KC-46...?

[Luis R. Ramos]

Hopefully you will think my question applies to Aerospace Ed.

What is / are the current status of aerial tankers in the US Air Force?

I thought the USAF was still using KC - 135 and KC - 10 to refuel airplanes. For a time I read the KC - 135 were to be replaced by KC - 767 but they got cancelled. Just a few minutes ago I read another thread on a different website that stated that although the KC - 767 was cancelled by the USAF, four were sold to the Italian and Japanese air forces each. Also there is a new tanker project for the USAF, the KC - 46.

Can someone update me on this issue?

Flyer

[PHall]

The current Air Force refuelling aircraft are the KC-135R/T, KC-10A and HC/MC-130E/N/P's.
The KC-46A is in the procurement pipeline. The prototype will not fly for another year or two.  It is a variant of the Boeing 767.
It differs from the KC-767 in that all of the fuel is carried either in the wings or in lower deck area of the fuselage leaving the main cargo deck clear for passenger/cargo hauling.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/   has more info. Look for KC-46A in the "K's".

[Luis R. Ramos]

PHALL-

Thank you for that response. So it is basically as I thought.

Adding the HC / MC - 130, which I was not aware. Once I was told the Marines used the C - 130 as a tanker, though.

Does the HC / MC - 130 has a flexible hose or is it more like the pipe in the KC - 10 and KC - 135?

Flyer

[bosshawk]

The 130 uses the probe and drogue system.  Don't know of any hard booms on the Herc.

[LegacyAirman]

PHALL-

Thank you for that response. So it is basically as I thought.

Adding the HC / MC - 130, which I was not aware. Once I was told the Marines used the C - 130 as a tanker, though.

Does the HC / MC - 130 has a flexible hose or is it more like the pipe in the KC - 10 and KC - 135?

Flyer

USAF MC-130 E&H models, HC-130 and marine KC's "similar" (at least the probe and drogue):
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=106

[PHall]

PHALL-

Thank you for that response. So it is basically as I thought.

Adding the HC / MC - 130, which I was not aware. Once I was told the Marines used the C - 130 as a tanker, though.

Does the HC / MC - 130 has a flexible hose or is it more like the pipe in the KC - 10 and KC - 135?

Flyer

As I said, I was talking about AIR FORCE.   The AIR FORCE HC/MC-130's refuel HH/MH-60's and the MV-22B. They can also refuel Army MH-47's.
The C-130's use the hose and drougue system to refuel their receivers. They have pods mounted on their wings.

[Luis R. Ramos]

PHall-

Sorry I did not clarify.

I understood very clearly you posting that currently the USAF uses the HC/MC-130 in addition to the KC-135 and KC-10.

I was just stating that a long time ago I was told the Marines used the C-130.

Thank you for the replies.

A little story that you may find a little painful. My unit participates in the Kiwanis Kids at LaGuardia Airport. For those that do not know, it is a static airshow. The Air Force provides a KC-135. I always like to check on the cadets. So I start asking the cadets stationed by the KC-135 "what is that airplane?" I get answers "KC-10," "KC-130." No one got it right. One of those cadets was standing right next to a AF Reserve Crew Chief. The Crew Chief looks at me, smiles, I smile back, and he walks away. His message came through without words: "He's one of your guys, fix it!" Seems like other senior members gave those cadets misinformation. Goes without saying that I corrected all...

Flyer

[PHall]

PHall-

Sorry I did not clarify.

I understood very clearly you posting that currently the USAF uses the HC/MC-130 in addition to the KC-135 and KC-10.

I was just stating that a long time ago I was told the Marines used the C-130.

Thank you for the replies.

A little story that you may find a little painful. My unit participates in the Kiwanis Kids at LaGuardia Airport. For those that do not know, it is a static airshow. The Air Force provides a KC-135. I always like to check on the cadets. So I start asking the cadets stationed by the KC-135 "what is that airplane?" I get answers "KC-10," "KC-130." No one got it right. One of those cadets was standing right next to a AF Reserve Crew Chief. The Crew Chief looks at me, smiles, I smile back, and he walks away. His message came through without words: "He's one of your guys, fix it!" Seems like other senior members gave those cadets misinformation. Goes without saying that I corrected all...

Flyer

Having done waaaayyyyyyy too many static displays, I can see the Crew Chief's point of view on this.

I would have done the same thing too!

[MercFE]

Little off topic...

Nothing beats showing an E-6B at an air show and keeping track of how many people call it a tanker. 

Although, did have one kid run up, slap the keel beam bay, and yell, "Mom, this is where they keep the bombs!"

[AngelWings]

Little off topic...

Nothing beats showing an E-6B at an air show and keeping track of how many people call it a tanker. 

Although, did have one kid run up, slap the keel beam bay, and yell, "Mom, this is where they keep the bombs!"

Heh, I saw one of those land last summer at my local Air Guard base, and I thought it was either a stripped down E-3 or a tanker! I had to goolge it on my Droid to find out what it was.

[PHall]

Little off topic...

Nothing beats showing an E-6B at an air show and keeping track of how many people call it a tanker. 

Although, did have one kid run up, slap the keel beam bay, and yell, "Mom, this is where they keep the bombs!"

Heh, I saw one of those land last summer at my local Air Guard base, and I thought it was either a stripped down E-3 or a tanker! I had to goolge it on my Droid to find out what it was.

For a long time there was a pair of ex-American Airlines 707's at Tinker that were used as trainers and as crew transports for swapping out crews in the sand box.
They were painted exactly like their E-3A brethern. They caused more then a few confused looks when they showed up at an air show!

[Luis R. Ramos]

Live and learn.

I did not know of the E6B. I did read the classification a few months ago, but always confused it with the EA6.

E6B. Big boy! I see why some would say it is a tanker.

[PHall]

Live and learn.

I did not know of the E6B. I did read the classification a few months ago, but always confused it with the EA6.

E6B. Big boy! I see why some would say it is a tanker.

It's E-6B. Don't forget the dash. An E-6B is an airplane. A E6B is a hand held circular slide rule used by pilots.
Just a "slight" difference!

[BuckeyeDEJ]

It shouldn't take long to get the KC-46 through development, since the platform is tried and true, and so's the technology. The Air Force made the right choice, going with Boeing. While the '46 may differ from the 767 tanker derivatives flying elsewhere, I can't imagine it's so greatly different that it'll take a decade to get it through testing.

Can't wait to see them here at MacDill, but it's going to be a while. You really have to hand it to the builders and maintainers on the C-135/C-137/E-3/E-8/et al — to think that airframe was last built for anyone in 1977 and most were built in the 1950s and 1960s, and they're all still flying strong.

[PHall]

It shouldn't take long to get the KC-46 through development, since the platform is tried and true, and so's the technology. The Air Force made the right choice, going with Boeing. While the '46 may differ from the 767 tanker derivatives flying elsewhere, I can't imagine it's so greatly different that it'll take a decade to get it through testing.

Can't wait to see them here at MacDill, but it's going to be a while. You really have to hand it to the builders and maintainers on the C-135/C-137/E-3/E-8/et al — to think that airframe was last built for anyone in 1977 and most were built in the 1950s and 1960s, and they're all still flying strong.

New wing. New 787 style cockpit. New updated KC-10 style boom. 
That's going to be a LOT of testing to be completed before it's cleared for service.
One of the biggest delays for both the KC-767 and the KC-30 was software integration...

[a2capt]

The first time I went inside a tanker, I was "amazed" that there was so much room inside, for something that my imagination equated to being ..

.. and of course, with the weight of fuel, that would be a rather interesting piece of engineering, but still.

[PHall]

The first time I went inside a tanker, I was "amazed" that there was so much room inside, for something that my imagination equated to being ..

.. and of course, with the weight of fuel, that would be a rather interesting piece of engineering, but still.

Why would it be an "interesting piece of engineering"? The KC-97, KC-130, the British L1011 Tristar K.2, the British VC-10 and the KC-767 all carry their "transfer fuel" in tanks that are in the cargo compartment.

The modern US Air Force tankers are designed and built as multipurpose aircraft that are both tankers and cargo aircraft.
Which is why they have their extra fuel tanks in the lower fuselage where airliners normally carry your luggage.
This keeps the cargo compartment clear for passengers and cargo.

[a2capt]

The *whole* thing full of fuel? The lift, the landing gear, the emergency return landing ..  Yuck.

[SarDragon]

The specs for the 767-200ER and the KC-767 are essentially the same.

The native fuel load for both is 160,660 lb. Max cargo/tanker load is 157,510 pounds. That converts to 23,500 gallons of JP-8, which fits in a tank 7.5 ft x 7.5 ft x 60 ft.

The only Q I still have is - can the native fuel load be transferred in addition to the tanker load?

[PHall]

The specs for the 737-200ER and the KC-767 are essentially the same.

The native fuel load for both is 160,660 lb. Max cargo/tanker load is 157,510 pounds. That converts to 23,500 gallons of JP-8, which fits in a tank 7.5 ft x 7.5 ft x 60 ft.

The only Q I still have is - can the native fuel load be transferred in addition to the tanker load?

737 Dave???  Better lay off the egg nog.       I hope you meant 767-200ER.

The KC-46A is designed like the other "modern" Air Force tankers. The under deck cargo holds have multiple cell, bladder type fuel tanks with their associated pumps and valves.

And yes, all fuel carried on the aircraft is transferable.