More KC-46A woes....

[BEagle]

Ol' Bubba Boeing has had to come clean about further delays to the KC-46A Pegasus Frankentanker programme. Not only has the date for the first flight of the B767 (remember those?) based aircraft slipped, but it seems that the Pig'sAr$e programme is going to cost Ol' Bubba a cool extra $1billion (having already passed the capped limit agreed between DoD and Boeing), but they've finally admitted that the flight test campaign might slip a year.....:hmm:

From Bloomberg: Boeing Co. (BA) is revising its master schedule for developing the new U.S. Air Force aerial tanker, adding to uncertainty about a plane that already has run up an estimated $1 billion in excess costs for the contractor.

Boeing’s proposed revised schedule won’t be presented to Pentagon acquisition officials until early next year, after an Air Force evaluation....

A decision on starting low-rate production at Boeing’s Everett, Washington, plant is scheduled for August 2015; a decision on full-rate production in June 2017. The Pentagon test office this year warned that the start of combat testing, scheduled for May 2016, could slip a year.

Boeing officials are “currently seeking internal” approval by the company’s top leaders for a proposed revised schedule before coordinating it with the Air Force.

Among the difficulties forcing Boeing to revise the schedule were a six-month delay in turning on the power of the prototype tanker, a reworking of about 5 percent of the initial aircraft’s wiring after it wasn’t installed to specifications and “slower than planned” completion of assembly line “functional” testing.

The first flight of a fully equipped KC-46 is estimated to slip to April from earlier next year, Major General John Thompson, the tanker program’s executive officer, said last month.


More at Boeing Seeks Revised Schedule for U.S. Aerial Tanker - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-20/boeing-seeks-revised-schedule-for-u-s-aerial-tanker.html)

Dear oh dear. It makes 't Bungling Baron Waste o' Space look almost competent.

Should have stuck with the vastly superior A330MRTT-based KC-45...:\

[Davef68]

But at least it's American companies those extra billion $$ are going to..

[ORAC]

But at least it's American companies those extra billion $$ are going to.. No, coming from - cost capped - all from Boeing and any other cost sharing subcontractors......

[sandiego89]

Quote:
But at least it's American companies those extra billion $$ are going to..
No, coming from - cost capped - all from Boeing and any other cost sharing subcontractors...... 29th Oct 2014 11:40

Oh, I imagine they will somehow factor that into the subsequent lot orders- thats when you really make the big bucks. The taxpayer again will eventually be the loser. Boeing really seems to have lost the bubble on wiring issues.

Ahh an edit direct from the article: "Boeing executives previously have said they expect to recoup the $1 billion in excess development costs during the program’s $39 billion production phase". How nice of them. So they eat the overrun now, and quietly tack it on during subsequent orders. I am quite confient that the profit margin will not suffer in the long run- even if it is their mistake.

[Roadster280]

BEagle - I'm curious, what are your "humorous" names for EADS and Airbus?

"Bubba" and "'t bungling Baron" are surely not alone in defence procurement debacles (A400M and A330MRTT development delays, as an example), and in the civil sphere, the A380 has had as much negative press as the 787.

Not that I'm defending Boeing, BAE or Airbus, but Airbus are hardly any better.

[brickhistory]

A major military aircraft procurement program going over budget and late?

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

Feel free to refuse the gas from the new tanker if/when it becomes operational.

Must stick to one's standards.


Should have stuck with the vastly superior A330MRTT-based KC-45...:\


Good thing there are no UK MoD and/or European horror stories otherwise the hypocrisy might become apparent.

[Genstabler]

Now then boys! Play nicely.

[Roadster280]

Now then boys! Play nicely.

Please, Sir, he started it by calling people names! :p

[melmothtw]

I know it can be galling brickhistory to have foreigners disparage your national industry/products, but even the most ardent Americanophile (and I am one myself) has to concede that the A330 MRTT is a superior product in every regard to the KC-46A.

I'm usually able to see the relative merits in competing platforms, noting how the capabilities of one might suit a particular user while the capabilities of another might suit a different one, but with the MRTT vs KC-46A debate I cannot find a single criteria (except political with regard to KC-X) which favours the latter - there is simply no competition when it comes down to platform performance.

That said, yes there are developmental problems with all aircraft (MRTT boom detachments anyone), but the KC-46A's deficiencies go beyond the here-and-now problems that the programme might be experiencing.

And don't forget also, the KC-45 was to be built in Alabama, and so would have been a US-built product.

[brickhistory]

To the contrary, I take no offense at the "disparagement."

I am not a tanker expert.

But BEagle's post was pointedly skewed.

If he'd simply pointed out the buffoonery of Boeing (again, shocked, I tell you), I'd have been fine with it.

On a related note, domestic politics influencing defense procurement involving billions of dollars?!

Shock is taking a beating today.

And yes, I'd rather Boeing get my tax dollars than Airbus, regardless of where it's constructed. Built is very different than design ownership.

Suppose there is a political fall-out in future years between the U.S. and Airbus nations?

Follow-on support, upgrades, tech specs, etc.

No chance of that lever of power to be pulled if thought necessary?

A little more difficult for Boeing to stick it to Uncle Sam than Eurobus.

And yes, we could, probably have, done the same. I'd rather not be on the losing side of that proposition, if possible.

[melmothtw]

I dare say there may be a few folk in Mobile who disagree with your definition of US-built, but I take your point on wanting to spend US taxpayers' dollars on a US designed and manufactured product.

It's interesting to note though that in a different competition Boeing chose to offer a European product (AW101) to the US President himself, in direct competition to the US product from Sikorsky, so proving their definition of 'US jobs' changes as and when it suits them.

But that's big business the world over I suppose.

[NutLoose]

As Brick says swings and roundabouts, Nimrod anyone?

Successes,

Airbus Lakota 300 helicopters delivered to the US military both on time AND on budget

Airbus Group Delivers 300th On-Time, On-Budget UH-72A Lakota Helicopter to U.S. Army (http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/airbus-group-delivers-300th-on-time-on-budget-uh-72a-lakota-helicopter-to-us-army-1910350.htm)

Similar I believe the P-3 rewing is actually ahead of delivery.

[Davef68]

No, coming from - cost capped - all from Boeing and any other cost sharing subcontractors......


If it's cost them an extra $1Bn, they have to have spent it somewhere.....

[barnstormer1968]

Nutloose

When you said "Nimrod anyone" my first thought was 'which one, we messed up twice' :)

[tdracer]

Some of the Boeing management decisions on the KC-46 absolutely boggle the mind :ugh:. They basically took the development tools and managers from the 787 and turned them loose on the 767 - with similar results :eek:
These 787 transplants totally ignored that fact that we'd been building 767s for 30 years and decided we needed to scrap everything and start over with the same development tools that had proved so bad on the 787.
The systems interface database - that had successfully built 1000 airplanes - was dumped, and we had to input everything into a POS 787 tool, totally ignoring the engineering objections that we had something that worked, and that the 787 tool didn't work. I put 1000 hours into my work statement just for that task, and I underestimated by at least a factor of 2:=. Worse, many of the current wiring problems trace directly to that interface tool :mad:


The worst part is, we are carrying over many of those same mistakes to the 777X :*

[D-IFF_ident]

There's plenty to complain about for customers of both Boeing and Airbus' latest tankers. The obvious difference between the two is that the Airbus product is currently operational with 4 nations and the KC-46A prototype is yet to fly.

There's a possibility that the delays Boeing are experiencing might mean a more mature product at delivery, without some of the teething problems that the A330 MRTT has experienced. But then again, when was there ever a new aircraft type that had no teething problems?

You can argue that the 'Scrapheap Challenge' comes to mind when you look at the KC-46A design, or that the A330 MRTT build process is akin to taking your shiny new Ford Capri to 'Pedro's Body Kit, Paint and Detailing Shop'. Both options may have their flaws, but both designs must meet rigorous design and safety standards, comply with contract specifications and be accepted by the customers.

The greater concern for the USAF must be how to generate enough tankers every day, amending any drawdown plans and extending airframe lives to maintain capability during any known or forecast delays to delivery. Considering how many nations other than the US rely on AMC tankers and the NATO requirements for AAR, any delay to the KC-46 may have effects that reach beyond Washington State.

I wonder if Ulick is dusting off his boom designs and having those ex-JAL DC-10s serviced?

[BEagle]

The Nimrod AEW3 and MRA4 were both disastrous, it is true. Although the airframe wasn't problematic, the mission system in the AEW3 was totally inferior to even the most basic E-3A. Whereas the mission system in the MRA4 worked well, but the aircraft itself was an utter pig and would probably never have achieved military specification. Coincidentally, both were as ugly as sin.

Yes, the A400M suffered funding problems and a 3 year programme delay. But 174 are now on order with the likelihood of further sales being achieved.

Both the A310MRTT and A330MRTT suffered some in-service teething issues, particularly the latter's boom system. The A310MRTT was delivered more or less on time and budget and the pace of A330MRTT delivery was really only hampered by problems with the boom system. Slow government agreement to the FSTA contract delayed the Voyager's entry into service for the UK, but 5 nations now operate A330 tankers, with the prospect of 4 more.

Whereas Boeing's track history with the 767 tanker programme has been pretty poor. Even the basic KC-767I for Italy was 6 years late after problems with flutter and with the AAR system. It is a relatively simple version converted from the B767-200 airliner, lacking the additional fuel capacity or uprated systems intended for the KC-46A. Leaving aside the political shenanigans over the KC-X programme, development of the KC-46A has been both tardy and eye-wateringly expensive. When EADS North America learned that this Frankentanker was no longer to include a 767-400 based cockpit, but instead one derived from the 787, they correctly identified that this would pose huge risk to the programme.

Unless there are significant 'financial incentives', there doesn't seem much likelihood of Boeing selling what is still a 'paper plane' to any other customers, given the fact that the aircraft's on-paper capability is vastly inferior to the A330MRTT - which of course is already in service.

As for the 787, the delays and problems facing the programme resulted in a 3½ year delay for the launch customer. Oddly though, a senior Boeing spokesman stated some years ago that the 787 wasn't suitable for tanker conversion owing to its 'configuration' :confused:. So any future Boeing tanker will probably be based on the ageing 767 or perhaps the 777. Whereas the A350XWB is coming along just fine, with 750 on order; when airlines begin to replace their A330s with the A350XWB, there will be a plentiful supply available to receive simpler, A310MRTT-style conversion.....

[t43562]

.. or the A330neo ?

[LowObservable]

Beags - Not sure about the 787's tanker suitability, but back in 2005, when the 787 was new, I asked why used 767s (of which there were quite a few with plenty of hours left) could not be modified for USAF and others.

The answer was that the -300 had no tail clearance for the boom at rotation because of the longer body and that there were not enough HGW -200s in the fleet.

But then, a few months ago....

http://www.defesaaereanaval.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/B-767-300-IAI-para-FAB.jpg

[Fonsini]

The difference with American development projects isn't that they always get them right, it's that they can always afford to get them wrong.

[galaxy flyer]

Beagle,,

Would you to disclose your prior affiliations with EADS, Airbus on the RAF A330 MRTT plane?

GF

[BEagle]

GF, that's easy - none!

LowObservable, yes, IAI quietly developed and supplied a 767-200 based tanker to Colombia (pods only) and later developed a FBW boom for the 767. They now have a contract to deliver 2 767-300ER based tankers to Brazil, but I don't know whether they will be boom equipped.

[LowObservable]

The Brazilians don't have anything with a boom receptacle, unless I am overlooking something. Mind you, they say that around Copacabana you can find a few booms in places where you don't exp[That's enough of that. - Ed.]

[ShotOne]

To all those stateside ppruners who feel they're being hounded by beagle(!) let me say that he is equally ready to lash UK manufacturers, or anyone else who, rightly or wrongly, he feels deserves it. Generally in procurement matters, the USA could teach us a thing or three. In this instance the criticism seems fully justified.

[cobalt42]

GF,

Don't know what affiliations Beags had, has, or perhaps will have with Airbust, but RAF do not have the A330 MRTT. They (sometimes) fly the Airtanker supplied FSTA... same kennel, different dog.

[KenV]

With regard to the clear "superiority" of the A330 MRTT to the KC-46, that all depends on the user's priorities.

The A330MRTT is derived from the passenger version of the A330. It does not have a cargo door nor a cargo floor. The KC-46 is derived from the 767 freighter and has both a large cargo door and a main deck cargo floor. So if cargo is priority for the user, A330 loses.

Further, the A330's short nose gear gives the A330 a decided nose-down attitude when on the ground. This make loading of cargo containers and pallets problematic. That nose gear is why it took so long to make a freigher version of the A330 and why it sold so poorly. If ground cargo handling is a priority for the user, A330 loses. Again.

If the tanker is also going to be used for aeromedical evacuation, a cargo door is very important. Hauling evacuees in litters up the airstairs and then making a 90 degree turn inside the aircraft is nigh on impossible with seats installed. Reconfiguring for an aeromedical mission by removing the seats of a passenger configured aircraft is nightmarishily slow and a montrous headache. And even then the overhead luggage bins remain a huge problem. There are numerous modular kits available today for reconfiguring a KC-10, a KC-135, a C-17, a C-5 and other aircraft with a cargo door and a cargo floor to perform aeromedical evac. So if aeromedical evac is a priority for the user, the A330 loses. Again.

The A330MRTT is significantly larger than KC-46 and the KC-135. If the user has a large number of KC-135s and desires to operate the new tanker from the same bases as the old tanker, the A330 loses. Further, when supporting forward deployed forces from size contstrained forward bases, MOG (Maximum On Ground) becomes a serious issue. MOG is why the smaller C-17 can actually deliver far more cargo in a given period (throughput) than the much larger C-5. So when the operation is MOG contrained, the A330 loses. Again.

For many (most?) Air Forces MOG is a minor concern because most Air Forces operate a small number of air tankers. But when the user has a fleet of air tankers numbering in the hundreds that must support large numbers of forward deployed air assets (fighters, bombers, transports, and yes, even other tankers) the A330 loses. Again.

If fuel burn while orbiting and waiting to service receivers is a priority, the bigger airplane burns much more per hour than the smaller airplane. And so the A330 loses. Again.

And without divulging anything specific or classified, consider that the KC-46A has well over 70 (70!) MILES of additional wiring than the base 767F. The tanker mission alone most certainly does not require all that additional wiring. There are other "things" being installed in those airframes that have nothing to do with the tanker mission. Airbus simply could not do these other "things". And those "things" were yet another high priority for the KC-46's user. 'nuff said.

[BEagle]

It is clear that the KC-390 is intended to be able to receive fuel in flight. Unless a decision is made to include a centreline hose on the KC-X2, or perhaps on another KC-390, a boom on the KC-X2 and UARRSI on the KC-390 would be logical.

For those who think I'm 'anti-American' when it comes to aircraft - think again. Why we persisted with the Tornado F2 and GR4 when the F-15C and F-15E were so clearly far superior is quite beyond me.

Re. the A330MRTT cargo door, it is a customer option because the capacious lower deck cargo holds are adequate for all current users. Both holds have large 107" doors and the hold capacity is unaffected by any AAR requirements. Whereas the Frankentanker needs an upper deck cargo door because the lower cargo areas are too narrow for paired LD3s and are compromised by the extended centre tanks....:rolleyes:

The difference in fuel burn between an A330 and a 767 whilst on a refuelling anchor is virtually insignificant - that was one red herring used to try to bolster the alleged benefit of the KC-46A. Anyway, until it actually flies no-one, knows how much fuel it will burn....:hmm:

[melmothtw]

It does not have a cargo door nor a cargo floor. The KC-46 is derived from the 767 freighter and has both a large cargo door and a main deck cargo floor. So if cargo is priority for the user, A330 loses.

The A330 MRTT has underfloor cargo space for 45 tonnes of pallets (it can actually carry more cargo than the A400M). All of the MRTT's fuel is carried in its usual tanks, with no need for auxiliary tanks in either than main cabin or under the floor.

The KC-45 was to have a cargo door at the USAF's request, but that is not a requirement for any other operator.

By contrast, the KC-46A loses much of its underfloor cargo space to auxiliary tanks, and while the A330 MRTT can carry over 200 passengers the KC-46A is only certified to carry 58 (and has space for just 114 in its usual configuration).

The A330 MRTT is significantly larger than KC-46 and the KC-135. If the user has a large number of KC-135s and desires to operate the new tanker from the same bases as the old tanker, the A330 loses.

The KC-46A may have a very marginally shorter take-off run than the MRTT, when you take into account the actual length of runway required due to safe abort distances there is next to no difference as to the size of airfield required by both. Interestingly, the KC-46A will not be able to take-off from Mildenhall or Fairford with a fuel fuel load for this reason.

If fuel burn while orbiting and waiting to service receivers is a priority, the bigger airplane burns much more per hour than the smaller airplane. And so the A330 loses. Again.

I don't know the fuel burn figures for the KC-46A, but the A330 MRTT's is 4 tonnes per hour in the cruise and 6 tonnes per hour with the hoses deployed. I'd be surprised if the KC-46A was a meaningful factor less than this.

There are other "things" being installed in those airframes that have nothing to do with the tanker mission. Airbus simply could not do these other "things". And those "things" were yet another high priority for the KC-46's user.

Are you referring to the EMP hardening, ballistic and NBC protection of the cockpit? Granted, the A330 MRTT doesn't have that, but then no one has requested it.

I don't know the facts related to your other points.

[Out Of Trim]

KenV,

Hi, actually you can order an A330MRTT with Main Deck Cargo door, yes the French have ordered them on their second batch of 6!

Not sure what you mean about the low Nose-wheel Gear problem. Many airlines daily seem to manage to load and offload Pallets and ULDs without any issue! They have Hi-loaders that adjust for height you know!

You may be correct in saying they are too big for every occasion, but they would sure replace a KC-10 quite well.

I would have thought a mixed fleet maybe the best for USAF in reality. :eek:

[LowObservable]

A converted passenger A330 or a tanker based on the pax airframe has a nose-down sit, but a KC based on a freighter has a modified nose gear.

And the secret "things" that Airbus "simply could not do"? As a matter of technology or of restrictions on the assembly line?

It not only sounds most improbable, but if there really were secret requirements that disqualified the Airbus design, whoever was running an alleged "competition" should be spanked, drawn and quartered and sued up the kazoo and down again, by both sides, for deceptive practices that wasted millions of dollars.

[Davef68]

So advanced planning for an RC-46B then........

[NutLoose]

I thought one of the prime arguments that Boeing put up against the original contract was that the Airbus exceeded the requirements...

Call me old fashioned but as a military aircraft, anything over the contract requirements is a bonus.

[chopper2004]

Well the IDF/AF got a lovely 'array' of 707 tankers :E:cool: as this popped over my head last year , summer time, approaching the 'hall

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IDAF_k707_ELINT_3_zpse51cac04.jpg

cheers

[cornish-stormrider]

sorry - I lost track in the answering of all of Ken's points......

whats the score now ?

Because the view from the cheap seat over here is 'Bubba done gone sideways and his ole frankentanker (built in 'murica by 'muricans to a 'murican design ) just is not up to it.

I mean it's not like they are trying to reinvent the wheel again are they?

[D-IFF_ident]

Maybe the 'other stuff' that is a 'high priority' for the KC-46A customer should have been included in the RFP. In fact, if there were requirements specifically omitted from the published, and publicly available, RFP then surely the process was illegal and any competitors to the contract winner would have a right to appeal to the GAO?

[Davef68]

KenV doesn't say they weren't in the RFP, just that Airbus couldn't do them

[KenV]

I'll start by reiterating the first sentence in my previous post: "With regard to the clear "superiority" of the A330 MRTT to the KC-46, that all depends on the user's priorities."

USAF's priorities are different than many other users' priorities. For many users a tanker about the size of a KC-10 is preferable, which leads them to the MRTT. For others a tanker about the size of a KC-135 is preferable, which leads them toward the KC-46. In USAF, the KC-46 is replacing KC-135s, not KC-10s.

As for the many other points:
Adding a cargo door does not turn an MRTT into a good cargo carrier. It would still need a cargo floor, and would still need to have all the luggage bins, galleys, lavs, etc etc removed. And the nose gear installation would need a redesign. Airbus redesigned the A330 freighter's nose gear installation for a very good reason, and not on some whim. I haven't a clue why Airbus is not using the A330 freighter as the basis for the MRTT, but the fact is they are not. For many potential users, that is a bad choice. For others who want to transport passengers, that's a good choice. But USAF does not want to use their tankers to haul passengers. USAF has a CRAF fleet for hauling passengers. And in a pinch, the KC-46 can be very quickly equipped with existing seat pallets and comfort pallets to enable it to carry passengers. The reverse cannot be said of the MRTT.

As for the "things" I mentioned, think sensors and comm gear. Imagine multiple orbiting tankers that are able to be "servers" for a digitally connected battle force and able to be electronic "vacuum cleaners" of the EM spectrum. Keep in mind that one of the F-22's major assets is its ability to be a battle space EM vacuum cleaner. There's more, but I'll leave it at that.

As for size of the aircraft, I was not referring to runway length. I was referring to the tarmacs, maintenance hangars, etc etc currently used by HUNDREDS of KC-135s. The 767 can use all those KC-135 facilities. The A330 cannot. The facilities issue was one of the drivers of the C-17's size. The C-17 can use all the facilities used by the C-141 and the C-17 replaced the C-141 just as the KC-46 will replace the KC-135. to put this in perspective, sure the C-5 and the 747F are larger can call haul far more than the C-17. Ther was massive pressure to use those existing larger aircraft rather than develop a new, smaller C-17. But both these "superior" air transports would require massive amounts of MILCON (military construction) to either modify all those C-141 facilities or build entirely new facilities. The same is true of the KC-135 and 767 vs A330. The total ownership costs include the facilities needed to operate and service/maintain the aircraft. A 767 sized tanker significatly reduces those costs for USAF relative to an A330 sized tanker because they can use the KC-135 facilities. For other users that don't have an existing fleet of tankers being replaced, this point would be moot.

Independent of the ability to use existing facilities, bigger is most certainly NOT always better. If bigger were better, Boeing could have proposed a 777F based tanker that would have been "far superior" to the 767, A330 AND the KC-10. But for the mission USAF was doing, bigger was NOT better. By comparison, Brazil chose the Gripen over the Super Hornet. For Brazil the small, single engine fighter fit their needs much better than the "far superior", but larger, Super Hornet. A C-130J is obviously "far superior" to a C-27J. But if your mission calls for a smaller aircraft, then the C-130's size does not necessarily make it "superior." The 747-8F, 777F and A330F freighters are all bigger and "far superior" to the 767F, yet UPS, FEDEX, and others chose the 767F over those bigger aircraft. And that had nothing to do with politics.

So I will end where I began and provide an addition. "Superior" is in the eye of the beholder. And in some beholder's eyes, "bigger" often does NOT equal "superior".

EDIT: I forgot one point. Boeing significantly underbid Airbus for the firm fixed price development contract. Boeing was willing to take a huge financial risk to develop the tanker. Airbus was not. Boeing may have "won" the contract, but at the current pace of spending, they will certainly lose a LOT of money on the first few dozen aircraft. Rather a Pyrrhic victory.

[KenV]

KenV doesn't say they weren't in the RFP, just that Airbus couldn't do them


There was a reason Northrop Grumman was the prime and Airbus (technically, EADS) was a subcontractor in the beginning of this competition. When N-G pulled out and Airbus chose to go it alone, a considerable amount of capability was lost.

[KenV]

I thought one of the prime arguments that Boeing put up against the original contract was that the Airbus exceeded the requirements...

Call me old fashioned but as a military aircraft, anything over the contract requirements is a bonus


Please excuse my bluntness, but this statement indicates a lack of understanding of basic military procurement processes. What you are describing is called "goldplating", which is not only bad practice, but is (generally) illegal.

[KenV]

I would have thought a mixed fleet maybe the best for USAF in reality.


Please keep in mind that USAF already has a "mixed fleet" of KC-130s, KC-135s and KC-10s. The KC-46s will replace the KC-135s. The KC-10s won't be replaced till some (far) future date. Maybe the A350? 777X? Other?

[Heathrow Harry]

"I was referring to the tarmacs, maintenance hangars, etc etc currently used by HUNDREDS of KC-135s. The 767 can use all those KC-135 facilities. The A330 cannot"

You change the facilities to fit the weapon - pre WW1 someone suggested to Jacky Fisher that the "Dreadnaught" should not be built as it would require new dockyard facilities - his reply was that he didn't intend to fight the enemy using dockyards................

[melmothtw]

A solid riposte KenV, but assuming the USAF were also very aware of all the points you made (base facilities, cargo capabilities, etc) it does beg the question as to why, when given the option, they chose the A330/KC-45?

As you appeared to concede yourself in response to an earlier post of mine, it was 'US taxpayers $ for US products' (a political decision, in other words) that largely swung it for Boeing at the second time of trying.

[KenV]

You change the facilities to fit the weapon - pre WW1 someone suggested to Jacky Fisher that the "Dreadnaught" should not be built as it would require new dockyard facilities - his reply was that he didn't intend to fight the enemy using dockyards................


Indeed. But in a competition, when one bidder proposes a platform that meets the requirements and requires billions in MILCON (military construction), and the other bidder proposes a platform that also meets the requirements but requires a small percentage of MILCON. which one wins?

BTW, there are LOTS of examples of militaries making weapon decisions based on facilities constraints. For example, why did the RAF not buy Hornets? They are obviously far superior to Harriers. Because that would have required the Royal Navy to build MUCH larger aircraft carriers to operate them from. The RAF was/is constrained to operating Harriers at sea because the RN was/is unable to obtain the "facilities" to operate much more capable fighters. Why did the US Navy take so much longer than USAF to fully enter the jet age? Because their wooden decked carriers could not handle jets. Why were USN ships of ALL kinds constrained to a maximum beam of 108 feet for decades? Because the Panama Canal is only 110 feet wide. Facilities constraints have influenced if not outright driven military procurement since the beginning of organized militaries.

On a side note, have you heard the story of how Roman military design constrained the design of the Space Shuttle? Really!

[KenV]

A solid riposte KenV, but assuming the USAF were also very aware of all the points you made (base facilities, cargo capabilities, etc) it does beg the question as to why, when given the option, they chose the A330/KC-45?


The first competition did not include all these points. The KC-30 (which is what Northrop-Grumman called their A-330 based tanker) won. Boeing protested to the Government Accountability Office and forced a recompete.

The third competition (the second never got out of the gates) included all these factors. When all these factors were included, N-G saw the handwriting on the wall and pulled out of the competition. Airbus decided to go it alone and the KC-46 beat out the KC-45. Was Airbus's decision foolish? Sure, foolish like a fox. Airbus's proposal forced Boeing to completely redesign their boom and make other changes AND influenced Boeing to underbid the contract. Airbus's proposal had almost no chance of winning, but Airbus's proposal cost Boeing dearly. In the long run, Airbus may come out ahead in all of this.

[Woff1965]

Or NG realised the fix was in and decided not to waste any more money.

[LowObservable]

KenV's points make more sense if "The Star Spangled Banner" is played in the background, at steadily increasing volume.

One-time MILCON is not a big deal. The total MILCON appropriation for the entire AF in 2015 is $811 million. Enlarging ramps at KC-135 bases, where it is actually necessary, is a one-off cost and is barely a blip in the LCC of a tanker fleet.

Goldplating is not "illegal" as described. A requirement is set, and if you offer more than the requirement and charge more than your competitor, the source selection authority can make a "best value" selection. In Round 1, the AF did not bullet-proof its language, however, so the "best value" choice of the A330 could be overturned.

What actually happened, after that, was that the competition was restructured to specifically exclude credit for exceeding requirements, which turned the deal into a shoot-out over cost. Boeing had a smaller aircraft and an unrealistic cost, and won.

[KenV]

KenV's points make more sense if "The Star Spangled Banner" is played in the background, at steadily increasing volume.


Wow, you really think my posts are driven by parochial patriotism? What a convenient argument. Weak, but convenient.

FYI, I worked for N-G during the KC-30 days. We wanted desperately to base our proposal on an A330F, but Airbus refused to develop the freighter at that time and by the time they did, it was too late. I was involved in the development of the refueling boom and the RARO station. The boom and RARO station we co-developed with Airbus was far superior to Boeing's. I had a personal, vested interest in the A330 winning against the 767. And we won at least partially because of our superior boom and RARO station. We also used the A340 wings on the A330 tanker. These wings already had hardpoints and fuel lines for the outboard engines which made our WARP (wing aerial refueling pod) installation far superior to the 767's. So our design beat Boeing's on several fronts technically. But the combination of years of delays which allowed Boeing to catch up technically, and the rejiggering of the procurement rules gave the advantage to Boeing.

As for MILCON, that was one of the weakest points of our proposal, price wise. Our proposal would require several years of MILCON investments not just in ramps and taxiways, but also in expensive hangars. BRAC (base realignment and closure) made a HUGE difference for us in our favor by significantly reducing the number of sites that would require MILCON.

There was also a small but powerful contingent of USAF officers who were very skittish about a fly-by-wire tanker. They were also opposed to side sticks, and especially opposed to the "averaging" control laws of the two side sticks (nose down command on one stick would cancel equal nose up command on the other stick) and the fact that neither pilot got feedback what the other pilot was doing. It took lots and lots of simulator time to convince them otherwise. I'm not sure we ever fully convinced them. Fortunately for us, these guys had little influence in the procurement decision. But we were all dreading dealing with these guys when we won.

As for the legality of goldplating, that all depends on the nature and language of the proposal. Goldplating is a big deal to Congress and the procurement bean counters. That's why mission creep was invented.

[bvcu]

another point to put into context is the 767 will still require a large investment in facilities , although not as much as the 330. The only a/c in the KC135 class is the 757, but the 767 is a widebody so bigger. ref the mention of freighters for UPS/FED EX , both had large fleets of Airbus A310 for years before ever buying a 767. 767 needs unique containers so cant interline with all the other airbus/boeing widebodies. amazing to think of the USAF buying an obsolete airliner today , the 330 finished it in airline service on the world stage which is why boeing had to leapfrog with the 787 to get the market back. think the KC135 should have been replaced with a modernised 757 !

[ORAC]

Quote:

BTW, there are LOTS of examples of militaries making weapon decisions based on facilities constraints. For example, why did the RAF not buy Hornets? They are obviously far superior to Harriers. Because that would have required the Royal Navy to build MUCH larger aircraft carriers to operate them from. The RAF was/is constrained to operating Harriers at sea because the RN was/is unable to obtain the "facilities" to operate much more capable fighters

This is gibberish of the finest water on so many levels I won't even start. Maybe someone else will point out why the Kestrel/Harrier was developed; why the Hornet was never an option for the RAF (though I did control a couple of trials with F15 and E3A in 1975) and why they RN thus conceived the SHAR in the "through deck cruiser" era.

[sandiego89]

KenV, well said, good points. We will always have debate on this selection. Your harrier/hornet timing is a bit off Warning! now you have disparaged the harrier, the pitchforks will really come out :}

I have been privy to several procurement programs in the US, and can affirm that MILCON was huge factor, even if the upgrade to facilities was a one time deal or over a few short years. Things like hangar size, ramp weight, simulators, and for ships: pier upgrades, shore power, draft, overall length, beam, etc etc. As an example one of the LCS designs is much wider than the other and this had huge impacts on basing as it messed with berthing.

[beardy]

We also used the A340 wings on the A330 tanker. These wings already had hardpoints and fuel lines for the outboard engines which made our WARP (wing aerial refueling pod) installation far superior to the 767's.

Just as a point of interst, I believe that all A330s use the same basic wing as the A340 hence they all have potential hard points. They also share the same centreline mountings for landing gear as the A340.

[Heathrow Harry]

If Airbus/Boeing took the longgggview they'd be working on an A380/B777 tanker for 2030......................

One A380 would be able to refuel every aircraft that the RAF will have by then in one go

[Roadster280]

...
For those who think I'm 'anti-American' when it comes to aircraft - think again. Why we persisted with the Tornado F2 and GR4 when the F-15C and F-15E were so clearly far superior is quite beyond me.
...

From my perspective, my complaint wasn't about anti-American sentiment. It was about the "'t bungling Baron" and "'ol Bubba Boeing'. Given that BAE is a British based company (although the US subsidiary is a fairly large company in its own right), then I see no reason to call out anti-American sentiment.

It's the childish names that got me. The tone and content of post #17 was excellent; why not just say that in the first place? The last time I looked, BAE wasn't just based at Warton, Salmesbury and Brough. For that matter, Airbus's Broughton plant is in the north too. Boeing's aircraft are in large part made in Washington, which is not exactly traditional "Bubba" land. Although Airbus has a facility in Alabama, which if you were to identify "Bubbaland", would be a strong contender.

[BEagle]

Noted and ignored.

Re. infrastructure costs, if the MPA-based Voyager has to keep evacuating to the mainland whenever significantly adverse weather is forecast, it'll be interesting to note why the well-known fact that Voyager won't fit into the 'Timmy hangar' wasn't taken into account when the FSTA contract was awarded?

Perhaps a case for basing an OmegaAir B707 down there, pending an Atlas with AAR capability?

[Roadster280]

Noted and ignored.


Where's the "like" button?

See, you can do inoffensive banter.

[stilton]

KenV your logic is irrefutable but you're dealing with national pride here, not common sense.


On that subject, perhaps the silliest tanker purchase of all is the RAF acquiring the A330 and deliberately deleting the boom which can be used on several in service and future planned types.


The KC 46 comes with what, three hoses AND a boom in a nice compact, flexible, rugged package with no 'hard limits'


A great machine, just like the civilian airframe it is based on.

[Woff1965]

The KC 46 comes with what, three hoses AND a boom in a nice compact, flexible, rugged package with no 'hard limits'


A great machine, just like the civilian airframes it is based on.

There fixed it for you.

[BEagle]

Certainly now that there's the RC-135 and probably the P-8 to support, it would make sense to look at amending the PFI contract to procure at least 3 Voyagers with a boom system.

[stilton]

'There fixed it for you. '


No, you mangled the statement completely, adding an 's' makes no sense, perhaps you believe the plural of aircraft has an 's' on the end ?


Next time you want to correct other peoples English do a little more research.


FIFY :rolleyes:

[BEagle]

stilton, perhaps Woff1965 was alluding to the fact that the KC-46A Frankentanker uses bits from several different airframes?


767-200ER fuselage
767-300F cargo door, floor and landing gear
767-300F wing
767-400ER flaps
767-400ER engines
787 cockpit


:\

[brakedwell]

Frankentanker uses bits from several different airframes?
767-200ER fuselage
767-300F cargo door, floor and landing gear
767-300F wing
767-400ER flaps
767-400ER engines
787 cockpit

Should make a nice airplane. :8

[tdracer]

BEagle, that's not quite correct:

767-400ER engines
787 cockpit

The KC-46 uses the PW4000/94" engine - which was never on the 767-400ER. The engine itself is identical to the one flying around today on hundreds of 767s and 747-400s, some of the engine buildup has changed for tanker specific reasons.
The ONLY part of the 787 cockpit that is being used is the displays - structurally the cockpit is the same as 767-400ER, some of the avionics have been upgraded but are still based on the 767-400ER.


Don't believe everything you read :E

[brakedwell]

Some people believe what they want to believe :E

The B767 was the most reliable aircraft I ever flew. :)

[BEagle]

OK, so 767-300F engines with modified ancillaries and a cockpit which is a 767-400ER / 787 hybrid.......

No risks there then.....:hmm:

[TBM-Legend]

No more risk than the C-130J over the C-130H or the UH-60M over the L etc...

At least it is basically production and known stuff. The E-7 for example has a modified CFM56 to meet the electrical loads etc. Seems to work real fine...

[BEagle]

No more risk than the C-130J over the C-130H...

Well, that programme didn't go particularly smoothly, did it?

An ex-RAF air-wheel, employed by Lockheed, decided that he'd rather resign than peddle any more lies for them....:hmm:

[vascodegama]

Stilton

Does that include other people's apostrophe abuse?

[KenV]

This is gibberish of the finest water on so many levels I won't even start. Maybe someone else will point out why the Kestrel/Harrier was developed; why the Hornet was never an option for the RAF (though I did control a couple of trials with F15 and E3A in 1975) and why they RN thus conceived the SHAR in the "through deck cruiser" era.


OK, so some don't like the Hornet/Harrier comparison (even though both are made by the same company.) If such a comparison is offensive, how about the French Rafale M, or the Russian SU-33? The point is, the RAF is forced to operate STOVL aircraft and prevented from operating CATOBAR aircraft and even STOBAR aircraft from RN carriers because of the "facility" the aircraft must operate from. STOVL aircraft are the quintessential example of a weapon system specifically designed to solve a facility constraint.

BTW, the USMC has a similar facilities constrained problem. Evne though the USMC owns and operates Hornets and Intruders, they also own and operate STOVL aircraft like the Harrier and the F-35B because their forward "facilities" cannot handle Hornets and Intruders. This is yet another weapon procurement decision based on "facility constraints".

Indeed, CATOBAR aircraft are specifically designed (some woud say compromised) by the constraints imposed by the facility they operate from. All the USN would have to do is scale up their aircraft carriers and they could operate conventional fighters from their carriers and thus not have to fly around with thousands of pounds of extra weight in their aicraft to handle catapult launches and arrested landings, not to mention folding wings. The H-60 series of helicopters have that unique "lizard" look because they were required to fit inside a C-141 without major disassembly. The Gripen (and most modern Swedish fighters) are designed to be able to operate from Swedish highways. The US Army's "Stryker" vehicle design is constrained by the C-130's loading envelope and payload limitations. Indeed C-130 compatibility is a design constraint of a large majority of US Army vehicles. C-17 compatibility is a design constraint of virtually EVERY US Army ground vehicle and many USAF/USN/US Army helicopters. These are but a few of the numerous weapon systems designed around a "facility" constraint. So, yes, I continue to challenge the notion that weapons systems are never designed or constrained by the facilities they must operate from.

And separately, does anyone know how it is that a Roman military design constrained the design of the Space Shuttle?

[KenV]

Frankentanker uses bits from several different airframes?



I don't understand this whole "Frankentanker" fetish.

If the mission calls for a short fuselage, then yes, you start with a -200. MRTT does the same thing. But if the mission also calls for higher gross weights than a -200, then obviously you use the sronger landing gear and wings of the higher gross weight -300 version. And if the mission calls to operate into and out of shorter fields at higher weights, you use the high lift system from the -400 version. And if the mission calls for a cargo door and floor, you use the cargo door and floor from the freighter version. What is Frankensteinish about that? It's just plain good engineering to use an existing design that is proven and works rather than start over with something new. It's the same reason the KC-46 uses a modified KC-10 refueling boom. It also uses existing off-the-shelf wing aerial refueling pods and cockpit displays. They're proven and they work. Nothing Frankensteinish about that.

The various iterations of the 737 BBJ do exactly the same thing, mixing and matching fuselage length and heavy or light weight landing gear and wings to fit the customer's needs. That's also what was done to create the Wedgetail and the Poseidon, both based on the 737 airframe. It's good business and engineering practice, not freakish.

Earlier in this thread it was noted that the MRTT can be equipped with the freighter's cargo door. Is that Frankensteinish? An argument can be made that it might be because an A330 with the freighter's cargo door but not the freighter's cargo floor nor the freighter's nose gear is kind of a freak. What's the point? And is flying around in a two engine airplane with a wing designed and built for four engines freakish? I don't think so, but apparently there are those who would say so. And is having a large airframe tanker with no boom to refuel UARSI equipped aircraft freakish? I don't think so, but it might be penny wise and pound foolish operationally. Even ancient KC-135s can go "both ways".

[KenV]

If Airbus/Boeing took the longgggview they'd be working on an A380/B777 tanker for 2030......................

One A380 would be able to refuel every aircraft that the RAF will have by then in one go


May I point out that it's smaller size was a big reason why the KC-10 was chosen over the KC-747 back in the day. The amount of fuel available for offload is very often less important than the number of available offload points (tanker orbits). The bigger the tanker, the fewer tankers will be bought and so the fewer tanker orbits will be available. And if the tankers are forward deployed, as they often are by USAF, those tankers need to share precious ramp space with fighters, bombers, transports, and other tankers. USAF calls that MOG (maximum on ground). MOG is often a serious constraint in a forward theater. Because of their size, A380s are significantly constrained in the number of airfields they can operate in and out of even in airline operations, which would almost certainly make them a poor choice for a tanker, as would a 747-8.

The A350, 787, or maybe 777X would almost certainly make a better choice to replace KC-10s in the future. Although the 777X would likely be outsized for the job.

If "bigger" were indeed "better", then the MRTT would be based on the A330-300 rather than the -200 and there never would have been an A310 MRTT.

[dagenham]

Oh oh oh me sir..... Roman war chariot dictated width of British road, which dictated the width of railways..... Railways dictated width of tunnel..... Which was between Morton thiokol plant and the Kennedy space centre so boosters had to be made to the width of a Roman war chariot..


Do I get a budgie badge?

[LowObservable]

KenV - You are stretching the facilities argument a bit.

Correct, lots of things are designed within the limits of C-130s and aircraft carriers. But those in turn are designed within limits: You can easily make a bigger transport but it will cost more (A400M). Carriers are pushing all sorts of ship-size limits. The bigger carrier and transport will also cost more to operate, where a bigger ramp only costs more when you have to shovel the snow off it. Concrete is far, far cheaper than anything that moves.

As for STOVL: a full-time operational STOVL base costs the same as a CTOL base. The Marines did not want cheaper facilities; they wanted to be free of facilities altogether.

Tanker orbits do count. But in the case of the KC-X competition both sides were required to produce the same numbers.

And BTW, the Roman connection to the SRB diameter is mostly hoggus washus. http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp

[KenV]

As for STOVL: a full-time operational STOVL base costs the same as a CTOL base. The Marines did not want cheaper facilities; they wanted to be free of facilities altogether.


Which was pretty much my point from the beginning. Navy aircraft spend about half their time ashore where they don't need launch bars, arresting hooks, folding wings, etc etc. A US Navy master jet base costs about as much as a USAF jet base. That was NOT my point. My point was that facilities constraints often drive weapons system design and also weapon system procurement decisions. The buyer often CANNOT alter his facilities constraints, whether it is due to cost or to physics or to politics or to something else. CATOBAR aircraft are designed and built differently than CTOL aircraft due to differing facilities constraints. STOVL aircraft are designed and built differently because they have still more different facilities constraints. The notion that weapon system designers and weapon system buyers can always build or alter facilities to cater to the weapon system is simply false. More often it is the other way around. Engineers routinely design weapon systems to fit facilities constraints and buyers routinely make purchase decisions based on facilities constraints.

And all this relates directly to the USAF tanker competition which took into account much, MUCH more than simply how much fuel can be offloaded at X range.
KC-46 has essentially equal fuel offload capability.
KC-46 has essentially equal boom performance (after an expensive redesign.)
KC-46 has a significant disadvantage in passenger carrying ability
KC-46 has a significant advantage in home basing costs.
KC-46 has a significant advantage in MOG when deployed.
KC-46 has a significant advantage in ferry range
KC-46 has a much more flexible mission suite (which includes its cargo door, cargo floor, and level loading attitude on the ground) which gives it a significant advantage in cargo carrying and medevac ability and lessens A330's passenger carrying advantage.)

When ALL the factors that the user (USAF) listed and prioritized are considered, KC-46 won. Of course it helped that the factors listed and prioritized favored the KC-46. And yes, some of that was due to politics. And my employer, Northrop Grumman, read USAF's list and priorities (not to mention the political winds) and came to the conclusion that they could not win with an A330 based offer. So they pulled out. And Airbus chose to go it alone, despite the very slim likelihood of a win. Perhaps Airbus's strategy was NOT to win, but to hold Being's feet to the fire and force them to make expensive changes to their offer AND to low-ball their bid and make Boeing's win a Pyrrhic victory. Which makes strategic business sense since Airbus and Boeing compete directly.

[D-IFF_ident]

Has an official and comprehensive explanation as to why the KC-46A was chosen instead of the KC-45, in the third KC-X bidding process, ever been published?

[vascodegama]

Ken

I am not convinced by the argument of the superior ferry range although both ac have the option of receiving fuel to increase their range. I would agree that the AAR equipment fit of the 767 is better ie all 3 hoses and a boom but at the end of the day I guess the USAF would just like a new ac soon. This replacement ac was supposed to have been in service a long time ago.

[D-IFF_ident]

The KC-45 had all 3 hoses and the boom too.

[vascodegama]

Pity we didn't go for that option!

[BEagle]

If one excludes the ability to receive fuel in flight, then comparison of ferry range obviously depends upon the maximum fuel load of each aircraft and their fuel burn rates.

Some years ago I was involved in a multinational AAR study. One topic to be covered was practical maximum fuel loads for future tankers. But rather than believe manufacturers' glossy brochure boasts, I set the following conditions for the departure and arrival aerodromes: Sea Level, ISA, still air, 10000 ft runway. Hardly very demanding and reasonably typical of most large European aerodromes.

The US representatives immediately asked for 12000 ft - which we refused on the grounds that neither Heathrow nor Frankfurt were typical tanker bases.

After each group had crunched the numbers, the answer was that both the A310MRTT and A330MRTT could operate with max fuel under those conditions. The 73.5T ex-ba B767-200ER proposed by TTSC for the FSTA contract was also just able do so.

But it all went rather quiet when the US team revealed their calculated figures for the KC-46 (or whatever it was called then). Because, despite uprated engines and brakes, it could only operate with around (IIRC) 84% of its max fuel even under such benign conditions.

I gather that the expensively-extended Pratica di Mare is already proving a challenge for the smaller-capacity KC-767I (which doesn't have the uprated systems of the KC-46A), so (as confirmed to me many years ago by a Boeing FSTA bidder), it is highly likely that the ability of the KC-46A to operate at MTOW will be somewhat limited in practice. Some idiot USAF fighter general once spouted runway performance figures for the KC-46A, but it was clear that he'd never heard of scheduled performance or balanced field requirements....:rolleyes:

So I doubt very much that the KC-46A will prove in practice to have a better unrefuelled ferry range than the A330MRTT.

We also looked at a standard 4 hr time on task AAR mission scenario on an AARA situated about 60 min from the take-off and landing aerodromes, using the same 10000 ft aerodrome conditions, in order to obtain a figure for the maximum available offload assuming that the tanker would land with 1 hr to tanks dry. The result was that the A310 could offload about 53% of the A330's figure - and the KC-767 about 59%....:hmm:

[LowObservable]

"Aerodrome". Such a reminder of the French lead in aviation in 1910-14. :ok:

The idiot fighter general must have been an F-16 guy, where the response to an engine failure beyond the early stages of takeoff is WHOA BETTY! tug BANG and does UTC make ties?

[KenV]

Ken, I am not convinced by the argument of the superior ferry range although both ac have the option of receiving fuel to increase their range. I would agree that the AAR equipment fit of the 767 is better ie all 3 hoses and a boom but at the end of the day I guess the USAF would just like a new ac soon. This replacement ac was supposed to have been in service a long time ago.

Keep in mind that ferry range is range with max fuel and zero payload, with no inflight refueling. All airplanes (generally) are designed to carry a payload, they can never reach max takeoff weight with just fuel. At max fuel they always have some take off gross weight margin which is used for carrying a payload. The inverse is (generally) also true. When loaded with their maximum payload, they cannot carry a full fuel load.

This results in two "knees" in the payload/range curve of (virtually) every aircraft.
The first knee occurs when the aircraft has at maximum payload and is then filled with fuel to its max takeoff weight. The curve slopes down to the right, with each pound of payload taken off compensated by a pound of fuel added. The second knee occurs when the aircraft reaches it's fuel volume limit. At that point removing a pound of payload cannot be compensated by a pound of additional fuel. The curve slopes down much more steeply, with the range increase resulting only from the lower gross weight of the aircraft.


The 767 and A330 are designed this way. Both carry fuel only in their wings. When they reach their fuel volume limit, they still have significant gross takeoff weight margin to carry passengers and cargo.

The MRTT, like the A330, carries all its fuel in its wings. It cannot trade payload for additional fuel.

The KC-46 has belly tanks. It can trade payload for additional fuel in those belly tanks. Basically, the belly tanks move the second knee in the payload/range curve to the right.

The result is that the KC-46 has a ferry range advantage over the MRTT. This also means that MRTT has a payload advantage over the KC-46 when each are loaded with max fuel. But USAF did not prioritize cargo capacity when these tankers are full of fuel for a tanker mission. Why? Basically because USAF uses the KC-135s and KC-46s as EITHER a tanker, OR a transport, not both simultaneously. USAF uses their larger KC-10s as BOTH a transport and a tanker on the same mission. For example, when deploying a fighter squadron the KC-10 carries support equipment for the fighters at their deployment base, as well as providing fuel to the fighters enroute to their deployment base. Once forward deployed, the smaller KC-135s and KC-46s provide tanking services in the theater. USAF has the luxury of a mixed fleet of tankers which are optimized for different employment scenarios. Which also makes USAF's procurement decisions different than other nations' procurement decisions.

BTW, returning to the subject of size. Boeing could have offered a KC-46 with the -200 fuselage and the wings and landing gear of the -400ER, instead of the -300ER, making up much of the A330's advantages. Why didn't they? Because then their offer would have lost its advantage in MOG and MILCON.

And oh yes. USAF has announced where the first KC-46 squadrons will be based and where the KC-46 "school house" will be based. McConnell and Altus were chosen because these bases required the least MILCON to accomodate the new aircraft.

And finally, the AAR equipment of the KC-45 and KC-46 were essentially the same, with 3 drogues and 1 boom. And after an expensive redesign of the boom by Boeing, the two booms had essentially the same performance.

[vascodegama]

Ken

Voyager max take off 233t , max fuel theoretically 111t ish, ZFW with min crew 125 ish you do the math.

[KenV]

Some years ago I was involved in a multinational AAR study. One topic to be covered was practical maximum fuel loads for future tankers. But rather than believe manufacturers' glossy brochure boasts, I set the following conditions for the departure and arrival aerodromes: Sea Level, ISA, still air, 10000 ft runway. Hardly very demanding and reasonably typical of most large European aerodromes.

The US representatives immediately asked for 12000 ft - which we refused on the grounds that neither Heathrow nor Frankfurt were typical tanker bases.

After each group had crunched the numbers, the answer was that both the A310MRTT and A330MRTT could operate with max fuel under those conditions. The 73.5T ex-ba B767-200ER proposed by TTSC for the FSTA contract was also just able do so.

Isn't this interesting? One the one hand there are those who shout loudly that MILCON is never a deciding factor and that the purchaser will always modify their facilities to accomodate a chosen weapon system. But on the other hand there is this report that states that the constraints of existing facilities was a significant driver in an international tanker selection process. Imagine that.

BTW, KC-46 will be based at McConnell and Altus. McConnell has a 12,000 ft runway and Altus 13,000 ft. So RAF has a 10,000 ft priority and USAF a 12,000 ft priority. Imagine that, different priorities for different users!

One more BTW. The KC-46 has more powerful engines and the high lift system from the -400ER, both of which improve runway performance when operating from more constrained forward bases. But of course these improvements just makes it a "Frankertanker." Imagine that.

[Just This Once...]

All airplanes (generally) are designed to carry a payload, they can never reach max takeoff weight with just fuel. At max fuel they always have some take off gross weight margin which is used for carrying a payload.

The 767 and A330 are designed this way. Both carry fuel only in their wings. When they reach their fuel volume limit, they still have significant gross takeoff weight margin to carry passengers and cargo.

The MRTT, like the A330, carries all its fuel in its wings. It cannot trade payload for additional fuel.

The KC-46 has belly tanks. It can trade payload for additional fuel in those belly tanks.

The result is that the KC-46 has a ferry range advantage over the MRTT.

Do you believe the stuff you spouting?

:eek:

[KenV]

Ken, Voyager max take off 233t , max fuel theoretically 111t ish, ZFW with min crew 125 ish you do the math.

Hmmmm. 111 + 125 = 236, 3t more than MTOGW. So the Voyager can NEVER reach max fuel and even with zero payload and min crew, one cannot fill the tanks. Odd design. The numbers we crunched when I was with N-G came out quite a bit differently.

[KenV]

Do you belie the stuff you spouting?

Believe? I had no idea this was a religious discussion.
What airplane facts did I get wrong?

[t43562]

is it more expensive to extend a runway than to build ramps and extend hangars? I am not suggesting an answer - I am a know-nothing hence the question.

[vascodegama]

The point I was making was that the ac can trade payload for fuel and incidentally does carry fuel other than in the wings. In other words it can reach max take off with fuel alone. Come to think of it so could the Tristar KC1/K1!

[tdracer]

Some years ago I was involved in a multinational AAR study. One topic to be covered was practical maximum fuel loads for future tankers. But rather than believe manufacturers' glossy brochure boasts, I set the following conditions for the departure and arrival aerodromes: Sea Level, ISA, still air, 10000 ft runway. Hardly very demanding and reasonably typical of most large European aerodromes.

The US representatives immediately asked for 12000 ft - which we refused on the grounds that neither Heathrow nor Frankfurt were typical tanker bases.

After each group had crunched the numbers, the answer was that both the A310MRTT and A330MRTT could operate with max fuel under those conditions. The 73.5T ex-ba B767-200ER proposed by TTSC for the FSTA contract was also just able do so. Sorry BEagle, but I have to call BS. First off, BA never even had 767-200ERs, they were -300ERs. And 767 takeoff performance is just fine (as 1000 in-service passenger and freighter 767s can attest).
The 767-2C/KC-46 is designed for MTOW (415,000 lbs) at sea level from a 8,400 ft. runway up to corner point temp (+15C).

KenV, thanks for the objective and informed comments - in sharp contrast to most of what's been posted on this thread.

[KenV]

is it more expensive to extend a runway than to build ramps and extend hangars? I am not suggesting an answer - I am a know-nothing hence the question.

That depends. How much more runway vs how much more ramp? As for hangars, they're pricey. I understand (but cannot confirm) that Voyagers cannot fit in the hangars at their home base. Rather than pay to enlarge the existing hangars they evacuate the aircraft every time there is a major weather event.

[BEagle]

If there was any BS, then it was from Boeing!

Whether ba operated 767-200ERs or 767-300ERs is nihil ad rem. The point is that they struggle to operate from a 10000 ft balanced field in ISA / still air conditions at MTOW.

Those who've operated the ba aircraft on hot days at high AUW confirm that the take-off performance is utterly woeful under such conditions. Which rather backed up the Boeing FSTA bidder's comment "Runway performance? Yes, Airbus has got us beaten there!"

As for Voyagers evacuating whenever there's a significant weather event, that certainly isn't true at home base - but might be so in the S.Atlantic due to the inadequate hangar.

Still, until the Frankentanker actually flies (perhaps next year, but who knows...??), no-one will really know whether it can actually operate at MTOW from anything less than a 12000 ft balanced field in still-air / ISA / SL conditions.

[KenV]

The point I was making was that the ac can trade payload for fuel and incidentally does carry fuel other than in the wings. In other words it can reach max take off with fuel alone. Come to think of it so could the Tristar KC1/K1!

Interesting. The MRTT both Northrop Grumman and Airbus offered to USAF had ONLY wing fuel. No belly fuel. None. It could not reach max take off gross weight (MTOGW) with fuel alone. The RAF must have installed additional tankage in their Voyagers.

And about those TriStars: fuel capacity of the -200 is 180Klb and OEW is 248Klb. So fully fueled an empty TriStar weighs 428Klb. MTOGW is 466Klb. So fully fueled a TriStar can still carry a 38Klb payload. If RAF TriStars can reach MTOGW with fuel alone, then they also must have additional tanks installed.

No airliner has ever been designed to be able to reach MTOGW with fuel alone and no payload. EVERY airliner has two knees in its payload/range curve. Indeed there are precious few aircraft of any kind that can reach MTOGW with fuel alone simply because the point of most aircraft is to transport a payload, and not to transport itself. Its called a PAYload for a reason. That's how the operator makes money with it. Flying around with zero payload is a hugely money losing proposition.

Tanker aircraft are an exception in that the payload is fuel. If the plumbing is designed properly, the payload fuel can be burned by the engines. This is NOT always the case in tanker aircraft. In some tankers, the payload fuel can only be offloaded and cannnot be transferred to the wing tanks for use by the engines.

[KenV]

If there was any BS, then it was from Boeing!

Whether ba operated 767-200ERs or 767-300ERs is nihil ad rem. The point is that they struggle to operate from a 10000 ft balanced field in ISA / still air conditions at MTOW.

Interesting. Wiki claims the source of their data is Boeing, and according to wiki, the "Takeoff distance at MTOW (sea level, ISA)" is 8,300 ft for both the -200ER and the -300ER.

[Just This Once...]

Interesting. The MRTT both Northrop Grumman and Airbus offered to USAF had ONLY wing fuel. No belly fuel. None. It could not reach max take off gross weight (MTOGW) with fuel alone. The RAF must have installed additional tankage in their Voyagers.

No airliner has ever been designed to be able to reach MTOGW with fuel alone and no payload.

No, the offer to the USAF had the A330 standard fuel configuration. The RAF also have the standard configuration. The MRTT for the other markets has the standard configuration. No extra tanks were fitted or need to be fitted. No, the standard A330 does not have fuel only in the wings. The fuel load has already been covered.

You say you were on the NG team that offered the A330??

http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/AirTransat236/Fuel_tanks.jpg

[tdracer]

If there was any BS, then it was from Boeing!

Whether ba operated 767-200ERs or 767-300ERs is nihil ad rem. The point is that they struggle to operate from a 10000 ft balanced field in ISA / still air conditions at MTOW.

Sorry BEagle, but I'm looking at the FAA approved numbers - you know, the numbers that the airlines use. 767-300ER, with RB211-524H engines, MTOW of 415,000 lbs. :
F.A.R. TAKEOFF RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS - STANDARD DAY - 9,100 ft.
Make it a +15 deg C day, and it increases to about 9,500 ft.
For the 767-300ER with the more powerful PW4062 engines (which will be on the 767-2C/KE-46), and those field lengths drop to about 8,200 ft. and 8,600 ft., respectively

These numbers are out of FAA approved 767 airplane manuals.
Where did you pull your numbers from?:confused:

[BEagle]

KenV wrote: Interesting. Wiki claims the source of their data is Boeing, and according to wiki, the "Takeoff distance at MTOW (sea level, ISA)" is 8,300 ft for both the -200ER and the -300ER.

You're not seriously expecting anyone to believe wiki as your reference source, are you?

Did you even know the capability of the Northrop Grumman offer?

As for In some tankers, the payload fuel can only be offloaded and cannnot be transferred to the wing tanks for use by the engines.

Oh really? Which tankers? Apart from the KC-135Q, that is.

If the level of knowledge you've exhibited on this forum is anything to go by - and you really worked for them, it's hardly surprising that Northrop Grumman's offer failed.

[KenV]

No, the offer to the USAF had the A330 standard fuel configuration. The RAF also have the standard configuration. The MRTT for the other markets has the standard configuration. No extra tanks were fitted or need to be fitted. No, the standard A330 does not have fuel only in the wings. The fuel load has already been covered.

You say you were on the NG team that offered the A330??

You are correct, I neglected to mention the tail tank. But the bottom line was that with the standard A330 fuel configuration, the MRRT offered could not reach MTOGW with fuel alone.

And yes, I was on the NG team that co-developed the boom and the RARO (remote aerial refueling operator) station. At that time Boeing's offer was based on the KC-135 boom and our boom was far superior. And our proposal won. Our boom forced Boeing to do a total redesign based on the KC-10 boom for their next effort. Sadly, NG was not part of the next effort.

[Just This Once...]

…or the 32 tonnes in the centre tank.

[tdracer]

You're not seriously expecting anyone to believe wiki as your reference source, are you?Are you similarly dismissive of the FAA approved flight manuals?

[Rick777]

When they put the CFMs on the KC135 and called the tanker of the 21st century it sounds like they were right.

[KenV]

You're not seriously expecting anyone to believe wiki as your reference source, are you?


Wiki claims they used Boeing data and its written and published. If that offends you, so be it. I'm fine with that. And if you'd rather trust the memory of a many years ago competition, that's fine with me also.

[KenV]

…or the 32 tonnes in the centre tank.


We considered the tanks in the center wing to be part of the wing tankage. We view that as wing structure, not fuselage structure.

[Just This Once...]

Nice try...

[tdracer]

Just This Once, are trying to say the center wing box isn't part of the wing?:eek:

[Just This Once...]

My remarks were aimed at the missing fuel volume from our resident A330 tanker expert and his suggestion that the USAF option carried less than standard A330s.

Comical Ali comes to mind.

[Davef68]

And about those TriStars: fuel capacity of the -200 is 180Klb and OEW is 248Klb. So fully fueled an empty TriStar weighs 428Klb. MTOGW is 466Klb. So fully fueled a TriStar can still carry a 38Klb payload. If RAF TriStars can reach MTOGW with fuel alone, then they also must have additional tanks installed.



They did (and the RAF ones were -500s) - if my memory is correct the additional tanks added approx 100Klb of fuel capacity

[RAFEngO74to09]

According to this: Tristar bows out | Wings of History (http://wingsofhistory.net/features/tristar-bows-out/)


MTOW 539,000 lb with 212,410lb fuel in wings and 98,285lb fuel in 2 cargo bays.

[D-IFF_ident]

Regards the 12,000 / 13,000 / 10,000 runway argument. I'm pretty sure the A330 MRTT can manage the 12,000 or 13,000 runways too.

[KenV]

My remarks were aimed at the missing fuel volume from our resident A330 tanker expert and his suggestion that the USAF option carried less than standard A330s.

Comical Ali comes to mind.

1. There is no missing fuel volume. The centerwing tank has always been part of the wing and its volume was considered. The tail tank volume was also considered, although I admitted I forgot to specifically mention it.

2. Neither you nor anyone else have provided any data indicating that the MRTT offered to USAF has less fuel volume than "standard A330s". The only data provided for the Voyager was highly suspect, showing that even at zero payload, the tanks could not be filled, a highly unlikely design. However there MAY be a simple explanation for that: OEW (Operating Empty Weight). If the Voyager has a high OEW because of modifications or onboard equipment, then it will mass out before reaching its max fuel capacity. But that seems highly unlikely. Why? Because it would mean the Voyager is flying around with over 20,000 lbs of extra weight. More llikely is that the numbers provided were erroneous.

Here's some hard data for a "standard" commercial A330s:
(Since some folks take offense at wiki data, all the data below came from Jane's, which coincidentally is exactly the same as the wiki data)

A330-300
OEW = 273.5Klbs
Fuel capacity = 175.2Klbs
MTOGW = 534.0Klbs

A330-200
OEW = 263.7Klbs
Fuel capacity = 249.8Klbs
MTOGW = 534.0Klbs

Now, lets "do the math"

"standard" A330-300
273.5 + 175.2 = 448.7 = ramp weight w/max fuel w/zero payload
534.0 - 448.7 = 85.3 = payload capacity (in Klbs) with full fuel load

"standard" A330-200 (Which is what the MRTT is based on).
263.7 + 249.8 = 513.5 = ramp weight w/max fuel w/zero payload
534.0 - 513.5 = 20.5 = payload capacity (in Klbs) with full fuel load

Imagine that!! BOTH versions can carry substantial payloads with a full fuel load, just like every ariliner ever designed. Who'd have thought?

And my goodness, when a "standard A330-200" is full of fuel, it can still carry 20.5 THOUSAND pounds of payload. I don't remember the OEW of the MRTT offered to USAF, but I'm very confident it was not 20.5Klbs heavier than a "standard A330". Indeed if memory serves it was a bit lighter.

Comical indeed.

And about that "A330 tanker expert" remark. I never claimed nor even remotely suggested that I was an "A330 tanker expert." I am however somewhat familiar with the two tankers offered to USAF and some of the criteria used to choose between the two offers. And I chose to share some of that information here. As for the various "true believers" who got their knickers in a twist.......yes, comical does indeed come to mind.

[vascodegama]

Ken

Sorry to have to tell you that my figures are correct. It may well be that the base ac theoretical weights give the possible "substantial" payload that you refer to but the figures that I have used are the practical ones. It's a bit like the theoretical max fuel of the Tristar KC1- not possible to achieve on a day to day
basis.

[KenV]

Ken, Sorry to have to tell you that my figures are correct. It may well be that the base ac theoretical weights give the possible "substantial" payload that you refer to but the figures that I have used are the practical ones. It's a bit like the theoretical max fuel of the Tristar KC1- not possible to achieve on a day to day basis.

OK, your fuel and weight figures for the Voyager are correct. So? It's still an odd design that makes it impossible to put on a full fuel load (on the other hand, if the Voyager's max ramp weight is 3t higher than MTOGW then the crew can burn off 3t of fuel before taking off. Still kinda odd though.) However a number of folks have stated that the RAF's other air tankers have belly tanks with the TriStar's belly tanks having near 100Klb capacity. A "standard" A330 cannot reach MTOGW with just fuel, and you never answered if the RAF did or did not put belly tanks in the Voyager to enable it to reach MTOGW with just fuel. Just This Once in post #93 implies that the Voyager, unlike the other RAF air tankers, has no belly tanks. If that is true, then either the Voyager's empty weight is 20Klb higher than a "standard" A330, or either the fuel capacity figures provided by both Janes and wiki are off by 20Klb, or the figures provided by you are off by 20Klb.

This much I'm very confident of: the MRTT offered to USAF did not have belly tanks and it could not reach MTOGW with just fuel. I have no idea why the Voyager is different in that regard. I also have no idea why that difference is so important to some folks that they've gotten their knickers in a twist over them. But here we are.

[D-IFF_ident]

It's a fairly common tanker design to not reach MAX FOB without exceeding MAX TOW. You can't get anywhere near tanks full in a KC-10 for example. Fuel tank capacity is a function of volume - or the space available in the airframe. For the engineers it's probably more important that they avoid the situation where MAX FOB gives less than MAX TOW.

KC45 OEW was around 130,000KG. MAX FOB was 111,000KG.

MAX TOW still 233,000KG

[BEagle]

Voyager does not have any additional fuel tanks; unlike the KC-46A it doesn't need any.

Voyager's under floor cargo area isn't compromised by additional centre tank 'plugs', whereas KC-46A's is. Hence it needs an upper deck cargo door whereas Voyager does not.

From what has been posted, typical ZFW for Voyager means that it's about 2.1T short of being able to operate with full fuel. But it can still take about 98% of max fuel. Why is it heavier than an A330-200? Consider the weight of AAR pods, FRU, camera equipment, additional avionics and DASS, the MSO's equipment etc. and there you have the answer.

I doubt whether the KC-45A would have been able to operate with 111T of fuel at start either - particularly given the weight of the ARBS.

Incidentally, the A330 centre tank is indeed considered to be a 'centre wing' tank rather than a 'fuselage' tank.

D-IFF_ident makes a good point regarding fuel volume. Airliner brochures tend to use low SG values in order to delude customers into thinking that a higher payload will be available than will actually turn out to be the case in service. Whereas a tanker manufacturer is more interested in ensuring that a high fuel mass, rather than volume, is available - so will quote a higher SG value. The A330MRTT brochure uses a realistic SG value of 0.799, whereas if the value of 0.785 as used in other brochures was quoted, 139000 litre would have a mass of 109T....and MTOW with max fuel (apart from that used during taxying) would be possible.

[KenV]

Voyager does not have any additional fuel tanks; unlike the KC-46A it doesn't need any.

Voyager's under floor cargo area isn't compromised by additional centre tank 'plugs', whereas KC-46A's is. Hence it needs an upper deck cargo door whereas Voyager does not.


Once again, "need" is in the eye of the beholder. Your eye might not see those as needs. But the USAF eye decided that a cargo door and cargo floor were priorities. The KC-10 for example (which is even larger than the A330) has a cargo door, cargo floor, and belly tanks. Why? Besides the ability to handle fully loaded military 463L pallets, the cargo door/floor facilitates medevac. Airbus not even offering them hurt our proposal. We dearly wanted Airbus to offer an A330-200F based MRTT, which had the cargo door, cargo floor, and the revised nose gear. But they did not want to move up the freighter development schedule to meet the first competition's schedule. They simply refused to offer it for the later competitions and still refuse to do so. Don't know why.

And oh yes, if Voyager has no belly tanks, then I don't know how it could possibly mass out before it volumed out. It's hard to imagine Voyager's empty weight is 20klbs higher than an A330's empty weight. I do know that the MRTT offered to USAF in the first round was very slightly lighter than the A330-200 even with the addition of all the refueling gear because it had the lightweight passenger floor, and no seats, galleys, lavs, etc. I can't remember for sure, but it may not even have had the cargo handling gear in the belly. It was highly optimized as a pure air tanker.

[BEagle]

KenV wrote: And oh yes, if Voyager has no belly tanks, then I don't know how it could possibly mass out before it volumed out.

Do you actually understand the concepts of specific gravity and the effect of temperature on SG? Such factors may be insignificant in some little mini-jet such as an A-4, but they are highly significant in large aircraft such as the A330.

Total tank volume in the A330-MRTT is 139000 litre. Assuming you can do sums, you might like to calculate the total mass at different specific gravity values, then adjust that for temperature deviation.

Again, the USAF needed cargo floor and door in the Frankentanker because the B767's normal, somewhat limited underfloor cargo space is further compromised by the center tank plugs needed to meet the AAR requirements of the KC-X competition.

[Heathrow Harry]

" USAF eye decided that a cargo door and cargo floor were priorities"

then why not buy more freighters? tha damn thing is supposed to be a TANKER, not a glorified DC-8F

The USAF wanted a Boeing aircraft - and they're going to get one.........

and they will pay the price :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[D-IFF_ident]

The KC-10 is not larger than the A330. The KC-10 measures 50 x 55 m - the A330-200 is 58 x 60m.

[tdracer]

then why not buy more freighters? tha damn thing is supposed to be a TANKER, not a glorified DC-8F
Really HH? You're really going to argue that the A330 is a better deal because you also need to buy another cargo aircraft to provide similar capability to the KC-46?
Listen, some of the USAF requirements during the tanker completion were quite frankly silly - but when we went back and tried to point out how some of the requirements made no sense in the real world, the basic response was along the line of "what part of mandatory don't you understand?" After contract award, we tried again - same response.


D-IFF_ident, I don't think aircraft footprint relates much to it's cargo carrying capability - and in that regard the KC-10 fuselage is ~1 ft. larger in diameter than the A330.

[stilton]

Lots of xenophobic attitudes here and a clear bias to the far less flexible Airbus platform from our European friends.


Fact is the 'frankentanker' is just a better aircraft for the USAF.

[Heathrow Harry]

The US will discover, as the British have, that once you have a single supplier then your negotiating position is zero - you HAVE to buy from them

And so you finish up with even bigger cost overruns and kit that just doesn't work

[D-IFF_ident]

Not sure where the xenophobia is - I can only see people putting their opinions about different airframes forward. Personally, my opinion on which is better - the KC-45 or the KC-46 is "none of the above". If I was in a position to make decisions in strategic multi-role tanker procurement I'd want at least 3 engines, cargo door, flexible cabin arrangement able to take a minimum of between 0 pallets:250 passengers to 20 pallets: 0 passengers, with a minimum combi-load of 10 pallets:100 passengers and no height compromise for strengthening the floor or having overhead lockers. I'd want a comprehensive C2 avionics suite with modular intel/sensor/MAWS/LIRCM systems, an integrated mission planning system, inbuilt W&B sensors connected to the onboard flight planning systems. I'd want a variety of options for internal configurations for Aeromed/VIP etc and fuel tanks that can be isolated so I could do the all-important fuel deliveries to keep the support staff oil heaters working. In general I'd want a self-supporting command and control, passenger, cargo, tanker, battle-damage resistant jet aircraft with the shortest take-off/landing roll possible.

In short I'd want a purpose-built aircraft, not a modified civilian airliner.

Since that option doesn't exist I'd settle for the Airbus airframe, with a Boeing boom and Cobham pods. Parker can supply the UARRSI and Eaton can sort out the plumbing. :ok:

[GreenKnight121]

I would rather that the USAF had bought 100 KC-10Bs (my personal designation for Mil-Spec tanker/cargo versions of the MD-11, fitted out as per the KC-10 but updated [the 60 KC-10As were built in the mid-1980s]).

These would be ordered in ~1995, and would be based on the MD-11F freighter, which was the last version in production (last deliveries 2001). They would, in addition to the under-tail hose/drogue unit, have hose pods under the outer wings.

Comparison of MD-11F and DC-10-30F - to the right DC-10-30F, to the left MD-11F (note the cargo door under the "AR" in the airline name).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/MD11_AND_DC10_varig_comparison.jpg/800px-MD11_AND_DC10_varig_comparison.jpg

[TBM-Legend]

The KC-46 will work out just fine. The KC-135 series certainly have...

[stilton]

Agree, looks like a great aircraft.


The photo of the DC10 next to the MD11 illustrates very well the main reason for the latter's stability issues over the years, look at how much smaller the horizontal stabilizer is on the MD11 compared to the older DC10.


Most of the accidents with the MD11, and there have been plenty were with aircraft operated by cargo carriers operating routinely at higher weights, just like a tanker would be doing very commonly.



In other words using the MD11 as a tanker is not a good idea and fortunately wasn't tried.

[TBM-Legend]

The DC-10 is a short coupled aircraft vs. MD-11 therefore smaller surfaces needed..

[KenV]

Do you actually understand the concepts of specific gravity and the effect of temperature on SG? Such factors may be insignificant in some little mini-jet such as an A-4, but they are highly significant in large aircraft such as the A330.

Total tank volume in the A330-MRTT is 139000 litre. Assuming you can do sums, you might like to calculate the total mass at different specific gravity values, then adjust that for temperature deviation.



Oh my goodness. Those undies really are in a wad now.

All figures that follow are for A330-200 and taken from Jane's (which coincidentally are the same as wiki's)

Here's the density of the most widely used commercial and military jet fuels:
Jet A: 6.7 lb/gal
Jet B: 6.8 lb/gal
JP-4/F-40: 6.7 lb/gal
JP-5/F-44: 6.8 lb/gal
JP-8/F-34: 6.8 lb/gal

OEW= 263,700 lb
MTOGW = 534,000 lb
Volumetric fuel capacity = 36,740 gal (US)

Let's do some math:
36,740 x 6.7 = 246,158 lb = max fuel capacity
36,740 x 6.8 = 249,832 lb = max fuel capacity
534,000 - 263,700 = 270,300 lb = total fuel plus cargo capacity

No matter which fuel one loads into an A330, the airplane will volume out before it masses out.

For the airplane to mass out with just fuel the fuel density would have to be:
270,300lb / 36,740gal = 7.36 lb/gal. Even if the above fuels were cooled to just above their freezing points, they would not approach a density of 7.36 lb/gal. So given these facts, please name the fuel (and/or temperature of fuel) the RAF loads aboard their Voyagers that has a density of 7.36 lb/gal.

Yeah, I thought so.

Again, the USAF needed cargo floor and door in the Frankentanker because the B767's normal, somewhat limited underfloor cargo space is further compromised by the center tank plugs needed to meet the AAR requirements of the KC-X competition.Really? That's an intersting assertion. Pray tell, why is there a cargo door and floor on a KC-135? And a KC-10?

But rather than muddy the water with other aircraft, let's look at just THREE of the hundreds of requirements of the recent USAF tanker RFP.
Load a full military 463L pallet.
Load a standard medevac litter stanchion.
Mission reconfigure time under 1 hr.

MRTT could accomplish NONE of the above.
KC-46 could accomplish ALL of the above.

Perhaps you're saying those three requirements were not really "needed" and were just USAF goldplating to ensure the KC-46 won. You're welcome to believe that, even if that belief does not quite comport with reality.

Edit:

Such factors may be insignificant in some little mini-jet such as an A-4....
Interesting that you brought that up. And BTW, you're dead WRONG. It was NOT "insignificant" in the Scooter. USAF used JP-4, US Navy used JP-5. These fuels not only have different mass densities, but also different energy densities. I had to recompute CG, range, my fuel ladder, weapons load, and other factors during mission planning depending on whether my Scooter was loaded with JP-4 or JP-5. So yes, I'm very familiar with the concept of fuel density and its affect on aircraft performance and limitations.

One more BTW. I also operated the P-3C for several years. When I was on a 12 hour or longer mission over blue water and was loitering one or more engines during the mission and operating at both high and very low altitudes and operating at max range cruise AND max undurance cruise during different parts of the same mission, and expending stores during the mission, I made damned sure I was certain about my fuel computations. So your assumption about my awareness of fuel density on aircraft performance is a fail.

[Mil-26Man]

Really? That's an interesting assertion. Pray tell, why is there a cargo door and floor on a KC-135? And a KC-10?

For the same reason that the KC-46A needs them and the MRTT doesn't, no? All of the former are unable to fully utilise their underfloor cargo spaces because of the need to fit auxiliary fuel tanks. Without the need for auxiliary tanks, the MRTT is able to utilise all of its underfloor cargo space, and so doesn't need a main deck cargo floor or cargo door.

A main floor cargo deck and door aren't desirable features in themselves, it's just that the other platforms you name require them due to a lack of available cargo space elsewhere.

[KenV]

then why not buy more freighters? tha damn thing is supposed to be a TANKER, not a glorified DC-8F


Really? On what is this assertion based? Look at the USAF designations. They are KC-45 and KC-46. The C stands for cargo. Yup, these are multi-mission aircaft which include not only tanker and freight missions, but also passenger and medevac missions, along with a few more.

And about that airbus MRTT designation? The MR stands for Multi-Role and the TT stands for Tanker Transport. Once again, a multi-mission aircraft.

Given the missions USAF wants to execute with their aircraft, the KC-46 met those mission needs better.

Given the missions RAF wants to execute with thier aircraft, the A330 met those mission needs better.

[KenV]

The US will discover, as the British have, that once you have a single supplier then your negotiating position is zero - you HAVE to buy from them

And so you finish up with even bigger cost overruns and kit that just doesn't work


That depends on the nature of the contract. The tanker contract is firm-fixed price. Any cost over runs are borne by the manufacturer, NOT the government. Any equipment that does not meet spec must be redesigned/modified to meet spec at the cost of the manufacturer, not the government. Boeing is going to lose a LOT of money on this contract.

[Mil-26Man]

Any cost over runs are borne by the manufacturer, NOT the government. Any equipment that does not meet spec must be redesigned/modified to meet spec at the cost of the manufacturer, not the government. Boeing is going to lose a LOT of money on this contract.

Boeing may lose money on the $4 billion EMD contract (the only contract so far awarded), but it will make this back in spades on the full-rate production contract. If it were any other way, they would simply pull out.

[KenV]

The MD-11 being stretched relative to the DC-10, it not only had a longer moment arm for the horizontal stabilizer, the MD-11 had a fuel tank in the horizontal stabilizer which the DC-10 did not have. The tail tank enabled fine tuning the CG inflight. This had two effects: it enabled reducing trim drag caused by the tail to increase range. It also meant there was a narrower CG range to deal with, so the stabilizer could be made smaller.

[vascodegama]

Ken

I have said it before but for clarity your max wt and empty weights don't tie up. The resultant max fuel using the figures I gave earlier means a max fuel of 239k =109 t.

[KenV]

For the same reason that the KC-46A needs them and the MRTT doesn't, no? All of the former are unable to fully utilise their underfloor cargo spaces because of the need to fit auxiliary fuel tanks. Without the need for auxiliary tanks, the MRTT is able to utilise all of its underfloor cargo space, and so doesn't need a main deck cargo floor or cargo door.

That's a bold assertion, and one that does not comport with reality.
Can the MRTT carry full 463L military pallets in either the belly or main deck? Nope.
Can the MRTT carry medevac litter stanchions in either the belly or the main deck? Nope.
Can the MRTT be reconfigured from the tanker mission, to the cargo mission, to the passenger mission, to the medevac mission in under one hour? Nope.
Can the MRTT use USAF's existing roll-on/roll-off mission kits? Nope.

The answer is "Yes" for all the above for the KC-46.

If the abilities above are important to the customer, and one aicraft can do them and the other cannot, which should the customer choose?

[KenV]

Boeing may lose money on the $4 billion EMD contract (the only contract so far awarded), but it will make this back in spades on the full-rate production contract. If it were any other way, they would simply pull out.


Boeing may or may not make money later on. It depends on the contract. KC-46 is a high stakes gamble. Northrop Gumman pulled out early rather than accept the risk. Airbus accepted a lesser risk by bidding a higher price.

The A380 was a very high stakes gamble for Airbus. They may or may not make money on that gamble.

The 747-8 was a high stakes gamble for Boeing. They may or may not make money on that gamble.

The airplane business is not for the feint of heart. The vast majority of airplane companies no longer even exist.

[Mil-26Man]

All of which kind of leaves me scratching my head then, wondering why the USAF actually chose the KC-45.

You said yourself, politics had a big part to play in them opting to go with the KC-46A at the second (or third) time of asking, so you have to ask yourself how many of those capabilities you list are actually required by the USAF, as opposed to being drawn into the requirements in order to get the 'correct' outcome when the competition was rerun?

[BEagle]

The A330MRTT can carry:
4 x 463-L military pallets in the forward lower cargo hold, plus another 4 x 463-L pallets in the aft lower cargo hold
28 NATO stretchers, 6 x critical care modules, 20 medical staff seats and 100 passengers on the main fuselage deck.
If customers find that they want more upper deck cargo space, an option is to have a cargo door and a potential 26 x 463-L pallets on the optional upper deck.


None of which requires any loss of AAR capability.

On the subject of cargo containers, the A330MRTT can carry a total of 27 x LD3 universal cargo containers in the lower holds. Whereas the KC-46A is compromised by ol' Bubba's initial failure to ensure that LD3s could be carried in pairs in the 767 - its fuselage is too narrow. Unlike the A310 or A330, which both have the same 222" fuselage cross-section and are able to carry LD3s in pairs.

[KenV]

Ken, I have said it before but for clarity your max wt and empty weights don't tie up. The resultant max fuel using the figures I gave earlier means a max fuel of 239k =109 t

I used A330-200 data publicly available from Jane's.
If the Voyager's weight data is different, you're welcome to provide the Voyager's OEW, and MTOGW data. As I said previously, OEW makes a big difference. But if OEW is the only difference, Voyager's OEW would have to be over 20klb higher than A330-200 OEW. Which is certainly possible, but seems unlikely.

[KenV]

All of which kind of leaves me scratching my head then, wondering why the USAF actually chose the KC-45.


Technically, they chose KC-30, which was the Northrop Grumman designation for their A330-based tanker offer. The very first round in 2006 (which included a 777 based offer from Boeing) was structured very differently than the 2007 competion. Northrop Grumman/EADS threatened to pull out in 2006, so the competition was rejiggered to enable the A330 to compete.

The politics were complicated. The 2007 competition was driven by USAF's tanker boys which were hold overs from the old Strategic Air Command (SAC). Previously, ALL tankers belonged to SAC. When SAC ceased to exist, some tankers went to Air Combat Command (ACC) and some to Air Mobility Command (AMC). The former SAC guys, now ACC bomber guys, strongly favored a DC-10 sized aircraft, and Northrup Grumman/EADS won that competition for 800 aircraft (800!!) with the KC-30, which was based on the A330-200.

But Boeing formally protested and the Government Accountability Office (an independent arbiter not affiliated with USAF) threw out that competition after USAF admitted to several flaws in their bidding process. An "expedited recompetition" was convened by DoD rather than USAF. This second competition was for a more "realistic" 400 (400!) aircraft with more detailed performance requirements and mission criteria. But this competition collapsed early and did not get out of the starting gate. That was in 2008.

In 2009 USAF started over. The do-over was for a "possible" 179 aircraft. The process stretched into 2010. By now the old SAC guys were gone. ACC's tankers only supported their bombers, so they had a rather narrow vision of the tanker mission. But by this time the tankers were taken from ACC and all of them belonged to Air Mobility Command (AMC). AMC had a completely different vision for their tanker than ACC because AMC was responsible for deploying and supporting the Army, deploying and supporting USAF fighter and bomber units, and for supporting USN and USMC. And by "support" that means both operational support (in-theater air tanking) AND logistics support (providing "bombs, bullets, and butter" for in-theater units). AMC also had the medevac mission. So the AMC guys included a plethora of additional missions not included by the former SAC guys now ACC bomber guys during the first competition. And besides the requirements being very different, this new RFP was for a Firm Fixed Price rather than a cost-plus with incentive fees.

The A330 could still meet the additional requirements, but ONLY if Airbus offered an A330-200F based MRTT. Airbus simply refused. We (NG) never could figure out why, because unlike the first competition, Airbus now had a fully developed freighter version of the A330 and did not need to develop it for the tanker competition. So this is yet another factor in the "politics". Why did Airbus refuse to offer a freighter based MRTT? I don't know. But without a freighter based tanker to offer NG pulled out, and Airbus decided to go it alone with the passenger based version. And predictably, Airbus lost.

I hope this clarified.

[KenV]

The A330MRTT can carry:
4 x 463-L military pallets in the forward lower cargo hold, plus another 4 x 463-L pallets in the aft lower cargo hold

Really? That would be a pretty good trick. A LOADED 463L pallet can be over 7 ft tall and can weigh up to 10,000 lbs. The USAF requirement was for a LOADED 463L pallet compatible with C-17 and C-130 for transhipment. Restacking the pallet in the theater for transhipment was not allowed. The A330's lower hold dimensions are not even compatible with a CH-46 configured 463L pallet.

And it's one thing to load a light (or empty) 463L pallet into the lower cargo hold of an A330 with a passenger nose gear. I's quite another to load a loaded pallet with that passenger nose gear. The freighter version of the A330 has a revised nose gear which gives the aircraft a level attitude on the ground. Not offering that nose gear for MRTT severely restricted pallet loadability.

28 NATO stretchers, 6 x critical care modules, 20 medical staff seats and 100 passengers on the main fuselage deck.
Its not the stretchers that need to be compatible. A small helicopter can carry stretcher patients. The aircraft needs to be compatible with USAF's existing stretcher stanchions that stack stetcher patients 3 high. With the overhead luggage bins in the aircraft and no freighter floor, that is impossible.

BTW, have you ever tried to get a stretcher patient up the airstairs of an airliner and then make a 90 degree turn inside the airplane to move aft? It's pretty close to impossible. It's one thing to advertise the ability to carry 28 stretchers. Its entirely another thing to be able to actually load 28 stretchers with patients on them.


If customers find that they want more upper deck cargo space, an option is to have a cargo door and a potential 26 x 463-L pallets on the optional upper deck.

Once again, without a cargo floor to go with the cargo door, the pallet weight is severely restricted. And without a revised nose gear to go with a cargo door and cargo floor, pallet loadability is highly restricted.

But here's the real rub: Why did Airbus not offer a cargo door in the USAF competition? And still does not offer a cargo floor or a revised nose gear on the MRTT? I don't know. Do you? And can you see how not offering those features on the MRTT could hamper an Airbus offer relative to a Boeing offer? Especially if the purchaser "NEEDS" those features?

[Mil-26Man]

Why did Airbus not offer a cargo door in the USAF competition?

They did.

KC-45 Aerial Refuelling Tanker Aircraft - Airforce Technology (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc30tanker/)

Cargo

The main deck can carry 280 passengers or 26 463l pallets. Loading and unloading is through a 141in x 100in cargo door. The lower deck can carry an additional six pallets. The KC-45 cargo loading system is supplied by AAR Cargo Systems which is based in Livonia, Michigan.

[BEagle]

Mil-26Man, you'll only confuse him if you supply factual information.....:rolleyes:

[sandiego89]

Boeing may or may not make money later on. It depends on the contract. KC-46 is a high stakes gamble. Northrop Gumman pulled out early rather than accept the risk. Airbus accepted a lesser risk by bidding a higher price.

KenV, read the article in post #1. "Boeing executives previously have said they expect to recoup the $1 billion in excess development costs during the program’s $39 billion production phase". The real money comes in subsequent orders or special sub-contracts. I am quite confident they will make up for this cost over run in the course of the program.

I would rather that the USAF had bought 100 KC-10Bs (my personal designation for Mil-Spec tanker/cargo versions of the MD-11, fitted out as per the KC-10 but updated [the 60 KC-10As were built in the mid-1980s])

Wow Greenknight, I am really glad they did NOT buy a MD-11 derivative. They don't call the 11 "the turtle" for nothing....rolls on its back and dies....

you'll only confuse him if you supply factual information.....:rolleyes:

:ok:

[KenV]

Cargo

The main deck can carry 280 passengers or 26 463l pallets. Loading and unloading is through a 141in x 100in cargo door. The lower deck can carry an additional six pallets. The KC-45 cargo loading system is supplied by AAR Cargo Systems which is based in Livonia, Michigan.


Well good for them! They added the cargo door after NG pulled out and Airbus decided to go it alone. I still don't get why they did not then and do not now offer the main deck cargo floor, nor the revised nose gear of the freighter.

[KenV]

KenV, read the article in post #1. "Boeing executives previously have said they expect to recoup the $1 billion in excess development costs during the program’s $39 billion production phase". The real money comes in subsequent orders or special sub-contracts. I am quite confident they will make up for this cost over run in the course of the program.

The operative word there is "previously". You're assuming a $1 billion over run. Right now, that's a rosy estimate. And even the $1B makes huge assumptions about the follow on production contract(s). There's a reason Boeing's stock dropped even with unprecedented airliner deliveries and orders. KC-46 is a big part of that drop.

[3engnever]

A330 MRTT can carry a lot more than 28 stretchers!! However, Ken V does make a very good point about the practicality of loading them!! The MRTT stretchers also stack 3 high, with stowage bins fitted and are fully certified.

[BEagle]

A330 MRTT can carry a lot more than 28 stretchers!! Indeed it can, 3engnever!!. The fit to which I referred was the 'intensive MEDEVAC configuration' with 6 critical care modules also fitted. In the maximum stretcher fit, according to the tech specs it can carry up to 130 standard stretchers.

All without compromise to the AAR capability and without any loss of space for any additional centre tanks......such as are needed by the Frankentanker.

[D-IFF_ident]

KenV - you're getting your MEWs and OEWs confused.

You're quoting MEWs - and you need to add the AAR equipment, seats, paint, galleys etc. Publicly available OEW figures range from 274,000 - 300,000 Lbs.

Also, you should read these:


http://defensetech.org/2008/04/01/first-kc-45-in-germany/

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2009-06-18/kc-45-conundrum-airbus

[KenV]

I'm reading about all this wonderful stuff the MRTT has, but this begs a few questions:

1. A few days ago the mantra was:
The A330MRTT is wonderful and angelic as is and it does not need a demonic cargo door like the Frankentanker.

And now the mantra is:
Airbus is so wonderful because they've added a cargo door option to the angelic MRTT which adds SO much to its capabilities and utility.

I find it interesting that the mantra uttered by the true believers has done a complete 180 without the slightest pause.

2. Why did Airbus wait more than 4 years to offer all this stuff? Why did they not include it in their offer back in 2009? NG would likely have stayed in the program had Airbus done so.

3. Why does Airbus refuse to offer an MRTT based on the A330-200F? The freighter development is now done and it's in production. All that Airbus would need to do is offer a freighter with the -200 wing which includes the center wing tank rather than the current -300 wing without the center wing tank. How hard/expensive can that be? Surely there is a market for an air tanker that is more optimized for freighter duties than for passenger carrying duties. After all, the vast majority of the world's air tankers are optimized for freight rather than passengers. Perhaps there's a message there.

4. Perhaps all these new offerings relates to the A330NEO and A350. In 2009 Airbus could barely keep up with A330 orders and selling tankers was a minor sideline. Perhaps even a distraction. It could be argued that just developing and building a freighter was considered a distraction back then. At that time Boeing was desperate to keep selling 767s with the 787 coming on line and was willing to jump through all sorts of hoops to keep that production line open. Now Airbus is desperate to sell A330s to bridge the gap to the A330NEO. Airbus may have decided that tankers are the answer rather than a distracting sideline. And they may have decided that competing successfully against a "Frankentanker" in the world market place requires strengthening the "Multi" in MRTT.

[Mil-26Man]

1. A few days ago the mantra was:
The A330MRTT is
wonderful and angelic as is and it does not need a demonic cargo door like the
Frankentanker.

And now the mantra is:
Airbus is so wonderful
because they've added a cargo door option to the angelic MRTT which adds SO much
to its capabilities and utility.

I find it interesting that the
mantra uttered by the true believers has done a complete 180 without the
slightest pause.

That's simply not true. The mantra is, and has always been that the MRTT doesn't need a cargo door because it retains all of its cargo capacity in the undefloor hold, but the option was there for the USAF and is there for anyone else who wants it.

I stopped reading after 1, so can't comment on 2 to 4 I'm afraid.

[KenV]

The mantra is, and has always been that the MRTT doesn't need a cargo door because it retains all of its cargo capacity in the undefloor hold.


Yes of course. And when it's pointed out that a customer (like USAF) says they need more "cargo capacity" in terms of mass and/or dimensions (including length and height) than will fit in a lower cargo hold the answer from those chanting the mantra has consistently been what amounts to "but that's not needed."

As for not reading 2 thru 4, that's your business. (and one could argue, your loss.)

[3engnever]

KenV,

I would suggest that if the USAF was to change tack, which clearly it won't, Airbus has sold quite a few of these Multi Role Tanker Transport aircraft and so the waiting time would be considerable. I am not aware of the KC46 receiving the same interest?

I suppose the point is if you can still afford in this financial climate to pay a vast amount of cash for an aircraft with a single purpose then great, the KC46 is probably good to go. If you need a true Multi Role platform then I would suggest the MRTT is the choice. I've seen the stands for both, and whilst the MRTT doesn't meet the USAF requirements due to cargo door, the KC46 certainly doesn't meet the RAF requirements for FSTA in terms off Multi Role performance.

It's all quite simple really. Not about which tanker is best,more about which meets the customer requirements.

[D-IFF_ident]

My last post on this thread; i can't be bothered with it anymore. KenV is clearly a troll and I'm bored now. :mad:

[melmothtw]

Ah, the usual PPRuNE mantra - he/she/it doesn't agree with me, therefore they must be a troll.

[BEagle]

melmothw, hardly the case here. Some clear corrections of KenV's misinformation have been provided by those in the know. The fact that he chooses to ignore them and to pursue some weird agenda of his own is particularly revealing.

Anyway, since the KC-46A has yet to turn a wheel, let alone fly or start its flight test campaign, most of the claims made for it have yet to be proved - leaving the tanker market to the Airbus A330MRTT and IAI's modified 'pre-owned' 767s. When it's a choice between something sitting in the static display or some glossy brochure peddled by Boeing, the latter would have to be pretty compelling to be successful.

[TBM-Legend]

Boeing has built KC-767's for Japan and Italy that now seem to work fine...

[cornish-stormrider]

But not the KC-46.......

So one one hand we have people saying what Airbus are offering is ****e and ole Bubba's wonder jet pisses all over it......

Oh wait, it will do, maybe if it gets in the air.
I know what I'd rather fly in thank you.

Every aircraft has four dimensions, seeing as how KC-46 is struggling with number four and then getting a working jetin the air.

I mean, how many Multi role tankers did Airbus build before MRTT? Vs Bubba?
So Boeing had all the skills and the expertise and no product in the air still yet according to those "truly in the know" is the best and will out perform Airbus by orders of magnitude....

I don't smell pork barrels here at all.

[KenV]

KenV - you're getting your MEWs and OEWs confused.

You're quoting MEWs - and you need to add the AAR equipment, seats, paint, galleys etc. Publicly available OEW figures range from 274,000 - 300,000 Lbs.

Ummm, no, you are dead wrong. I provided OEW data, not MEW.
OEW includes everything to "operate" the aircraft except usable fuel and payload and includes lubricants, hydraulic fluid, trapped fuel, OLE (Onboard Loose Equipment, like fire axes, O2 masks, O2 walk around bottles, cargo rails/rollers/locks, tie down chains/straps, first aid kits, etc), survival equipment, the flight crew, the flight crew's baggage allowance, etc, etc.

The bottom line is that the A330-200 is 20.5klb under its MTOGW limit when full of fuel. Unless the aerial refueling equipment on the Voyager weighs 20.5Klb (which is certainly possible, but seems highly unlikely) then the Voyager should not be able to reach its MTOGW limit with just fuel alone. Conversely, if the Voyager reachs its MTOGW limit with fuel alone, then its OEW must be 20.5Klbs higher than a typical A330-200.

Howewver, none of you Voyager guys have ever cited the Voyager's OEW, just its ZFW. OEW is well defined internationally. ZFW (generally) includes everything (including payload!) except usable fuel. ZFW varies greatly for every mission. With no payload ZFW equals OEW and ZFW can go all the way up to OEW + max payload, with max payload usually defined as the numerical difference between OEW and MZFW. MZFW is a structural limit determined by (generally) max fuselage bending moment on the ground and (generally) max wing bending moment in flight. Although related, MTOGW is another structural limitation defined quite differently than MZFW.

If the definition for ZFW you Voyager guys are using is the same as the general definition, then there is your problem. You are including the payload weight, which for the A330-200 is 20.5Klbs at max fuel. I have no idea what it is for the Voyager and may be more or less than 20.5Klb depending on the Voyager's OEW.

[KenV]

KenV, I would suggest that if the USAF was to change tack, which clearly it won't, Airbus has sold quite a few of these Multi Role Tanker Transport aircraft and so the waiting time would be considerable. I am not aware of the KC46 receiving the same interest?

1. The RFP had hard delivery dates that lay years in the future. BOTH manufacturers' proposals met those delivery dates.

2. If USAF were to change horses in mid stream at this late date, USAF would change to the KC-45 and not the MRTT. Although KC-45 is based on the A330-200 like the MRTT, it is quite a bit different than the MRTT, just as the KC-46 is quite a but different than the KC-767 that Boeing had previously produced. It would take a few years for Airbus to develop the KC-45 just as it is taking Boeing a few years to develop the KC-46. The production slots would be reserved years in advance while Airbus completed development, so the wait for delivery would not be "considerable".

On the other hand the waiting time may be infinite. By the time Airbus developed the KC-45 from the A330-200, the A330-200 may no longer be in production. The production line may have converted over to producing A330NEOs. Boeing's replacement for the 767 is the 787. Those are entirely separate production lines so Boeing can produce KC-46s at the same time as 787s. I don't know, but I believe that the A330 production line will be converted to producing A330NEOs. So the only way to produce KC-45s and A330NEO at the same time would be to have two separate production lines. Airbus would likely be loathe to do that. If Airbus had won the KC-45 contract, they would have been forced to create a separate production line for the A330NEO. Maybe losing the KC-45 contract was in Airbus' best long term business interests.

[KenV]

hardly the case here. Some clear corrections of KenV's misinformation have been provided by those in the know.

Wow. "those in the know". What a joke. You "in the know" guys are clueless about what was included in the three tanker RFPs and clueless about what Boeing and Airbus actually offered in response to those RFPs. And clu4u, Airbus did NOT offer an MRTT, just as Boeing did not offer a KC767. All you had were the typical knee jerk reactions of true believers of a favored product from a favored producer.

And you "in the know" guys appear to not even understand the difference between ZFW, OEW, and MEW. In the know indeed.

The fact that he chooses to ignore them and to pursue some weird agenda of his own is particularly revealing.
Wow. My agenda is and has been from the beginning, "better" is in the eyes of the beholder. My "agenda" stated that USAF's eye beheld the offered KC-30 (based on the A330-200) to be "better" than the offered KC-767 and then beheld that the offered KC-46 to be better than the offered KC-45. The "in the know" boys do not seem to grok that NONE of these offered aircraft existed at the time nor do ANY of them exist even now. My "agenda" also stated that the RAF's and RAAF's eyes beheld the MRTT to be "better".

And about "ignoring" and "choosing" things, YOU chose to "ignore" USAF's clearly established priorities for their tanker and chose to try to convince the readers here what the USAF "really" needed. And this while you "in the know" boys are utterly clueless about USAF's (and more specifically, AMC's) operational environment.

And if you "in the know" boys want to talk about "weird" agendas, just look at your fetish with the "Frankentanker" epithet. Now that's weird. And oh yes, YOU guys are the only ones setting up the "weird" competition between a KC-46 and an MRTT. They've never competed. Clu4u, the KC-45 is NOT the same as an MRTT, and the KC-46 did not compete against the MRTT.


Anyway, since the KC-46A has yet to turn a wheel, let alone fly or start its flight test campaign, most of the claims made for it have yet to be proved

Hmmmm. "Claims made"? Do you "in the know" boys really imagine there is the teeny tiniest scintilla of doubt that the KC-46 will have a boom, will have three drogues, will have belly tanks, will have a cargo door, willl have a cargo floor and will be able to operate from 10,000 ft runways. Those are essentially the only claims I made.

And oddly enough, the KC-45 is even farther from reality than the KC-46. Image that!!! Oh wait, you're still going on about that "weird" comparison between the KC-46 and the MRTT. Yeah, you "in the know" boys please do keep making that weird comparison.


When it's a choice between something sitting in the static display or some glossy brochure peddled by Boeing, the latter would have to be pretty compelling to be successful.


Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on the needs of the user (which includes timing), and the product being offered. Which is to say it depends on the eye of the beholder. You "in the know" boys are apparently unaware that the F-35 was years from IOC while LOTS of folks from multiple nations chose it over the "on the ramp right now" Eagle, Hornet, Falcon, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Fulcrum, and the various derivatives of the Flanker.

"In the know" indeed.

And oh yes, a final question for the "in the know" boys. Who's the troll with the "weird agenda" here really.

[KenV]

So one one hand we have people saying what Airbus are offering is ****e and ole Bubba's wonder jet pisses all over it......

Odd claim. No one even remotely suggested that "what Airbus are offering is ****e". That's a fabrication. Lots of follks are saying that what Airbus and what Boeing are offering are different. And which differences are "better" depends on the needs and the priorities of the user.


So Boeing had all the skills and the expertise and no product in the air still yet according to those "truly in the know" is the best and will out perform Airbus by orders of magnitude....

"No product in the air?" Really? The "in the know" boys apparently don't know that Italy and Japan are flying KC-767s now and said KC-767 was flying in 2005. First flight of the A330MRTT was in 2011, six years AFTER the KC-767. And real "in the know" folks understand that while it's true that the KC-46 is not yet flying, the KC-45 is literally infinitely farther from getting off the ground. Those truly "in the know" understand that it's utterly ludicrous to compare the first flight of the KC-46 with the first flight of the MRTT.

As for which tanker "out performs" the other, only the "in the know" boys are attempting to make "performance" comparisons. Most truly "in the know" folks are comparing the different FEATURES of the KC-767, A330MRTT, and KC-46 and how different customers put different priorities on these different FEATURES. Thus different customers make different procurement decisions, some (wisely) choosing the KC-767, some (wisely) choosing the MRTT, some (wisely) the KC-30, and some (wisely) the KC-46.

Or course some would say those choices had nothing to do with wisdom, or needs, or requirements, and it was all just politics. I'm not one of those.


I don't smell pork barrels here at all.
I'd recommend seeing a doctor about that problem. :)

[KenV]

So one one hand we have people saying what Airbus are offering is ****e and ole Bubba's wonder jet pisses all over it......

Odd claim. No one even remotely suggested that "what Airbus are offering is ****e". That's a fabrication. Lots of follks are saying that what Airbus and what Boeing are offering are different. And which differences are "better" depends on the needs and the priorities of the user.


So Boeing had all the skills and the expertise and no product in the air still yet according to those "truly in the know" is the best and will out perform Airbus by orders of magnitude....

"No product in the air?" Really? The "in the know" boys apparently don't know that Italy and Japan are flying KC-767s now and said KC-767 was flying in 2005. First flight of the A330MRTT was in 2011, six years AFTER the KC-767. And real "in the know" folks understand that while it's true that the KC-46 is not yet flying, the KC-45 is literally infinitely farther from getting off the ground. Those truly "in the know" understand that it's utterly ludicrous to compare the first flight of the KC-46 with the first flight of the MRTT.

As for which tanker "out performs" the other, only the "in the know" boys are attempting to make "performance" comparisons. Most truly "in the know" folks are comparing the different FEATURES of the KC-767, A330MRTT, and KC-46 and how different customers put different priorities on these different FEATURES. Thus different customers make different procurement decisions, some (wisely) choosing the KC-767, some (wisely) choosing the MRTT, some (wisely) the KC-30, and some (wisely) the KC-46.

Or course some would say those choices had nothing to do with wisdom, or needs, or requirements, and it was all just politics. I'm not one of those.


I mean, how many Multi role tankers did Airbus build before MRTT? Vs Bubba?
That's an odd question, but OK, I'll bite. "Bubba" has been building (and has built literally HUNDREDS of) multi-role tankers since before Airbus even existed.



I don't smell pork barrels here at all.
I'd recommend seeing a doctor about that problem. :)

[BEagle]

First flight of the A330MRTT was in 2011, six years AFTER the KC-767.

No, that's incorrect. The A330MRTT first flew in June 2007. The other Airbus tanker-transport, the A310MRTT, first flew in December 2003 and was already in service with both the Luftwaffe and RCAF long before ol' Bubba had finally managed to sort out the inferior KC-767I and deliver it to the ItAF - which was six years later than planned.

Like most of your other posts, KenV, your facts were utter BS....:rolleyes:

[3engnever]

2. If USAF were to change horses in mid stream at this late date, USAF would change to the KC-45 and not the MRTT......., so the wait for delivery would not be "considerable".

On the other hand the waiting time may be infinite. By the time Airbus developed the KC-45 from the A330-200, the A330-200 may no longer be in production. The production line may have converted over to producing A330NEOs...... Maybe losing the KC-45 contract was in Airbus' best long term business interests.

So, KenV, my point stands. If the USAF were to now change their minds they would't see a KC45 or MRTTfor a long time, mainly due to the amount of orders that ADS are yet to fulfil.

I agree that what is good for one is not good for the other, but at ARSAG the Boeing guys had to work hard to come up with scenario where the KC46 outperformed the MRTT as a tanker. For this reason I have never really understood the 'full to the brim' pallet thing. Surely once you load these pallets, any AAR capability is zero. This was not required for the UK, we have, like the USAF, a dedicated Airlift fleet for that with C17, C130 and A400M to come.

However, as you have said, the customer is the key. In years to come it will be interesting to see how much utilisation that cargo door gets. Not a pointed comment, just real interest.

What I have never quite understood is why the US Gov made the U-turn from Airbus to Boeing? Did they run a second competition or did someone change the requirements to be outside of the A330 capability?

I really don't give a damn who flies what around the world, and I fail to see why others are concerned, as long as we in the RAF get the best value for money and a service that meets the needs of the end user. For us, the A330 provides that capability.

[KenV]

No, that's incorrect. The A330MRTT first flew in June 2007.
I stand corrected on the A330MRTT first flight. The KC-767 flew only one year before the A330MRTT. Mea culpa.

The other Airbus tanker-transport, the A310MRTT, first flew in December 2003 and was already in service with both the Luftwaffe and RCAF long before ol' Bubba had finally managed to sort out the inferior KC-767I and deliver it to the ItAF....


My goodness the desperation is getting palpable. The "other Airbus tanker-transport?!!" What does the A310MRTT have ANYthng do with this discussion? If you're going to throw previous tankers into this discussion, then Boeing's KC-10 (about the same size as the A330MRTT) first flew decades before the A330, and the KC-135 first flew decades before Airbus even existed. And before that Boeing flew KB-29Ps and KC-97s. And if you're going to say that the A310MRTT is closely related to the A330MRTT, then the A330MRTT is a far far more freakish "Frankentanker" than the KC-46.

And my goodness what do delays in the KC-767 program have anything to do with this discussion? Should I bring up the numerous delays in the Australian MRTT program? FYI, the Aussie MRTT had serious problems as late as July of last year. Can the same be said for the Italian and Japanese KC-767s? And it's still unclear if all the Aussie bugs have been worked out.

And finally, I notice you returned to your true believer "agenda/mantra". I have never remotely suggested that the KC-46 is "superior" to anything or that the MRTT is "inferior" to anything. My point has always been that they are just different and some customers prefer some of those differences over others. This "inferior/superior" mantra was all yours and one that you continue to repeat, loooong after it makes the least sense to do so.

Congratulations. You've turned a discussion about the differences between air tankers into a tanker cult discussion. Well, for your information, my Ford is WAAAAY "superior" to your Chevy. And your Dodge. (I have no idea what the UK equivalent is of the US car cults.) Or do you prefer the dog vs cat cult?

[KenV]

So, KenV, my point stands. If the USAF were to now change their minds they would't see a KC45 or MRTTfor a long time, mainly due to the amount of orders that ADS are yet to fulfil.


I totally agree with you that USAF would wait a long time to take delivery of any KC-45s. However I disagree that that would be because of the number of orders. KC-45 development would take a few years and all those existing orders would likely have all been fulfilled before KC-45 production began. Further, the A330NEO first flight is scheduled for mid 2016 and first deliveries in late 2017. By the time Airbus finished development of the KC-45, all the A330 deliveries would be complete and Airbus would be producing A330NEOs. Would Airbus be willing to keep the A330 line going and opening a second line to produce A330NEOs? I don't know.

What I have never quite understood is why the US Gov made the U-turn from Airbus to Boeing? Did they run a second competition or did someone change the requirements to be outside of the A330 capability?


The reasons are numerous and complex. See post #139 on page 7 for some details. If you still have questions, feel free to ask and I'll try to answer. But the short answer is that the requirements changed because the players changed. The first set of requirement was put together by former SAC tanker guys (SAC used to own ALL tankers) and they wanted a big tanker like the KC-10 and the KC-30 (later KC-45) won. By the time the 3rd competition rolled around (the 2nd never got out of the starting gate) AMC owned all tankers and the AMC guys added a plethora of new requirements which favored the KC-46.

EDIT: I failed to mention all the ITAR and "dual use" export issues. European and US laws on ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) and "dual use" (civial and military) technology export are similar at high levels, but the devil is in the details. There were huge controversies and long arguments about what parts and what mods were ITAR controlled. For example, since the cargo door was added on afterward was the door and ALL its associated engineering ITAR controlled? If so, what about the wiring, hydraulic, pneumatic, and environmental systems that had to be rerouted to accomodate the door? If they were ITAR controlled, then Airbus would have to make most if not all of the A330 line ITAR compliant. EADS North America was ready to do that, but EADS Europe was not. Boeing not only made the entire 767 line ITAR compliant, but made ALL the 767 engineering drawings ITAR compliant. And every Boeing employee that works on the 767 recieves ITAR training and has completed ITAR certification.

[BEagle]

My reference to the A310MRTT was to indicate that Airbus is quite capable of designing and building tanker transports which do NOT require a 6 year gestation period.....

KC-767I development was unbelievably protracted. Perhaps that was to enable ol'Bubba's lot to obtain data for the Frankentanker, rather than to deliver a very simple aircraft on time and on budget? IAI are capable of doing so with their B767 derivatives, so why aren't Boeing?

[KenV]

Also, you should read these:

http://defensetech.org/2008/04/01/fi...45-in-germany/ (http://defensetech.org/2008/04/01/first-kc-45-in-germany/)

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...nundrum-airbus (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2009-06-18/kc-45-conundrum-airbus)


D-IFF, the first link resulted in an error message. I was able to open the 2nd link.

May I suggest you carefully read the 2nd link. Northrop Grumman paid to have the MRTT (which did NOT have a cargo door) flown to Dresden for the installation of cargo doors. This confirms what I stated earlier: cargo doors were NOT offered by Airbus and NG had to add them after the airplane was built and delivered to NG. Such mods are not cheap and add cost to the proposal. Also note that the article states that USAF part owns one of the KC-45s. Do you understand the significance of that fact? It means USAF financially aided one vendor in submitting a proposal to a competitive RFP. That was one reason why the competition was tossed out and a recompete started.

[KenV]

My reference to the A310MRTT was to indicate that Airbus is quite capable of designing and building tanker transports which do NOT require a 6 year gestation period.....
Uh huh. And that is relevant to the delivered product how? I never remotely questioned Airbus' ability to design and build a tanker. I was discussing the features of the delivered product, not the gestation difficulties associated with that product. Your obsession with "inferior" and "superior" is now causing you to disparage the development process when your attempts to disparage the product failed. Is this not an example of the "weird agenda" spoken of earlier?

KC-767I development was unbelievably protracted.
No more so than Aussie MRTT development. One could easily argue that the Aussie MRTT development was more protracted than the Italian KC-767 development. And in any event, that is utterly irrelevant to this discussion and an example of a desperate grasping at straws.

Perhaps that was to enable ol'Bubba's lot to obtain data for the Frankentanker, rather than to deliver a very simple aircraft on time and on budget? IAI are capable of doing so with their B767 derivatives, so why aren't Boeing?

Your obsession with "inferior" and "superior" is now causing you to disparage the vendor when your attempts to disparage the product have failed. Is this not yet another example of the "weird agenda" spoken of earlier?

As to why, I do not know, and neither do you. But if you really want an answer I can certainly speculate.

First, do you understand the technical and developmental differences between an aircraft with a flying boom with a RARO station, plus centerline hose/drogue system, plus wing hose/drogue pods and with military avionics, versus a "simple" former commercial aircraft equipped with just wing hose/drogue pods? It would seem not.

Second, do you know the difference between a production certificate, a modification certificate, and a service/maintenance certificate? Do you know what an STC is? Do you know the differences between the FAA's, the JAA's and USAF's certification requirements relative to Israel's, Colombia's and Brazil's certification requirements? Your answer almost surely lies there.

And in any event all these side issues are totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, are examples of both a "weird agenda" and desperation, and are non sequiturs. Good for you.

And finally, you never answered if you understood the differences between ZFW, OEW, and MEW and how this affected the "in the know" boys' (comical) discussion of the Voyager.

[BEagle]

You were right when we spoke earlier, vasco'...:rolleyes:!

[Davef68]

Regardless of the debates about the KC-45/KC-46, You do wonder if this would have been in service with the USAF for the last few years if it hadn't been for Darleen Druyun..

Boeing - KC-767 - AirTeamImages.com (http://www.airteamimages.com/boeing-767__-_102389.html)

Anyone know what happened to this airframe?

EDIT - found it was scrapped in 2012

http://paineairport.com/kpae5296.htm

[barnstormer1968]

I'm wondering where this thread will head off to next. :)

What I do see is that there is a poster in the thread with a lot of tanker experience, and there is a poster explaining a lot about the Boeing product.

I suppose the fun here is that we are all anonymous, so anyone could be an expert :)

[3engnever]

:D

And it would appear, as ever on PP, everyone is!! (Or are they?):)

[KenV]

Regardless of the debates about the KC-45/KC-46, You do wonder if this would have been in service with the USAF for the last few years if it hadn't been for Darleen Druyun..

That would seem doubtful for one huge reason: leasing. The early tanker proposals/programs all included leasing schemes. The reason for this is an arcane fact of DoD funding euphamistically called "the color of money". Congress provides one color of money for the services to operate and sustain their equipment (called O&S funds), and another color of money to procure their equipment. These colors of money MUST NOT be mixed. USAF thought they found a way around their lack of procurement funds by proposing to lease new tankers. How so? Because a lease is not a procurement (the vendor still "owns" the aircraft) USAF could use O&S funds to pay for the lease. Problem solved!!! But Senator McCain blew the lid off of this scheme and well and truly killed any future ideas that involved a lease or lease option. Thus was born the various tanker procurement competitions. Apparently Parliament does not put this restriction on the RAF because they're leasing their Voyagers.

So when you include the three failed leasing schemes, there were SIX tanker "competitions" in the USA spanning nearly two decades. Northrop Grumman won one of them with the A330 based KC-30 which became the KC-45. I was a member of that winning team and so was able to provide some insights into that particular competition.

[KenV]

What I have never quite understood is why the US Gov made the U-turn from Airbus to Boeing? Did they run a second competition or did someone change the requirements to be outside of the A330 capability?


In my previous reply I failed to mention all the ITAR and "dual use" export issues. European and US laws on ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) and "dual use" (civial and military) technology export are similar at high levels, but the devil is in the details. There were huge controversies and long arguments about what parts and what mods were ITAR controlled. For example, since the cargo door was added on afterward was the door and ALL its associated engineering ITAR controlled? If so, what about the wiring, hydraulic, pneumatic, and environmental systems that had to be rerouted to accomodate the door? If they were ITAR controlled, then Airbus would have to make most if not all of the A330 line ITAR compliant. EADS North America was ready to do that, but EADS Europe was not. Boeing not only made the entire 767 line ITAR compliant, but made ALL the 767 engineering drawings ITAR compliant. And every Boeing employee that works on the 767 recieves ITAR training and has completed ITAR certification.

[cornish-stormrider]

Give me 30 cc adrenalin
Charge 200

Clear

Bzzzzzzzzt

I have a pulse - thread resurrected to restate a previously made point

[salad-dodger]

Good night out was it Cornish?

S-D

[brakedwell]

Too many Pasties.

[BEagle]

Well, the 767-2C Engineering and Manufacturing Development aircraft was supposed to have flown for the first time yesterday, but didn't. Although it did complete some high speed taxy runs.

Today is the back up day. There'll be a lot of people at Everett with their fingers and toes crossed, I guess.

[cornish-stormrider]

No such thing as too many pasties !
Anyone want to wager if Bubba will get his latest and greatest creation airborne ?

[tdracer]

BEagle, the internal Boeing schedules have shown Dec. 27th for taxi tests, Dec. 28th for First Flight for the last couple weeks. The biggest worry after they completed taxi tests on Saturday was that the weather wouldn't cooperate and we'd have to slide to Monday (the forecast for Sunday was pretty bad, fortunately the worst of it hit overnight). They even managed to find a couple days in there to paint it :E.

[Ex Douglas Driver]

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/anxahcyuintdm36zegeg.jpg
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/aqkmpvuwqpbi1bmhs9yn.jpg

[Rhino power]

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/af/2014kc-46a.pdf

-RP

[BEagle]

From Flightglobal: KC-46 tanker testing will begin at least a year behind schedule - 1/23/2015 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/kc-46-tanker-testing-will-begin-at-least-a-year-behind-408264/)

Operational testing of the Boeing KC-46 aerial refueling tanker is expected to begin at least a year later than planned.

The US Defense Departments director of operational testing and evaluation (DOTE), in its annual report on ongoing development projects, says “readiness for the scheduled start of [the initial operational test and evaluation phase]continues to be high-risk with a 12-month delay expected.”


:uhoh:

[sandiego89]

Glad to see it fly.

I can't help but think how many variants we will see of this airframe, surely not as many as the K/C/E-135, but I wonder if the miles of wiring and open archetecture will weigh in its favor to help secure future projects like replacements for AWACS, Mercury, E-4, J-STARS, VIP, W, laser redux, etc. Yes I understand that most of those those are a complete strip out for conversion, but at least you already start with a hardened MILSPEC tanker, not an "airliner"...

[ORAC]

I can't help but think how many variants we will see of this airframe, surely not as many as the K/C/E-135, but I wonder if the miles of wiring and open archetecture will weigh in its favor to help secure future projects like replacements for AWACS, Mercury, E-4, J-STARS, VIP, W, l@ser redux, etc. Automation and reduction in the size of electronics make it highly unlikely any airframe of this size and associated crew will be required.

The E-8 replacement (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-reveals-plan-to-replace-jstars-with-business-jets-by-395241/) is now intended to be a business jet; the USN is replacing it's NP-3D range surveillance aircraft with G550 CAEW (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/usns-new-range-aircraft-g550-caew-027705/) etc. Everything points to the E3 force being replaced with similar sized aircraft in an integrated net with off-board data fusion.

So, except for the KC-Y, KC-Z competitions, I can't see it. Pax aircraft such as the C40 are more likely to be replaced with off the shelf 737 or 787 models.

[Heathrow Harry]

and of course Air Force One

Can't see Jeb Bush wanting to get off a GV when he's Pres.

[turboshaft]

The current schedule for the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization (PAR) effort specifies aircraft delivery "not earlier than 2021." So POTUS 45 (whomever she or he is) will need to win a second term to fly the 747-8 (or VC-46).

[tdracer]

ORAC and sandiego89, I can't elaborate for what should be obvious reasons, but there are a lot of 'provisions' on the KC-46 that have nothing to do with the aerial refueling mission or hauling cargo/personnel.
So I wouldn't be at all surprised to see other variations of the KC-46 in the future.

[sandiego89]

ORAC and sandiego89, I can't elaborate for what should be obvious reasons, but there are a lot of 'provisions' on the KC-46 that have nothing to do with the aerial refueling mission or hauling cargo/personnel.
So I wouldn't be at all surprised to see other variations of the KC-46 in the future.

Exactly while I surmised that there may be mission growth. It obviously has some extra "stuff".

I just do not see a bizjet size aircraft being the the solution for some of the current fleet. I agree some missions such as theatre ELINT and range clearance (and you only need a handfull of aircraft for range clearance) are a good fit for biz jets, and 737 a good fit for clipper C-40 replacement, I still see a market for some larger specialized aircraft. I also surmise that in today's threat envionment a special transport replacement (air force 2, head of delegation, DOS, etc) a hardened VIP transport based on the 46 may be attractive.

While improved black boxes and automation may allow for smaller aircraft, some roles still require a good sized crew and endurance- so a larger platform may be able to offer that. I'm not sure we have turned the corner on data linking everything. Like in a AWACS role, there is something about having the controllers and monitors all in the same tube, and relief crews for long missions. Yes I know some bizjets have impressive range. I think the Japanese AWACS may be a model.

Specialized subversions of an already "proven" aircraft (which I have no doubt the 46 will eventually be) may fare better that a "lets place of bunch of black boxes on bizjet" for future programs. Surely endurance and reduced risk will be good marketing points.

[GreenKnight121]

ORAC - some things have changed in the year since then (your article dated 27 January 2014).

The USAF has opened up the just-unfunded program (first-year funding in the FY2015 budget) to more options:
Air Force Works to Replace JSTARS Fleet | DoD Buzz (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/10/03/air-force-works-to-replace-jstar-fleet/)

The Air Force is looking at a range of airframes from Gulfstream jets to Bombardier airplanes and Boeing 737–700’s — as potential replacements for its aging fleet of 16 E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (http://www.military.com/equipment/e-8c-joint-stars), or JSTARS, airplanes.

The service has allocated $70 million in its fiscal year 2015 budget request for its JSTARS recapitalization program, an effort which seeks to build and field a new version of its surveillance planes by 2022, said Col. Henry Cyr, Commander of the 461st Air Control Wing, Robins Air Force Base, Ga.

.....

Gulfstream, Northrop Grumman, Bombardier and Boeing are all among the vendors expected to compete to offer the recapitalized JSTARS plane.
“We’ve done some analysis on a lot of different platforms and the platform that we think best meets the Air Force requirements for the JSTARS mission is our offering – a 737–700 Boeing business jet,” said Rod Meranda, JSTARS business development lead, Boeing.

Gulfstream plans to offer the G650, a twin-engine business jet, and Bombardier will likely offer its Global 6000, a long-range business jet, according to a report in FlightGlobal​.com. Northrop Grumman officials tell Military​.com they are testing a G550 aircraft, a 96-foot long business jet configured to integrate with JSTARS technologies.

One analyst said the Air Force plan makes sense and is achieve-able, provided procurement money is prioritized. The G650 and Bombardier Global 6000 are both smaller, lower-cost options than the Boeing 737‑7000 business jet, said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at the Teal Group, a Va.-based consultancy.

“The size of the plan chosen will come down to what kind of battle management systems on board. The Boeing 737–700 will give you a lot more space for battle management consuls, radar and other technologies. However, that would be less affordable than the other options,” Aboulafia told Military​.com.Note the B737-700 option - there is a fully-mil-spec B737-based option, which is currently being integrated into the DOD supply/maintenance/training establishment (which would lower operating cost for a USAF version), that has recently been tested for JSTARS-like capabilities: as I noted back on 7 November 2014: http://www.pprune.org/8731875-post835.html

Poseidon can replace JSTARS as well - potentially. Which brings us back to MMA... Can we say MMLA? (Multimission Maritime/Land Aircraft)

Providing ground-mapping and moving-personnel-tracking capability to the P-8:
Exclusive: P-8 Poseidon Flies With Shadowy Radar System Attached (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/exclusive-p-8-poseidon-flies-with-shadowy-radar-system-1562912667)
What is also so promising about the AAS is the fact that it can work strictly over land when the mission dictates without having to optimize the sensor package physically. In this role the P-8 and its advanced radar system would be working in a very similar fashion to the USAF's E-8 J-STARS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-8_Joint_STARS)aircraft, a reality that some say led to the radar's deep classification in the first place.The USAF just needs to modify it with USAF-required systems, and >50% of the R&D cost can be bypassed.

[Roland Pulfrew]

GreenknightWhich brings us back to MMA... Can we say MMLA? (Multimission Maritime/Land Aircraft)

IN UK parlance MMA stands for Multi Mission Aircraft so no need to add the land and maritime bit - they are both covered by the multi mission bit.

[Heathrow Harry]

I guess if they've stopped building 747's by 2021 POTUS will have to do with a modded B-52.......

[sandiego89]

This suggests the time frame for the new Air Force Ones may be moved up from 2018 to 2016 to make sure the 747-8 is still an option. Regardless I imagine it will years between between green airframes and fitting out.

Air Force may speed up Air Force One replacement to snag two of the last 747s - Puget Sound Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2014/12/air-force-may-speed-up-air-force-one-replacement.html?page=all)

[Heathrow Harry]

which suggests that POTUS 2070 will be flying around in a 747 -

that is going to look terribly quaint....................

but he/she will get a lot of spotters at each destination I guess

[KenV]

Regarding all the E-8 J-STARS replacement discussions:

USN is trying to leverage its way into the radar ground surveillance business. All the P-8s will be capable of accepting the AAS radar, which does everything the J-STARS radar does and lots more. The airframe already has lots of processor power and display/control consoles, cooling, on and off board networking, etc on board, so all that would be needed besides the radar hardware is additional software in the control consoles. So putting a J-STARS capability on a P-8 will be MUCH cheaper then developing a dedicated replacement for the E-8. And USN will have hundreds of P-8s vs USAF's 16 E-8s, which should provide operational cost advantages.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Boeing has had the EP-X, a development of the P-8 on the shelf since not long after P-8 development began.


It was initially proposed to replace the EP-3E Aries but this has been delayed by the USN. It was also designed so it could be configured for J-STARS, RJ and other missions as a cheaper alternative to the cancelled E-10 which was based on the 767-400 airframe.

[GreenKnight121]

which suggests that POTUS 2070 will be flying around in a 747 -

that is going to look terribly quaint....................

but he/she will get a lot of spotters at each destination I guess

Now that really is a hilarious statement.

So you are claiming that Boeing will stop building new airliners altogether?

Or is your contention that the USAF will never change its "4-engine" preference?

Funny - the USAF used to feel that supersonic bombers were the only possible future bombers - but they changed that in the 1960s. They used to think that all fighters had to be M2-capable, but they changed that.

The USAF has replaced its Presidential aircraft every 20 years or so - with different requirements for performance and equipment almost every time.

But I guess you can't help yourself.

[GreenKnight121]

And the decision is made: Boeing Tapped for Air Force One Replacement (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/support/2015/01/28/boeing-selected-air-force-one/22479071/)

[KenV]

And the decision is made: Boeing Tapped for Air Force One Replacement (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/support/2015/01/28/boeing-selected-air-force-one/22479071/) 28th Jan 2015 20:55
Hmmm. The linked article had lots of nice boilerplate verbiage about "cost effective", "low cost", "commercial off the shelf", etc etc. Those same words were used more than a decade ago in the "Marine One" solicitation which Agusta/Westland won with a version of the AW101. But the government added so much gold plate and fluff to the requirements that the cost ballooned exponentially, the airframe became so heavy it could barely get off the ground, and the whole program was scrapped. And so POTUS is still flying in ancient VH-3 Sea Kings. I would not be surprised if this is repeated on the 747-8.

[O-P]

Ken,


I believe the USAF has set aside $1.65B for the TWO 747-8s. At that price they'd better be made from gold! (That's the purchase price, not annualized running costs!!!)

[tdracer]

O-P
I was right in the middle of the VC-25 program (the current Air Force Ones). They were so heavily modified from the run of the mill 747-200 that it was estimated they cost ~$500 million. Each! :mad: Heck, when I was troubleshooting engine issues on the first VC-25 we were informed that dropped tools, etc. had already done over $500,000 damage to the executive interior :rolleyes:.
Since it was a fixed price contract for a small fraction of that, Boeing took a financial bath on the program.

[O-P]

td,


Thanks for the reply. I suspect Boeing took a tax break, or an interest free loan, to cover the losses?


Just the cynic in me!

[ORAC]

KC-46A First Flight Facing Delay (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/support/2015/03/17/tanker-kc46-pegasus-first-flight-delay-april/24917757/)

WASHINGTON — The KC-46A Pegasus tanker program director is "not comfortable" saying the tanker's first flight will happen as planned in April.

Brig. Gen. Duke Richardson, program executive officer for tankers, told an audience Tuesday that he is now targeting a more general date of second quarter of this calendar year, which extends to the end of June. "What I'm trying not to do is get fixated on days," Richardson said at the CreditSuisse/McAleese conference, held annually in Washington. "I feel more comfortable saying second quarter calendar 15. I feel more comfortable with that."

The KC-46A will replace the majority of the service's current tanker fleet with 179 new planes, based on a Boeing commercial design. The contract protects the Air Force from major cost overruns on the way to having 18 planes ready to go in 2017. The first engineering, manufacturing, development (EMD) configuration flew in late December, while first flight of a full-up KC-46A had been scheduled for April. That now appears to be slipping.

Richardson acknowledged that there are schedule pressures driving the tests, noting that the six-month margin that had been built into the tanker EMD phase has been used up. "I take that very seriously," he said. "I'm working pretty darn hard to pull some schedule margin back in."

Because of that tight schedule, Richardson said he wants to get the first flight up as soon as possible, regardless of whether the tanker is in its final configuration or just one that meets the requirements for first official flight. "As soon as we can get it up, we need to get it up," he said. "We need to do what's needed so it can fly safely, but … I'm not looking for the perfect airplane. I'm looking for a safe airplane so I can get it up and start collecting the air worthiness data."

A spokeswoman for Boeing, the prime contractor on the tanker program, said the company is "working hard every day to get ready for that first flight and have a good team in place putting forth the effort to keep it on track and moving forward... it will fly when it's ready."

It wasn't all bad news from Richardson, who said overall the program was "very healthy" and has benefitted from "incredible" requirements stability.

He also highlighted two potential foreign sales opportunities: a direct commercial sale to South Korea and a foreign military sale to Japan. Korea is expected to downselect its choice of tanker in May, while Richardson said he expects an RFP from Japan sometime in April.

[Heathrow Harry]

Sounds like a man who has realised his "career enhancing opportunity" is leading to early, and sudden, retirement and gardening rather than a nice sinecure in the Defence Business

[LowObservable]

"It will fly when it's ready."

Words you never want to hear from your prime contractor.

[Heathrow Harry]

indeed..

"What I'm trying not to do is get fixated on days," - so instead of weeks or months as I expected - when I read on it is now QUARTERS.......

not good at all

[BenThere]

I'll bet on Boeing.

Major programs like this always have delays, cost overruns, technical glitches, etc. But they always come on line eventually. And after they come on line they need fixes, mods, technology updates, and the rest.

Had Airbus won it would have been no different.

The new world-class tanker is going to happen, and if it's anything like the KC-135 or KC-10, will serve the free world for the next 50 years. Rejoice!

[ORAC]

Perhaps, but has the USA lost its way for design and overseas sales?

A12, B-2, F-22, RAH-66, F35. When was the last great seller, even the C-17?

[glad rag]

Had Airbus won it would have been no different.



Really? and what's with the rejoicing and free world c##p?

[D-IFF_ident]

Considering the first A330 MRTT was handed over to the launch customer in June 2011 - had Airbus won, the USAF could have a handful of KC-45s flying already.

[Heathrow Harry]

yeah but it's taken 5 years to sort out the boom on the Aussie tankers

[D-IFF_ident]

Might have taken 5 years for the RAAF to agree the software specifications for the KC-30A boom, but all the other A330 MRTT operators, who have the boom option, have been using theirs operationally for a few years.

[melmothtw]

...all the other A330 MRTT operators, who have the boom option, have been using theirs operationally for a few years.

Really? Care to name them?

[D-IFF_ident]

It's no secret:

Airbus A330 MRTT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT)

[KenV]

Considering the first A330 MRTT was handed over to the launch customer in June 2011 - had Airbus won, the USAF could have a handful of KC-45s flying already.


That's ludicrous. Boeing "handed over" KC-767s to Japan way back in 2008. You fail to recognize that what USAF specified and what Airbus is now delivering are two VERY different things and not at all comparable.


Might have taken 5 years for the RAAF to agree the software specifications for the KC-30A boom, but all the other A330 MRTT operators, who have the boom option, have been using theirs operationally for a few years.


I believe there's a rather large difference between "using" something operationally for "a few years," and having all the bugs worked out to the point that the boom meets all of its specifications/requirements over its full envelop. For example, the A400 Atlas is now being "used operationally", but it is very far from reaching IOC.

[KenV]

has the USA lost its way for design and overseas sales?

A12, B-2, F-22, RAH-66, F35. When was the last great seller, even the C-17?



Hmmm, the F-35 has sold incredibly well "overseas".
The F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 are no slouches in the international market.
The P-8 is also doing well on the international market.
The latest version of the Apache is also doing well, as is the Chinook.
And the V-22 looks poised to do the same.
And considering that in the past no one but the USA and Russia bought strategic transports, the C-17 has done EXCEPTIONALLY well, selling even to nations with zero strategic military capabilities or even aspirations.

And the F-22 and B-2 were never going to be exported, so they're a bit of a red herring in this context.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Partly concur with Ken & D-IFF here...

The KC-30A/MRTT used by the RAAF and other nations is likely a rather different beast internally to what the USAF had specified for the KC-X/KC-46A.

The Pegasus is also very different to the Japanese and Italian KC-767s. Its troubles to date appear to stem from it's internal config/wiring/integration/software and the USAF's long term plans to fully 'missionize' the aircraft, rather than from any technical issues with hardware, although its boom does have developmental elements which are yet to be tested. I hope the outer wing flutter issues found on the Italian tankers have been addressed in the KC-46's design.

And an update: While the A330's ARBS boom has had its troubles - two are on the bottom of the Atlantic - UAE and Saudi have been using it for about 2 years including in ops over Iraq/Syria, and the RAAF has just certified it and started clearance trials this month.


F/A

[D-IFF_ident]

One boom in the bottom of the Atlantic - the other recovered back to Getafe.

KenV should be careful of confusing one operator's definition of FOC with another's. There is no International standard for declaring capability and, by his standard, the humble sword would not be 'operational' - because it has never been declared to have achieved 'FOC' by the US DoD.

Those who need to know the operational capabilities of nations with particular AAR assets know; those who don't need to know, probably shouldn't be relied upon for advice.

[Heathrow Harry]

I thougt KenV had apoint until I saw the bit about the F-35 ...

a lot of peopel have put down bits of paper saying they MIGHT buy a lot but the actual sales aren't startling yet

[KenV]

KenV should be careful of confusing one operator's definition of FOC with another's.

I'm was making no such comparison. I was pointing out that "operationally using" a system is way way different than having a fully developed and operational system, regardless of the nation's definition for "operational".


a lot of peopel have put down bits of paper saying they MIGHT buy a lot but the actual sales aren't startling yet.


It's rather difficult to have "startling sales" of a fighter that is barely in low rate initial production. And the F-35 has more commitments (including billions in investments) than any other fighter in history at this stage of development/production. So yeah, it's doing well marketing-wise. Arguably better than any other fighter in history. Indeed, the F-35 has been downselected for purchase by more nations than the Typhoon and Rafael combined. Just that fact that the Air Force, Navy AND Marines have bought it speaks volumes about how well it has been marketed.

[sandiego89]

Quote: ORAC
has the USA lost its way for design and overseas sales?

A12, B-2, F-22, RAH-66, F35. When was the last great seller, even the C-17?



Ken V


Hmmm, the F-35 has sold incredibly well "overseas".
The F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 are no slouches in the international market.
The P-8 is also doing well on the international market.
The latest version of the Apache is also doing well, as is the Chinook.
And the V-22 looks poised to do the same.
And considering that in the past no one but the USA and Russia bought strategic transports, the C-17 has done EXCEPTIONALLY well, selling even to nations with zero strategic military capabilities or even aspirations.

And the F-22 and B-2 were never going to be exported, so they're a bit of a red herring in this context.

Agree, not sure what axe ORAC is trying to grind. Lots of good examples of export success. How about we take a look at European fighter export success?

Might I add to the success column:
C-130
H-60 in numerous versions
Several Bell Helo's

[ex-fast-jets]

Sorry - thread drift - F35 rather than KC-46, but following previous comment...........................

the Air Force, Navy AND Marines have bought it speaks volumes about how well it has been marketed

Did they do so willingly, or was it forced upon them?

[LowObservable]

Perish the thought, BomberH.

They were merely told that no other U.S. fighter would be available after the Super Hornet, which has constrained their options.

[ORAC]

Agree, not sure what axe ORAC is trying to grind. No axe to grind, just looking at the dwindling industrial base and interest in sales.

Maybe with the growth in the civil market and the hassle with the DoD it's just not worth keeping a design team together any more. I'm not the first to say so, there is enough concern for a push to award design contracts for a few prototypes from each company just to keep the teams together. That seems to be what's happening with Sikorsky (http://fortune.com/2015/03/18/united-technologies-unloads-sikorsky/).

Unless more orders turn up the F-15 and F-18 production lines will shortly close (http://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-faces-a-future-without-fighter-jets-1411063893) - leaving LM as the sole surviving FJ manufacturer, and with one aircraft type after the F-16 line closes around 2020 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/14/lockheed-f-idUSL2N0JT03T20131214).

There's been a lot of sucked teeth about helicopter production with sales being concentrated on old models and little or no new designs, just upgrades.

CH-47 Chinook? first flew 1961. UH-60 - 1976.

Same for transports, with the C-17 line closer the C-130 is the sole tactical lift aircraft in production - first flight 1954.

The next generation bomber will also be built in handfuls, supplementing B-52s older than their pilots grandfathers.

Analyst: It’s the End of an Era for Military Aviation Industry (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1418)

Not pushing European manufacturers, their production lines and models are in even worse state.

AW&ST: Editorial: Spinning Sikorsky, Bowing To Wall Street (http://aviationweek.com/defense/editorial-spinning-sikorsky-bowing-wall-street)

......And Sikorsky is profitable. But with the military market in a downturn and its margins capped by the Defense Department, the problem is that it is not making enough money to keep Wall Street happy. It cannot keep up with its two larger sister units, Pratt & Whitney and United Technologies Aerospace Systems, which are suppliers rather than platform builders and have much more exposure to commercial markets. Gregory Hayes, UTC’s new shareholder-focused CEO, notes that Sikorsky’s operating margins of about 10% and projected sales growth are significantly lower than for the company’s other businesses.

Still, UTC stood by Sikorsky in much more difficult times, and we find management’s decision to jettison a perfectly good business troubling. During the global economic downturn, Sikorsky’s robust gains in sales and profits helped offset, to a degree, large declines at the company’s non-aerospace businesses.

The move is emblematic of a shift in the aerospace and defense industry where pleasing shareholders has become paramount, even at the expense of funding research in new technologies and products to ensure long-term competitiveness. Frank Kendall, the U.S. undersecretary of defense for acquisition, has worried aloud that some contractors are mainly interested in generating returns in as little as one or two years......

[Heathrow Harry]

"pleasing shareholders has become paramount,"

well to be fair it IS their money.......

You could argue that if Sikorsky is so damn important to the State then the State should either pay a reasonable amount or run their own helicopter construction business.......................

[sandiego89]

Quote:
Agree, not sure what axe ORAC is trying to grind. No axe to grind, just looking at the dwindling industrial base and interest in sales.

Maybe with the growth in the civil market and the hassle with the DoD it's just not worth keeping a design team together any more. I'm not the first to say so, there is enough concern for a push to award design contracts for a few prototypes from each company just to keep the teams together. That seems to be what's happening with Sikorsky (http://fortune.com/2015/03/18/united-technologies-unloads-sikorsky/).

Unless more orders turn up the F-15 and F-18 production lines will shortly close (http://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-faces-a-future-without-fighter-jets-1411063893) - leaving LM as the sole surviving FJ manufacturer, and with one aircraft type after the F-16 line closes around 2020 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/14/lockheed-f-idUSL2N0JT03T20131214).

There's been a lot of sucked teeth about helicopter production with sales being concentrated on old models and little or no new designs, just upgrades.

CH-47 Chinook? first flew 1961. UH-60 - 1976.

Same for transports, with the C-17 line closer the C-130 is the sole tactical lift aircraft in production - first flight 1954.

The next generation bomber will also be built in handfuls, supplementing B-52s older than their pilots grandfathers.

Analyst: It’s the End of an Era for Military Aviation Industry (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1418)

Not pushing European manufacturers, their production lines and models are in even worse state.

AW&ST: Editorial: Spinning Sikorsky, Bowing To Wall Street (http://aviationweek.com/defense/editorial-spinning-sikorsky-bowing-wall-street)

......And Sikorsky is profitable. But with the military market in a downturn and its margins capped by the Defense Department, the problem is that it is not making enough money to keep Wall Street happy. It cannot keep up with its two larger sister units, Pratt & Whitney and United Technologies Aerospace Systems, which are suppliers rather than platform builders and have much more exposure to commercial markets. Gregory Hayes, UTC’s new shareholder-focused CEO, notes that Sikorsky’s operating margins of about 10% and projected sales growth are significantly lower than for the company’s other businesses.

Still, UTC stood by Sikorsky in much more difficult times, and we find management’s decision to jettison a perfectly good business troubling. During the global economic downturn, Sikorsky’s robust gains in sales and profits helped offset, to a degree, large declines at the company’s non-aerospace businesses.

The move is emblematic of a shift in the aerospace and defense industry where pleasing shareholders has become paramount, even at the expense of funding research in new technologies and products to ensure long-term competitiveness. Frank Kendall, the U.S. undersecretary of defense for acquisition, has worried aloud that some contractors are mainly interested in generating returns in as little as one or two years......

ORAC, that does make sense.

I also feel that the "gold plating" has really hurt the US manufacturing programs. With the insistence that these aircraft have to do everything superbly you cost yourself out very quickly.

F-22, F-35, Osprey, Commanche, Marine One.....

I am a believer in the high-low concept, and do understand that you need some assets that are capable of first day of war, first world peer, conflict, but I think the USA is has found itselft in the hi-hi concept. The F-35 is way beyond the orginal concpet of an affordable replacement for several airframes. Undoubetdly it will be capable, but it will do so at the expense of other aircraft. Others will be retired early, or there will be no appetite or funding for new complemtray designs.

As you say when there is only fighter in town, competition withers and dies.

I would like to see more money in R&D, more in alternative concepts (like back up engines), real fly-offs, and some "good enough" programs. Yes it costs you more up front.

I would like to see an A-10 replacement program, and I think we see now a stand alone Harrier repleacment would have been preferred over the compromiosed F-35B. The US Army high speed lift lift looks like a good model. Pushes the envelope, but within reason.

[KenV]

Did they do so willingly, or was it forced upon them?


Willing? Depends on your definition of "willing".

The Marines wanted a replacement for their Harriers. The Marines lobbied hard to get a STOVL version of the F-35. And they consider the Super Hornet to be "too much airplane", so they also need a replacement for their "Classic Hornets". Indeed, the Marines were in charge of the whole F-35 program for quite awhile. Is that "willing"?

The Navy wanted an all-aspect stealth fighter (their Super Hornets are only stealthy in the forward aspect) for "first day of the war" missions against intense highly networked air defenses. The Navy lobbied hard to get a CATOBAR version of the F-35. Indeed NAVAIR is running a big part of the F-35 program. Is that "willing"?

The Navy will have more Super Hornets than F-35s for a long long time. Not until the follow on to the F-35 is available (the 6th generation fighter) will the Navy get rid of their Super Hornets. Indeed, the F-35 is only scheduled to replace the Navy's "Classic Hornets" and no Super Hornets. The Navy wants the additional range and payload of the Super Hornet over the F-35 and really wants a two-seat aircraft for some of its missions. And although the F-35 has an excellent electronic warfare capability, they still want the dedicated electronic warfare Growler version of the Super Hornet. Is that "willing"?

[KenV]

As you say when there is only fighter in town, competition withers and dies.

Only one fighter in town? What about the F-15, F-16, F-18, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Su-30, etc? Seems to me there are currently lots of fighters in town. If (a huge if) the F-35 captures the whole market and pushes aside all the others, that will be because it has out-competed them. Personally, I don't see that happening. Especially when you look at the specs for the Trainer-X (T-X), which will have far superior turning performance than the F-35. For anyone who does not need a stealthy fighter, that airplane will likely be eye-watering.

[ORAC]

What about the F-15, F-16, F-18, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Su-30, etc? Seems to me there are currently lots of fighters in town. If (a huge if) the F-35 captures the whole market and pushes aside all the others, that will be because it has out-competed them. Personally, I don't see that happening. Especially when you look at the specs for the Trainer-X (T-X), which will have far superior turning performance than the F-35. For anyone who does not need a stealthy fighter, that airplane will likely be eye-watering. :ugh::ugh:

[LowObservable]

And they consider the Super Hornet to be "too much airplane", so they also need a replacement for their "Classic Hornets".

Errrm - the F-35B is near-as-dammit the same OEW/thrust/internal fuel as the Super H. It can't carry as much or go as far, and it's not as maneuverable, but makes up for this by being much more expensive.

[BEagle]

Well, it looks like the KC-46A first flight date has slipped yet further. Having missed its April 2015 first flight date, that's now stated to be happening 'later this summer'.....:hmm:

EMD-1, a 767-2C, has finally flown again but without any boom or pods. It's supposed to fly with those 'in the coming weeks' to certify the -2C's airworthiness before the KC-46A can fly.

Which gives ol' bubba Boeing less than 2 years to progress from first flight to the contracted delivery date for 18 operational aircraft.

[LowObservable]

There's no freude like Schadenfreude...

Someday, the story about how the Big B messed up something that they had already done twice before will be told.

If I had to guess at root causes (with some help from Boeing's subsequent actions) I would look inside Boeing Commercial. Busy with a lot of programs, of which the tanker may be the least important to Commercial, and hence the least likely to springboard one's career, particularly since it involves learning a lot of Pentagon lore and culture that you wouldn't expect to use again.

So when Tanker went looking for people from commercial programs, did they get sent the best, or the people their leads wanted to get shot of?

That may well have been even more important than the Frankentanker factor.

[melmothtw]

Someday, the story about how the Big B messed up something that they had already done twice before will be told.

Three times, no? KC-135, KC-767, & KC-10 (they inherited the prime, so must retain the knowledge base).

[Mechta]

Three times, no? KC-135, KC-767, & KC-10 (they inherited the prime, so must retain the knowledge base). So who made the KC-97 then, and, for that matter the KB-29P and KB-50?

[melmothtw]

I meant in-service platforms whose technology is relevant to the KC-46A, but point taken.

[brakedwell]

Boeing managed to make the KC747 work.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c32/sedgwickjames/aviation/acc3c08247c2fd06f55a478c2437ddb503e7abe3_zps98trt0nr.jpeg

[KenV]

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding as to what the KC-46 is. It is NOT a modified 767 freighter or even a warmed over KC-767. It is a very different airplane in many ways. The FIRST thing that must be done is the basic commercial configuration, the 767-2C, must be FAA certified. Only after that is done can the military stuff be added and the military stuff certified.

As for "past" Boeing tankers and the KC-46, yeah, there's a lot of handwringing inside Boeing on that subject. The KC-767 had a modified and "upgraded" KC-135 boom. So did the early KC-46 proposals. But Airbus's boom was significantly better. Attempts to further improve the KC-135 boom to match Airbus' boom failed and so Boeing switched to a modified version of the KC-10 Advanced Refueling Boom. In other words, a "Not Invented Here" (in Seattle) Douglas(!) product. Lots of political consternation and last minute engineering.

And what's with this "Frankentanker" business? Do you Airbus folks realize the A330MRTT was kludged together from stuff from the A300, A310, A320, and A330? At least Boeing used (mostly) 767 stuff to build their "Frankentanker" and not bits from four completely different airliners.

[Vzlet]

I'm surprised at the apparent difficulty in (re)designing a modern boom, especially when legacy hardware has been doing an adequate job for 60+ years. What improvements to the newer booms provide? (Greater flow, controllability, reliability?)

What makes it such a challenge?

[KenV]

I'm surprised at the apparent difficulty in (re)designing a modern boom, especially when legacy hardware has been doing an adequate job for 60+ years. That's exactly what Boeing thought - at first. That's why they stuck to the KC-135 boom - at first. But when Airbus's proposal included a significantly better boom (much larger safe operating envelope) and the KC-135 could not match it, Boeing went to the KC-10 boom, which was equal to the Airbus boom. The "problem" with that boom was that it was invented in Long Beach by Douglas, and not in Seattle by Boeing. Internal politics in a big company like Boeing can be fierce. But eventually "One Boeing" (a constant mantra being pushed by Corporate HQ in Chicago) won out. As far as integrating the KC-10 boom into the KC-46, that was not too difficult, although it was done rather last minute. And that is NOT what is driving the delays. The delays are being driven by all the other "stuff" USAF wants in the airplane ("stuff" that requires an additional 50 miles of wires and 15.8 million lines of software code). The new wiring got designed and installed wrong and needed to be redesigned and reinstalled.

[LowObservable]

By "twice before" I meant 767 tankers.

Do you Airbus folks realize the A330MRTT was kludged together from stuff from the A300, A310, A320, and A330?

Not an Airbus folk, but no, I don't know that.

Because it isn't remotely true.

The MRTT is a reasonably straightforward development of the A330-200F, which in turn is a normal, commercially certificated freight derivative of the A330-200, which is a successful airliner. Yes, there are genes from the A300/320 in there, because that's the way Airbus grew the family, but it is in no way comparable to a 767-2C.

[KenV]

The MRTT is a reasonably straightforward development of the A330-200F, which in turn is a normal, commercially certificated freight derivative of the A330-200, which is a successful airliner. Yes, there are genes from the A300/320 in there, because that's the way Airbus grew the family, but it is in no way comparable to a 767-2C.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. The A330 sprang directly from the A300B9 and the A340 from the A300B11. The B9 and B11 programs were merged and renamed TA9 and TA11. The fuselage and empennage and many (most?) systems came directly from the A300, making the A330 essentially an A300-600 with two additional barrel sections and a new wing, but one based directly on the A300 wing after the variable camber wing and laminar flow wing were both rejected. The A330 freighter door came directly from the A310 freighter, and the A330's avionics came directly from the A320, including all the displays, many cockpit panels, and the sidestick controllers.

And I agree, this development cycle and pedigree is "in no way comparable to a 767-2C." Boeing definitely uses a different approach. But since the A330MRTT uses bits from unrelated airplanes and even held over bits from now dead airplanes, that seems to me to be far more Frankensteinish than the KC-46 which derives its bits from various versions of the still alive 767.

[BEagle]

But since the A330MRTT uses bits from unrelated airplanes and even held over bits from now dead airplanes, that seems to me to be far more Frankensteinish than the KC-46 which derives its bits from various versions of the still alive 767.

Complete and utter bolleaux, KenV, as well you know.

The A330 shares the same 222" fuselage cross-section as the A310 and the avionics have been developed as the A320 family has matured. As have various aircraft systems - such as the industry-leading FBW system.

Whereas the KC-46A which still has yet to fly uses bits and pieces from various other 767s, plus 787 flight deck avionics....to a point. It is emphatically more of a cut-and-shut than the continuously-developed A330MRTT....

[LowObservable]

Concur, Beags...

Sure, there was a B9/B11 and then a TA9/11, paper studies both, but the real A330 was developed as a new airplane with its own TC and is no more a Frankenplane than the 737, using the cab and engines from the 727.

[KenV]

Complete and utter bolleaux, KenV, as well you know.

The A330 shares the same 222" fuselage cross-section as the A310 and the avionics have been developed as the A320 family has matured. As have various aircraft systems - such as the industry-leading FBW system.

Whereas the KC-46A which still has yet to fly uses bits and pieces from various other 767s, plus 787 flight deck avionics....to a point. It is emphatically more of a cut-and-shut than the continuously-developed A330MRTT....

Once again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

The A330 shares FAR more than just the "same fuselage cross section" as the A300. The A330 fuselage is an A300-600 fuselage with two barrel sections added. The A330 fuselage sections are built by the same folks using the same drawings and using the same materials and are then assembled on the same production line as the A300. The A330 tail section and vertical stabilizer are the same as the A300. The horizontal stabilizer was modified to make it smaller and added a trim tank. The A330 systems (hydraulic, pneumatic, pressurization, fuel management, fuel quantity gauging, etc, etc) are upgrades of the same systems on the A300. Many parts are even interchangeable. The A330 freighter door is lifted directly from the A310 freighter. The KC-46 uses only structural components and aircraft systems common to the 767.

The A330 avionics system is directly based on the A320 avionics system and literally uses many of its components, panels, and even software. The KC-46 only uses the 787's wide screen displays and none if its avionics.

There is nothing "bad" about any of this. Indeed, I think such an approach is GREAT. But if using such an approach on a small scale on the KC-46 is freakish (as you insist), then using such an approach on a MUCH bigger scale must be more freakish. And the A330 does just that.

Bottom line: I call the re-use and re-application of technology, engineering and production systems (as has been extensively done on the A330 and lesser so on the KC-46) to be smart design, engineering, and business practice. You call it freakish. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

But wait......

(KC-46A) is emphatically more of a cut-and-shut than the continuously-developed A330MRTT.Fascinating. Re-use and re-application of technology on an Airbus product is "continuous development", but doing that on a lesser scale on a Boeing product is freakish. Very well. Yet another point we'll have to agree to disagree on.

[KenV]

Sure, there was a B9/B11 and then a TA9/11, paper studies both, but the real A330 was developed as a new airplane with its own TC and is no more a Frankenplane than the 737, using the cab and engines from the 727.

Agreed. Which also means the KC-46 is "no more a Frankenplane" than the A330MRTT. Which was my point.

[KenV]

The KC-46 Tanker program’s first Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) 1 achieved a key milestone Tuesday by completing its first flight with a refueling boom and wing air refueling pods installed.


Ron Johnston, Boeing Test & Evaluation chief KC-46 test pilot, said takeoff from Boeing Field in Seattle was smooth and that the aircraft handled extremely well during the flight, its fifth overall, before landing hours later at Paine Field in Everett, Wash.


"On EMD 1, our goal is to demonstrate initial airworthiness, including flight with the external refueling systems on board," Johnston said. "The team will certify the aerial refueling components as part of the regular process leading to the first flight of a tanker-configured aircraft with EMD 2 later this summer."

[sandiego89]

Some good pictures of the 767-2C in flight with the pods and boom here: Boeing 767-2C tanker completes first flight with boom, wing pods - 6/4/2015 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-767-2c-tanker-completes-first-flight-with-boom-wing-413084/)

[BEagle]

Good to see that it's finally flown.....

A LOT of testing now lies ahead.....:hmm:

[D-IFF_ident]

How far beyond the aircraft structure does that boom extend?

Interesting to see if there are any associated pitch/boomstrike issues at takeoff and landing.

[KenV]

How far beyond the aircraft structure does that boom extend?Depends on your definition of "structure". The tail cone for example is generally not considered structure.

Interesting to see if there are any associated pitch/boomstrike issues at takeoff and landing.The max ground pitch angle is determined by the boom attach point, not the end of the boom. Israel's KC-767 design (based on the longer -300) solves the boom strike problem by "burying" the boom in a channel in the aft fuselage structure.

[ORAC]

When Korea buys Airbus rather than Boeing, it's very, very telling. I'd expect strenuous US government arm twisting to get the choice reversed, as on previous occasions, but the initial decision is very revealing.

South Korea Selects Airbus for $1.33B Tanker Contract (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/asia-pacific/2015/06/30/south-korea-selects-airbus-military-contract/29519825/)