이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
종료
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..
종료
Back to Squawk list
  • 21

Air Force Secretary: Boeing Is Giving Its Tanker Short Shrift

제출됨
 
If President Trump is the good cop when it comes to the U.S. government’s interaction with Boeing, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson is the bad cop. (www.defenseone.com) 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


tbpera
Tom Pera 6
what is so difficult about building a tanker version of the 767 for the UA Air Force? is this another "gold plated" project where the air force wants it to do too many things besides air-to-air" refueling?
chalet
chalet 2
This is how all the Services handle acquisitons: they want the latest bells and whistles and everything new on their planes, vessels, helios, tanks, TANKERS, etc. and since it is not their own personal checkbook but the People's (which never rise up to question anything) the ask the all so complascent defense contractors to add that to the scope and bill it at any price they so desire and let DOD cough up the resulting extra BILLIONS OF BILLIONS over the years.
sfontain
I wonder how the users of the Airbus KC-30 are doing with both Boom and Drogue capability. Seems to me that If the AF wants to push Boeing, they should lease a few KC-30's
jordanabrown
Was there ever a drouge version of the KC-135? I know about the boom version, flew behind it a few times. Seems that this is supposed to serve ALL services, not just the Air Force. As I remember, the Navy and Marines have their own tankers anyway.
tbpera
Tom Pera 1
think the KC46 has boom and drogue...
jordanabrown
Seems that the drogue is the major hang up for the KC-46 at this time, and that is only needed for the Navy and the Marines. The Air Force doesn't need it and that is part if not most of the delay. The Navy and the Marines didn't need or use the KC-135, so why do we need an ALL Service tanker now?
donhun1313
As a Navy veteran with 20+ years in Naval Aviation, I can state first hand that the KC135 is drogue capable and has a long tradition of supporting USN and USMC aircraft as well as our allies.
Refueling from a KC-135 was mission critical to all coalition aircraft during both Gulf Wars and in Afghanistan no matter the service or country of origin. Both Canadian and Australian FA-18 aircraft use the drogue system for aerial refueling.

For carrier based operations, refueling via a boom is not a viable option. That is why the drogue system was developed and why it is still in use for all carrier based aircraft.

WhiteKnight77
So what is the real problem, a second squawk linking to this article: https://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2018/03/21/us-air-force-scolds-boeing-over-kc-46a-tanker-delays/ shows a different problem, but with the boom scraping the coatings on stealth aircraft.

"The most important problem the company faces is the tendency of the rigid boom on the KC-46A to scrape the surface of the aircraft being refueled. This is a serious issue for stealth planes because it damages the coating that gives the aircraft their stealthiness.

Two less significant issues with the tanker are an electrical problem that could cause a fire when the plane is refueling and a software issue that cause a problem when the refueling boom is disconnected from the receiving aircraft."

So which is the real problem?

로그인

계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!