USAF News and Discussion

the concerned said:
I always hoped originally they would have gone for a split buy. Say 120 kc-46's and 59 kc-45's. Even done the second batch the same . Surely they would have got a better fleet.
Click to expand...

Not only better but the renewal would be faster thus saving money by not having to support the ancient 707 KC-135 fleet to the extent they are now.
 
Not quite a 707, though derived from the same prototype. The 707 fuselage was slightly wider, & it could squeeze in an extra seat per per row in economy.

AFAIK all the derivatives which weren't C-135s (C-137, E-3, etc.) were based on the 707 fuselage.
 
This link discusses the USAF’s laser equipped future fighters. Sounds great but in a peer to peer conflict with say China, with all the trained engineers and scientists that graduated from Western universities along with tons of cash from their exports, laser equipped J-20s in a few years is not a stretch. Two questions arise for me, are defensive options being worked on against lasers and do lasers necessiate a re-emphasis on kinematic performance for future fighters? Thankfully the former and more important question isn’t being discussed in public (that I am aware of).
 
The only benefit I can envision is the combination of good kinematic performance along with some stealth might make it difficult to maximize beam time on a specific point with whatever targeting system the laser uses. If the laser is powerful enough and the target acquisition system works well then kinematic performance won’t help much or not at all.
 
i think LO and SA become even more relevant in the age of lasers. Given equally armed foes, first-look/first-kill rules.
 
Both planes are rolling off active production lines. I know the F-35 had been envisioned to be produced at significantly higher rates than currently but concurrency concerns restricted funding but the factory had the production capacity. After all, they had anticipated building jet's for Canada didn't they?

I would say that it's a bogus argument that Boeing can build their jet faster. AFAIK it takes 3 years from order signing to delivery regardless of manufacturers, it's the way the procurement system is set up.
 
Surely the f-15x is multi-role. Then wouldn't the more they buy enable these new aircraft to handle deployments usually done by F-15e's. This would mean the strike eagle lasting a little bit longer.
 
the concerned said:
Surely the f-15x is multi-role. Then wouldn't the more they buy enable these new aircraft to handle deployments usually done by F-15e's. This would mean the strike eagle lasting a little bit longer.
Click to expand...
Nope it's a C / D replacement if it goes through. The E has it's own specific mission and upgrade path.
 
I think there was an article late last year about the USAF swopping F-22's in Alaska for F-15's. Basically it's the Russians flying near US air space, so it seemed a waste to use the limited number of F-22's - it increases the wear and tear on them, so it made sense to use F-15's.

Similarly, you don't always need the stealthiest plane on the block for everything. Sometimes you need something which can go far, and go fast, and have presence. The F-35 can't do that. Obviously the F-15 won't be fully loaded for that sort of work.

And why couldn't you have a fast bomb truck after the F-35 has done it's wonderful 5th Gen razzamatazz? "Beast mode" is still only half of the F-15X's load. Let the F-35 rest, and reduce it's wear.
 
The key to any successful intercept is early detection and given enough time an F-16, F-15 or 5Gen can perform the mission. A number of years back when the F-15C fleet was grounded, Canadian CF-17s stepped in to intercept Russian bombers.

The issue really is when ANG units are deployed to the front in the case of a shooting war, which jet affords the pilot the better chance of successfully completing their missions and returning home alive?
 
barney41 said:
The key to any successful intercept is early detection and given enough time an F-16, F-15 or 5Gen can perform the mission. A number of years back when the F-15C fleet was grounded, Canadian CF-18s stepped in to intercept Russian bombers.

The issue really is when ANG units are deployed to the front in the case of a shooting war, which jet affords the pilot the better chance of successfully completing their missions and returning home alive?
Click to expand...

Corrected.. don't know where the CF-17 in the previous post came from...senior moment? LoL
 
Last edited:
....and just think of all the money pouring into keeping the KC-135s operating instead of going to purchase new MRTTs which would have been built in Alabama.
 
40 deg south said:
Boeing tanker jets grounded due to tools and debris left during manufacturing

More strife for the KC-46. 'Foreign objects' including tools have been left inside compartments on tankers delivered to the USAF, resulting in the fleet being temporarily grounded. Boeing just can't seem to get a lucky break on this programme.

Those A330 MRTTs must be looking better all the time!
Click to expand...
Lucky break? Sounds like serious failings on the production line. That isn't bad luck: it's mismanagement.
 
Have to agree, management is in charge of the QA staff who obviously screwed up big time. Can you imagine a commercial airline company with a QA staff that wasn’t monitoring its maintenance team to see if they had assured all tools had been removed, suspension in a NY minute (hopefully). Maybe Boeing could learn something from an OR which has a nurse counting the instruments before closing up a patient.
 
John Fedup said:
Have to agree, management is in charge of the QA staff who obviously screwed up big time. Can you imagine a commercial airline company with a QA staff that wasn’t monitoring its maintenance team to see if they had assured all tools had been removed, suspension in a NY minute (hopefully). Maybe Boeing could learn something from an OR which has a nurse counting the instruments before closing up a patient.
Click to expand...

Not sure how Boeing is managing and running the KC-46 production line, but this sounds like a production line issue which has then had a number of examples slip past quality control inspectors.

If management has directed the line to ramp up production, that could have triggered more production errors leaving tools/debris behind in the base 767 air frames before they are closed up. This could in turn tax quality control, because they could start finding more items left behind during their checks, but still end up missing things. Also, quality could be getting taxed if they started having to inspect more air frames (due to a production ramp up) with either the same or a reduced number of inspectors.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. I doubt though we would ever get more specific information on what was determined to be the cause for the production issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top