Preparing US Air Force New $200 Million Air Tanker for Special Mission

[@daviddempsey8721]

I worked as a radar specialist alongside crews at times. The public complain about defence costs, and critics imagine everything has gold plated toilets aboard. The reality is that the missions need aircraft of exacting standards and people of high quality and training to repeatedly and successfully do the work reliably and bring everyone back safely. Your videos show the huge weights or speeds and extraordinary things these aircraft and crews do.

[@jean-francoislemieux5509]

every time i watch your videos, i wonder about the chinese watching this and learning valuable info

[@TraderDan58]

They don’t need these videos. They have people working in the factories that will sell them everything for cheap

[@CASA-dy4vs]

It’s just a tanker Blud wtf they gonna build? An anti ship missile using tankers 😂

[@Richardbillig-zn3zc]

The u.s. a. Military are good angels rescue many nations from brick of war.

[@uchungnguyen7686]

Quá Kinh Điển 🎉🎉❤❤

[@davidharris2519]

can the KC-46 carry people or was it cargo only and the 135 and the KC-10 are much better a/c

[@noiseosoutros]

maravilha amo esse pais .

[@patrickshannon4854]

A hinged radome! There's nothing as exhilarating as R&Ring a KC-135 radome in a snowstorm w/30mph gusts!

[@thegrinch8161]

It doesn’t surprise me that the new tanker/ cargo/ troop transport doesn’t work very well and yet the wan…….ks still insult anyone who dares to cast aspersions against any of their kit or is it schitt

[@phatkid6811]

I can name at least 5 reasons the KC-46 is trash - and is lost on almost everyone: 1) TANKERING: There are never going to be enough tankers - so tankers need to tanker. This crap about them being for medevac and other missions is BS. Tankers need to do tankering and not hauling trash and medevac. 2) The KC-46 offers very little improved offload capability than the KC-135 it replaces. It's a larger aircraft with little/no improvement to the mission. 3) Virtual Boom Operations: Whoever thought this was a good idea is the same bunch of idiots that will make everything more complicated. I NEVER had a mission cancel because of the boom operator. Yes, the boom might break or not have a good contact - but rarely. There's ZERO mission improvement by a virtual boom position over the boom pod. I was there when the NAVs were replaced - that's was an "improvement" because you decreased manpower. Lastly, General LeMay would puke at the added complexity for no mission improvement. 4) Nuclear Mission: Is anything on this aircraft able to operate in a nuclear environment? Can this aircraft suffer multiple systems failures and still accomplish it's nuclear mission? I suspect not..... 5) Age: The 767 was at the END of production when the USAF decided to buy it and START/CONTINUE production. The fact is that generally it's the "latest in 80s design" with some marginal tech upgrades. The KC-135 survives because it was the latest/most advanced tech of the day -- still surviving 70 years later. The AF should have purchased a more advanced design (787 etc) with major "tanker mods" -- like adding below deck fuel tanks adding to it's offload capability vs cargo. I'm not saying the AF should build "new" KC-135s -- but this "new" tanker doesn't increase (or match?) useful capability.

[@deviationfluxer]

You know....there are female pilots in the service so how about you stop referring to the pilots as "He"?