It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
EVERETT, Wash. - Boeing Co. said it began assembly of the first KC-46A tanker for the U.S. Air Force at its production center in Everett, Wash., on Wednesday. Chicago-based Boeing, which won the tanker contract in 2011, said it loaded the first “wing spar” for the plane inside its Everett factory. The 82.5-foot spar is the main structural component of the wing. The tanker, based on a commercial 767-200 Extended Range airframe, is the first of 179 that Boeing is due to deliver to the Air Force over the next 14 years.
Next June, Boeing will begin installation of military-unique systems on the aircraft at Boeing Field in Seattle as well as testing. First flight for the fully provisioned tanker is scheduled for early 2015, with first delivery in 2016. Boeing said it expects to build and deliver the first 18 KC-46As by 2017 and a total of 179 by 2027 if all options under the contract are exercised.
Originally posted by kuhl
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
War machines or peace keeping machines guess it depends on your point of view.
Never seen missiles loaded on a tanker.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
Tankers support aircraft used in fighting yes, but they have also been used to evacuate people from disaster areas, as medevac units, to fly cargo into places that desperately need it, and to carry fuel into places that are supporting disaster relief efforts. They are far more useful than to just be called a "war plane".
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
I don't "get off on warplanes" at all. I'm so terribly sorry that studying aviation offends you so much.
Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
pretty strange celebrating war machines, perhaps its a new reality tv show in the making, "the people who love killing machines and the billions of dollars wasted on building them". to each their own i suppose.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
I lived the first 30 years of my life on an Air Force base, including losing pilots and crews. I know exactly what I'm studying, and what they are used for, far better than most, with the exception of the crews of that aircraft.
Originally posted by kuhl
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
War machines or peace keeping machines guess it depends on your point of view.
Never seen missiles loaded on a tanker.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
You do realize that it's completely possible to study aircraft, without being tied to war, and attacking anyone right? Sometimes people are interested in the aircraft for the technologies involved, and for trying to see what is going to come in the future, not because "it's cool" or that it's used to bomb someone.
An my point is that I know just what a warplane is used for, and just how bad it can be to be on the wrong end of one. I've been on bases with crews that went on training missions and came home in a bag, because they had a bad day, or someone didn't tighten a bolt tight enough. I know exactly what I'm studying, and why they exist, as well as why they have to exist. I don't like that they have to, but I understand the necessity of them.edit on 7/3/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
Where did you come up with $8 trillion dollars worth of peace keeping planes? That's not even remotely close to accurate.
Yes, they have to exist. Unless the entire world will suddenly start singing khumbaya if we just get rid of the military. Sorry, but the world doesn't work that way.
You can quite easily separate the tech from the uses of it, and still completely understand what it's used for. You can even not like what it's used for, and still be interested in it.