More KC-46A woes....
KC46 Single Pilot Combat Ops?
Single Pilot KC-46 Tanker Operations Eyed By Air Force For Major Conflicts (msn.com)
The U.S. Air Force is exploring the possibility of allowing KC-46A Pegasus aerial refueling tankers to fly with just two individuals on board – a pilot and a boom operator – in certain high-end wartime scenarios, such as a future conflict against China. These tankers are currently not available to support combat operations of any kind, except in emergency circumstances. News of the plan has already prompted intense discussion, as well as criticism, online about potential safety concerns as a product of the increased workload on such a skeleton crew.
Air Force Maj. Hope Cronin, a spokesperson for Air Mobility Command (AMC), which oversees the bulk of the service's aerial refueling tanker fleets, has confirmed to The War Zone that officials at McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas have submitted a request for a waiver to allow two-crew KC-46A operations. Typically, tankers will fly with a minimum of a pilot, co-pilot, and boom operator. As of May, the Air Force had received 59 Pegasus tankers, with more than 20 of those having gone to units at McConnell
The first information about the waiver had appeared on unofficial Air Force social media channels, such as the
and https://www.reddit.com/r/AirForce/comments/vzw3uv/mcconnell_kc46_waiver_for_only_one_pilot_and_one/, on July 15. The anonymous source for this initial information claimed that AMC commander Gen. Michael Minihan had received this request and was considering it due to concerns about recruitment and retention at McConnell, something the command has denied. The Air Force, overall, is https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2021/06/22/air-force-grapples-with-enduring-pilot-shortage-as-airlines-begin-to-rehire/ at present, something that has been https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3776/the-usafs-pilot-shortage-has-reached-disastrous-levels and that the service had been making some minor progress in recent years to reverse. The post-pandemic boom in air travel and hiring by the airlines could see the situation worsen once again in the future.
“AMC is moving forward faster in a risk-informed manner to ensure Mobility Air Forces are ready to be the meaningful maneuver force required to meet Joint Force needs in a peer competitor fight. Mobility aircraft typically fly with a pilot, co-pilot, and based on aircraft type, a loadmaster and/or a boom operator," Maj. Cronin, the AMC spokesperson, told The War Zone. "The command is currently reassessing minimum flight crew requirements as we explore and validate new tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) oriented towards a dynamic, future fight."
"The waiver request in question is part of the process to safely validate exploratory TTPs that are being assessed in training simulations and concept of employment development for potential use in a hypothetical peer competitor fight," she continued. "The AMC staff is currently reviewing this concept development and ensuring the authorities to execute this type of maneuver are at the MAJCOM [major command] level and can be executed within an adequate safety margin before approval will be provided."Air Force Col. Nate Vogel, at right, commander of the 22nd Air Refueling Wing at McConnell Air Force Base, shakes hands with AMC commander Gen. Mike Minihan, at left, during the latter officer's visit to the base on April 27, 2022. USAF / Airman Brenden Beezley)
The War Zone has reached out to AMC to find out whether similar TTPs have been approved or are now being considered for use with the Air Force's KC-135 or KC-10 tankers. The KC-135 and KC-10 are both much older designs than the KC-46, and have far more limited degrees of automation, which could limit any potential ability to operate with reduced crews. It is also important to note that there is no indication, even if the two-crew option for the KC-46 is approved, that it would ever be authorized for routine, day-to-day use.
Being able to fly KC-46As with just two crew members could possibly be useful in a large-scale conflict situation where the demand for aerial refueling sorties will be very high, but the total number of available tankers may be low, including due to losses from enemy action. In recent years, the Air Force has made no secret about its desire for more tanker capacity and concerns about the vulnerability of these aircraft in a high-end fight. It's important to remember that KC-46As are also capable of carrying out cargo and passenger-carrying and aeromedical evacuation missions, which will only add complexity to mission planning and tasking processes during a major conflict.
At the same time, as many commenters on social media, including current and former Air Force personnel, have already noted, the idea of attempting to operate a KC-46A, or any other tanker, with just two crew members can only prompt questions about safety and the general strain put on those individuals. Aerial refueling is an often complex and potentially dangerous task, especially during major combat operations, requiring significant communication and coordination between members of the tanker's crew, and between individuals on that aircraft and the one receiving the gas, especially during major combat operations.
With only a single pilot and boom operator, a KC-46A would have no backup personnel to perform a host of critical functions should either one of those individuals be incapacitated for any reason, including unexpected medical emergencies, during a mission. Impacts on other basic quality of life issues, including just needing to do things like eat, sleep, and go to the bathroom, would be exacerbated by having no alternate crew members on the aircraft.
There is a reason why the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) places restrictions on what kinds of private and commercial aircraft can be flown with just one pilot and when – certain light jets and smaller aircraft only, and even then only under certain circumstances – and those flights can generally be expected to be far less demanding than operating a tanker on a potentially long-duration sortie in a conflict zone. Nowhere in the world are commercial jets of a similar size to the KC-46 allowed to fly with just one pilot.
Robert Hopkins, an aviation historian, author, and contributor to The War Zone, who flew C-135s variants, among other aircraft, during his tenure with the Air Force, further highlighted on Twitter how this two-crew concept seemed to both acknowledge the vulnerabilities of traditional tankers and offer as a solution simply putting more of them in harm's way.
The U.S. Air Force is exploring the possibility of allowing KC-46A Pegasus aerial refueling tankers to fly with just two individuals on board – a pilot and a boom operator – in certain high-end wartime scenarios, such as a future conflict against China. These tankers are currently not available to support combat operations of any kind, except in emergency circumstances. News of the plan has already prompted intense discussion, as well as criticism, online about potential safety concerns as a product of the increased workload on such a skeleton crew.
Air Force Maj. Hope Cronin, a spokesperson for Air Mobility Command (AMC), which oversees the bulk of the service's aerial refueling tanker fleets, has confirmed to The War Zone that officials at McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas have submitted a request for a waiver to allow two-crew KC-46A operations. Typically, tankers will fly with a minimum of a pilot, co-pilot, and boom operator. As of May, the Air Force had received 59 Pegasus tankers, with more than 20 of those having gone to units at McConnell
The first information about the waiver had appeared on unofficial Air Force social media channels, such as the
“AMC is moving forward faster in a risk-informed manner to ensure Mobility Air Forces are ready to be the meaningful maneuver force required to meet Joint Force needs in a peer competitor fight. Mobility aircraft typically fly with a pilot, co-pilot, and based on aircraft type, a loadmaster and/or a boom operator," Maj. Cronin, the AMC spokesperson, told The War Zone. "The command is currently reassessing minimum flight crew requirements as we explore and validate new tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) oriented towards a dynamic, future fight."
"The waiver request in question is part of the process to safely validate exploratory TTPs that are being assessed in training simulations and concept of employment development for potential use in a hypothetical peer competitor fight," she continued. "The AMC staff is currently reviewing this concept development and ensuring the authorities to execute this type of maneuver are at the MAJCOM [major command] level and can be executed within an adequate safety margin before approval will be provided."Air Force Col. Nate Vogel, at right, commander of the 22nd Air Refueling Wing at McConnell Air Force Base, shakes hands with AMC commander Gen. Mike Minihan, at left, during the latter officer's visit to the base on April 27, 2022. USAF / Airman Brenden Beezley)
The War Zone has reached out to AMC to find out whether similar TTPs have been approved or are now being considered for use with the Air Force's KC-135 or KC-10 tankers. The KC-135 and KC-10 are both much older designs than the KC-46, and have far more limited degrees of automation, which could limit any potential ability to operate with reduced crews. It is also important to note that there is no indication, even if the two-crew option for the KC-46 is approved, that it would ever be authorized for routine, day-to-day use.
Being able to fly KC-46As with just two crew members could possibly be useful in a large-scale conflict situation where the demand for aerial refueling sorties will be very high, but the total number of available tankers may be low, including due to losses from enemy action. In recent years, the Air Force has made no secret about its desire for more tanker capacity and concerns about the vulnerability of these aircraft in a high-end fight. It's important to remember that KC-46As are also capable of carrying out cargo and passenger-carrying and aeromedical evacuation missions, which will only add complexity to mission planning and tasking processes during a major conflict.
At the same time, as many commenters on social media, including current and former Air Force personnel, have already noted, the idea of attempting to operate a KC-46A, or any other tanker, with just two crew members can only prompt questions about safety and the general strain put on those individuals. Aerial refueling is an often complex and potentially dangerous task, especially during major combat operations, requiring significant communication and coordination between members of the tanker's crew, and between individuals on that aircraft and the one receiving the gas, especially during major combat operations.
With only a single pilot and boom operator, a KC-46A would have no backup personnel to perform a host of critical functions should either one of those individuals be incapacitated for any reason, including unexpected medical emergencies, during a mission. Impacts on other basic quality of life issues, including just needing to do things like eat, sleep, and go to the bathroom, would be exacerbated by having no alternate crew members on the aircraft.
There is a reason why the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) places restrictions on what kinds of private and commercial aircraft can be flown with just one pilot and when – certain light jets and smaller aircraft only, and even then only under certain circumstances – and those flights can generally be expected to be far less demanding than operating a tanker on a potentially long-duration sortie in a conflict zone. Nowhere in the world are commercial jets of a similar size to the KC-46 allowed to fly with just one pilot.
Robert Hopkins, an aviation historian, author, and contributor to The War Zone, who flew C-135s variants, among other aircraft, during his tenure with the Air Force, further highlighted on Twitter how this two-crew concept seemed to both acknowledge the vulnerabilities of traditional tankers and offer as a solution simply putting more of them in harm's way.
They ARE talking about a war situation - not routine ops
Fight as you train; train as you intend to fight.
The word ‘Except’ enables opportunity for error.
Common type rating; differences training as in commercial aircraft.
Design for man and machine, where the machine provides IA, Intelligent Assistance, and that ‘intelligent’ is from the human viewpoint - what is required and when.
The word ‘Except’ enables opportunity for error.
Common type rating; differences training as in commercial aircraft.
Design for man and machine, where the machine provides IA, Intelligent Assistance, and that ‘intelligent’ is from the human viewpoint - what is required and when.
Single Pilot KC-46 Tanker Operations Eyed By Air Force For Major Conflicts (msn.com)
There is a reason why the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) places restrictions on what kinds of private and commercial aircraft can be flown with just one pilot and when – certain light jets and smaller aircraft only, and even then only under certain circumstances – and those flights can generally be expected to be far less demanding than operating a tanker on a potentially long-duration sortie in a conflict zone. Nowhere in the world are commercial jets of a similar size to the KC-46 allowed to fly with just one pilot.
Robert Hopkins, an aviation historian, author, and contributor to The War Zone, who flew C-135s variants, among other aircraft, during his tenure with the Air Force, further highlighted on Twitter how this two-crew concept seemed to both acknowledge the vulnerabilities of traditional tankers and offer as a solution simply putting more of them in harm's way.
There is a reason why the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) places restrictions on what kinds of private and commercial aircraft can be flown with just one pilot and when – certain light jets and smaller aircraft only, and even then only under certain circumstances – and those flights can generally be expected to be far less demanding than operating a tanker on a potentially long-duration sortie in a conflict zone. Nowhere in the world are commercial jets of a similar size to the KC-46 allowed to fly with just one pilot.
Robert Hopkins, an aviation historian, author, and contributor to The War Zone, who flew C-135s variants, among other aircraft, during his tenure with the Air Force, further highlighted on Twitter how this two-crew concept seemed to both acknowledge the vulnerabilities of traditional tankers and offer as a solution simply putting more of them in harm's way.
Rimpac 80 mass brief: "y'all gotta go out, ya don't gotta come back..."
IIRC the RN once made a decision to change from two to single pilot in a helicopter. I've never understood what the logic is if the aircraft is designed for two. Is it as simple as lack of aircrew?
That's the point - in real ops you get very very busy, very quickly. You don't get issued an extra set of ears and an extra mouth for all the radios, nor the extra eyes to look out, or to look in for link management, ESM / DAS, plan revisions over long vul times, tank as a receiver and, god forbid, actually doing the basic aviate, navigate and communicate bit!
In your opinion, although if you were just talking of the KC-46A decision we might be on common ground.
Most of the discussions about SP ops assume that the pilot will be 'alone and unafraid', whereas the risk mitigations will drive you to a scenario where the other pilots are on the end of the satellite link and will be capable not only of flying the aircraft remotely but also provide the "extra set of ears and an extra mouth for all the radios" and "look in for link management, ESM / DAS, plan revisions over long vul times" etc. and they will be hooked into the CAOC or whatever C2 system more closely than an airborne crew could ever hope to be.
See and avoid for most transport category aircraft does not work, so it's not an argument even for AAR ops.
Most of the discussions about SP ops assume that the pilot will be 'alone and unafraid', whereas the risk mitigations will drive you to a scenario where the other pilots are on the end of the satellite link and will be capable not only of flying the aircraft remotely but also provide the "extra set of ears and an extra mouth for all the radios" and "look in for link management, ESM / DAS, plan revisions over long vul times" etc. and they will be hooked into the CAOC or whatever C2 system more closely than an airborne crew could ever hope to be.
See and avoid for most transport category aircraft does not work, so it's not an argument even for AAR ops.
Yes, so what is necessary under benign circumstances is no longer necessary under the most challenging lethal ones? Dumb as dirt.
I don’t know what “genius” at Mobility Command dreamed this up, but he’d be the first pilot I’d send out on a single pilot combat mission. Pity the poor boomer who goes with him. He’s probably the same guy who dreamed up RVS and wants the Air Force to take financial responsibility for inevitable failure of the RVS “fix”.
What’s the wartime crew duty day for a Pegasus? Does the single pilot just activate the autopilot while taking a nap? How many emergency situations require (or should require) two pilots? This only complicates the survivability dilemma of the tanker. Just plain dumb as dirt. I sure hope there’s still a general officer at Mobility Command with an ounce of common sense.
I don’t know what “genius” at Mobility Command dreamed this up, but he’d be the first pilot I’d send out on a single pilot combat mission. Pity the poor boomer who goes with him. He’s probably the same guy who dreamed up RVS and wants the Air Force to take financial responsibility for inevitable failure of the RVS “fix”.
What’s the wartime crew duty day for a Pegasus? Does the single pilot just activate the autopilot while taking a nap? How many emergency situations require (or should require) two pilots? This only complicates the survivability dilemma of the tanker. Just plain dumb as dirt. I sure hope there’s still a general officer at Mobility Command with an ounce of common sense.
Meanwhile, the USAF seems to think that Boeing is finally getting its act together on the KC-46:
US Air Force mulls skipping tanker competition as confidence in Boeing’s KC-46 builds (defensenews.com)
US Air Force mulls skipping tanker competition as confidence in Boeing’s KC-46 builds (defensenews.com)
In recent months, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has suggested the Air Force could opt to skip the competition for the bridge tanker, dubbed the KC-Y, and instead buy more KC-46 planes.
“Compared to a year ago at this time … we’d say ‘We’re not using the KC-46, it’s not really operational,’” Hunter said. “There’s been a huge sea change in the last year, and Air Mobility Command has really cleared the way for operational use of the KC-46.”
Last month, AMC announced the KC-46 had been approved to refuel 97% of the aircraft flown on U.S. Transportation Command missions.
Last month, AMC announced the KC-46 had been approved to refuel 97% of the aircraft flown on U.S. Transportation Command missions.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
“We lose money on every sale, but make it up on volume”…
Its an old joke, but how many companies have operated over the years - slowly losing money but hoping something will turn up to turn the business around before investors lose interest. (Take Uber as a current example).
Boeing is struggling in the FJ business, paused production of the newer versions of the 777, losing money on the 787, struggling with the 737 Max and threatening to cancel the Max-10*
* https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...congress-acts/
They lost $4.3B last year and another $1.5B in the first quarter of 2022. Their loses on the KC-46 program to date total $5.4B**
** https://www.airforcemag.com/kc-46-lo...illion-charge/
But they’ll bid to build more at the same price… hoping something will happen to turn things round…
https://www.airforcemag.com/boeing-l...-lowball-bids/
“We lose money on every sale….”
Its an old joke, but how many companies have operated over the years - slowly losing money but hoping something will turn up to turn the business around before investors lose interest. (Take Uber as a current example).
Boeing is struggling in the FJ business, paused production of the newer versions of the 777, losing money on the 787, struggling with the 737 Max and threatening to cancel the Max-10*
* https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...congress-acts/
They lost $4.3B last year and another $1.5B in the first quarter of 2022. Their loses on the KC-46 program to date total $5.4B**
** https://www.airforcemag.com/kc-46-lo...illion-charge/
But they’ll bid to build more at the same price… hoping something will happen to turn things round…
https://www.airforcemag.com/boeing-l...-lowball-bids/
“We lose money on every sale….”
Meanwhile, the USAF seems to think that Boeing is finally getting its act together on the KC-46:
US Air Force mulls skipping tanker competition as confidence in Boeing’s KC-46 builds (defensenews.com)
US Air Force mulls skipping tanker competition as confidence in Boeing’s KC-46 builds (defensenews.com)
Strategically, it may too much a blow to national security, so try to keep Boeing in the business. It would not exactly be a bailout, but an incentive for favorable decision. It’s a losing strategy though, nothing keeps the company from reneging on a deal and meanwhile the Air Force funds the shareholder interests and executives’ golden parachutes. It sure isn’t meritocracy.
Meanwhile, the USAF seems to think that Boeing is finally getting its act together on the KC-46:
US Air Force mulls skipping tanker competition as confidence in Boeing’s KC-46 builds (defensenews.com)
US Air Force mulls skipping tanker competition as confidence in Boeing’s KC-46 builds (defensenews.com)
In recent months, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has suggested the Air Force could opt to skip the competition for the bridge tanker, dubbed the KC-Y, and instead buy more KC-46 planes.
“Compared to a year ago at this time … we’d say ‘We’re not using the KC-46, it’s not really operational,’” Hunter said. “There’s been a huge sea change in the last year, and Air Mobility Command has really cleared the way for operational use of the KC-46.”
Last month, AMC announced the KC-46 had been approved to refuel 97% of the aircraft flown on U.S. Transportation Command missions.
Last month, AMC announced the KC-46 had been approved to refuel 97% of the aircraft flown on U.S. Transportation Command missions.
They're talking in glowing terms about an AAR system with a number of Category 1 Defects, and stressing how as it can refuel almost all the transport fleet, glossing over the fact that it can't refuel a big part of the combat fleet.
Gotta give Boeing the unimpeded opportunity to sell another couple of hundred KC-46 at a high enough price that they'll get back the money they've flushed away so far on this program.
Don't think they actually had to do a landing with the boom extended as part of the certification, but better safe than sorry, its done now - unless it was an ex carrier pilot who thought it was a hook !!
Another issue for Boeing to sort.
Article and video
Another issue for Boeing to sort.
Article and video
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Don't think they actually had to do a landing with the boom extended as part of the certification, but better safe than sorry, its done now - unless it was an ex carrier pilot who thought it was a hook !!
Another issue for Boeing to sort.
Article and video
Another issue for Boeing to sort.
Article and video
It may be shoddy but at least its 'Merican.
Meanwhile, the USAF seems to think that Boeing is finally getting its act together on the KC-46:
US Air Force mulls skipping tanker competition as confidence in Boeing’s KC-46 builds (defensenews.com)
US Air Force mulls skipping tanker competition as confidence in Boeing’s KC-46 builds (defensenews.com)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Israel buying 4 KC-46. Or rather, the USA buying them for Israel….
https://www.defensenews.com/global/m...c-46a-tankers/
Israel, Boeing agree to $927M deal for four KC-46A tankers
JERUSALEM — Boeing will soon sign a $927 million contract to deliver four KC-46A aerial refuelers to the Israeli military, the Israeli Defense Ministry and Boeing announced this week.
The ministry agreed to purchase the planes in January, following years of delays in finalizing a contract that stemmed from budgeting issues and local elections. The aircraft, which will arrive in 2025 and 2026, are coming from Boeing’s Lot 8 production….
Funding for the KC-46A aircraft will come from the $3.3 billion in security assistance that Israel received as part of a foreign military financing agreement with the U.S. The current contract gives Israel the ability to purchase four more of the planes after the initial four.….
https://www.defensenews.com/global/m...c-46a-tankers/
Israel, Boeing agree to $927M deal for four KC-46A tankers
JERUSALEM — Boeing will soon sign a $927 million contract to deliver four KC-46A aerial refuelers to the Israeli military, the Israeli Defense Ministry and Boeing announced this week.
The ministry agreed to purchase the planes in January, following years of delays in finalizing a contract that stemmed from budgeting issues and local elections. The aircraft, which will arrive in 2025 and 2026, are coming from Boeing’s Lot 8 production….
Funding for the KC-46A aircraft will come from the $3.3 billion in security assistance that Israel received as part of a foreign military financing agreement with the U.S. The current contract gives Israel the ability to purchase four more of the planes after the initial four.….
We should have offered those 4-5 tristars now turned into coke cans, they could have had them for 20 million, or a pound or FREE (at least there'd still be some flying.)
then again i suppose it don't beat being paid to have new stuff, however woeful
then again i suppose it don't beat being paid to have new stuff, however woeful