US Air Force News

[James1978]

KC-46 Mission Capable Rates Slipped Further from Goal in 2024
February 7, 2025
By John A. Tirpak

The KC-46 Pegasus tanker is still suffering from low mission capable and availability rates stemming from parts shortages, the Pentagon’s test director reported recently. The program continues to grapple with significant system deficiencies as well.

“The KC-46A is not meeting many of its suitability metrics,” according to the 2024 annual report from the office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. The tanker’s operational availability requirement is 80 percent and the mission capable requirement is 90 percent, but the actuals “decreased throughout 2024,” the report noted.

The report did not disclose what those rates were, but according to the most recent public data from the Air Force, the KC-46 had a mission capable rate of 65 percent in 2023.

When accounting for partially mission capable aircraft unable to perform their primary air refueling mission—due to a broken boom, for example—“the effective mission capable rate falls an additional 24 percent on average,” the report noted.

The mission capable/availability figures have been distilled from “over 90,000 flight hours of maintenance data” analyzed by the Joint Reliability and Maintainability Evaluation team. The Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center “has collected 15 times its originally required operational suitability flight test data, and no longer tracks detailed suitability data,” but the program office does.

The wealth of data is due in part to the fact that the KC-46 has been in initial operational test and evaluation since May 2019, even though AFOTEC has collected “all the achievable aerial refueling and secondary mission data on the current configuration” of the aircraft, the report noted.

The tanker can’t progress to the next stage of testing, however, until it receives updates to the refueling boom and the Remote Vision System, which are undergoing redesigns. AFOTEC has completed operational testing of the Wing Aerial Refueling Pod system and cooperative cyber testing of avionics systems.

There are some “potential concerns” with the WARPs under icing conditions, the test unit said, but the Air Force told DOT&E that it can use the existing system if needed and that it’s “pursuing a long-term solution.” There is also a weight and balance issue when the WARPs are installed, specifically when refueling both boom-type and drogue-type receiver aircraft. This is “expected to be resolved in a future weight and balance tool software upgrade.”

The Air Force “continues to work with Boeing to develop critical upgrades to the refueling boom and RVS, to support starting integrated testing in late FY25,” the report noted.

The problems with the boom and RVS are well known and have persisted for years now as Category 1 deficiencies—those that could cause death or serious injury to personnel or severe damage to the weapon system.

The Air Force has worked around some of these problems, and the KC-46 is now able to refuel 26 of 27 possible aircraft, but with some restrictions that “limit availability in certain environmental conditions and aircraft configurations,” the report noted. The final aircraft to go is not specifically identified in the DOT&E report but is the A-10 attack aircraft. Testing will resume after boom fixes are completed.

Other Category 1 problems include “the fuel manifold system, cracks and leaks in the refueling receptacle drain line, and cracks in the auxiliary power unit drain mast.” These have not been resolved, but redesigns are in progress.

Software updates to the Radio Frequency Self Defense System are needed to improve the tanker’s survivability, the report added, and flight testing of the RFSDS Version 6.0 is to get underway this quarter. These updates should “improve the clarity of information presented to aircrew to support threat avoidance capabilities,” the report states. More testing will be needed to see if those updates are sufficient to protect the KC-46 in a contested environment.

More broadly, the KC-46 “continues to suffer from prolonged maintenance repair times due to supply issues with parts,” the report added.

One of the issues driving “significant parts demand, additional maintenance and … damage to the aircraft” is a systemic failure of bleed air ducts, the report said. The problem, first identified in late 2023, was initially designated a Category 2 deficiency, but given “the number of aircraft affected [and] the number of repeat failures,” the program office upgraded the deficiency to a Category 1.

“This upgrade is appropriate due to no known acceptable workarounds in terms of supply support, repair support, and the significant additional burden on maintenance,” the report said. Boeing and the Air Force are “currently modeling and flight testing temporary procedures to alleviate the issue as they validate the temporary workarounds and future design modifications.” So far, “this deficiency is not considered a safety of flight issue.”

The test director did note some successes for the program. The KC-46 completed a Maximum Endurance Operation in June 2024, in which two KC-46 aircrews from the 22nd Air Refueling Wing completed a 45-hour “nonstop circumnavigation flight” beginning and ending at McConnell Air Force Base, Kan.

Boeing is on contract for 158 of 179 planned KC-46s. As of late 2024, some 89 aircraft had been delivered. The last contract, for the 15 aircraft in Lot 11, was awarded in November 2024. Its value was $2.4 billion, or about $159 million per airplane. Boeing is building the KC-46 under a fixed-price contract, and so far has absorbed more than $7.5 billion in losses on the program. The company was not immediately able to provide comment on the DOT&E report.

[James1978]

This is getting ridiculous. Boeing needs to get its damn act together on the KC-46

Air Force May Need to Extend the KC-135 Service Life: AMC Boss
March 20, 2025
By John A. Tirpak

At the Air Force’s current rate of 15 new aerial tankers a year, the service have to launch a service life extension program for its Eisenhower-era KC-135s, the head of Air Mobility Command said.

Meanwhile, leaders stressed the importance of more connectivity and survivability for AMC’s tanker fleet, even as they suggested they may be prepared to delay a new, stealthy refueling aircraft.

The Air Force “may need to look at service life extension, potentially, of the KC-135,” Gen. John D. Lamontagne said in a prerecorded interview with Defense One streamed March 20.

“Recapitalization of the tanker fleet is absolutely a priority,” he said, but “it’s going to take a really long time” to acquire replacements for the youngest KC-135s, all of which are more than 60 years old.

“We have continued to upgrade the KC-135, and we need to keep doing that,” Lamontagne said. “If we recapitalize the KC-135 to the tune of a squadron a year—which is typically how we acquire platforms—we’ll be flying the KC-135 into the 2050s. … I think that’s where we’re headed.”

That timeline would put the KC-135’s service life near 100 years. Already, the fleet has been re-engined, re-skinned, and received numerous structural and avionics upgrades since it was built. But the last major refresh of the fleet was in the 2010s, when the Block 45 upgrade gave the refueler additional capability and life to last into the 2040s.

The KC-135 is “not the same airplane it was when it came into the inventory,” and no longer needs a navigator due to avionics improvements, Lamontagne said.

The general did not comment on how extensive a SLEP might be needed on the Stratotanker, but such programs are generally not undertaken unless the Air Force believes the cost can be recouped within 10-20 years through reduced maintenance and spare parts consumption, fuel efficiency, or other metrics.

For the mobility fleet writ large, “the next couple of upgrades need to be that beyond-line-of-sight connectivity; tactical data links, so we have good [situational awareness] on our environment,” Lamontagne said.

NGAS

A yearlong analysis of alternatives (AOA) on the Air Force’s future aerial tanking fleet is receiving “finishing touches,” Lamontagne said, and should be concluded by around the end of March.

The Air Force has dubbed its next planned tanker the Next-Generation Aerial refueling System, or NGAS.

“No decisions have been made” about NGAS, Lamontagne said, but he acknowledged that the way ahead will be affected by how the Trump administration chooses to proceed with the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter.

Whether the NGAS moves ahead will be a budget-driven decision, Lamontagne said. If it is deferred, “I’ll just say there’s a variety of ways” for the KC-135 “to survive,” he added.

“We can continue to upgrade the fleet and put defensive systems on it, just like we’ve upgraded the navigation, the engines and more over the past decades,” he said. “We can also team up with other partners in the joint force and have them defend us. And so, a variety of ways to do it, even if we don’t pursue NGAS.”

In a separate interview with Defense One also streamed March 20, Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin said NGAS is not necessarily an aircraft, but a system of aerial refueling, and if it is postponed, “there are other ways that you can enhance survivability of a refueling aircraft,” he said.

“You can do it through electronic warfare. You can do it through…escort support. So this is all part of the entire NGAS evaluation,” he said. “It just means a new way to ensure survivability in a denser threat environment. I think that that analysis will be ongoing.”

He also said a “baseline” approach to survivability “is connectivity. So, ensuring that we can have connectivity between our aerial refueling platforms and our airlift platforms and our fighter platform, that’s what that’s something we’re pursuing.”

The Air Force’s top force designer, Maj. Gen. Joseph D. Kunkel, recently said that NGAD, NGAS, and Collaborative Combat Aircraft are “a package deal,” and decisions made about any of the three affect the other two.

KC-46

Before NGAS, Lamontagne said the Air Force wants to keep tankers in production “without a break.” That’s led to descriptions of a “bridge” buy of 75 tankers; Boeing is considered the main contender with an upgraded version KC-46, but the AMC boss said the firm does not have a lock on the program. Other suppliers have credible tanker offerings, he said, some of which don’t require a human crew.

In the meantime, deliveries of the KC-46 are currently suspended as Boeing investigates the root cause of a series of cracks in an outboard wing trailing edge. Once that is accomplished, “it’s a pretty quick fix” with the appropriate spare parts, he said, and deliveries can resume. Eleven of 50 KC-46s inspected so far have had cracks in the structure, and another 39 are to be inspected within the next two weeks, he noted. He left it to Air Force Materiel Command to say when deliveries would resume, but “repair should flow pretty quickly” after the root cause is determined.

Most of the other, more chronic deficiencies with the KC-46 are still being worked on, Lamontagne reported.

“We have made a lot of progress,” he said. “Some number of those [Category 1] deficiencies have been taken off the board and resolved. A couple of others are in the works and will deliver within the next year or two.”

Future Tech

Lamontagne also speculated on the requirements for a future airlifter to succeed the C-5 and C-17—the Next-Generation Airlift aircraft, or NGAL—saying it will not only have to be stealthy, but will have more missions than simply hauling people and cargo.

“We’re doing the capabilities-based assessment right now,” he reported. “That will take a couple of months to deliver, and it is basically evaluating, ‘hey, what kind of capabilities do we need in the future?’”

Lamontagne said key factors will include cargo capacity, range, survivability, and connectivity.

“I’d also say, we shouldn’t just look at it as an airlifter. … We should be doing more than one thing on an airplane, and I think the CBA will eventually lead to an [analysis of alternatives] and hopefully tease out some of the capabilities and the right things to make our Air Force and the joint force stronger,” he said.

The Air Force has in recent years conducted “Rapid Dragon” experiments that involved dropping whole pallets of cruise missiles out the backs of airlifters.

Lamontagne also said AMC is watching progress with Collaborative Combat Aircraft closely. He believes “the sky’s the limit” on how the technology of autonomous aircraft could be applied to the mobility mission.

“I could see a future where we are delivering [CCAs] maybe through the air,” he said, though for now AMC will just support the drones logistically.

Looking further down the road, though, the general said he could envision “unmanned airlifters, unmanned tankers.” CCA technology is moving “very, very rapidly,” he said, “And I think there’s a lot of opportunity in front of us in that space. … I think this is all very much in the realm of possible.”

[James1978]

Caine Confirmed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; First Air Guardsman in the Job
April 11, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

Lt. Gen. Dan Caine was confirmed as the 22nd Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by the Senate early April 11, making history as the first Air National Guardsman to take on the nation’s top uniformed job.

Caine is the sixth Airman to be Chairman and succeeds Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., who was abruptly dismissed from the job by President Donald Trump in February. He was approved on a wide bipartisan basis, 60-25.

Because Caine retired as a lieutenant general in January, the Senate also granted him a fourth star. By law, the chairman typically must have experience in a four-star job, either as a service chief or a combatant commander, but the President can waive that requirement.

Caine is the first three-star to ascend directly to the chairmanship, and the first retired officer in decades to return to service to be chairman.

An F-16 pilot early in his career, Caine has perhaps the most varied and unusual background of any Chairman in history. He has spent time as a White House fellow with the Department of Agriculture, a policy director for the White House Homeland Security Council, a commander of a Joint Special Operations Task Force in Iraq, director of the Pentagon’s highly secretive Special Access Programs Office, and the Pentagon liaison to the CIA. He also had several stints at U.S. Special Operations Command, including time as Deputy Commanding General of U.S. Central Command’s Special Ops Component and concurrently as the Deputy Commanding General for Special Operations for the campaign in Iraq against the Islamic State group.

“The Air & Space Forces Association looks forward to working with Gen. Dan Caine in his new role as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” said AFA President & CEO retired Lt. Gen. Burt Field. “Without Air and Space power we cannot win a modern war against a peer competitor, especially if conflict erupts in a theater as vast as the Indo-Pacific. General Caine’s experience in the Intelligence and Special Operations communities will be invaluable as the Department of Defense evolves to address today’s growing threat environment.”

At his confirmation hearing April 1, Caine touted that background as an asset at a potential pivot point in history.

During his confirmation hearing, Caine vowed to remain apolitical in his job. His focus, he said, will be on urging the military services to find faster ways to field technology that will preserve the nation’s military superiority. He also voiced support for the Pentagon’s nuclear modernization efforts and argued the military must rebuild its electronic warfare skills after years of decay.

Despite the unusual circumstances around his nomination—Brown was the first Chairman dismissed from the job since Gen. Peter Pace was not renominated in 2007—Caine glided to confirmation with more than a dozen votes from Democrats and support from every Republican present.

Defense industry groups were quick to congratulate Caine on his confirmation.

“Lieutenant General Caine’s commitment to improving the speed and adaptability of the Department of Defense’s requirements and acquisition processes and to harnessing the capabilities of the entire defense industrial base will be an asset to our national security as we seek to deter our adversaries and deliver peace through strength,” Aerospace Industries Association President and CEO Eric Fanning said in a statement. “We look forward to working with him to keep the United States strong and secure.”

“Yes, Senators, I acknowledge that I’m an unconventional nominee. … For many Americans, I’m an unknown leader,” Caine said. Yet, “these are unconventional times,” he added later.

Now, Caine is set to be sworn in as the Pentagon confronts global crises—Russia’s punishing invasion of Ukraine drags on amid uncertain peace talks, Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen continue to harass shipping vessels in the Red Sea despite a major air campaign against them, and China continues to build up its military and conduct aggressive maneuvers around Taiwan.

As chairman, Caine will not have operational control over any troops. He will, however, be the senior military adviser to President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“Congratulations to Dan ‘Razin’ Caine on his confirmation in the Senate as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Your leadership will be a welcomed/vital part of ensuring we return the Dept. of Defense back to the American warfighter,” Hegseth wrote in a post on social media.

During his confirmation hearing, Caine vowed to remain apolitical in his job. His focus, he said, will be on urging the military services to find faster ways to field technology that will preserve the nation’s military superiority. He also voiced support for the Pentagon’s nuclear modernization efforts and argued the military must rebuild its electronic warfare skills after years of decay.

Despite the unusual circumstances around his nomination—Brown was the first Chairman dismissed from the job since Gen. Peter Pace was not renominated in 2007—Caine glided to confirmation with more than a dozen votes from Democrats and support from every Republican present.

Defense industry groups were quick to congratulate Caine on his confirmation.

“Lieutenant General Caine’s commitment to improving the speed and adaptability of the Department of Defense’s requirements and acquisition processes and to harnessing the capabilities of the entire defense industrial base will be an asset to our national security as we seek to deter our adversaries and deliver peace through strength,” Aerospace Industries Association President and CEO Eric Fanning said in a statement. “We look forward to working with him to keep the United States strong and secure.”

[Rocket J Squrriel]

Boeing and USAF's problem child is in the news again.

https://www.twz.com/air/kc-46-tankers-b ... ng-mission

A U.S. Air Force KC-46 Pegasus tanker lost its boom during an incident today off the coast of Virginia. The KC-46 had been on a F-22 Raptor fighters refueling mission at the time.

We were first alerted to publicly available air traffic control radio chatter about the incident by our friend Jared Soergel. TWZ has reached out to McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas, where the KC-46 involved is based, as well as Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, where the F-22s had launched from, for more information. We have also contacted Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina, which could be a possible divert location.

You can listen below as the crew of the KC-46, callsign FELL 81 and serial number 17-46033, alerts the U.S. Navy’s Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility at Virginia Capes (FACSFAC VACAPES) about losing the boom. FACSFAC VACAPES is better known by its callsign, Giant Killer, and helps monitor for threats and otherwise manage the airspace off the east coast of the United States.

The F-22s that had been refueling with FELL 81 on the AR-636 refueling track east of Norfolk are understood to have now returned to base. What damage any of the Raptors may have sustained during the incident is unknown at this time.

At the time of writing, FELL 81 remains airborne in a holding pattern just to the south of Greenville, North Carolina, according to flight tracking data from ADS-B Exchange. The track shows the tanker initially circled over the southern end of the Chesapeake Bay, where the crew may have dumped fuel and otherwise made initial assessments about the damage, before heading south.

In general, KC-46s are no stranger to issues with their booms. Another one of the tankers lost its boom while refueling an F-15E Strike Eagle off the coast of California last year. The boom and the control system for it have been a source of serious and persistent technical issues for the Pegasus fleet for years now. A fix for the KC-46’s particularly troublesome remote vision system (RVS), which boom operators in the tanker’s main cabin use to perform their work, is now unlikely to be finished before summer 2027, roughly three years behind schedule, according to Defense News.

More details about what happened to FELL 81 and the other aircraft in the incident may begin to emerge once the tanker lands.

We will update this story if and when more information becomes available.

Update, 4:20 PM Eastern:

Air Force 2nd Lt. Samantha Bostick, Deputy Chief of Public Affairs for the 22nd Air Refueling Wing at McConnell Air Force Base, has now provided TWZ with the following statement:

“A KC-46A Pegasus from McConnell Air Force Base declared an In-flight Emergency July 8, while operating over the eastern United States, refueling F-22s.”

“The crew had to make the decision to land at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, N.C., and has landed safely there. The aircraft will remain there for the time being.”

A safety investigation of the incident is underway.

Howard Altman contributed to this story.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

[Micael]

KC-46 update:

Boeing KC-46 boom falls into Atlantic in second snap-off in a year
Jun 20, 2026
A known design flaw in the U.S. Air Force’s newest and most expensive aerial refueling tanker has now contributed to four separate midair accidents since 2022, including two incidents where the aircraft’s refueling boom, a 15-meter (50-foot) telescoping arm worth millions of dollars, was torn completely off the plane and fell into the ocean, Task & Purpose reported on June 16, 2026, citing a newly released Air Force accident investigation report that The Defence Blog has reviewed in full.

The aircraft at the center of the recurring problem is the KC-46A Pegasus, a Boeing-built tanker based on the 767 commercial widebody airliner that the Air Force purchased to replace its aging KC-135 Stratotanker fleet, which has been in service since the late 1950s. The KC-46A cost approximately $239 million per aircraft and was intended to be a generational upgrade in aerial refueling capability, bringing modern avionics, a remote vision system for boom operators, and improved fuel transfer capacity to the tanker mission. Instead, the aircraft has become a case study in how a known, unfixed mechanical defect can compound over time into a pattern of accidents that investigators keep attributing to individual crew members while the underlying problem remains unresolved.

The July 2025 accident documented in the official Accident Investigation Board report, signed by board president Colonel Kevin E. White on May 20, 2026, and approved by Major General Gerald A. Donohue on June 10, 2026, occurred on July 8, 2025, during a training mission approximately 160 kilometers (100 miles) off the coast of Virginia. A KC-46A assigned to the 344th Air Refueling Squadron, 22nd Air Refueling Wing, McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas, was conducting air refueling track 636, a designated refueling corridor over the Atlantic Ocean, servicing four flights of two F-22A Raptor fighters each from the 1st Fighter Wing at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia. The mishap occurred during contact with the fifth F-22A, piloted by a student fighter pilot with just 13 total flight hours in the aircraft, who was under direct supervision of a qualified F-22A instructor pilot with 1,032 hours in the type.

- ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW -
What the report reveals about the sequence leading to the accident is more damning than any summary can capture. The student pilot had already caused three emergency breakaways during the refueling timeframe before the mishap contact, a pattern the report describes as reflecting difficulty with air refueling throughout the mission. During the mishap contact itself, the F-22 moved forward approximately 2.1 meters (7 feet) in just 10 seconds, approaching the inner telescope limit of the refueling boom, at which point the boom operator initiated a disconnect. The fighter continued an additional 0.6 meters (2 feet) inward, forcing the boom operator to direct an emergency breakaway. The student pilot followed the appropriate breakaway procedure and reversed her forward movement, but the report found she had not accounted for the excessive power setting required to overcome the KC-46A’s stiff boom breakout forces and failed to reduce power appropriately, causing the F-22 to continue moving forward relative to the tanker while the two aircraft were still physically connected.


KC-46 Pegasus. (Courtesy photo)
The boom operator’s response to that situation is where the investigation places primary responsibility for what happened next. The official report states that the boom operator made manual control inputs to the air refueling flight control stick that caused “a radial force to be applied to the ARB nozzle and the nozzle to then become bound inside the receiver’s air refueling receptacle,” which subsequently produced “an unrecoverable boom fly-up rate upon release from the receptacle, striking MA1 and driving a critical failure of the boom structure which then departed in flight.”

The physical destruction the report documents is extensive. The two structural tubes of the boom cracked and separated slightly forward of the U-Tail assembly under the stress of the impact. The aft section of the boom, including the U-Tail and the telescoping tube, detached entirely and fell into the Atlantic Ocean, where it was never recovered. The boom’s impact on the KC-46A’s fuselage caused the latch hook-eye to shear off completely, leaving a hole in the fuselage between the remaining hoist cable and shock absorber. The shock absorber ruptured on impact and deflated completely. The boom’s separation simultaneously tore all internal wiring, hydraulic tubing, and telescoping chains and cables. The KC-46A itself sustained damage to its auxiliary power unit access doors, the APU exhaust system, the APU exhaust deflector, and the aircraft’s tail section. The estimated damage to the tanker totaled $9,979,567. The F-22 landed safely at Joint Base Langley-Eustis. The KC-46A declared an emergency and diverted to Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina.

The report acknowledged throughout its analysis that the underlying defect enabling the jam, a condition known as nozzle binding caused by what the Air Force formally classifies as a Category 1 deficiency in the KC-46A’s boom telescope being too stiff while in contact with a receiver aircraft, was present and applicable to this accident. The Air Force’s own deficiency documentation states that “axial breakout forces are too stiff causing unsuitable interactions of the boom with receivers,” that the stiffness causes receiver aircraft to inadvertently carry excess thrust that can cause them to accelerate rapidly toward the tanker upon disconnect, and that during testing of the stiff boom “once the breakout forces were overcome, an excessive telescope rate would build if the forces were not immediately corrected by the receiver pilot.” A Category 1 deficiency, by the Air Force’s own definition, covers defects that “may cause death, severe injury, or loss or major damage to weapon system.” The board president noted the deficiency was “applicable to this accident investigation for the boom telescope” while designating crew inputs as the primary cause.

Notably, the report’s analysis of flight control computer data was conducted with data analysis and animation provided directly by Boeing and in consultation with a Boeing employee, as well as animation created by the Air Force Safety Center and analysis from a Subject Matter Expert from the Aerial Refueling Certification Agency, a combination of sources that reflects both the technical complexity of reconstructing the accident sequence and the degree to which Boeing remains involved in investigating failures of its own hardware.

The 2025 accident stands in direct contrast to the findings of a 2022 KC-46A boom accident investigation, which reached a notably different conclusion about where responsibility lay. In that earlier case, board president Colonel Chad Cisewski wrote that “a pattern begins to emerge which leads me to conclude that this FCS input by [the boom operator] was inadvertent and due to a limitation of the KC-46 [boom] control system,” adding that “it is not a reasonable conclusion that [the boom operator] could have recognized his inadvertent input and corrected the situation with the current [boom] control deficiencies.” The 2022 report blamed the aircraft. The 2024 and 2025 reports blamed the crews. The defect connecting all four accidents has been in the Air Force’s own records throughout, classified at the highest level of severity, and it remains unresolved.

The Government Accountability Office, the independent congressional watchdog that audits federal programs, published a separate report just one week before the 2025 investigation became public that placed the KC-46A’s problems in their full operational context, as Task & Purpose reported. The GAO found that as of February 2026, Air Force officials reported one critical deficiency related to the KC-46A’s refueling boom, and that unit officials described additional problems including frequently failing electrical components on the boom, sensors that do not perform accurately, airframe cracks, and other structural issues. The tanker fleet, the GAO found, did not meet the Air Force’s availability and capability standards from fiscal year 2019 through fiscal year 2025, six consecutive years in which American air power’s logistical backbone fell short of its own requirements.

The practical consequence has been increasing dependence on the KC-135, a tanker whose airframes are in some cases older than the grandparents of the pilots flying them.

https://defence-blog.com/boeing-kc-46-b ... in-a-year/

[MikeKozlowski]

...Here's a thought - I know, it's gonna sound crazy but it might just work - how about REFUEL CERTIFYING A PILOT BEFORE YOU TYPE CERTIFY THEM AND SEND THEM TO A LINE SQUADRON???????

We've already killed one kid this way, we almost lost a few more on this.

Mike

[Johnnie Lyle]

...Here's a thought - I know, it's gonna sound crazy but it might just work - how about REFUEL CERTIFYING A PILOT BEFORE YOU TYPE CERTIFY THEM AND SEND THEM TO A LINE SQUADRON???????

We've already killed one kid this way, we almost lost a few more on this.

Mike

Sir, you can’t make sense here. This is the government.

[kdahm]

...Here's a thought - I know, it's gonna sound crazy but it might just work - how about REFUEL CERTIFYING A PILOT BEFORE YOU TYPE CERTIFY THEM AND SEND THEM TO A LINE SQUADRON???????

We've already killed one kid this way, we almost lost a few more on this.

Mike

I think they were being type-certified on the plane. They only had 13 hours on the F-22, and were listed in the report as a student-pilot.

IMO, 13 hours is way too soon to be worried about faffing about with refueling. Hell, it's probably too soon to be getting out of a two-seat model. They need to be certifying them for ordinary flight, then for formation flying, before starting to look at refueling or combat. We don't know the simulator hours of the pilot, either. At 13 hours, I would expect they'd have a hard time knowing by reflex exactly what buttons to press in the cockpit either, even if they have 40 or 50 hours in a simulator.

How much does a F22 or F35 simulator run, anyway, and how many does each air base have?

[Nightwatch2]

...Here's a thought - I know, it's gonna sound crazy but it might just work - how about REFUEL CERTIFYING A PILOT BEFORE YOU TYPE CERTIFY THEM AND SEND THEM TO A LINE SQUADRON???????

We've already killed one kid this way, we almost lost a few more on this.

Mike

I think they were being type-certified on the plane. They only had 13 hours on the F-22, and were listed in the report as a student-pilot.

IMO, 13 hours is way too soon to be worried about faffing about with refueling. Hell, it's probably too soon to be getting out of a two-seat model. They need to be certifying them for ordinary flight, then for formation flying, before starting to look at refueling or combat. We don't know the simulator hours of the pilot, either. At 13 hours, I would expect they'd have a hard time knowing by reflex exactly what buttons to press in the cockpit either, even if they have 40 or 50 hours in a simulator.

How much does a F22 or F35 simulator run, anyway, and how many does each air base have?

pretty sure they all get lotsa practice in trainers, real jets, before they go to the type training. 13 hours in type doesn't sound like much but how much total time does she have?

[kdahm]

...Here's a thought - I know, it's gonna sound crazy but it might just work - how about REFUEL CERTIFYING A PILOT BEFORE YOU TYPE CERTIFY THEM AND SEND THEM TO A LINE SQUADRON???????

We've already killed one kid this way, we almost lost a few more on this.

Mike

I think they were being type-certified on the plane. They only had 13 hours on the F-22, and were listed in the report as a student-pilot.

IMO, 13 hours is way too soon to be worried about faffing about with refueling. Hell, it's probably too soon to be getting out of a two-seat model. They need to be certifying them for ordinary flight, then for formation flying, before starting to look at refueling or combat. We don't know the simulator hours of the pilot, either. At 13 hours, I would expect they'd have a hard time knowing by reflex exactly what buttons to press in the cockpit either, even if they have 40 or 50 hours in a simulator.

How much does a F22 or F35 simulator run, anyway, and how many does each air base have?

pretty sure they all get lotsa practice in trainers, real jets, before they go to the type training. 13 hours in type doesn't sound like much but how much total time does she have?

According to a quick google, about 100 hours in a T1A Texan and another 100 hours in a T38. Neither has in-flight refueling as standard.

I'm mostly looking at how long does it take for the pilot to get comfortable in the cockpit, to know where everything is, and to know how the plane flies. How fast does is speed up or slow down, turn speed, climb and dive characteristics. It only matters somewhat about hours in other types, since I would expect that a pilot with 400 hours in a F15 or F16 would still be in the steep learning curve with 13 hours in the F22. FWIW, I wouldn't expect a pilot to try carrier landings until at least 25-40 hours in type too.

[Nightwatch2]

I think they were being type-certified on the plane. They only had 13 hours on the F-22, and were listed in the report as a student-pilot.

IMO, 13 hours is way too soon to be worried about faffing about with refueling. Hell, it's probably too soon to be getting out of a two-seat model. They need to be certifying them for ordinary flight, then for formation flying, before starting to look at refueling or combat. We don't know the simulator hours of the pilot, either. At 13 hours, I would expect they'd have a hard time knowing by reflex exactly what buttons to press in the cockpit either, even if they have 40 or 50 hours in a simulator.

How much does a F22 or F35 simulator run, anyway, and how many does each air base have?

pretty sure they all get lotsa practice in trainers, real jets, before they go to the type training. 13 hours in type doesn't sound like much but how much total time does she have?

According to a quick google, about 100 hours in a T1A Texan and another 100 hours in a T38. Neither has in-flight refueling as standard.

I'm mostly looking at how long does it take for the pilot to get comfortable in the cockpit, to know where everything is, and to know how the plane flies. How fast does is speed up or slow down, turn speed, climb and dive characteristics. It only matters somewhat about hours in other types, since I would expect that a pilot with 400 hours in a F15 or F16 would still be in the steep learning curve with 13 hours in the F22. FWIW, I wouldn't expect a pilot to try carrier landings until at least 25-40 hours in type too.

At least! And a whole lot of FCLP’s

It would be good to know what the full qualification track is. I’m sure we’ll hear more on this.

[Micael]

Here’s a couple of photos of the damage to the KC-46:

[MikeKozlowski]

...Here's a thought - I know, it's gonna sound crazy but it might just work - how about REFUEL CERTIFYING A PILOT BEFORE YOU TYPE CERTIFY THEM AND SEND THEM TO A LINE SQUADRON???????

We've already killed one kid this way, we almost lost a few more on this.

Mike

I think they were being type-certified on the plane. They only had 13 hours on the F-22, and were listed in the report as a student-pilot.

IMO, 13 hours is way too soon to be worried about faffing about with refueling. Hell, it's probably too soon to be getting out of a two-seat model. They need to be certifying them for ordinary flight, then for formation flying, before starting to look at refueling or combat. We don't know the simulator hours of the pilot, either. At 13 hours, I would expect they'd have a hard time knowing by reflex exactly what buttons to press in the cockpit either, even if they have 40 or 50 hours in a simulator.

How much does a F22 or F35 simulator run, anyway, and how many does each air base have?

Sadly, there is no 2 seater -22; that got cancelled real early on in the program.

My concern is this: at 13 hours, the kid can get the airplane into the sky, do a few cool things, and put it back down without killing himself and costing the taxpayer a hundred million dollars or so. He should not - NOT - be trying a refueling, and he most definitely should not be trying it in a line squadron. A pilot who cannot refuel his aircraft (if that is a requirement) is useless.

What happens if the call goes out again tomorrow, and 1FW has to deploy? He stands on Armistead Avenue and waves good-bye?

Every flying base has a simulator - just one; the sims cost almost as much as the damn airplane. If the USAF has made the decision to let untrained pilots go to line units without a literal survival skill, then those pilots need to spend every single possible moment on said sim playing tag before letting them try it again for real, and then every single sortie he flies need to be refueling practice. The KC-46 is bad enough - another one lost a boom, and don't get me started on the remote boomer - but this sort of thing is going to eventually lose us a priceless combat asset and a tanker.

Mike

[Bob Dedmon]

...Here's a thought - I know, it's gonna sound crazy but it might just work - how about REFUEL CERTIFYING A PILOT BEFORE YOU TYPE CERTIFY THEM AND SEND THEM TO A LINE SQUADRON???????

We've already killed one kid this way, we almost lost a few more on this.

Mike

Sir, you can’t make sense here. This is the government.

I've been telling him that for years

[MikeKozlowski]

...Here's a thought - I know, it's gonna sound crazy but it might just work - how about REFUEL CERTIFYING A PILOT BEFORE YOU TYPE CERTIFY THEM AND SEND THEM TO A LINE SQUADRON???????

We've already killed one kid this way, we almost lost a few more on this.

Mike

Sir, you can’t make sense here. This is the government.

I've been telling him that for years

....Don't YOU start.

Mike

[Bob Dedmon]

Sir, you can’t make sense here. This is the government.

I've been telling him that for years

....Don't YOU start.

Mike

I never finished24/7