then it would be safe to assume they'll replace the 135 altogether. We'll just have to see how the Air Force handles the transition of the aircraft.
+Switchblade the kc-135 has lineage back to the kc-97, with some of its construction.
Specifically the Boeing 367-80
The 135 also has surprisingly little time flown. I read somewhere that even the oldest 135's in the fleet still have 30,000 cycles left on the airframes, which means the newer ones have even more time. For those who don't know a "cycle" is basically a flight, to be overly simplified. In reality it's about the number of times the Airframe is pressurized and depressurized.
True. God help you!
Ever since I saw that 2 buffs over the north east of Aberdeen in 92 that’s the one thing I’d love to get a tour of, but I’m realistic enough to know that’ll never happen so instead I’ll content my myself to doff my cap to all past and present crews for your service. 🏴👍👍👍👍👍
As a former KC-135A Boom Operator, I can't understand why they put complicated & expensive electronic video equipment on that thing, rather than a relatively inexpensive & fool-proof boom pod with a simple viewing window. Maintenance? "Hey Chief, could you clean the boom pod window please?" (it was probably already done!)
It's all about which congressman wants to get credit for bringing some bacon to a manufacturer in his home district.
You didn't think because they call it "Defense Department" that it's really about defense, did you?
You sure you were Air Force lol god when I was in I could totally see the brass doing this crap I’m surprised it isn’t being delayed because they can’t get the cloaking device and the photon torpedo launchers to work. They really love futuristic over complicated stuff even where it is in no way needed, I understand it on the new fighters and everything but it’s a flying gas pump and they managed to overload it with crap it doesn’t need.
Bet you're a f-35 hater
I concur 100%
Thomas Nelson Same reason they want a 100 million dollar stealth fighterbomber to perform CAS instead of a cheaper and more effective platform. Defence spending is about jobs and kickbacks. Not defence...
It will be a very sad day when the last KC-135 get's retired. They have served us very well, some dating back to the Eisenhower Administration and onward.
Plate [C]
While in the Air Force, I worked with Life Support on the KC135s. I wonder if these new KC-46A's have as much equipment as the KC135s had? The only ones around when I was in the service was the KC-135 and KC-10s. Heck I still even miss the C-141's.
They are both great. It would have been cool though if Boeing designed the KC-46 with raked wingtips like on the P-8 and Boeing 787. Great Video!!!!
+American Airlines B777-300ER yeah true but with winglets on the 300ER and already 400ER with raked wingtips i dont think it would make much of a difference for the 46 tankaers
What does anything you just said have to do with the KC-46? When the Air Force was in need to replace the KC-135's, they contracted with Boeing to design a replacement tanker. Instead of spending billions of dollars for engineers to design a new aircraft, Boeing simply used one of it's old designs, the Boeing 767-200, as a base for the new tanker. I'm pretty sure that Boeing implemented the idea of adding winglets or raked wingtips to the KC-46's design. But when the US Air Force saw the extra costs of adding raked wingtips, and weighed it against the benefits, they didn't see it was necessary. Plus it probably would have exceeded the defense budget allowance. Now, surely if the US government was considerate about the environment and saving fuel, the KC-46's would have winglets or raked wingtips. But, they aren't paying the fuel bills, the taxpayers are. Winglets and raked wingtips improve an aircrafts overall efficiency, and reduce the fuel burn on the engines by reducing the wingtip vortices. Do winglets on the Boeing 737 make a difference? Boeing 767? Airbus A320? Embraer E-190? So surely they would make a difference on the KC-46, it is a Boeing 767 design. I think I typed enough out here. If you are interested in reading more, I'm publishing a book in the next couple weeks.
+American Airlines B777-300ER forget it
+Andreag00 Payload > Refuel difficulty. Plus they had been refueling without wingtips for almost 50 Years without much incidents now.
Wow, you guys are complete experts on this.
Outstanding shots.
i like how this popped up on my vidoes for one that i made of a KC-46A flying over my house
Interesting factoid: The KC-135 has a fuel offload capacity of 200,000 pounds of fuel. The KC-46A has a fuel offload capacity of 212,000 pounds of fuel. Ferry range of a KC-135 without in-flight refueling: 11,015 miles. Ferry range of a KC-46A without in-flight refueling:7,350 miles. Yes. This is true. The KC-135 has a longer range and nearly the fuel offload capacity of the much newer KC-46A. There are other factors to consider, however.
why no black painted on the nose of the Pegasus???
Black absorbs sunlight, so it would basically heat up the nose.
I'd guess it's because it doesn't have the tactical emitters up there.
Does the USAF know wingtip devices exist?
Yes but they negatively affect performance in some areas like landing so raked wingtips are preferred over winglets (See P-8s)
The new bird has a lot of shiny surfaces, usually all surfaces are subdued. I think the poseidon has some shine but I think they were going for making look like an everyday civilian 737.
the '135 is so much better looking
The 46 looks like it should stick to hauling cargo lol.
It's an airliner for Gods sake . What's looks have to do with it . I'm a 135 MSGT
But it only does half as much as the KC-46
Yeah but the KC135 is old trash
"Trash," Ryan Buckley? The KC-135 has been the backbone of the USAF's global reach capability for half a century, and some of them could remain in service for another decade or two.
The 135 was built for the B-52 . It doesn't have the capability to fuel both types of boom and drogue at the same time . The wing tips aren't beefy enough and the boom operator is laying on there belly . Oh! by the way the Navy are flying drones as tankers
Drones with little fuel. Laid on my belly for 20yrs (A and R model) and would do it again! Screw computers and screens! What's the backup when both stations for the boom on the 46 go down? "Sorry, no fuel today... my system is down!"
BTW, the 135 still has more thrust!
Jack Flash - Probably more drag as well.
What is the difference between the two? One can perform in flight refueling of aircraft.
Oh, "Prototype." That's why there's an N-number on the -46.
Nice comparison.
What’s the device that’s hanging from the top of the vertical stab?
Flew on both the 135A and 135R. 20yrs USAF Boomer. Nothing like having a Boomer "in the pod!" The 135's are still flying today and the KC-10 is retiring!
counting the # of steamjets in the boneyard, still looking for a Gucci 10. knuckle dragging 135 idiots are why the decrepit 767 was picked over the much refined A330.
Love that American Airlines 727, and looks like the Rolling Stones were in town judging by the 737 with their lips logo on it.
It was a long time ago, but I believe it was a plane that had carried the Rolling Stones during a tour of theirs but must've liked leaving the lips on the aircraft.
The Stones hadn't been here since 1997 when this video was shot. That 737 was probably just here for maintenance or some other reason.
I see these planes almost everyday.
amazing
So, what's the difference between the KC-46A and the Italian/Japanese KC-767?
I know the KC-46A is based on the 767-200ER and has some upgrades from the -400ER model caked into it but is it a brand new aircraft or a conversion (more specifically from the civilian cargo model)?
How does it stack up to the KC-767? This one seems like a conversion from a -200ER cargo model but I'm dumb as a nail.
I noticed the KC-767 has the "passenger windows" painted over while the KC-46A has none. Did they replace the sheet metal on the latter (if it was a conversion) or stamped out brand new parts for a brand new ground up build?
FreeToBe A couple of billion dollars in "development" cost...
Anyone know what that thing is hanging from the vertical stab on the KC-46?
Most likely, it's an instrumentation probe; probably part of an instrumented pitot-static system. We always used them on test birds when I was at Wright-Patt. It will be removed after the testing is complete.
Cool beans. Thanks!
Kind of looks like some of the equipment used to certify for RVSM (Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums). Aircraft was still designated as "Experimental", so they may have been in process of flight testing for certifications.
So the idea would be that this extra probe verifies the plane is flying within RVSM tolerances based on the plane's normal probes?
Cool video! Liked!
Looks like the USAF is considering putting lasers on the KC-46 that could blind the sensors on long range SAMs and fighter aircraft.
www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/196114/usaf-envisions-laser-defense-for-kc_46-tankers.html
I meant retrofitted to either an E or R Model, not E or E... Sorry.
2 P&W 4000 x 4 CFM 56... "Flying walking stick" reunion? Despite reliability, some old, obsolete for new tankering and cargo requeriments. My suggestion: A330MRTT or KC 390...
Our (RAAF) KC-30's (MRTT) have been doing a great job both here in Australia and the Middle East.
Why wasn't KC-67 not considered?
Actually the KC-67 WAS wasn't not considered.
Always loved the old KC-135 Stratotankers, a great plane the are.
No reverses? O.o
Wish they would paint the nose on the KC_46 black like it is on the KC-135.
No, when I say it should have been an Old A Model, I was not meaning an A Model that has been retrofitted to either an E or an E Model, I was meaning an actual A Model, still fitted with the old A Model Water Injected Engines. there are still plenty of them sitting in the Bone Yard from which one could have been brought back up to Flight Status within a few days, and used to compare the Changes over the years from the very first Jet Powered Tanker up to the Pegasus. I even believe that Boeing themselves might have a KC 135 A Model in Storage at their Field in a Hanger that only needs fuel and a flight crew.
Kev,. Had a LOT of hours in the A model with its 4 engines (even with water injection) probably put out the thrust of 1 of the current jet engines. However, it did its job, and did it well. I navigated that airplane all over the world. SAC MITO engine starts and takeoffs were a bit smokey, as were our normal water injected takeoffs. I still love the A.
Steam Jets! From the days when Man could burn water!
They've been reliable beasts, but with a heavy A model on a hot day, a 10,000' runway was mighty short.
Truth of the matter is that there are not plenty of them in the bone yard. Been there lately? The hulls that are there are mainly just that as we have been resourcing the supply chain with those recovered parts for many years to the extent that even the AMARG has run dry in many PN's now. J-57's are on display in museums and there are NO new parts or any sustainment tail to support them whatsoever (including anyone left with MX experience on them). Also, while there was nothing quite as exhilerating as trimming a J-57 with the cowling off and squatting next to the fuel control with an allen wrench when we "hit water", I would NEVER want to fly on an A model in today's environment. Who ever mentioned needing a 10, 000 ft long runway was an understatement. Those jets were put in storage for a reason including corrosion beyond economic repair. Your assumptions about what it would take to bring jets back to life after long term storage is a bit short of the mark.
Ok, when you say OLD KC 135's, then in all actuality, the KC 135 really should have been an OLD A Model KC 135, not a modernized R Model.
There are a surprisingly large number of 135R's that were 135A's prior to conversion.
While that is true, also remember, that long before that R or even the Q 135 came along, it was either an A, or an E model, and when you say old, I tend to think of either an A or an E model. Just sayin. I live very close to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, and they actually have a KC 135 E Model on permanent display there at the Air Mobility Command Museum.
All KC135Rs were A models. The E models were also As first and we're modded with JT3D engines for the reserves and guard.
Facinante el mundo d la aviacion
Still having issues with kc-46, don't know why we didn't go with A330 . It could have been operating right from the start. Politics I suppose.
It's replacing the KC-10 not the -135 which is really stupid IMO. The -46 doesn't have half the cargo capacity of the -10, it is replacing an air frame that is only 30 yrs old vs an air frame that is twice that age, it doesn't have the unrefueled range of the -10 and it isn't any cheaper to operate than the -10.
Jim McGuckin that is incorrect the Kc 46 is replacing the kc 135
Can someone explain to me why they produce this new aircraft on the base of the 767? That's a pretty outdated type of Aircraft. Wouldn''t it be better to use a 777? Thanks!
Because it is just as reliable and perhaps even more proven than the 777. Also, the 777 is too big. Keep in mind that many aspects of the KC-46 will be updated compared to the 767. For example, the cockpit instrumentation is 787 style.
John Bender control cabin*. Heavy aircraft don't have cockpits. Cockpits are for fighters
@@dreaded_pegasus6578 flight deck. Who the hell says 'control cabin'?
Alex K 'official' - The 767 is a sturdy platform and it’s the right size for the requirements. And the assembly line was available with commercial 767s only recently discontinued. Everything came together.
Enjoy your boom camera's, and thank you for that Gen. Mosley
he was fired for being a fighter pilot once again trying to figure out the tanker mission, hence the POS 30 year old 767 Boeing gave the Force, good riddance.
Is that a 767-300
No its a -200ER with -300 wings and -400 flight control surfaces and engines
Nice catch, but somewhat ruined a little by the high bypass upgrade 😔
Both are high bypass engines....
Quick hands from the Capt.....
I logged almost 1000 hours as a boomer on the KC-135A models in the late 70's, water injection and all. I would have loved to have had the high-bypass engines. That and the glass cockpits really changed the airplane for the better. It was a great platform.
I really don't see the point of the boom refuelling method when USN Fighters in need of a refuel is the same as UK and some EU Forces ...
Keep it simple so all Allied Planes can be refuelled by any tanker .. but the USAF wants to be different
The probe and drogue method cannot deliver fuel at a sufficient rate for large aircraft such as bombers and large transports.
It’s more efficient and effective that way
Boom system is able to transfer fuel faster to a receiver with a receptacle vs a probe and drogue!
For what I've seen it has a drouge basket aswell so it can do either no problem but tanker to tanker still requires boom refueling
Belíssimos Jatos Coisa linda de Vídeo
No more 4 engines :(
No aircraft should taxi faster than a man can walk....
Wilfried Tersago you’ve obviously never flown with the military
How much fuel in the new bird ?
Southwest Airlines called, they'd like to offer that -135 crew pilot jobs....(someone will get this joke)
İşte o aradığın türk yorumu benim🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷
4 CFM-56's vs 2 CFM 56's
Nice Video Bud :-)
I expected some verbiage ....
I can’t get one thing out of my mind about the new kc-46 tankers that are supposed to be delivered starting in early 2018. Now the KC-46 is based off the 767. The max fuel load is 212,299lbs. Why did the (being the government) not insist on a heavier and better all around capabilities of the 777? (much higher MTOW, 320,863lbs max fuel, and still able to take on more fuel tanks or cargo and be under MTOW, more fuel efficient, etc.)? The only answer I can come up with is that Boeing is Lobbying hard for the 767 based tanker so it won’t throw off the delivery schedule for already purchased airlines of the 777 type. Also to keep the 767 line open (which was just an inch away from being shutdown) to keep more money rolling in under an airframe that they have basically figured out all the problems and gremlins. Then, in a decade or so, when sales start to slow for the 777, they can repeat the same thing on the 777 line to replace the KC-10. Then they can refit the vacant line for the new airliner, yet to be conceived, in the 767 former production line for the new boeing passenger model. Does anyone follow what I mean? It is a good idea from the business standpoint, but for every 767 model we buy over the 777 model, we lose the capacity to carry an extra 108,564lb of fuel EACH FLIGHT. Not even counting the lower maintenance costs, better efficiency and fuel mileage. I am not yelling at you guys or anybody, but can anyone explain why that is a maybe not considered a bad idea? Or even use the 747-8 line, which is looking bone dry on the sales, and here is where the numbers get big. Just using the civilian numbers for fuel, which we all know are a tad bit lower than a refueling model, the 747-8 can carry 213,810lb more fuel than the kc-46. Thats like having 2xKC-767 of fuel each time a 747-8 took off fully loaded, which it can, and doesn’t come near the upgraded MTOW of 1.15 Million pounds. I am not trying to be mean or a jerk, but was thinking that you guys understand why it would go this way and not the sensible way.
No, you're speculating. The AF--AMC-- established the requirements for it's next gen Tanker X--not Boeing. Other airframes were studied including from the operational perspective you seem to be coming from. Boeing could have saved money and avoided alot of headaches by shutting the 767 line down after it's last commercial delivery. Instead, and true to their history, Boeing stepped up to continue sustaining our national defence needs rather than allow that work to go to a foriegn competitor and the risk(s) that would have entailed in the out years. Remember....This was a fixed price, sole source contract ultimately awarded through an ugly competition with Airbus.
And Boeing has paid billions out of its own pocket, difficult, if not impossible, to make it back. Much the same as the 787 program. Outsourcing sub-systems and get faulty parts in return with delay, sometime I miss the old Boeing prior to its merger with MD.
First delivery should be around October 2018
Whilst delivery of fuel is an important consideration in choosing a new tanker there are other things to consider such as infrastructure. The KC-46 can fit into existing hangars. A tanker based off of a 747 would require millions of more dollars in facilities.
From a systems analysis perspective, it seems like putting 747-sized tanker aircraft into operation would be rather disruptive of overall operations. How often are 747 loads of fuel needed? What about the fact that the 747-tanker would still be refueling one aircraft at a time, a potentially serious bottleneck? How challenging would a 747-tanker be for flight planners long accustomed to KC-135 and KC-10 operations? Would there be crew rest implications for a tanker that would have a potentially small number of airmen per thousand pounds of fuel? It seems like a 747-tanker would have to stay airborne quite a while to distribute a full load of fuel. Also, in combat, a 747-tanker would be a lot of eggs in one basket, whether that's in the air or on the ground. I also wonder about the relative efficiency of a tanker aircraft burning fuel to haul the weight of so much fuel. In the water, a supertanker full of oil makes sense as the power required to move each additional barrel of oil is so minimal. However, in the air, I suspect the efficiency is lacking. I suspect many 747-tanker missions would see them take off with far less than a full load of fuel to distribute, negating much of the potential efficiency of the platform.
Love the Stratotanker, always have, always will. For me it's the ultimate tanker. Don't like the Pegasus, it's boring, has no charisma. Pity.
Zoydian you should see the inside though
@@loganbright6620 For sure the 46 is better in any aspect, more capable, more modern, more efficient, etc. But I'm just talking about looks here. The 135 is simply more interesting to look at for me. Guess that's because I love old stuff, like cars, planes, boats, trains, etc. Plus there's the history stuck to those machines. They've seen it all.
KC-46 Turkey
Well, I guess I'm a sucker for the original. Sorry.
9
Too bad for the USAF they had to settle for the B767. The A330 tanker smokes it in pretty much every conceivable measure.
Jason Cavitt Maybe true, but I don’t think the USAF is going to buy a bunch of non American made airplanes anytime soon.
if "smoke it" you mean be a corrosion pig then yes.
They almost considered the KC-33,A militarized version of the 747-8F
Yep, and MRTT would have meant additional millions in new hangars. The -46 can fit into existing ones.
Jason Cavitt - baloney
Not having a boom pod and a way to put live eyes on the refueling and a way to manually control the boom is sheer stupidity. They have taken a system that has worked for over 60 years and turned it into a video game. What's going to happen when their video game refueling system fails over water dragging fighters and the fighters can't get any fuel. We will lose both planes and pilots. Can Boeing guarantee their system will work every time no matter where in the world the plane may operate, I don't think so. Being a retired Boom operator with over 2400 hours in KC-135A's we had our problems with the original systems on occasion. Putting all their eggs in one basket so to speak just seems stupid.
+Charles Pierce yeah.... no modern tanker has a boom pod. Its not stupidity.
They have redundant boom control stations. How many times have hydraulic fluid on the sighting window on a KC-135 been a problem... more often than not.
If the fighters can't get fuel over the ocean they divert... just like they would when the sighting door window pisses away all the hydraulics.
The Norwegians had at least one KC-10 iteration with cameras pre 1999. It's proven technology and not "new".