More KC-46A woes....

[KenV]

Harry stonecipher could care less.....Harry was the president of McDonnell Douglas, not president of Douglas. Lots of what Harry did as president of MDC ended up killing Douglas. As for investing $4B now in the hopes of "you guess about 20 or 30 years" earning a big profit, no one makes such business investments. No one.

[tdracer]

Hmmm. "Current policy" is subject to change as new technology and tactics are developed. This "current policy" certainly did not take into account whatever survivability measures have been included in the KC-46. How effective are those survivability measures? I have no idea. And neither does anyone else on this forum. Consequently no one here has any idea what is and what is not "inviting disaster" with regard to how the KC-46 is employed. For all anyone knows, the KC-46 has a Klingon cloaking device aboard. ;-)

As I noted earlier, the KC-46 has a whole bunch of external features that I've not seen on any other 767. Some obviously related to the AR mission, many not so much.
I don't know what all that extra stuff is intended for (and obviously couldn't talk about it if I did), but consider this - when I worked on the current 747 based Air Force one aircraft 30 years ago, it incorporated an anti-missile system (no, I won't elaborate except to say it was nothing like what was portrayed in that horrible Harrison Ford Air Force One flick) - and 30 years later it's quite probable that system has been upgraded or replaced with something better.
As Ken states, we simply don't know what protection systems my have been incorporated into the KC-46, but it would be naive to think there isn't something.

[CONSO]

The KDC-10 contract was won by Douglas Aircraft. But they were required (by corporate McDonnell Douglas headquarters)

Uhh check your dates. Douglas ' merged' with McDonnel in 1967-68 mainly due to fubar cost accounting on DC-9. KC contract was let about 10 years later. with first flight in 1981

Which division gets the profit?

Hint- try the annual report ..

Douglas Senior died in 1981

Donald Wills Douglas Jr. (July 3, 1917 – October 3, 2004) ....He was the president of the Douglas Aircraft Company, which his father founded, from 1957 to 1967, when the company merged with McDonnell Corporation. He was on the board of directors of Douglas Aircraft from 1953 until the merger, then on the board of McDonnell Douglas from 1967 to 1989.

[stilton]

Why does the A330 MRTT not have a main
deck cargo door ?

[melmothtw]

Why does the A330 MRTT not have a main
deck cargo door ?

It does if you want it. France is the only customer to date to request it,

The other nations regard the 45 tonnes of palletized cargo in the hold to be ample for their requirements.

[weemonkey]

. As for investing $4B now in the hopes of "you guess about 20 or 30 years" earning a big profit, no one makes such business investments. No one.

F35 programme kinda shoots that one liner down..bout all it can mind...

[KenV]

Uhh check your dates. Douglas ' merged' with McDonnel in 1967-68 mainly due to fubar cost accounting on DC-9. KC contract was let about 10 years later. with first flight in 1981.
Hint- try the annual report ..
Douglas Senior died in 1981
Donald Wills Douglas Jr. (July 3, 1917 – October 3, 2004) ....He was the president of the Douglas Aircraft Company, which his father founded, from 1957 to 1967, when the company merged with McDonnell Corporation. He was on the board of directors of Douglas Aircraft from 1953 until the merger, then on the board of McDonnell Douglas from 1967 to 1989.You've seriously misunderstood both what I said and how large corporate entities operate. Douglas Aircraft Company (DAC, in Long Beach) was a division of McDonnell Douglas Corporation (MDC). McDonnell Aircraft Company (MAC, in St Louis) was another division of MDC. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems (MDHS, formerly Hughes Helicopters, in Mesa) was a third division of MDC. That's three separate divisions, each with a president, all reporting to a corporate president/CEO.

DAC won the KC-10, C-17, T-45, and KDC-10 contracts. The CEO of MDC forced DAC to eat millions on KDC-10 to help ensure MDHS won the Dutch attack helo contract. In addition, after taking all the risk and cost associated with competing for, winning, and then developing & testing the aircraft and designing the production system for the T-45, MDC's CEO moved T-45 production from DAC to MAC. And oh yeah, this wasn't just an aircraft program. USN bought an entire training system, including curriculum, training devices, simulators, etc etc. MAC got it all. And oh yeah, big chunks of the C-17 ended up being built by MAC, not DAC. Not to mention big chunks of MD-11. Was the DAC president happy to eat all those dollars to help out the MDHS president? Was he happy to hand the profits of T-45 production (and to a lesser extent C-17 and MD-11 production) to the MAC president? Think about that before you answer. And of course the MDC president/CEO was happy because the overall corporation looks healthy and profitable so he gets his fat bonus. But he's cannibalized one division to prop up two others. And of course later the same guy sells the whole corporation to Boeing. And Douglas is killed in the process.

In similar fashion Boeing has primarily three divisions: Boeing Commercial Aircraft (BCA), Boeing Defense/Space (BDS) and Boeing Global Support (BGS). Each has a president and they all report to the corporate president/CEO. Would the BDS president be happy to eat billions of dollars on the KC-46 to help out BCA and (in the future) BGS? Think about that before you answer.

Now, how does this relate to the razors vs razor blades analogy which started this discussion? If Gillette had a separate razor division, a separate blade division, and separate shaving foam/gel division, would the president of the razor division be happy to take a loss to help out the blade division? Think about that before you answer. And then think about what it would take to make the presidents of all three divisions happy.

[KenV]

Why does the A330 MRTT not have a main deck cargo door ?
Some do. Most don't. That's up to the customer. But keep in mind that every A330MRTT starts out as a regular airliner. After the airliner is built it gets flown to a modification center where it is taken apart to convert it into a tanker. Adding a main deck cargo door adds more cost. Adding a main deck cargo floor adds even more cost. If you only want a tanker that can also haul passengers on occasion why pay all that extra money?

So why do USAF tankers all have cargo doors and floors? USAF routinely uses their tankers as freighters. The tankers (along with C-130s, C-5s, C-17s, etc) are all in Air Mobility Command and are part of USAF's airlift fleet . Remember that most European and Asian militaries are garrison forces. That is they are not designed to deploy regionally, much less globally. Most of the US military are global expeditionary forces. They are almost all designed to deploy globally. That even includes the Army's and USMC's heavy armored divisions. On the rare occasions that non US military units deploy, they are heavily dependent on US and Russian (yes, Russian) airlift. By making every tanker also a freighter, USAF can use the tankers as freighters to get the forces into the theater, and then in theater use the same airframes as tankers to provide tanking support.

In short the answer to the question is cuz most A330MRTT customers use their tankers almost exclusively as tankers and don't need (or want to pay for) an outsize freighter capability.

BTW even with all their organic airlift capability (C-130, C-5, C-17, KC-135, KC-10, KC-46, etc), USAF still does not have sufficient airlift. That's why they also have CRAF. CRAF (Civil Reserve Air Fleet) is a program that assists major US airlines to buy commercial freighters, gives those airlines preferential access to US military cargo in peacetime, and more recently, provides access to military facilities to operate commercial freighter business. In return, the airlines commit those airframes and crews to provide DoD airlift in the event CRAF is activated in wartime. (CRAF is activated in three stages.) The first CRAF activation was in August 1990 in support of Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

[KenV]

F35 programme kinda shoots that one liner down..bout all it can mind...Really? Lockheed is investing billions now so it can maybe earn a big profit beginning in 2039 or 2049? Really?

[Just This Once...]

Why does the A330 MRTT not have a main
deck cargo door ?

The fuselage is so large that the main cargo door can swallow a heck of lot as standard - the MRTT modifications do not change the basic freight capacity of the aircraft (which is rather capacious to say the least). The only in-service pain with no large upper door fitted is for aeromed.

If you look at a KC-135 the entire lower fuselage is full of aircraft systems and fuel tanks and, with the exception of the boom op area, the lower fuselage is outside of the pressure hull. When they added proper APUs to the KC-135 the only place left to fit them was in the upper fuselage in the rendition-class area. If you want to put anything in a KC-135 the upper fuselage is the only option, hence the door.


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1600x1200/a330_mrtt_04_lower_deck_1c4fc607cb0e54e18de752d2167e3db229e7 a314.jpg
A330 Cargo Deck

[KenV]

Maybe NG and Airbus "took a view" that it was not going to be viable and "let" good ole Boeing to suffer all the grief and hassle that has proven to be the case. As for using very very old engines, makes me wonder if GE decided that they did not wish to support their old design CF6 for many more years to come which left only PW. Seems highly unlikely. Providing support is a very lucrative part of any engine sale. Indeed, supporting the engine generates much more revenue than selling the engine. Further GE is already committed to providing long term USAF support for CF6s which are on the VC-25, E-4B, KC-10, and C-5M fleets.

Let's face it, they would have only chosen an American built engine after all the PR "moaning" etc that went on when Boeing did not win in the earlier "contests".Sorry, but this is false. The RR engine in this thrust range is not a bad engine, but it is a poor match for the airframe. That's why the RR powered KC-767I performed so poorly and why out of 1240 767 ordered, only 40 had RR engines. Almost all of those 767 sales were not USAF sales, so no pressure to "buy American."

[KenV]

The fuselage is so large that the main cargo door can swallow a heck of lot as standard - the MRTT modifications do not change the basic freight capacity of the aircraft (which is rather capacious to say the least). The only in-service pain with no large upper door fitted is for aeromed.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1600x1200/a330_mrtt_04_lower_deck_1c4fc607cb0e54e18de752d2167e3db229e7 a314.jpg
A330 Cargo DeckThat's not a really complete picture. Yes, the belly of a A330MRTT is large, But so is the belly of a KC-10 and it has a cargo door and floor. What USAF wants and needs (among other things) is the capability to haul "outsize cargo." That's cargo too tall to fit in the belly cargo hold of any airliner. Further they want the capability to routinely do aeromedical evac. That can't be done without a cargo door. Although a cargo floor is not required, the floor does require special fittings. The next time you fly in an airliner, imagine taking a non ambulatory patient on a stretcher with an IV in their arm thru the passenger door and then making a 90 degree turn to get the patient and stretcher down the aisle into the aircraft. Now stack the stretchers two or three high and add overhead fixtures for IV bottles and the like with the overhead bins in place. Consider that USAF's dedicated aeromedical evac aircraft (C-9 Nightingale, based on DC-9) had a main deck cargo door. USAF's fleet of Nightingales has been retired and the KC-46 had to have its capabilities. That includes besides the cargo door and provisions for stretcher stanchions in the floor and IV bottles in the overhead, the addition of over a dozen 115V, 60Hz, single phase electrical outlets to power standard medical equipment, special ventilation equipment for patients needing isolation or other special care, a separate station in the cargo hold to control the temperature and ventilation systems, several therapeutic oxygen outlets, on board refrigeration for storing whole blood and medications, and more. So the oft repeated mantra that a main deck cargo door "is not needed" is utter folly when you consider USAF's needs and how they operate/employ their tankers.

[CONSO]

ou look at a KC-135 the entire lower fuselage is full of aircraft systems and fuel tanks and, with the exception of the boom op area, the lower fuselage is outside of the pressure hull.

Are you sure about that-?? The ' upper floor' stresses would be significant whereas in a tube, hoop stresses are much easier to handle and uniform ...

[Just This Once...]

That's not a really complete picture. Yes, the belly of a A330MRTT is large...So the oft repeated mantra that a main deck cargo door "is not needed" is utter folly when you consider USAF's needs and how they operate/employ their tankers.

Who said USAF needs, other than you? For the USAF program the A330 was offered with an upper cargo deck.


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1600x1203/a330_mrtt_12_upper_deck_0d57298498db19bfbbfd2a40da2dbaaf21f4 3dca.jpg

[Just This Once...]

Are you sure about that-?? The ' upper floor' stresses would be significant whereas in a tube, hoop stresses are much easier to handle and uniform ...

Yes!

I could add that the KC-135 also has a fuel tank in the upper fuselage too, mounted aft below the fin leading edge.

Worth noting that around the same time the UK had a go at fitting nice square windows for jet passengers.

[CONSO]

Yes!

I could add that the KC-135 also has a fuel tank in the upper fuselage too, mounted aft below the fin leading edge.

Worth noting that around the same time the UK had a go at fitting nice square windows for jet passengers.

I was referring to the the comment re lower lobe being outside the pressurized upper deck .

While that was true re the B-29's, re fore and aft pressure sections- I'm not aware that the 707 and KC 135 pressure hulls were that different being built on the same tooling ..

[weemonkey]

Really? Lockheed is investing billions now so it can maybe earn a big profit beginning in 2039 or 2049? Really?



From whom?

[CONSO]

From whom?

relax -kenv likes to pettifog various issues like this

[tdracer]

As for using very very old engines, makes me wonder if GE decided that they did not wish to support their old design CF6 for many more years to come which left only PW. Let's face it, they would have only chosen an American built engine after all the PR "moaning" etc that went on when Boeing did not win in the earlier "contests".

Boeing is still producing new CF6-80C2 powered 767 freighters for FedEx and others - with a planned lifetime of 40 years. As Ken noted, the CF6-80C2 engine is also used on other USAF applications such as the C-5M. GE has committed to supporting the CF6-80C2 for many more decades. We actually took a quick look doing a re-engine for the KC-46 using the GEnx-2B (from the 747-8), but it didn't pencil out well. The GEnx is far heavier than the PW4000 or CF6-80C2 (close to two tons/engine!), it's over a foot larger in diameter (hence ground clearance/landing gear concerns), and costs about twice as much. Further, while it had much better fuel burn, due to it's much higher weight contribution to the aircraft empty weight, at the same MTOW it's fuel offload wasn't any better for the spec refueling missions than the PW4000 or CF6.

As for a Rolls engined KC-46, the RB211-524G/H that goes on the 767 has been out-of-production for over 15 years - Rolls was never even a possibility. Back when Boeing launched the 747-8, they offered real good pricing on the last 747-400s to fill out the line before switching to the 747-8 production. Cathay came in and ordered six 747-400F, and being a long time Rolls operator wanted RB211-524 engines to be common with their other 747s. That's 24 engines, plus spares - something in excess of $150 million order. Rolls flat said no - they were not interested in building any more RB211 engines. So Cathay got PW4000s on their new 747 Freighters...

[Just This Once...]

I was referring to the the comment re lower lobe being outside the pressurized upper deck .

While that was true re the B-29's, re fore and aft pressure sections- I'm not aware that the 707 and KC 135 pressure hulls were that different being built on the same tooling ..

The 707 and KC-135 are different aircraft designs that happen to share the same family tree. The 707 and the military derivatives such as the E-3 have a lower lobe that is inside the pressure hull.

The apparent similarities between the 707 and KC-135 do cause confusion (see the RJ thread for example). You could say they were almost identical apart from the nose, forward fuselage, fuselage barrel, wings, primary structure, fin, rudder system, tail, overall dimensions et al.

[ORAC]

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a124013.pdf

[CONSO]

The 707 and KC-135 are different aircraft designs that happen to share the same family tree. The 707 and the military derivatives such as the E-3 have a lower lobe that is inside the pressure hull.

The apparent similarities between the 707 and KC-135 do cause confusion (see the RJ thread for example). You could say they were almost identical apart from the nose, forward fuselage, fuselage barrel, wings, primary structure, fin, rudder system, tail, overall dimensions et al.


Errrr ------ https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b707.htm

The Dash 80 outgrowth was privately financed by Boeing with a view toward commercial passenger use and military tanker use, both of which were achieved. The 132 inches (3,350 mm) fuselage of the Dash 80 was only wide enough to fit 2+2 seating (in the manner of the Stratocruiser). Boeing soon realized that this would not provide a sufficient payload, so the fuselage was widened to 144 in (3,660 mm), the same as the KC-135 Stratotanker, which would allow six-abreast seating and the shared use of the KC-135's tooling. But Douglas launched the DC-8, with a fuselage width of 147 in (3,730 mm). The airlines [and passengers] liked the extra space, and Boeing was obliged to increase the 707's cabin width again, to 148 in (3,760 mm). This meant that little of the tooling for the Dash 80 was usable for the 707.

Now about claimed differences 707-kc135 ... Boeing leased some parts of 707 tooling FROM the airforce.for several years
And the early models of KC used water injection for takeoff especially from the relatively short renton airfield... about 5000 feet useable and they were loud loud loud !!

[megan]

Boeing soon realized that this would not provide a sufficient payload, so the fuselage was widened to 144 in (3,660 mm), the same as the KC-135 Stratotanker, which would allow six-abreast seating and the shared use of the KC-135's toolingShared tooling was to have been the case if the 707 & 135 shared the same fuselage diameter, but they didn't, so difficult to see how they shared tooling. Boeing themselves say, The Dash 80 prototype led to the commercial 707 and the military KC-135 tanker. Both planes shared the basic design of the Dash 80 but were very different airplanes, neither one being a derivative of the other. The only similarity between the -80, 707, 135, is the looks.Are you sure about that-?? The ' upper floor' stresses would be significant whereas in a tube, hoop stresses are much easier to handle and uniform ... CONSO, The below floor area of the 135 is unpressurised, except for the area immediately below the cockpit, and of course the boom operators compartment at the rear. the early models of KC used water injection for takeoff As did the early 707 and 747.


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1152x648/z000_2196fbc728718c84915deeb8dd337e3ecd5ab937.png

[CONSO]

Shared tooling was to have been the case if the 707 & 135 shared the same fuselage diameter, but they didn't, so difficult to see how they shared tooling. Boeing themselves say,

depends on what version of boeing documents/newsletters/ wiki/ etc you read- compared to friends of mine who worked tooling issues in renton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707
The 132 in (3,352.80 mm) wide fuselage of the Dash 80 was large enough for four-abreast (two-plus-two) seating like the Stratocruiser. Answering customers' demands and under Douglas competition, Boeing soon realized this would not provide a viable payload, so it widened the fuselage to 144 in (3,660 mm) to allow five-abreast seating and use of the KC-135's tooling.[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707#cite_note-11) Douglas Aircraft had launched its DC-8 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-8) with a fuselage width of 147 in (3,730 mm). The airlines liked the extra space and six-abreast seating, so Boeing increased the 707's width again to compete, this time to 148 in (3,760 mm).[12]

... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707#cite_note-irving194-12) this only part of story . . .

Traces of the 707 are still found in the 737 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737), which uses a modified version of the 707's fuselage, as well as the same external nose and cockpit configurations as those of the 707. These were also used on the previous 727 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_727), while the 757 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757) also used the 707 fuselage cross-section.
.... The 707-120 was the first production 707 variant, with a longer, wider fuselage, and greater wingspan than the Dash 80. The cabin had a full set of rectangular windows and could seat up to 189 passengers.[32] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707#cite_note-32) It was designed for transcontinental routes, and often required a refueling stop when flying across the North Atlantic. It had four Pratt & Whitney JT3C-6 turbojets, civilian versions of the military J57, initially producing 13,000 lbf (57.8 kN) with water injection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engines)). Maximum takeoff weight was ..

https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/leonard/Active%20Papers/What%20Killed%20Douglas%20Aircraft.pdf

.... (https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/leonard/Active%20Papers/What%20Killed%20Douglas%20Aircraft.pdf)Subsequently, the development of the military KC-135 tanker and the civilian 707 diverged. First, the Air
Force demanded that the prototype’s 132” diameter be expanded by 12” for the KC-135. Then Juan
Trippe of Pan Am, wielding the threat of Douglas’ planned wider fuselage DC-8, pressured Boeing to
widen the 707’s diameter. Boeing’s decision to bring the 707’s diameter up to 148” was accelerated by
United Airline’s defection to the DC-8’s six-across seating. With the plan for a common fuselage
scrapped, but still with largely common wings, the 707 and the KC135 would share at least 20% of their
parts and tooling (Lawrence). The two were also produced in the same government plant. Boeing could
also benefit from R&D spillovers....

[LowObservable]

On NG's decision to stay out: I would speculate that it was not all a matter of perceived difficulty or risk. Once the initial win had been overturned, it was established that there was no extra credit to be had for the fact that the A330 was a larger airplane with more lift capability. This made the final tanker contest LPTA (lowest price, technically acceptable) and Boeing had (a) more money than NG and (b) a strategic interest in fending off an Airbus manufacturing bridgehead in the US. And by the time the second contest started, NG had, 'ow you say, d'autres chats à fouetter.

Conversely, Airbus had an interest in staying in, if only to force Boeing into (a) losing a little blood on the deal and (b) making a highly US-optimized tanker that might not be as appealing for export. Mission accomplished.

Oh, and can we all quit with the "I could tell you but then I'd have to use a worn-out cliche from a mediocre movie with dubious shirtless volleyball" stuff about sekret wiring and cloaking devices? I would be astonished if the KC-46 was to be equipped with/for anything other than the standard DIRCM, ROBE has been unclassified since its inception in 2003 and various special configs are all over the Intertubez.

[megan]

Now about claimed differences 707-kc135 ... Boeing leased some parts of 707 tooling FROM the airforce.for several yearsBecause the USAF operates the 707 under a few guises, C-137, E-3, E-8

[KenV]

Who said USAF needs, other than you? For the USAF program the A330 was offered with an upper cargo deck.


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1600x1203/a330_mrtt_12_upper_deck_0d57298498db19bfbbfd2a40da2dbaaf21f4 3dca.jpgWho said USAF needs a main deck cargo door and floor? USAF said this. And so did you with your reply. A number of folks here claimed USAF did not need a main deck cargo door and floor. That's bollocks

And for the record, the photo you posted was for an A330-200F. Airbus did not propose an A330MRTT based on the A330-200F freighter airframe. They proposed an A330MRTT based on the A330-200 airliner airframe, just like every other MRTT. Yes, a freighter door and floor could be added, but as an option. It was not a basic feature of their proposed tanker. Further, the airliner airframe does not have the lowered nose gear and nose blister to house it that the freighter airframe has. And why didn't Airbus propose a freighter based tanker? Perhaps it was because the A330MRTT was already certified as a tanker and that cert was based on the airliner airframe, not the freighter airframe. Proposing a tanker based on the freighter airframe would require an entirely new flight test and certification campaign, further adding to the cost, but more importantly, further adding to the development time. USAF's RFP had a very aggressive schedule. The conjecture is that proposing a freighter based tanker would have meant not being able to meet USAF's schedule. You'll have to ask Airbus to confirm that.

By comparison, Boeing proposed a tanker based on the 767-200LRF (Long Range Freighter) airframe. The freighter configuration was the baseline of their proposal, not an option.

In short, anyone who buys an A330MRTT is buying an airliner based tanker. Anyone who buys a KC-46 is buying a freighter based tanker. The customer has to decide which better fits their needs. You and I are in agreement that the USAF customer wants and needs a freighter based tanker.

[Mil-26Man]

...the USAF customer wants and needs a freighter based tanker.

So they opted against basing a freighter of an airliner, and instead went with a freighter that is based on an airliner. Glad we cleared that up.

[KenV]

Are you sure about that-?? The ' upper floor' stresses would be significant whereas in a tube, hoop stresses are much easier to handle and uniform ...Consider that every pressurized low wing aircraft has a big section of fuselage that is not hoop loaded, specifically the area of the center wing tank. The tank structure takes those non hoop pressurization loads. The KC-135 lower lobe has integral fuselage tanks that extend well ahead and well behind the center wing tank. Those tanks take those loads as they are primary structures and not bladder/secondary structures installed in a pressurized section of the lower lobe. In contrast the KC-46's belly tanks are secondary structures, similar to the aux tanks in the bellies of some 737, but of course larger.

[BEagle]

In short, anyone who buys an A330MRTT is buying an airliner based tanker. Anyone who buys a KC-46 is buying a freighter based tanker. The customer has to decide which better fits their needs.

Travel in the A330MRTT (or even the A310MRTT) in transport role and you travel in normal wide-body airline comfort - the Voyager has a seat pitch extended to cope with troops in bulky clothing in particular.

Travel in the KC-46 in its transport role and it's the same windowless, palletised seating rendition-class comfort as the KC-135...

[KenV]

Travel in the A330MRTT (or even the A310MRTT) in transport role and you travel in normal wide-body airline comfort - the Voyager has a seat pitch extended to cope with troops in bulky clothing in particular.

Travel in the KC-46 in its transport role and it's the same windowless, palletised seating rendition-class comfort as the KC-135...True enough. And the customer makes that decision. Not the manufacturer.

[tubby linton]

A passenger A330 can uplift 113t of fuel in the normal fuel structure without modification and leaving all of the holds and upper deck space empty.

[esscee]

A330-200 can have roughly that fuel figure on board, but not the longer fuselage A330-300 as the -300 does not have a Centre tank!

[tubby linton]

A330-200 can have roughly that fuel figure on board, but not the longer fuselage A330-300 as the -300 does not have a Centre tank!
Airbus wil put in whatever you specify if you pay them enough.

[KenV]

A passenger A330 can uplift 113t of fuel in the normal fuel structure without modification and leaving all of the holds and upper deck space empty.Impressive capability. By comparison, KC-46 can only "uplift" 106 tons of fuel. The thing is, USAF does not care a wit how much gas a tanker can "uplift". It cares how much gas a tanker can offload over a range of distances and/or a range of on-station times. KC-46 meets or exceeds all of USAF's fuel offload requirements. Taking off with 7 extra tons of fuel is nice and all, but a larger, heavier tanker requires more powerful engines that consume more fuel. If the larger heavier tanker consumes 7 tons more fuel to perform its mission, that extra 7 tons is pointless. That's the very reason GEnX engines weren't put on the KC-46. They're more efficient but heavier and in the end, resulted in less fuel offload, which is what really matters.

In addition, if USAF is to be believed, KC-46 can "join the fight" and deliver that fuel in a much less benign airspace than legacy tankers. And can deliver that fuel to the entire range of US stealth aircraft. And after delivering fuel to fighters in the theater, KC-46 can perform an aeromedical evacuation of wounded personnel out of theater. KC-46 can also be used to carry "outsize" cargo, including vehicles, into and out of theater and move it around within the theater. It also has some in-theater electronic support capabilities I can't get into. Bottom line, for USAF it's the full military capability package that matters, not "fuel uplift".

One more time, USAF did not want a tanker that could only pass gas and only do it in a benign airliner environment. It wanted a tanker that could pass gas in a much more hostile environment than airliners operate in and wanted a tanker that could be used for military taskings other than just passing gas. Some customers other than USAF may want such capabilities, in which case they'll want to buy KC-46. Other customers may not want those capabilities, in which case they'll buy A330MRTT.

[KenV]

Airbus wil put in whatever you specify if you pay them enough.Two comments:

1. According to multiple sources, A330-200 and A330-300 have the same fuel capacity. So where does the -300 put the fuel that the -200 puts in the centerwing tank if -300 has no centerwing tank?

2. Consider that A330-200 and A330-300 also have the same Max Take Off Weight (MTOW). A longer fuselage means more empty weight, so less payload if MTOW is held constant. Adding a center tank on a -300 fuselage would then make no sense because the extra empty weight means you can't fill that center tank. By comparison, each time Boeing stretched the 767, it also increased the MTOW, thus increasing payload weight capacity to match the increase in payload volume.

[melmothtw]

By comparison, KC-46 can only "uplift" 106 tons of fuel.

That's changed then, every time I've been briefed by Boeing it has been 96 tonnes. Must have found an extra 10 tonnes from somewhere,,,

[KenV]

That's changed then, every time I've been briefed by Boeing it has been 96 tonnes. Must have found an extra 10 tonnes from somewhere,,,Tons vs Tonnes.

[BEagle]

The Pigosaurus has a max capacity of 212299lb (SG not stated though). Which is 96.3 Metric tonne, 94.78 imperial ton or 106.15 US ton.

More sales blah from ol'Bubba Boeing?

[melmothtw]

So the MRTT's 111 metric tonnes converts to 122 US tonnes then. If we're comparing apples and apples...

[Just This Once...]

Adding a center tank on a -300 fuselage would then make no sense because the extra empty weight means you can't fill that center tank. By comparison, each time Boeing stretched the 767, it also increased the MTOW, thus increasing payload weight capacity to match the increase in payload volume.

I've no idea who does your math(s) but trying to play top-trumps with fuel/range/payload when you are holding the KC-46 card seems rather odd. Oh and the max weights for the A330 have increased significantly over the years.

In round figures, if you fill the A330-300 till every tank is full you still have well over 10 Tonnes of freight to offer in an otherwise empty and voluminous lower cargo bay, with the pax fit still installed above.

Somebody else can work out how much fuel a KC-46 can realistically carry with 10 Tonnes of freight. I do recall though that, at one point, the extra capacity offered by the MRTT was rather appealing to the USAF. The complaint from the other side was that it was unfair to consider the increased capacity and that only meeting the minimum specification should count and nothing more.2. The Air Force’s use as a key discriminator that Northrop Grumman proposed to exceed a key performance parameter objective relating to aerial refueling to a greater degree than Boeing violated the solicitation’s evaluation provision that “no consideration will be provided for exceeding [key performance parameter] objectives.”

[LowObservable]

Ken - Your guys won. And you can say what you want about the various capabilities of the KC-46, but presumably both NG-EADS and EADS offered a compliant solution (with or without an upper deck cargo floor - as far as I can tell, the A330 as offered had a cargo door for casevac, but met the pallet requirement in the underfloor) including provision for the cloaking device, defensive laser, atomic trebuchet or whatevs.

Had it not been a compliant solution, it would have been rejected as such before the bids were in, and the AF would have found itself in a one-bid situation again, which didn't turn out too well the first time around. So as a US taxpayer, EADS did you a hell of a good turn by returning to the fight after the spec was "clarified" the first time around.

[melmothtw]

Also worth noting that the Koreans, which have no industrial drum to beat, selected the A330 MRTT over the KC-46A. When it made its selection in 2015, DAPA noted it had largely chosen the MRTT because of its superior performance - specifically endurance, fuel capacity, personnel and cargo capacity were all cited.
And I imagine if any nation is going to be flying their tankers 'close to the fight' it will be South Korea.
Go figure.

[KenV]

Ken - Your guys won. And you can say what you want about the various capabilities of the KC-46, but presumably both NG-EADS and EADS offered a compliant solution (with or without an upper deck cargo floor - as far as I can tell, the A330 as offered had a cargo door for casevac, but met the pallet requirement in the underfloor) including provision for the cloaking device, defensive laser, atomic trebuchet or whatevs.Ummmm, no. There was a vast difference in the first RFP and the final RFP. The first RFP was effectively an outgrowth of the tanker lease idea and consequently solicited nearly off-the-shelf tankers. NG-EADS offered a significantly larger tanker, basically a two-engine KC-10, and won. Sadly USAF had not shaken off all their procurement hanky panky that had marred previous procurements. (for example, among other things, the solicitation clearly stated that "no consideration will be provided for exceeding key performance parameter objectives." So by the established rules, offering a tanker larger than the requirements (a form of gold plating) may not influence the procurement decision.) This, among other things, resulted in Boeing challenging the decision and the government regulators (not politicians and not USAF personnel) overturned the decision and required a do over. Note that they did not decide that Boeing had won. The regulators only adjudicated that the procurement process had been violated and required a do over. There were then some false starts and other anomalies, but in the final RFP the tanking requirements stayed essentially the same (there were 372 specific tanking performance requirements in the first RFP and 379 in the final RFP. Those additional requirements all related to boom envelope, which is why Boeing switched from the KC-135 boom to the KC-10 boom.) But USAF added many new non-tanking related requirements, among them medical evacuation requirements, outsize cargo requirements, aggressive survivability enhancements and many connectivity/electronic support requirements, many classified. It was during the process of USAF adding requirements that NG pulled out. And despite all these additional requirements the delivery schedule remained very aggressive, similar to an off the shelf procurement rather than a developmental procurement. And as in the first RFP, the evaluation criteria for the final RFP could give no consideration for exceeding any requirements. Both offerings were technically acceptable in that they met all key performance parameters, but Boeing's was cheaper. Airbus's superior performance did not count and Boeing won on price.

[Trumpet trousers]

Jee-sus H Christ!!!..... when will this pointless p*ssing contest end?
pass gas..... seems to be a lot of that going on here....
Give it a break, ffs...

[Mil-26Man]

As an side, there's an interesting aspect to the respective capabilities of both platforms in this Flight Global report from 2010, with Boeing criticizing the 'envelope protection system' of the A330 compared to the 'complete, full access to the aircraft envelope' of its KC-46A. I'm guessing the crew and passengers of ZZ333 were very happy for the protection system in February 2014...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-goes-on-new-kc-x-offensive-345235/

[KenV]

I've no idea who does your math(s) but trying to play top-trumps with fuel/range/payload when you are holding the KC-46 card seems rather odd. Ummm, no you misunderstood me. I questioned the claim made by someone that the A330-300 had no centerwing tank because multiple sources indicate that -200 and -300 have the same fuel capacity. I then tried (and clearly failed) to show how "fuel uplift" is a meaningless measure of merit. What matters is how much fuel can be offloaded at various distances and/or various on station times. Both the A330MRTT and KC-46 met or exceeded USAF's hundreds of fuel offload requirements (372 to be precise.) The A330 exceeded more of those requirements than KC-46 and by a wider margin than KC-46. But KC-46 came in much cheaper, and once all the requirements had been met, it was cost that won the day, not performance.

For example, the A330 is clearly "far superior" to the 737 in range and payload, with the Airbus able to carry many more passengers much further than the Boeing airplane. But economy carriers are very focussed on price and thus buy 737 or it's Airbus equivalent A320. They neither want nor need the additional performance. But the major carriers want and need more performance, and buy the big airplane.

Perhaps comparing freighters rather than airliners is a more proper comparison. 767 freighter is clearly smaller and has "less performance" than A330 freighter. Yet over 300 767 freighters have been ordered vs 42 for the A330. Clearly, some (many?) customers need/want a freighter smaller than the A330.

In the case of USAF's tanker, a large airplane was pitted against a smaller airplane, with both able to meet the performance requirements. The smaller airplane won on price.

[KenV]

As an side, there's an interesting aspect to the respective capabilities of both platforms in this Flight Global report from 2010, with Boeing criticizing the 'envelope protection system' of the A330 compared to the 'complete, full access to the aircraft envelope' of its KC-46A. I'm guessing the crew and passengers of ZZ333 were very happy for the protection system in February 2014...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-goes-on-new-kc-x-offensive-345235/You might think that the A330 zero feedback side stick controllers and zero feedback autothrottles are a good idea, but there's plenty of people who would strongly disagree. I'm not going to weigh in on that contentious argument, but I will say that if the pilots and passengers of Air France 447 had survived, they would likely be among those disagreeing with you. And regarding ZZ333 specifically, had they been flying a KC-46, there never would have been an emergency in the first place. 'nuff said.

[KenV]

Also worth noting that the Koreans, which have no industrial drum to beat, selected the A330 MRTT over the KC-46A. When it made its selection in 2015, DAPA noted it had largely chosen the MRTT because of its superior performance - specifically endurance, fuel capacity, personnel and cargo capacity were all cited.
And I imagine if any nation is going to be flying their tankers 'close to the fight' it will be South Korea.
Go figure.I have no idea what the Koreans' tanker requirements were. None. And I doubt anyone here does. In any event, it would appear that A330 met their requirements better. On the other hand their neighbor, Japan, with many mutual enemies went with KC-46. Different requirements result in different solutions. Go figure.

[KenV]

In round figures, if you fill the A330-300 till every tank is full you still have well over 10 Tonnes of freight to offer in an otherwise empty and voluminous lower cargo bay, with the pax fit still installed above.Interesting. Earlier in this thread Beagle claimed the opposite for Voyager. Kinda goes to show you need to carefully define terms.

Another interesting point is why would an airline operating an A330-300 airliner fill the tanks completely full of gas and then haul 10 tons of cargo while leaving the passenger compartment empty? Honestly, what airline has such an operating requirement? In other words, having a capability and having a useful capability are clearly two different things. And USAF's tanking requirements were based on actual useful needs. Both the KC-46 and A330MRTT meet or exceed those requirements. 'nuff said.

[KenV]

The Pigosaurus has a max capacity of 212299lb (SG not stated though).....Wow, From "Frankentanker" to "Pigosaurus." No animus there at all.

[melmothtw]

I think I have worked out why the KC-46A is so behind schedule - it's because Ken spends all his time on PPRuNe talking about it rather than building it.

Am of course being facetious - am enjoying the banter and learning a lot along the way also.

Seriously though, get back to work. Those planes aren't going to build themselves...

[KenV]

Seriously though, get back to work. Those planes aren't going to build themselves...I work in San Antonio now, on the C-17 (and others), including the UK's C-17s. UK #4 is here now. KC-46 is an Everett product. And FWIW, since I've been working C-17 in San Antonio we've met all our budget and schedule commitments. :O

[ORAC]

Impressive capability. By comparison, KC-46 can only "uplift" 106 tons of fuel. The thing is, USAF does not care a wit how much gas a tanker can "uplift". It cares how much gas a tanker can offload over a range of distances and/or a range of on-station times. KC-46 meets or exceeds all of USAF's fuel offload requirements.

AW&ST - Jan 24th:

....."Expectations shrank dramatically in 2011 following the loss of what was then an EADS-led bid to win the re-competed KC-X deal with the A330-based multirole tanker transport (MRTT). Yet today’s more sober growth plan once again is associated with the tanker as, together with Lockheed Martin (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=27191), Airbus is looking to fill a capability gap the Air Force identified last year. Created partially by delays associated with Boeing’s troubled KC-46A (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ProgramProfileDetails.aspx?pgId=1104&pgName=Boeing+KC-46A) tanker program as well as the service’s ambition to expand its refueling capability beyond that of the incoming Boeing 767 (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ProgramProfileDetails.aspx?pgId=1136&pgName=Boeing+767)-derivative, the U.S. Transportation Command (Transcom) requirements call for a platform capable of carrying a minimum of 50,000 lb. of fuel for 1,500 mi. It must perform the mission day or night and deliver fuel by boom, hose-and-drogue or both.

In response, the two companies are studying a variant of the MRTT, possibly to be supplied as part of a commercial “fee-for-service” deal. This time, the MRTT should be well-suited, says Enders. Clearly still rankled by the outcome of the KC-X, he says, “I still don’t understand why the most powerful Air Force of the world would not fly the best available tanker aircraft on the market.”......

[Asturias56]

Reading through past threads you might as well give up on getting Ken to admit the USAF made a mistake

And TBh its a bit pointless they & Boeing have made their bed and they should be allowed to lie in it

[KenV]

AW&ST - Jan 24th: In response, the two companies are studying a variant of the MRTT, possibly to be supplied as part of a commercial “fee-for-service” deal. This time, the MRTT should be well-suited, says Enders. Clearly still rankled by the outcome of the KC-X, he says, “I still don’t understand why the most powerful Air Force of the world would not fly the best available tanker aircraft on the market.”......The operative phrase there is: "...the two companies are studying a variant of the MRTT, possibly to be supplied as part of a commercial “fee-for-service” deal." "Fee for service". You know that the service bought by USAF is going to go to the bidder with the lowest fee. Indeed USN has been doing this for nearly two decades and they've always bought the cheapest service. That means that Lockheed/Airbus will be competing with existing commercial tanker operators like Omega who operate converted tankers. Good luck beating those guys on price. Not even Boeing could beat them on price.

And about that Lockheed/Airbus tanker partnership? How solid is it really? Consider that Lockheed is also contemplating going it alone. Larry Gallogly, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics' business development director of USAF mobility programmes said: "A lot of people don't realise that [the KC-130] is fully capable of refuelling everything from slow-moving helicopters up through fighter aircraft. We have an extensive level of experience in that regard." So Airbus while partnered with Lockheed may also need to compete with Lockheed. Won't that be fun?

And finally, what's to prevent Boeing from teaming with Omega to provide tanking services? Boeing would mod the used commercial aircraft into tankers and Omega would operate them. Unlike Airbus and Lockheed, Boeing has experience converting used commercial aircraft into tankers and unlike Airbus and Lockheed, Omega has experience (over 2 decades worth) operating commercial tankers to support military users. And unlike Airbus and Boeing, Boeing has an entire division (Boeing Global Support) specifically dedicated to aircraft mods and a truly massive mod facility in San Antonio. Guess where those ex-Russian 747-8I airframes are going to get turned into VC-25Bs?

Forgive my pessimism, but I don't see the slightest hope of brand new A330MRTTs being able to compete on price with used commercial aircraft converted to tankers. None.

[ORAC]

Yeah, right. And Indont think a couple of ex-RAF Tristan’s will fit the bill on numbers or availability either.

And about that Lockheed/Airbus tanker partnership? How solid is it really? Consider that Lockheed is also contemplating going it alone. Larry Gallogly, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics' business development director of USAF mobility programmes said: "A lot of people don't realise that [the KC-130] is fully capable of refuelling everything from slow-moving helicopters up through fighter aircraft.

“the U.S. Transportation Command (Transcom) requirements call for a platform capable of carrying a minimum of 50,000 lb. of fuel for 1,500 mi. It must perform the mission day or night and deliver fuel by boom, hose-and-drogue or both“...

[Thrust Augmentation]

Jee-sus H Christ!!!..... when will this pointless p*ssing contest end?
..... seems to be a lot of that going on here....
Give it a break, ffs...

Could not agree more - tedium now.

[BEagle]

“the U.S. Transportation Command (Transcom) requirements call for a platform capable of carrying a minimum of 50,000 lb. of fuel for 1,500 mi. It must perform the mission day or night and deliver fuel by boom, hose-and-drogue or both“...

Rather a vague and incomplete requirement - does the platform have to fly 1500nm, offload 50K and then fly 1500nm back? Over what period of time does the platform need to be on station?

1500nm at 500KTAS is 3 hr. Say the burn rate is 5.4 T / hr and alternate requirements are a further hour's burn to tanks dry, then the tanker would need 37.8 T plus whatever time on task was required. With an offload of 50K (22.7 T), that means a tanker on station for an hour would need to have a capacity of around 66 T. Using legacy ex-airline airframes might be a possibility, but the difficult bit would be fitting the boom and associated operator's station.

[LowObservable]

Me: but presumably both NG-EADS and EADS offered a compliant solution... including provision for the cloaking device, defensive l@ser, atomic trebuchet or whatevs.

KenV: Ummmm, no.

Also KenV, about 25,000 words later in same post: Both offerings were technically acceptable in that they met all key performance parameters

He's the only guy on this board who can lose an argument with himself.

[ORAC]

RoKAF KC-330 refuelling F-16 and F-15. I presume the report is the formal commissioning ceremony.

https://youtu.be/JphL4wz1GwA

[Just This Once...]

Ken - Your guys won. And you can say what you want about the various capabilities of the KC-46, but presumably both NG-EADS and EADS offered a compliant solution (with or without an upper deck cargo floor - as far as I can tell, the A330 as offered had a cargo door for casevac, but met the pallet requirement in the underfloor) including provision for the cloaking device, defensive laser, atomic trebuchet or whatevs.

Had it not been a compliant solution, it would have been rejected as such before the bids were in, and the AF would have found itself in a one-bid situation again, which didn't turn out too well the first time around. So as a US taxpayer, EADS did you a hell of a good turn by returning to the fight after the spec was "clarified" the first time around.

Indeed - he also casually forgets that he is posting in an air-to-air refuelling thread, throws up a wacky 'what airline' bait-and-switch question before slipping back to air force requirements where such configurations are rather useful.

Another interesting point is why would an airline operating an A330-300 airliner fill the tanks completely full of gas and then haul 10 tons of cargo while leaving the passenger compartment empty? Honestly, what airline has such an operating requirement? In other words, having a capability and having a useful capability are clearly two different things. And USAF's tanking requirements were based on actual useful needs. Both the KC-46 and A330MRTT meet or exceed those requirements. 'nuff said.

As you say, the main counterpoint to his arguments are usually his own. Meanwhile the A330T / MRTT / V'Ger tanker operators can take an aircraft that was flying full pax fit the day before, with no role change, fill it to full, add a few maintainers and assorted FJ spares before departing on a trail as rather useful capability. Once the chicks are left at their destination the aircraft is ready for tasking for pax, freight or a mix of both with no additional logistics or role equipment changes.

[KenV]

Me: but presumably both NG-EADS and EADS offered a compliant solution... including provision for the cloaking device, defensive l@ser, atomic trebuchet or whatevs.
KenV: Ummmm, no.
Also KenV, about 25,000 words later in same post: Both offerings were technically acceptable in that they met all key performance parameters
He's the only guy on this board who can lose an argument with himself.Ummmm, there is a vast difference between providing a technically acceptable product that meets all key performance parameters and providing a fully compliant solicitation. You can offer a fully equipped starship Enterprise that meets all key performance parameters, but submit the proposal one hour late, or miss just one CDRL item or one SOW item in your proposal and your solicitation is non compliant.

As an example, for their JSF bid McDonnell Douglas offered a solution that met or exceeded all the key performance parameters by a significant margin. So surely, they gotta be in like Flynn. So it would seem, but no. There was one problem. When their gas coupled lift fan failed, they substituted a lift engine on their STOVL version. Their bid was thrown out because it did not meet the "single engine" requirement.

Once again, one needs to be careful about definition of terms. Words have meaning and in a technical arena like aviation and specifically aviation procurement, they have very specific meanings.

[KenV]

Originally Posted by KenV https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/550230-more-kc-46a-woes-post10375589.html#post10375589)Another interesting point is why would an airline operating an A330-300 airliner fill the tanks completely full of gas and then haul 10 tons of cargo while leaving the passenger compartment empty? Honestly, what airline has such an operating requirement? In other words, having a capability and having a useful capability are clearly two different things. And USAF's tanking requirements were based on actual useful needs. Both the KC-46 and A330MRTT meet or exceed those requirements. 'nuff said.





Indeed - he also casually forgets that he is posting in an air-to-air refuelling thread, throws up a wacky 'what airline' bait-and-switch question before slipping back to air force requirements where such configurations are rather useful.




As you say, the main counterpoint to his arguments are usually his own. Meanwhile the A330T / MRTT / V'Ger tanker operators can take an aircraft that was flying full pax fit the day before, with no role change, fill it to full, add a few maintainers and assorted FJ spares before departing on a trail as rather useful capability. Once the chicks are left at their destination the aircraft is ready for tasking for pax, freight or a mix of both with no additional logistics or role equipment changes.You completely missed the point didn't you? I started out by pointing out that Beagle (a forum member that I perceive has some clout here) contradicted his claim. Then I moved on to another point, that point being that no military operates an A330-300 based tanker. None. All the tankers are based on the -200 airframe. Only airlines operate the stretched -300 airframe. What utility does an airline have (I very specifically used the terms airline and airliner multiple times) in the capability that was described. In other words, I was (politely) questioning the accuracy/veracity of the author of the described capability, because there is not a single airline that can really make use of such a capability. Another author made the claim that the Max Take Off Weight (MTOW) of the A330 has "steadily gone up" over the years and that the -300 has a greater MTOW than the -200. There's not a single source that supports that claim and many that contradict it. Another author made the claim that the -300 unlike the -200 has no centerwing tank. There's not a single source that supports that claim and many that contradict it. I'm doing my best to be polite here, so lets just say there are some veracity issues with some of the claims posted here and I'm trying to point them out in a non confrontational manner. Unlike some folks here who have made multiple personal jabs at a specific individual.

And for the record, having the ability to load 10 tons of stuff in a tanker when it is full of fuel is a nice feature. Another nice feature is having a tanker that has sufficient fuel capacity to be filled with fuel to its max take off gross weight. In other words, when the mission is just passing or even just moving gas by air, can you fully fill the airplane with just gas? The KC-46 can. According to this guy, the A330MRTT cannot. The customer gets to decide which feature they prefer. Not the manufacturer, nor armchair tanker operators on an internet aviation forum. And for the record, USAF tankers have the capability to be filled with fuel to their Max Take Off Gross Weight (MTOGW). It's a standard feature on USAF tankers, even the KC-10 which has a significantly higher MTOGW than A330. Just as a main deck cargo door is a standard feature on USAF tankers. That's what USAF wants and what they need. 'nuff said.

And oh yeah, about that centerwing tank in the -200 vs -300. In defense of the folks who made that claim, I think they confused them with the A340. A340, which shares the same wing with A330, has a centerwing tank while no A330 has one.

[Asturias56]

No point in rehashing all this stuff - lets just concentrate on how and when the USAF get a compliant aircraft that they're happy with

[KenV]

No point in rehashing all this stuff - lets just concentrate on how and when the USAF get a compliant aircraft that they're happy withVery well. But words have meaning. What do you mean by "compliant" and "happy". Indeed, what do you mean by "USAF"? The USAF operators and maintainers who have already received the aircarft are not just happy but ecstatic with the KC-46s they've gotten. The USAF generals who lead these men and women are reportedly very happy with the tanker. The USAF procurement officials who signed the DD250 and formally accepted the aircraft are very happy with it. Which USAF officials do you believe are not "happy" with the delivered tankers? And in what ways do you believe the already delivered KC-46's are not "compliant." You do realize that there is a considerable difference between a "non-compliance" and a "deficiency."

[LowObservable]

You can offer a fully equipped starship Enterprise that meets all key performance parameters, but submit the proposal one hour late, or miss just one CDRL item or one SOW item in your proposal and your solicitation is non compliant.

And if my Auntie had a **** she'd be my Uncle. None of these things were material in this case (I am sure you would already have listed them in excruciating detail if they were), and indeed such matters are seldom an issue in professionally run responses.

As an example, for their JSF bid McDonnell Douglas offered a solution that met or exceeded all the key performance parameters by a significant margin. So surely, they gotta be in like Flynn. So it would seem, but no. There was one problem. When their gas coupled lift fan failed, they substituted a lift engine on their STOVL version. Their bid was thrown out because it did not meet the "single engine" requirement.

If this is true, MDC and the customers were both incompetent. But I don't recall that it was: underestimating the customer's resistance to LPLC was only one of many flaws in the MDC-led proposal.

[KenV]

And if my Auntie had a **** she'd be my Uncle. None of these things were material in this case (I am sure you would already have listed them in excruciating detail if they were), and indeed such matters are seldom an issue in professionally run responses.You clearly missed the point. My point was that my two statements, which were combined sans context, were characterized as being contradictory. They were not. They addressed two very different things, which my clearly flippant "Enterprise" remark attempted to emphasize. You apparently missed the joke.

And for the record, as I previously stated, I believe the final Airbus proposal was non compliant in the sense that it proposed an airliner configuration tanker with an option to add a main deck cargo door and floor. The airliner configuration met all the key performance parameters, and so it made sense to offer it, but it did not deliver a freighter configuration.

As an example, for their JSF bid McDonnell Douglas offered a solution that met or exceeded all the key performance parameters by a significant margin. So surely, they gotta be in like Flynn. So it would seem, but no. There was one problem. When their gas coupled lift fan failed, they substituted a lift engine on their STOVL version. Their bid was thrown out because it did not meet the "single engine" requirement.

If this is true, MDC and the customers were both incompetent. But I don't recall that it was: underestimating the customer's resistance to LPLC was only one of many flaws in the MDC-led proposal.So you and I have a difference of opinion concerning events of nearly a quarter century ago. Harry Stonecipher, head of MDC at the time of MDC's loss of the "must-win" JSF contest, provided his opinion at the time they occurred. According to Flight Global: Stonecipher admits that the MDC-led team's near tail-less aircraft design and complex engine installations were a calculated gamble. The concept included a lift-plus-lift/cruise STOVL configuration. As designed, a forward gas-turbine engine, mounted behind the cockpit, offers vertical lift, while the main power plant provides rear lift and conventional forward thrust. He feels MDC lost because the propulsion concept was considered "higher risk".

[Just This Once...]

KenV, you need to stop digging. Nobody 'stretched' the A330 to produce the A330-300 as it was that shape at launch. From memory the MTOW at launch was 210 tonnes and increased to 212 tonnes during the first production run, with one engine variant with a lowly 184 tonnes MTOW. The MTOW continued to grow and these days is 242 tonnes on the -300 and -200, with the latest versions at 251 tonnes. The fuel capacity differs by customer and market, with the MRTT variant making use of all the tank options. The lowest fuel capacity is on the A330-300 'Regional' jet and the highest capacities are available on both the -300, -200 and the most recent variants.

As an aside, it is pretty rare for MTOW of a design not to increase during service and development. I've no idea why you throw information around on a topic that you have little practical knowledge of.

If anyone feels the need to correct my memory of the weight history please do so as my grey matter is always strained.

Tank fits and volumes:


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1632x1432/screenshot_2019_01_31_at_16_57_04_4204e10a9c5b8e1de4b8746a7b f4fbe00e6c1ef8.png

[LowObservable]

Stonecipher admits that the MDC-led team's near tail-less aircraft design and complex engine installations were a calculated gamble. The concept included a lift-plus-lift/cruise STOVL configuration. As designed, a forward gas-turbine engine, mounted behind the cockpit, offers vertical lift, while the main power plant provides rear lift and conventional forward thrust. He feels MDC lost because the propulsion concept was considered "higher risk".

He was more or less right, although the source selection authority was probably wrong about LPLC and there were other undesirable aspects to the MDC proposal. But that doesn't mean that there was a requirement that JSF be single-engine. "Words have meanings", as someone said a few posts ago, and in the context of acquisition, a "requirement" has a specific meaning.

[KenV]

KenV, you need to stop digging. Nobody 'stretched' the A330 to produce the A330-300 as it was that shape at launch. From memory the MTOW at launch was 210 tonnes and increased to 212 tonnes during the first production run, with one engine variant with a lowly 184 tonnes MTOW. The MTOW continued to grow and these days is 242 tonnes on the -300 and -200, with the latest versions at 251 tonnes. The fuel capacity differs by customer and market, with the MRTT variant making use of all the tank options. The lowest fuel capacity is on the A330-300 'Regional' jet and the highest capacities are available on both the -300, -200 and the most recent variants.

As an aside, it is pretty rare for MTOW of a design not to increase during service and development. I've no idea why you throw information around on a topic that you have little practical knowledge of.

If anyone feels the need to correct my memory of the weight history please do so as my grey matter is always strained.

Tank fits and volumes:


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1632x1432/screenshot_2019_01_31_at_16_57_04_4204e10a9c5b8e1de4b8746a7b f4fbe00e6c1ef8.pngDueling spec sheets! The spec sheet below shows that A330-300 is longer by about 5 meters relative to -200. It also shows that -200 and -300 have identical fuel capacities. And yes, you are correct, -300 is not a stretch of -200. Airbus went the other way. -200 is a shrink of -300. Mea culpa. But the bottom line is that -300 is longer by about 5 meters than -200. And MRTT is based on -200 and has same fuel capacity as -200, which matches the fuel capacity of the "3-Tank Aeroplane" above, which has a "centre tank." So clearly the inclusion or deletion of the center wing tank is not a distinguishing feature of either the -300 or -200.

[Just This Once...]

So now you are repeating what I wrote back at me? You do realise that means you are battling against yourself, again?

... made the claim that the Max Take Off Weight (MTOW) of the A330 has "steadily gone up" over the years .... There's not a single source that supports that claim...

Another nice feature is having a tanker that has sufficient fuel capacity to be filled with fuel to its max take off gross weight. In other words, when the mission is just passing or even just moving gas by air, can you fully fill the airplane with just gas? The KC-46 can. According to this guy, the A330MRTT cannot.

And for the record, USAF tankers have the capability to be filled with fuel to their Max Take Off Gross Weight (MTOGW). It's a standard feature on USAF tankers, even the KC-10 which has a significantly higher MTOGW than A330.

A340, which shares the same wing with A330, has a centerwing tank while no A330 has one.

You really struggle with facts; I get that. You don't like source material; I get that too. You like to challenge people by asserting something you have no idea about; I also get that.

But why do it in public?

I don't get that.

[KenV]

So now you are repeating what I wrote back at me? You do realise that means you are battling against yourself, again?
You really struggle with facts; I get that. You don't like source material; I get that too. You like to challenge people by asserting something you have no idea about; I also get that.
But why do it in public?
I don't get that.Wow. Some of you not only take this stuff seriously, but really quite personally. Very well. A few comments:
1. Struggle with facts? Don't like source material? I have no idea if the data you presented was "source material" but as soon as you presented it I a) acknowldeged it, and b) accepted it at face value. I don't understand how that constitutes a "struggle" or "not liking it." Maybe this is a Brit thing, and I'm not a Brit so just "don't get it."

2. Challenge people? Sorry, no. I did challenge the oft repeated implications that:
a) the final USAF tanker RFP was the same as the first
b) the final RFP was for an off the shelf tanker with little or no development
c) the offerors/manufacturers had the power to tell USAF that their stated requirements "weren't needed"
d) that the US taxpayers are burdened with an over budget tanker program
e) that Boeing in some unexplained fashion "stole" the tanker program from Airbus
f) that either tanker is "superior" to the other. In fact they are quite different and satisfy a different set of requirements that the customer must decide best suits their needs. USAF's needs just happen to be better served by KC-46.
g) KC-46 is not any more survivable in hostile airspace than any other airliner based tanker, including the legacy tankers

If challenging these oft repeated false notions is "challenging people", then guilty as charged. But in America we view that quite differently.

3. Concerning this statement of mine which you bolded and therefore presume you have a problem with:
can you fully fill the airplane [A330MRTT] with just gas? The KC-46 can. According to this guy, the A330MRTT cannot.
Your "source material" does not answer this question. So, is Beagle right and the MRTT will reach its MTOW with full fuel and no cargo, or is Just This Once right and the MRTT with full fuel can still accept 10t of cargo? I personally believe it's the latter and said so right in this thread years ago. What say your "source material?"

4. "Why do it in public?" First off I don't "Do it in public" And secondly, I post here mostly for its entertainment value. I do take people's postings seriously, but I don't take them personally. That would ruin the point of it all.

[KenV]

Rather a vague and incomplete requirement - does the platform have to fly 1500nm, offload 50K and then fly 1500nm back? Over what period of time does the platform need to be on station?

1500nm at 500KTAS is 3 hr. Say the burn rate is 5.4 T / hr and alternate requirements are a further hour's burn to tanks dry, then the tanker would need 37.8 T plus whatever time on task was required. With an offload of 50K (22.7 T), that means a tanker on station for an hour would need to have a capacity of around 66 T. Using legacy ex-airline airframes might be a possibility, but the difficult bit would be fitting the boom and associated operator's station.Since Lockheed and Airbus are proposing to offer A330MRTT to meet this requirement, presumably an A330 sized airframe or larger meets this requirement. The Omegas of this world can offer a converted used A330, probably A340 (which are very cheap cause no one really wants them anymore, and have greater fuel capacity and MTOW than A330) used 777, or used 747. Maybe US Aerospace (the company that offered new Antonov tankers to compete against Boeing and Airbus for KC-X) would also pursue this. It's potentially a pretty big field that Airbus would have to compete against. And have to compete strictly on price.

And FYI, someone claimed that a one hour late proposal arrival was "not material in this case. [KC-X}" In fact US Aerospace's proposal for the KC-X arrived 5 [u]minutes late because the courier delivering it got held up at the entry gate to Wright Pat. Their proposal was rejected and not considered. So yeah, actually quite material.

[KenV]

Stonecipher admits that the MDC-led team's near tail-less aircraft design and complex engine installations were a calculated gamble. The concept included a lift-plus-lift/cruise STOVL configuration. As designed, a forward gas-turbine engine, mounted behind the cockpit, offers vertical lift, while the main power plant provides rear lift and conventional forward thrust. He feels MDC lost because the propulsion concept was considered "higher risk".

He was more or less right, although the source selection authority was probably wrong about LPLC and there were other undesirable aspects to the MDC proposal. But that doesn't mean that there was a requirement that JSF be single-engine. "Words have meanings", as someone said a few posts ago, and in the context of acquisition, a "requirement" has a specific meaning.Interesting. So you're saying that Stonecipher was "probably right" and "incompetent." And FWIW, JSF was an outgrowth of SSF, CALF, MRF, and finally JAST/ASTOVL. CALF, MRF, and JAST were all for single-seat/single engine "low-cost/lightweight fighter" aircraft in the F-16 class. JSF inherited that requirement. And yes, it was a requirement. Stonecipher's "high risk" assessment was correct in that MDC took a huge risk in proposing an LPLC configuration under the assumption that the reviewers would not view the pure lift engine as a true second engine. Their projections showed it would be lighter and probably cheaper than both a gas coupled and shaft coupled lift fan, thus meeting the "low cost / lightweight fighter" goal.. He assumed they would view it the same as they viewed an augmented gas coupled lift fan which was MDC's original configuration. He was dead wrong.

[ORAC]

https://www.janes.com/article/86037/us-air-force-eyes-kc-46a-aerial-refuelling-boom-redesign

The US Air Force (USAF) will redesign the problematic boom on the Boeing KC-46A Pegasus aerial refuelling tanker to better accommodate lighter aircraft such as the Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II.

USAF Secretary Heather Wilson said on 24 January that the boom does not disconnect as well from lighter aircraft as it does with heavier aircraft. The service has identified an actuator fix that will make the boom a little more sensitive, and she believes it is likely that the A-10 is the only aircraft affected by this issue.

The A-10 is a lighter aircraft compared with some of the USAF's other aircraft such as transports, bombers, and even other tactical combat aircraft. The Lockheed Martin C-130H Hercules weighs 34,686 kg empty and the A-10 weighs 9,183 kg empty, while the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) weighs 13,290 kg empty.

At Boeing's KC-46A first delivery ceremony, Wilson said that the USAF is paying for the boom redesign as it meets the international standard that the service gave to Boeing. In the deal reached in mid-January over the first delivery, the USAF agreed to pay for the boom fix while Boeing would pay for upgrading the remote vision system (RVS). Boeing is planning both hardware and software fixes to the RVS to allow it to automatically adjust and operate effectively in both the sun's glare and in shadow.

Wilson also said that this boom redesign will be the first programme change in the history of the KC-46A.

[Asturias56]

"his boom redesign will be the first programme change in the history of the KC-46A"

is that true?

[Trumpet trousers]

At Boeing's KC-46A first delivery ceremony, Wilson said that the USAF is paying for the boom redesign as it meets the international standard that the service gave to Boeing.

So what standard are the current in-service booms on KC135/KC10 designed to? Presumably they don’t have a problem refueling A10 aircraft?

[KenV]

So what standard are the current in-service booms on KC135/KC10 designed to? Presumably they don’t have a problem refueling A10 aircraft?
The boom is designed to the spec in the contract. Sadly that spec was good for every plane except the A-10. USAF screwed up and provided the wrong spec for A-10. That's why this is the "first program change" on the program. Boeing paid for all the previous screw ups and delays. USAF pays for this one.

[Asturias56]

Thanks Ken - that makes sense now

presumably the USAF lawyers insist that any previous "changes" are in fact a legal duty of Mr B due due to non performance of the original contract

In this case it was the USAF who screwed up so they had to ask for the "change"

[KenV]

Someone asked "When is Boeing going to deliver a tanker that is compliant and that USAF is happy with?" Boeing just delivered two more KC-46, for a total of four. Several more are already built and awaiting government approval to be delivered. USAF can't accept them as fast as Boeing is able to deliver them. As for "compliant" and "happy", yes the delivered aircraft have "deficiencies" but they are compliant. There is a significant difference. The operators/maintainers of the KC-46 are ecstatic. The generals who lead them are very happy. The USAF procurement officials who signed the DD250 and accepted the aircraft are also very happy. So in answer to "when?" It's already happened.

[BEagle]

The Omegas of this world can offer a converted used A330, probably A340 (which are very cheap cause no one really wants them anymore, and have greater fuel capacity and MTOW than A330) used 777, or used 747.

There are 2 blindingly obvious reasons why the A340 wouldn't be of much use as a tanker for several aircraft operated by the US.....

Incidentally, only the later stretched -500 and -600 variants have greater fuel capacities than the A340-200/300.

I note that the Luftwaffe is to replace its pair of A340-300 with 3 x A350XWB. Perhaps thought should be given to doing an in-house EFW A310MRTT-style AAR conversion to 2 of them, given that the Luftwaffe has ruled out the F-35 as a Tornado replacement and is considering the Typhoon and/or F/A-18E/F. No boom therefore needed for Luftwaffe requirements.

[Trumpet trousers]

The boom is designed to the spec in the contract. Sadly that spec was good for every plane except the A-10. USAF screwed up and provided the wrong spec for A-10. That's why this is the "first program change" on the program. Boeing paid for all the previous screw ups and delays. USAF pays for this one.
Are you a politician? Completely worthless response as it did not answer my question!

[melmothtw]

I note that the Luftwaffe is to replace its pair of A340-300 with 3 x A350XWB. Perhaps thought should be given to doing an in-house EFW A310MRTT-style AAR conversion to 2 of them, given that the Luftwaffe has ruled out the F-35 as a Tornado replacement and is considering the Typhoon and/or F/A-18E/F. No boom therefore needed for Luftwaffe requirements.

Wouldn't have really been an issue as Germany has joined the European/NATO multinational MMF programme, using boom-equipped A330 MRTTs.

From Jane's:Germany, Norway sign for five NATO-owned MRTT tanker-transportsDate Posted: 26-Sep-2017

Author: Gareth Jennings

Publication: Jane's Defence Weekly

Germany and Norway have placed a firm order for five Airbus Defense and Space (DS) A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft to be fielded under the auspices of the European/NATO Multinational Multi Role Tanker Transport Fleet (MMF).

The announcement by Airbus DS on 25 September came some three months after the two nations formally joined the MMF programme, alongside members Luxembourg and the Netherlands, which had already signed up for two aircraft to be handed over between 2020 and 2022. In addition to the seven MRTTs now contracted, there are options for a further four aircraft should other nations join the programme.

As noted by Airbus DS, the four nations now funding the MMF programme will have the exclusive to operate these NATO-owned aircraft in a pooling arrangement. The aircraft will be configured for in-flight refuelling, the transport of passengers and cargo, and medical evacuation flights.

The Organisation for Joint Armament Co-operation (OCCAR) is managing the acquisition phase of MMF on behalf of the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA), which will then be responsible for the complete life-cycle management of the fleet.Comment
As previously noted by director of OCCAR, Arturo Alfonso-Meiriño, there is the option for additional countries to join the programme beyond the four that have already signed up. While not named in the announcement, Belgium and Poland have previously declared their interest in a pooled tanker capability.

[KenV]

Are you a politician? Completely worthless response as it did not answer my question!Oh my. I specifically said the boom is designed to the contract spec. Do you really expect me to post all the minutia of the contract spec? But, in a nutshell, the contract spec references the international axial loading limits for aerial refueling. A-10 is a US-only aircraft and for whatever reason does not appear there. And it has a much lower axial loading capability than the other aircraft. The boom is designed to sense the axial loading and if a parameter is exceeded, do an auto disconnect. USAF screwed up and did not specify this lower axial loading limit for A-10 in the KC-46 contract. Right now, A-10 can indeed be refueled by KC-46 (it's done so numerous times) but without axial loading auto disconnect protection. Boeing will provide a remedy, but at USAF expense.

As for the "KC135/KC10" booms, they are very different in design and operation, including their various protection systems and consequently have different specs. KC-46 uses the KC-10 boom with a modernized version of its axial load limit protection system. The parameters for the KC-46 boom axial load protection system were defined by the contract, which as noted above, inadvertently did not include the lower A-10 load limit. Happy now?

[KenV]

There are 2 blindingly obvious reasons why the A340 wouldn't be of much use as a tanker for several aircraft operated by the US.....I must be blind because I don't see what those reasons are. Care to elucidate?

I note that the Luftwaffe is to replace its pair of A340-300 with 3 x A350XWB. Perhaps thought should be given to doing an in-house EFW A310MRTT-style AAR conversion to 2 of them, given that the Luftwaffe has ruled out the F-35 as a Tornado replacement and is considering the Typhoon and/or F/A-18E/F. No boom therefore needed for Luftwaffe requirements.That'll be a hefty effort. A350 like 787 is a near all composite airplane. There is near zero industry experience in doing significant structural mods on in-service composite aircraft. And there are zero used A350s on the market so the economies of converting an old airframe will not be available. Secondly, the idea of a non boom equipped tanker sounded like a no brainer to the RAF at the time Voyager was specified. I suspect that they're regretting that decision now. Further, if the Luftwaffe tankers want to be fully interoperable with NATO tankers and NATO partner aircraft, a boom would seem to be a requirement.

[Trumpet trousers]

KC-46 uses the KC-10 boom with a modernized version of its axial load limit protection system.

For all the superfluous guff that you posted, this 1 quote almost answers the question... “oh my” indeed...
So is it that difficult to align the performance of the KC46 boom with that of the KC10? Or is that beyond logical thinking and expectations?
What time code do you put on your Boeing timesheet for posting on here btw??

[BEagle]

You still don't see it, Ken V? Think USN / USMC requirements....:rolleyes:

And do stop your patronising "Oh My" and "mmmm..." nonsense - it's so utterly puerile.

[Bing]

Someone asked "When is Boeing going to deliver a tanker that is compliant and that USAF is happy with?" Boeing just delivered two more KC-46, for a total of four. Several more are already built and awaiting government approval to be delivered. USAF can't accept them as fast as Boeing is able to deliver them. As for "compliant" and "happy", yes the delivered aircraft have "deficiencies" but they are compliant. There is a significant difference. The operators/maintainers of the KC-46 are ecstatic. The generals who lead them are very happy. The USAF procurement officials who signed the DD250 and accepted the aircraft are also very happy. So in answer to "when?" It's already happened.

If someone delivered me something that expensive, that late, I think happy would be overstating my position. Relieved maybe.

[LowObservable]

So you're saying that Stonecipher was "probably right" and "incompetent."

Nope. I'm saying that while the JSF requirement was written around a single main engine (lift/cruise in the STOVL version) it was to the best of my knowledge agnostic as to how STOVL was to be incorporated - other than requiring that it had to be demonstrated on test rigs and in the air within the schedule, which limited the field somewhat. While it was known that some people on the customer side were strongly opposed to LPLC, there wasn't a requirement that eliminated it. Indeed, the MDC team selected LPLC under a government-funded concept definition and design research contract awarded in Dec 1994, so to argue that the customer specifically ruled out such a solution seems strange.

[KenV]

You still don't see it, Ken V? Think USN / USMC requirements....:rolleyes:
Hmmmm. Omega has been providing tanking services to the USN/USMC for over 18 years. And doing it with a KC-707. An A340 is essentially a wide body 707. So I'm still not seeing it. Care to elucidate?

And do stop your patronising "Oh My" and "mmmm..." nonsense - it's so utterly puerile.Hmmmm is my version of your "rolleyes" emoji. Equally purile. Mine's just more old school.

[KenV]

oh my” indeed...So is it that difficult to align the performance of the KC46 boom with that of the KC10? Or is that beyond logical thinking and expectations?
Difficult? Nope, technically speaking. But it requires a contract change. Ever work a DoD contract? Ever try to change a DoD contract. That is hard. How hard? I'll provide an example. C-17 was contractually designed with a forward and aft radome. Technically no big deal. Radomes require very special paint that is transparent to a wide range of RF. Again technically no big deal. Here's where things get dicey: Every electronic device and antenna in the C-17 tail cone is gone. There is no longer any need for special radome paint. The operators don't want it. The maintainers don't want it. MAJCOM does not want it. Boeing who service the tail radomes don't want it. No one wants it. But,to remove the special radome paint requirement requires a contract change. That is hard to do,. How hard? So hard that even though literally no one wants or needs the special radome paint, Boeing is contractually required to ship the radomes out to a specialist paint vendor and USAF is paying 8 times more than they would if Boeing just painted the radomes with the same paint as the rest of the airplane. Warner Robbins (the other C-17 depot) has the exact same problem. This has been going on for nearly a decade. So on the subject of "logical thinking", we are talking about lawyers, not engineers. And not just any kind of lawyer, but contract lawyers. Get the picture? If the lawyers who wrote the contract had been "logical" the contract would have referenced a technical document that provided the specs That way if an error was found in the spec the technical document could have been updated and everything resolved very quickly. But the lawyers did not do that.

What time code do you put on your Boeing timesheet for posting on here btw??Your implication is grievously offensive. Nevertheless, lets return to the subject of "logical thinking". Has it occurred to you that perhaps I work other than a normal daytime shift? Or a normal 5 day week? I'll leave it at that.

[PDR1]

I guess it's a competence thing. I've worked on UK MoD and US DoD contracts (and many others) for most of my adult life. Routine contract amendments happen most months on all of these due to oversights, enhancements or simply changes in the world around us. We handle these as normal business - it's a routine part of the day job for the commercial and PM staff. But I have to assume from what you say that Boeing doesn't employ competent staff in these roles. It would explain a lot.

PDR

[KenV]

If someone delivered me something that expensive, that late, I think happy would be overstating my position. Relieved maybe.And there it is again. Expensive? USAF paid not one extra dime for the KC-46 than was originally contracted for. And the contract price was by all accounts the result of a very low-ball bid. Price-wise USAF got a bargain and even Airbus acknowledges that.

[Bing]

And there it is again. Expensive? USAF paid not one extra dime for the KC-46 than was originally contracted for. And the contract price was by all accounts the result of a very low-ball bid. Price-wise USAF got a bargain and even Airbus acknowledges that.

I didn't say they'd been charged more than the original price, just that it was expensive. It's not cheap even if it is a bargain. Or are you saying the USAF should accept multi-year delays because Boeing are saving them some money?

[BEagle]

Regarding the A340-200/300, just study the wing planform, dihedral angle and 2 outboard engine locations....

Airbus used the basic A340 wing for the A330MRTT, but used the outboard engine locations and plumbing to supply the AAR pods. You can't do that on the A340; even if it was aerodynamically and structurally possible to fit pods outboard of the engines (which I doubt - it isn't a 707), considerable design work would be needed to supply the pods with adequate fuel flow rates. The process of clearing receivers against a 'new' tanker design is also a very time consuming and expensive activity, except for UOR 'heart of the envelope' clearance during TTW.

Of course Boeing knows all about the problems of buffet and flutter caused by poor pod / pylon design on the original KC-767, so if a major manufacturer experiences such difficulties and programme delay, it's unlikely that anyone else trying to fit pods on an A340-200/300 would find it straightforward - or cost effective. For example, the UK wasted £M through a sub-contractor trying and failing to fit AAR pods on the TriStar; it might eventually have worked, but by then there were more VC10s available anyway, so the programme was dropped.

Whereas pre-owned A330-200/300 would merely need the existing A330MRTT wing and pod modifications - even a boom if really necessary. Quite how much life is left in pre-owned A330 aircraft is a different question though.

[Just This Once...]

Not sure about the remaining life on pre-owned A330s BEags but Filton did kick around the idea of harvesting wings from used A340s for future use. Hanging engines on the outboards did a wonderful job of preserving fatigue life.

[PDR1]

[Deleted - on reflection the comment was unjustified]

PDR

[Asturias56]

I didn't say they'd been charged more than the original price, just that it was expensive. It's not cheap even if it is a bargain. Or are you saying the USAF should accept multi-year delays because Boeing are saving them some money?

Ken is right - the USAF aren't paying a $ so far more than they planned to - OK now they have to pay for the Warthog fix but that's washers

Expensive? That's a value judgement which has been done to death here

What is a problem is that the USAF are getting severely delayed delivery - that they didn't bargain on - on the other hand it hasn't caused the sky to fall in and if you were a super optimist you could say Mr B has actually extended the time the USAF will have to look for a replacement. Future generations may thank them...................... :ok:

[RAFEngO74to09]

Every few years yet another USAF General, when discussing future tanker plans or KC-135 upgrades, says: ".. the last pilot to fly the KC-135 hasn't been born yet …" !

Google it - multiple times from 2008 to just recently !

[melmothtw]

Every few years yet another USAF General, when discussing future tanker plans or KC-135 upgrades, says: ".. the last pilot to fly the KC-135 hasn't been born yet …" !

A variation of the 'last Black Hawk to be flown to the boneyard will be underslung a Huey' quote.

[tdracer]

That's a good point, Walter. Floor sweepers often do work odd shifts.

PDR

PDR, you do know that resorting to personal insults is generally considered evidence that you're loosing the debate? :=

Boeing has been something of leader in the area of alternate work schedules - particularly for the white collar workers. They started this during the 777 development when they discovered the heavy use of CATIA was overwhelming their mainframe computing capabilities - so they started having the designers work alternate schedules to spread out the computer demand. This ultimately proved popular with the workers - plus it got Boeing bonus points from the traffic planners for spreading out peak commuting traffic (and the Seattle area has some of the worst traffic in the US).
Personally, I spent most my last 20 years at Boeing working an alternate work schedule.

[PDR1]

[Deleted - on reflection the comment was unjustified]

PDR

[Asturias56]

Out of order I think.............. Looking back Ken has fought the good fight from Day 1 and posted a lot of technical info. Absolutely no need to go to personal attacks on ANY of these forums (or forii?)

[FlightlessParrot]

Out of order I think.............. Looking back Ken has fought the good fight from Day 1 and posted a lot of technical info. Absolutely no need to go to personal attacks on ANY of these forums (or forii?)
fora, if it matters: though I'd prefer forums.

[weemonkey]

Out of order I think.............. Looking back Ken has fought the good fight from Day 1 and posted a lot of technical info. Absolutely no need to go to personal attacks on ANY of these forums (or forii?)


Bollox, he has history. xxx "Oh My" indeed.

[LowObservable]

Indeed he has, Including such things as a long thread derailment concerning the F-35's helmet-mounted display, and how come he knew that a far superior Block 4 (or whatever) was right around the corner.

[Trumpet trousers]

It would appear that the Boeing timesheet scrutineers read this thread too...

[KenV]

Regarding the A340-200/300, just study the wing planform, dihedral angle and 2 outboard engine locations....
Airbus used the basic A340 wing for the A330MRTT, but used the outboard engine locations and plumbing to supply the AAR pods. You can't do that on the A340; even if it was aerodynamically and structurally possible to fit pods outboard of the engines (which I doubt - it isn't a 707), considerable design work would be needed to supply the pods with adequate fuel flow rates.This is a proposed fee for services contract. There is nothing in the contract that defines the tanker configuration, and no requirement for Wing Aerial Refueling Pods (WARP). The following 6 points jump immediately to mind regarding the need for WARP to service probe equipped USN/USMC aircraft:
1. Omega has been supporting USN/USMC for 18 years using a centerline drogue equipped KC-707.
2. USAF has been supporting USN/USMC for multiple decades with KC-10s using just the centerline drogue system. While KC-10 can be equipped with WARP, only a few have been so equipped.
3. USAF has been supporting USN/USMC for multiple decades with KC-135 using a hose/drogue adapter on the KC-135's boom.
4. Dutch KDC-10 have been supporting NATO probe-equipped aircraft for decades using just the centerline drogue system.
5. USN's MQ-25 refueling drone has no WARP.
6. RAF's TriStar tankers have no WARP.

Secondarily, you are selling your European engineers short. If turning an A340 into an aerial tanker with WARP turns out to make financial sense, I'm reasonably confident the engineers at Airbus and BAE could figure out the engineering to make it happen. May I remind you that your engineers managed to put WARP on your Victor bombers. And those bombers' wings had no built in provision to deliver fuel near the wingtips where the WARP were located. And by the way, the Victors had anhedral and a downright odd wing planform, so your dihedral and planform comments appear to be red herrings.

The process of clearing receivers against a 'new' tanker design is also a very time consuming and expensive activity, except for UOR 'heart of the envelope' clearance during TTW.It is indeed, but that is equally true for any aircraft, not just A340. Nevertheless, the fact that there are multiple commercial operators providing Fee for Service aerial refueling to probe equipped aircraft using multiple different platforms indicates this is not only feasible, but financially viable.

Now, about those "blindingly obvious" reasons you referred to? Not so much.

[KenV]

I didn't say they'd been charged more than the original price, just that it was expensive. It's not cheap even if it is a bargain.Aviation is expensive. Every bit of it. It's the nature of the beast. And the folks receiving/operating the aircraft don't pay for them. They are ecstatic with the airplanes they've gotten.

[BEagle]

Apart from the few USAF tankers fitted with wing pods, all the other options you describe facilitate on single receiver AAR. Refuelling a 4-ship with such a limited system, particular the nightmarish BDA, takes way too long - blindingly obvious to me. Ever tried prodding the BDA? I did so once using a Q-fit (8 missiles and 3 tanks) F-4 against a KC-135 without the benefit of any previous dual training and it was very difficult - as the Italian Air Force Tornado force discovered on Night One of GW1. During which the USN far preferred prodding against the VC-10K with multiple hoses than queuing up behind a USAF tanker - no doubt the letters of thanks are still with the squadron.

Much easier to let fuel flown downhill in an anhedral wing than it would be to pump it up the pronounced dihedral of an A340, given the pressure drop at such a distance from the centre tank - which would probably dictate a need for larger pumps and wider-bore pipes that are required for the A330MRTT . Following the demise of the Valiant, the multi-hose Victor had quite a long gestation period before it was a total a success - and that was with the urgent service need plus the design work of a major aerospace manufacturer rather than some independent contractor touting for profit

The TriStar pod programme foundered on cost and complexity- and in the end was deemed unnecessary due to the preference for modification of the VC10 C Mk 1. Because 'hoses in the sky' are perceived to be of greater importance than the total fuel volume available.

Have you actually studied the wing planform of an A340-233/300 outboard of the outer engines? Quite a narrow chord and winglet, with little structure available upon which to hang a pod pylon between the slats and ailerons or to provide sufficient pod clearance from the slats and ailerons.

[KenV]

Bollox, he has history. xxx.Indeed. Who was the first to point out on the F-35 mega thread that the F-35 was not designed as an air superiority fighter, but as a tactical bomber with fighter-like agility? And got creamed by dozens of folks for saying so. Is there anyone today who doubts that the primary mission of the F-35 is tactical bombing? And who was it who dared contradict Beagle who claimed that with full fuel, the A330MRTT can carry no cargo? I got creamed by the armchair pundits for that one also. But Just this Once recently posted "source data" supporting my position. So yes, I have "history" of going against the flow in a cause celebre where a bunch of armchair pundits are on a roll, like the F-35 and the KC-46. And that just cannot stand. Hence the very personal attacks. For which, despite your best efforts to justify, there is no justification. And that best effort? Weak. Downright feeble. "I have a history." I'm just a "floor sweeper" and not an engineer. Really? That's even weaker than the feeble attempts made on this forum to discredit my service as a USN pilot. Which were proven utterly false.

Indeed he has, Including such things as a long thread derailment concerning the F-35's helmet-mounted display, and how come he knew that a far superior Block 4 (or whatever) was right around the corner.Oh please. That helmet mounted display subthread/derailment was going strong before I even waded into the fray and it died not long after I entered it because the whole helmet mounted display rubbish was just that. Rubbish and a total distraction. And BTW, if you'd read what I actually wrote you'd know how I knew about the F-35's helmet mounted display system. So you wouldn't have to ask now "how come I knew..."

Let's face it guys, your problem is not with the substance. You're problem is with who is delivering it. And that's just pathetic.

[BEagle]

Returning to the scheduled broadcast, the cost of fitting booms, operator stations and remote vision systems to airline-type aircraft (except for those which already have a modification available, such as the A330 and KC-767 / KC-46) is very considerable. People have occasionally asked Omega whether they looked at it, but the €millions needed was the reason why not! Had they deemed the cost/benefit positive, they would probably have invested. But they're run by a very shrewd CEO and he would have needed to see a very sound business plan before doing so.

KenV, I can't recall what you flew in the USN - or when? But if it meant you did some KC-135 BDA jousting, I'm sure you'll know what a PITA that was. As I mentioned earlier, the Italian Tornado force launched 8 jets on Night One; one turned back quite early as it had a problem, of the remaining 7 only 1 was able to prod the KC-135 in the dark turbulent conditions. That brave crew pressed on as a single ship, but were subsequently shot down and taken captive.

On the topic of MRTTs, if a true multi-role tanker still has an availability to carry any cargo with full tanks, the obvious question would be why didn't the designer fit bigger tanks? So that with normal crewing and no cargo, the ZFW would be such that full tanks would take it to MTOW. The trade-off between cargo mass offered and fuel required for the AAR mission has always been an interesting exercise, particularly on trails when the AT planners and AAR planners might not always have seen eye-to-eye...

[KenV]

Apart from the few USAF tankers fitted with wing pods, all the other options you describe facilitate on single receiver AAR. Refuelling a 4-ship with such a limited system, particular the nightmarish BDA, takes way too long - blindingly obvious to me. Ever tried prodding the BDA? I did so once using a Q-fit (8 missiles and 3 tanks) F-4 against a KC-135 without the benefit of any previous dual training and it was very difficult - as the Italian Air Force Tornado force discovered on Night One of GW1. During which the USN far preferred prodding against the VC-10K with multiple hoses than queuing up behind a USAF tanker - no doubt the letters of thanks are still with the squadron..One more time, this is a commercial fee for services contract. Those commercial service providers are not going to be operating in a war zone. That's where the KC-46 will operate.

Much easier to let fuel flown downhill in an anhedral wing than it would be to pump it up the pronounced dihedral of an A340, given the pressure drop at such a distance from the centre tank - which would probably dictate a need for larger pumps and wider-bore pipes that are required for the A330MRTT . Following the demise of the Valiant, the multi-hose Victor had quite a long gestation period before it was a total a success - and that was with the urgent service need plus the design work of a major aerospace manufacturer rather than some independent contractor touting for profit.Much easier? Perhaps. But probably not. A330 and A340 have the same wing with the same static dihedral. But the A330 has significantly greater inflight dihedral than A340. Those outboard engines on A340 provide lots of wing bending moment relief. KC-10 has a significant dihedral. Lotsa "uphill" flow there. And besides, the plumbing and pumping is sized to provide good flow even when the tanker is flying in a bank where the "uphill" may be much more pronounced than the "uphill" provided by dihedral. Further, the plumbing is already designed and sized to provide high flow to facilitate fuel dumping. That high flow can be accomplished with a very simple jet pump with quite low head and output pressure. The pod then only has to bump up the pressure sufficient for what the hose system needs.

The TriStar pod programme foundered on cost and complexity- and in the end was deemed unnecessary due to the preference for modification of the VC10 C Mk 1. Because 'hoses in the sky' are perceived to be of greater importance than the total fuel volume available.Once again, this is a commercial fee for services contract. Thus far those services have not emphasized the number of "hoses in the sky." And there is zero indication that a future commercial services contract will emphasize "hoses in the sky."

Have you actually studied the wing planform of an A340-233/300 outboard of the outer engines? Quite a narrow chord and winglet, with little structure available upon which to hang a pod pylon between the slats and ailerons or to provide sufficient pod clearance from the slats and ailerons.No, I have not "studied" the A340 wing planform. As far as the amount of room that is available for a WARP, Victor's wingtip area was quite small and WARP was mounted on a pylon that placed the pod well below the wing and below the aileron. Same thing with the WARP on KC-135. There's not much structure nor much room and lots of "uphill" toward the tip of a KC-135 wing, but the Boeing folks managed it, as seen in the photo below. I'm confident the Airbus/BAE folks are no less competent than the Boeing folk. Apparently you disagree.

And besides, the point is moot. There's nothing in the fee for services contract that requires WARP in the first place.

http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/01/00/78/1007873_992013ad.jpg

[BEagle]

Nice photo! But I was thinking more about a generic aircraft design than the specific requirements of the services contract. Whoever bids for the contract will presumably have future options in mind?

Pressure drop and the need for higher volumetric flow rates to provide the required pod pressure for the TriStar pod programme led to the need for larger pipe bores than initially specified - getting the fuel all that way to the pod pylon wasn't very easy. Whereas the A330MRTT has the huge benefit of taking advantage of the redundant outboard engine locations of the A340 and the existing fuel feed pipework.

The Victor K2 pods were low to the ground and the wing area where they were located was fairly generous - they weren't mounted at the wing tips either. So low were they that a plan to base the Victor at Scampton was ruled out due to the undulating nature of Scampton's taxiways and the need for much more cleared space adjacent to the taxiways than was required by the Vulcan.

[KenV]

KenV, I can't recall what you flew in the USN - or when? But if it meant you did some KC-135 BDA jousting, I'm sure you'll know what a PITA that was.Oh yeah! We called it the "Iron Maiden" for a reason: she was deadly! All the other baskets are some kind of fabric, while the 135's BDA basket is metal!! If you hit that basket just a tiny bit off center, instead of guiding the probe in, it would instead pop out and slap the aircraft. And even if you got the probe in just right, the hose did not reel in/retract but instead would form a curve. Curve too much and it'll form a loop that can wrap around the probe, around the aircraft nose, smack the canopy, or a number of other very bad things. Pulling out was also problematic, with the basket often pranging the probe. But that was on aircraft where the probe was fixed stuck out ahead of the fuselage. On aircraft with retractable probes where it sticks out of the side of the fuselage, it can prang the fuselage. Not a good day. I'm told the BDA on the French KC-135s is the same as the USAF ones, but my personal experience says otherwise. They seemed more forgiving.

I'm guessing that perhaps the Italian Tornado pilots you mentioned having all that trouble tanking from a BDA equipped KC-135, this was their first experience with the Iron Maiden? That has to be a heart stopper doing that the first time on an actual combat mission with live ordnance.

And about the airplane I flew? You mockingly called it a "mini-jet" or some such. A-4 Skyhawk and finally F/A-18.

On the topic of MRTTs, if a true multi-role tanker still has an availability to carry any cargo with full tanks, the obvious question would be why didn't the designer fit bigger tanks?You and a few other folks have already answered that one. Because it "does not need" it. It has "plenty of fuel off load" without belly tanks. Just as it has "plenty of cargo capacity" with just a belly cargo hold.
Beyond that, you'll have to ask Airbus and the operators of the A330MRTT. Or maybe ask Just This Once. He claims to have "source data" for A330MRTT and might have some "source data" that addresses the reasoning behind this design.

[KenV]

Nice photo! But I was thinking more about a generic aircraft design than the specific requirements of the services contract. Whoever bids for the contract will presumably have future options in mind?I was specifically addressing the fee for services contract that Lockheed and Airbus are teaming to provide. My point being that Lockheed/Airbus would have a heck of a time competing on price against today's commercial fee for services operators who all operate used aircraft converted into tankers. Not to mention the various folks who will potentially bid using Ukranian airframes already built as tankers from the factory.

Further, the KC-707 Omega uses has a centerline (i.e. internally fuselage mounted) hose and drogue system. That is a rather unique development not used by any military aircraft I'm aware of. They managed to afford that just fine. How difficult/expensive would it be to adapt that system to the A340? Or for that matter to adapt the existing centerline hose and drogue system on the A330 to the A340? The aft fuselage structure of the A330 and A340 are very similar, if not essentially identical. Depending on the nature of the services to be provided, an A340-500 (the one with the higher TOGW and the higher fuel capacity.) with a boom and centerline hose and drogue system and no WARP would be easy and cheap to develop and provide some eye-watering fuel offload numbers.

[BEagle]

Well, the A310MRTT could have had 5 x ACT, but when the numbers were crunched it was realised that an increase in allowable MTOW would have been needed if max fuel was carried - and the Net Flight Path limits at the tanker's MOB were significant even though the RW length was not. So 4 x ACT was the final choice. In the case of the A330 though, it already had a 111 tonne max fuel capability, so it was retained for the MRTT, although with the added structural mass it is rare that 111 tonne can actually be carried, I gather it's normally around 109.

KC-46 needed some centre tank extensions over the base -200ER, but the number crunchers came up with a compromise which met the spec. and still allowed some cargo capacity with full tanks - as was the case with the VC10C1K. Fair enough, but it could have carried more fuel had that been necessary.

With you on the Iron Maiden! Wretchedly horrible device - and if you missed the boomer would then move the thing, losing you the previous visual reference. After my first couple of jousts, I had to ask the young lady driving the boom to keep the darned thing still. Fortunately when in contact the onload rate was vastly superior to that from a Victor. Having completed my Teach Yourself BDA Prodding lesson, the Russians we were after decided to turn for home before we got much further North.

[KenV]

With you on the Iron Maiden! Wretchedly horrible device - and if you missed the boomer would then move the thing, losing you the previous visual reference. After my first couple of jousts, I had to ask the young lady driving the boom to keep the darned thing still. Fortunately when in contact the onload rate was vastly superior to that from a Victor. Having completed my Teach Yourself BDA Prodding lesson, the Russians we were after decided to turn for home before we got much further North.Ooooh yeah, the boom operator moving the boom and totally fouling up your approach! I was fortunate in that it only happened a few times, but what a mind bender that was for me. All of a sudden my visual cues changed in mid approach. The addition of WARP on KC-135 has got to be huge for USN and other probe equipped aircraft refueling from the KC-135. But like KC-10 not all were so equipped which is more the pity. But at least the KC-10 has a decent centerline basket.

[KenV]

Well, the A310MRTT could have had 5 x ACT, but when the numbers were crunched it was realised that an increase in allowable MTOW would have been needed if max fuel was carried - and the Net Flight Path limits at the tanker's MOB were significant even though the RW length was not. So 4 x ACT was the final choice. In the case of the A330 though, it already had a 111 tonne max fuel capability, so it was retained for the MRTT, although with the added structural mass it is rare that 111 tonne can actually be carried, I gather it's normally around 109.According to wiki, OEW of A330-200 is 265,900lb. 256,900 + 244,200 (111 tonne) = 501,100lb. MTOGW is listed as 533,519. That leaves 12,419 lb for payload/cargo with fuel fuel. OK, the A330MRTT OEW is higher because besides the full passenger suite, it's carrying the tanker stuff. But nearly 6 tons for the tanker stuff? And Voyager doesn't have a boom and boom camera system. So what got added to Voyager to bring its OEW up nearly 6 tonnes, or got changed that brought its MTOGW down nearly 6 tonnes? Or is this a runway limitation? Is the runway so short that it needs to be below MTOGW to meet critical field length requirements?

[vascodegama]

Beags

I take it you were comparing the BDA on load with the Victor wing pod. If memory serves, by choice we used to refuel Phantoms on the HDU with a rate of 4500 lbs a min

[BEagle]

KenV , the 'wiki' figure you quote for Maximum Take-Off Weight does not agree with the Airbus brochure figure for the A330MRTT, which is 233T (514 000 lb).

The same figure is quoted by Wikipedia, which further states that the OEW is 125T. Thus 125+111 exceeds MTOW by 3T, so my estimate of a day-to-day maximum fuel figure of 109T was fairly close, assuming rounding errors. Which means that with max fuel it cannot carry any cargo.

I have no idea why the 'normal' 242T MTOW for an A330-200 wasn't used for the MRTT.

Yes, vascodegama the comparison I was making between the KC-135 BDA and the Victor was indeed with the Mk20 wing pods. By choice I would prefer to prod the centreline, but we usually worked in pairs so were stuck with the pods.

[vascodegama]

Beags

The preference was to refuel one at a time on the HUD even allowing for swap over it was far quicker since the HDU had an off load rate 4 times that of the pod. The only time I remember using pods was on a trail when the AARC had planned for that option.

[Tengah Type]

BEagle

The problems at Scampton were not caused by the wing mounted AAR pods but by the ground clearance below the Underwing Fuel Tanks on the K2. The pods were head high, whereas the clearance below the tanks was only about 18 inches. So low that they were likely to hit any snow depth warning indicators next to taxiways. At Paine Field (Washinton State,USA) my Nav Rad and Crew Chief had to navigate us about 2 miles, on foot, over these as we taxied in to the parking area for an airshow. One other snag at Scampton was the "lumpy" nature of the runway construction which would have had severe consequences for the Victor fatigue life. This together with the need to remove concrete kerbs and refuelling pipes at all the dispersals was too expensive to rectify for the, then, proposed life of the Victor K2.

The choice of using the wing pods or centre line HDU was also a function of the flow rate of the various receiver types. The Mk 20 pod on the Victor, which had an integral 1000lbs fuel tank, had a flow rate of 1500lbs/min whereas the HDU was 4000lbs /min. With aircraft such as the Lightning and Jaguar, which took fuel at 1100 lbs/min, it was quicker to refuel a pair on the pods rather than sequentially on the HDU. The F4 took fuel at 4000lbs/min, so would empty the pod fuel tank fairly quickly, which would not pass any more fuel until it had filled to half fuel again. Hence it was quicker to refuel a pair of F4s one at a time, with continuous fuel flow, on the HDU.

The VC10 had the Mk 32 pod, which did not have an internal tank, and gave a fuel flow of 2800lbs/min, however the VC10 fuel system only allowed 2200lbs/min if both pods were in use together. The HDU was the same on both types. So, again it could be quicker to use the HDU for a pair of F4s than to use the wing pods.

All of the above figures are from memory of 30+ years ago, so anybody with the reference books can challenge me without me getting upset or descending to personal abuse.

[Just This Once...]

I have no idea why the 'normal' 242T MTOW for an A330-200 wasn't used for the MRTT.

Depends on MRTT version (ARBS).

[KenV]

KenV , the 'wiki' figure you quote for Maximum Take-Off Weight does not agree with the Airbus brochure figure for the A330MRTT, which is 233T (514 000 lb).

The same figure is quoted by Wikipedia, which further states that the OEW is 125T. Thus 125+111 exceeds MTOW by 3T, so my estimate of a day-to-day maximum fuel figure of 109T was fairly close, assuming rounding errors. Which means that with max fuel it cannot carry any cargo.

I have no idea why the 'normal' 242T MTOW for an A330-200 wasn't used for the MRTT.Now its starting to make sense. Yet not. It makes sense that with a reduced MTOGW the MRTT can reach MTOGW with just a full load of fuel. It makes no sense at all that Airbus reduced the MTOGW of the basic airframe by 9 tonnes to produce the MRTT. In effect, every MRTT has a max weight restriction relative to the baseline -200? How does that make sense? Because fuel is a dense payload, tankers are usually based on the highest gross weight version of an airframe. But for the MRTT Airbus went the other way and reduced the MTOGW? But OK. I concede the point. Which raises the following question for Just This Once: why does your "source data" not agree? You know, the "source data" used to justify grievous personal attacks.

FWIW, I was hesitant to use the Airbus MRTT brochure because it seems to be a marketing tool, not a technical document. For example, this leading phrase in Airbus' brochure states: "The A330 MRTT can carry up to 111 tonnes of fuel; this is the highest capacity of all tanker aircraft, even those which have additional fuel tanks in the cargo deck." This is total nonsense. Both the KC-10 and KC-747 (granted only two of the latter were built) carry much more fuel (161 / 165 tonnes respectively). Dutch Air Force and Commercial KDC-10 also carry more fuel (159 tonnes). And depending on the source, Il-78 also carries more fuel (138 tonnes).

[BEagle]

Just this Once... , how does increased OEW with the ARBS make any difference to MTOW? Surely it will simply reduce max fuel weight?

233T MTOW is straight out of 'Global Enabler', the glossy brochure handed out to attendees of the 2013 AMUG in Getafe - a critical audience if ever there was one.

For many years, Airbus used a figure of 0.78 for the fuel SG in its brochures. My suspicion was that this meant that sales brochures could state higher ZFW with max fuel, promising higher payloads. Whereas most military operators assume an SG of 0.80.

The A330MRTT has a max fuel capacity of 139000 litre, so the civil brochure probably stated that max fuel is 139x.78=108.4T, whereas the MRTT brochure uses 139x.8=111.2T. Then it was discovered that with typical ZFW, with 111.2T the aircraft would exceed 233T MTOW - but this doesn't appear to have given the operators any problems.

I found similar issues with early quotes for the A310MRTT where 0.78 had been used and queried why, since 0.80 is the normally accepted value. Trying to turn volumetric figures into typical weight values proved quite a problem...unless accurate SG was taken into account!

[Just This Once...]

ARBS reduces the maximum pitch angle available.

[PDR1]

I'm still waiting for Ken to explain why the required fuel pressure for a mid-span fuel hose increases when an aeroplane banks.

PDR

[Asturias56]

Beagle is correct SG is important - a change 0 0.05 in the SG figure makes a difference of 0.05 of a tonne

[KenV]

I'm still waiting for Ken to explain why the required fuel pressure for a mid-span fuel hose increases when an aeroplane banks.PDRTwo comments:
1. I never made such a claim. But nice try anyway.
2. If you're referencing the discussion of fuel having to move "uphill" due to dihedral and/or anhedral, the fuel system is not only designed to accommodate such features, but is designed to accommodate the worst possible unbalanced/uncoordinated bank condition (be it a slip or a skid) within the aircraft's performance envelope. Clu4U: aircraft are equipped with turn and slip/turn coordinator instruments for a reason. And if it has escaped you, the "uphill" condition created by a slip/skid far exceeds the "uphill" condition created by an/dihedral. And for the KC-10, the "uphill" condition of the tail engine far exceeds the "uphill" condition created by dihedral. Clear enough?

[KenV]

ARBS reduces the maximum pitch angle available.So Airbus's solution to reduced ground pitch angle is to reduce MTOGW, thus preserving critical field length? Interesting. But this means that anytime the MRTT is operating from long runways where critical field length is not a factor, the airplane remains weight restricted. Seems like an odd trade to me. But hey, there's a number of things about Airbus design approaches I find odd, but are perfectly acceptable in normal service.

But wait. Voyager does not have ARBS. So if ARBS is why MTOGW is reduced, why is Voyager's MTOGW reduced? Something does not add up.

[sandiego89]

BEagle

The problems at Scampton were not caused by the wing mounted AAR pods but by the ground clearance below the Underwing Fuel Tanks on the K2. The pods were head high, whereas the clearance below the tanks was only about 18 inches. So low that they were likely to hit any snow depth warning indicators next to taxiways. At Paine Field (Washinton State,USA) my Nav Rad and Crew Chief had to navigate us about 2 miles, on foot, over these as we taxied in to the parking area for an airshow. One other snag at Scampton was the "lumpy" nature of the runway construction which would have had severe consequences for the Victor fatigue life. This together with the need to remove concrete kerbs and refuelling pipes at all the dispersals was too expensive to rectify for the, then, proposed life of the Victor K2.

The choice of using the wing pods or centre line HDU was also a function of the flow rate of the various receiver types. The Mk 20 pod on the Victor, which had an integral 1000lbs fuel tank, had a flow rate of 1500lbs/min whereas the HDU was 4000lbs /min. With aircraft such as the Lightning and Jaguar, which took fuel at 1100 lbs/min, it was quicker to refuel a pair on the pods rather than sequentially on the HDU. The F4 took fuel at 4000lbs/min, so would empty the pod fuel tank fairly quickly, which would not pass any more fuel until it had filled to half fuel again. Hence it was quicker to refuel a pair of F4s one at a time, with continuous fuel flow, on the HDU.

The VC10 had the Mk 32 pod, which did not have an internal tank, and gave a fuel flow of 2800lbs/min, however the VC10 fuel system only allowed 2200lbs/min if both pods were in use together. The HDU was the same on both types. So, again it could be quicker to use the HDU for a pair of F4s than to use the wing pods.

All of the above figures are from memory of 30+ years ago, so anybody with the reference books can challenge me without me getting upset or descending to personal abuse.

Thank you Tengah, I was not aware of all of the differences in flow rates between the types, very informative. Curious about keeping the Mk 20 pod "topped off" when it was actively dispensing fuel. Sounds like it could be drained pretty quickly (especially by the Phantom), so did you have the pumps going to the pod tank continuously? Gravity? Automatic shut off when the pod tank is full?

[PDR1]

Two comments:
1. I never made such a claim. But nice try anyway.


In #864 you said:

KC-10 has a significant dihedral. Lotsa "uphill" flow there. And besides, the plumbing and pumping is sized to provide good flow even when the tanker is flying in a bank where the "uphill" may be much more pronounced than the "uphill" provided by dihedral.

Can you show how have I misinterpretted that?

but is designed to accommodate the worst possible unbalanced/uncoordinated bank condition (be it a slip or a skid) within the aircraft's performance envelope. Clu4U: aircraft are equipped with turn and slip/turn coordinator instruments for a reason. And if it has escaped you, the "uphill" condition created by a slip/skid far exceeds the "uphill" condition created by an/dihedral. And for the KC-10, the "uphill" condition of the tail engine far exceeds the "uphill" condition created by dihedral. Clear enough?

You said nothing about "unbalanced" - you just said "banked". Stop wriggling - you made a yet another schoolboy error and exposed your ignorance. At least have the intergrity to admit it. Sorry, but I still recon you're probably a Walt.

PDR

[LowObservable]

Ken

As for your claim about being the first to say anything here about the F-35's strike-dominated design: maybe you are right but in order to know that, you would have had to read the 200+ pages in the F-35 thread that were there before you joined this forum. If that is so, there are places to get help:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lNJ6dFwh8a4

On the HMD, you made the specific claim in 2015 that a Block IV version existed and that it had eyeball tracking. This was false, and I am aware of the source you claimed. I have met the person myself and I suspect that you misunderstood him.

[KenV]

Pressure drop and the need for higher volumetric flow rates to provide the required pod pressure for the TriStar pod programme led to the need for larger pipe bores than initially specified - getting the fuel all that way to the pod pylon wasn't very easy. Whereas the A330MRTT has the huge benefit of taking advantage of the redundant outboard engine locations of the A340 and the existing fuel feed pipework.May I offer two comments:

1. Sounds like someone screwed up twice if they had to enlarge the fuel tubes. First in under specifying the tube size to begin with, and second in not adding a jet pump down the line to up the flow and increase the head pressure to the pod. On the other hand, upsizing the tube by one standard size may be easier than adding a jet pump.

2. Consider that the A340 uses CFM56 engines. The highest thrust version used is the CFM56-5C4 @ 34,000 lbf. Fuel flow at max static thrust is about 187lb/min. (see here (http://www.jet-engine.net/civtfspec.html)) For simplicity let's call it 200lb/min. Will a pipe sized to deliver 200lb/min satisfy a fuel pod that is supposed to deliver as much as 4500lb/min? I think not. So yes, having existing piping in the area of the pod is an advantage, but no, that existing piping is woefully undersized and would make the undersized Tristar pod piping problem you described above seem like child's play. The localized wing strengthening of the A330 wing to accommodate the outboard engine pylons is an advantage, but serious overkill for the much much lighter WARP that also, unlike an engine installation, generates almost no torque loads.

[KenV]

Can you show how have I misinterpretted that?

I don't know why I even bother. Your personal attacks are irrational and will continue anyway, but here goes. Read what I wrote, not what you wish I wrote. Since you missed it, allow me to add emphasis: flying in a bank where the "uphill" may be much more pronounced than the "uphill" provided by dihedral. Banking may create an "uphill" if the bank is not flown coordinated. Because the airplane may be flown that way, (indeed the aircraft design specifically enables it, the flight manual specifically calls for it under certain conditions like crosswind landings, and flight instrumentation provides means to measure it and display it to the pilots) the fuel system is designed to cope with that flight condition. And that flight condition creates a far greater "uphill" effect than dihedral. Therefore dihedral is moot. And that was my point, one you apparently missed.. On the subject of schoolboy, your "schoolboy" reading skills coupled with your schoolboy mind conjuring up schoolboy personal attacks failed to take any of this into account.

Sorry, but I still recon you're probably a Walt.Sorry? No you're not. That's a transparent lie. Recon all you want. Schoolboy reconning often goes amiss. As for being a Walt, I'll stack up my technical knowledge displayed in just this one thread against yours any day. You're a PM? For both Dod and MoD programs? Sure you are!

[KenV]

KenAs for your claim about being the first to say anything here about the F-35's strike-dominated design: maybe you are right but in order to know that, you would have had to read the 200+ pages in the F-35 thread that were there before you joined this forum.Another one taking personal potshots. Probably an effort in futility, but OK, here goes.

Really? Reading every word is the only way? Fascinating claim. Are you asserting that this forum does not provide a word search for key words such as "bomber", "air to ground", "tactical strike", etc? Clu4U, with the search function one can research a subject quite thoroughly without reading every word in a thread. Further, if (a damnably big if) the subject of the F-35's air-to-ground dominated design had been previously asserted and confirmed, why would dozens of folks take such extreme umbrage with the assertion being made again? I assert that it is reasonable to assume that if a particular claim draws such deep and wide spread ire, that the claim is a new one, and not an old one. So mayhaps you should take your own advice and watch that cartoon yourself.

On the HMD, you made the specific claim in 2015 that a Block IV version existed and that it had eyeball tracking. This was false, and I am aware of the source you claimed. I have met the person myself and I suspect that you misunderstood him.I said that a class mate of mine was president of the company that made the helmet and that he had shown me their development lab where I had seen and worn a lab version that had eyeball tracking. I misspoke when I indicated that was part of the Gen IV (not "Block IV") design. That was an assumption on my part and it was incorrect, an error I admitted to and conceded years ago.

On the subject of Walts: you just claimed to "have met the person" yourself. If so, what is his name and how do you know him?

And on the subject of schoolboy (not your subject): dredging up stuff from four years ago and then getting it wrong....yeah, pretty schoolboy. Using that four year old stuff you got wrong to justify the unjustifiable? Well below schoolboy.

Try to have a nice day. Mine is wonderful, thank you.

[KenV]

I just made my last reply in this thread to the various folks who made and are making personal attacks. I suspect they're attempting to get this thread shut down, and that would be a genuine shame.

[PDR1]

You're a PM? For both Dod and MoD programs? Sure you are!

I never said I was a PM - I'm an engineer (C.Eng, if you want to be precise - because that's something you can look up against my name). I'm in the UK defence industry and over the last 37 years have worked at levels up to lead engineer, TA/TS, lead integrator, ops consultant etc on a range of programmes and platforms from initial concept through to in-service partnered support. My employer has programmes with UKMoD, USDoD and at least a dozen other nations. I've been the engineering report into the quarterly reviews more often than I care to remember, and standard agenda items in all those reviews (for all customers) is invariably proposed contract amendments. The standard forms of contract include specific terms that provide for either customer or contractor to propose amendments, how they would be reviewed, priced, negotiated and implemented. If you are the person you like to portray you would know that such things are routine day-job stuff.

PDR

[BEagle]

The TriStar fuel pipe issue came about due to someone's clever idea :rolleyes: to have an operational reason to refuel from both pods and the centreline hose simultaneously. Under such circumstances, the original pipe size would have been inadequate... Then those with a little more operational knowledge than some of the MoD advised that 3-point simultaneous prodding would be highly risky anyway and would also require the pod hoses to be extended so that all 3 receivers could keep an eye on each other. By then the whole TriStar pod issue was getting increasingly late and doubtful, plus the VC10K4 and VC10C1K would soon be entering service...

A pity that the TriStar never had pods - it would have been extremely useful with multi-hose capability and a massive fuel offload potential.

All history now though.

As for the F-35, I thought that it was originally seen as an F-16 / F-18 replacement, low cost (hah!) and stealthy? Which meant that it would cover all the roles of the F-16 / F-18 (and Harrier), so was never conceived as a single role fighter. That's the job of the superb F-22 - a great pity that the USAF order was curtailed.

Anyway, back to tankers. How's the KC-46A going down with the end users now that they've finally got their hands on it?

[Tengah Type]

Sandiego89 # 883

The Flight Refuelling Mk 20 AAR pod was designed as an underwing store to be carried by Royal Navy aircraft such as Buccaneer, Sea Vixen and Scimitar for Buddy-Buddy refuelling. To this end it was mainly a self-contained unit, carried on a drop tank pylon, and requiring minimal input from the host aircraft. 28v DC, Air Pressure and of course a fuel supply. The Air Pressure was to pass the fuel back to the host aircraft for its own use.

On the Victor the pod was filled from the main aircraft fuel system at normal Booster Pump pressure and could be isolated from the main system. The pod was normally kept full in flight to assist with wing relief (empty for Take Off and Landing). It was possible to jettison fuel (used to "Mark" to give a visible vapour trail to assist with visual RVs) or in emergency. The fuel in the pod was usually recycled with the main supply to reduce cold-soak which could be harmful to some receivers.

The main motive power to the pod was provided by a Ram Air Turbine on the front of the pod. This drove the Hydraulic system which held a "Balanced Hose" during refuelling or to wind the hose in after use. The RAT also ran the internal fuel pump when passing fuel. This was controlled by the electrical system and was activated automatically by microswitches after the receiver aircraft had made contact and pushed the hose in 6-7 feet, and also switched on the Green Light.

The fuel tank contained 3 Float Switches, The High Level float switch shut off the fuel supply into the pod. If the pod fuel tank emptied the Low Level float switch cut the fuel pump. When the fuel tank was half full the Mid Level float switch put the pump on again .

I will add the caveat that this is all from memory. I have not operated the pod since 1971, or flown with it since 1982. My Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll lifestyle may have impaired my memory. Mind you these days the drugs are Viagra to assist with the first part of the lifestyle, and the Rock and Roll is my gait after the obligatory nightly litre (liter) of Rose.

If any ex-Victor Nav Rad has any corrections to make, feel free, I will not be upset or insult you.
I will now end and let the kiddies squabble amongst themselves

[sandiego89]

Thank you Tengah for taking the time to write up that on the MK 20 pod in #892, I do appreciate it. Good stuff to satisfy my curiosity. Did not know the F-4 could receive so much fuel that quickly- thirsty beast.

I will avoid the squabble as well.

[BEagle]

Tengah Type , I need to query one of your facts.

You stated that your nightly rose consumption is a litre. One litre? Surely that's an underestimate??

Hope all's well - TBs again in the Spring?

[LowObservable]

Ken, Ken - When I start being personal you will know about it. Have I called you a poxed-up Bedlamite? A thrice-unlaundered molly-boy's codpiece? A grits-for-brains Simonist? I have not.

As for search engines: sorry, no. They are good for phrases. Lousy for meanings and intent. In a few years you'll be able to go site pprune.org "poxed-up Bedlamite" and hit this post right on the nose. Look for posts with people being mean to Ken and the results will be incomplete. Also, as I know all too well, posts commenting on the F-35 draw exactly the same response time after time. Mention its delays and someone will go "what about Typhoon and Rafale?"

Drew Brugal, VSI boss for four years. Talked to him a few times. I believe, however, you may be mis-speaking or mis-remembering the sequence of events. First you said that the F-35 helmet used eyeball tracking. Then you said it was in the "Gen IV" helmet, being prepared for Block 3F. Then you admitted that you were thinking at best of a technology demonstrator. Retreating from one misleading statement to the next, like the Wehrmacht retreating from one bombed-out wreck to the next in Stalingrad.

[Tengah Type]

BEagle

More than a litre? Maybe! Sometimes it is of a darker hue. The local Bordeaux is quite palatable also.

I got an email from Nic to say he is handing over the TB reins. Hope somebody else will take over, as I enjoy them when I am in country. Hope to see you there.

[KenV]

The TriStar fuel pipe issue came about due to someone's clever idea :rolleyes: to have an operational reason to refuel from both pods and the centreline hose simultaneously. Under such circumstances, the original pipe size would have been inadequate... Interesting. So the undersized pipe is not the pipe in the wing feeding the pod, it is a main feed pipe (fuel manifold) that feeds all three hose drogue systems. Interesting.

A pity that the TriStar never had pods - it would have been extremely useful with multi-hose capability and a massive fuel offload potential.Agreed. Same applies to KC-10. For whatever reason only a few KC-10s have been equipped with wing pods.

All history now though.

As for the F-35, I thought that it was originally seen as an F-16 / F-18 replacement, low cost (hah!) and stealthy? I don't think it was seen as an F-16/F-18 "replacement" so much as an airplane in those aircraft's size class. As opposed to the size class of the F-14/F-15.. In other words, the "low" of the "high/low" mix with F-22 being the "high". And to ensure it stayed "small", "light", and "cheap" it was required to be single engine. And by being able to service all three US services (USAF, USN, USMC) it could be mass produced at high build rates, further driving down costs. And because it's small and light, it would have simple systems. Basically they were trying to force the JSF down the development path followed by F-16. Small, light, simple, & mass produced. But by growing the engine they were able to grow the airplane so it was neither small nor light. And they stuffed it full of bleeding edge systems never before used on any aircraft, so simple was gone. And while yes, it does service all three US services, there is really little structural commonality. Lack of commonality, size, weight, and extreme complexity ensured it could not possibly be cheap.

And it was always supposed to be optimized for air-to-ground while preserving air-to-air capability. It was never supposed to be the 9G turning fighter the F-16 was. F-22 was to cover the really critical air to air missions. USN took a decidedly different approach and always viewed F-35 and stealth in general as but one piece of their air power puzzle. Looks like USAF is now going down that path also They want to not only preserve their legacy non stealth F-15 fleet, they want to recapitalize them with new-build F-15Xs. Round and round we go.

Anyway, back to tankers. How's the KC-46A going down with the end users now that they've finally got their hands on it?The folks at McConnell AFB are loving it. Large numbers of blue suiters have been in Everett for some time learning the airplane and its systems and assisting Boeing in writing the maintenance and tech documents. Now that they've got their own toys to play with, they're ecstatic.

[sandiego89]

KevV: I don't think it [F-35] was seen a F-16/F-18 "replacement" so much as a replacement in those aircrafts size class....

I believe the JSF program was absolutely touted and understood as a "replacement" in the original JSF program specifications, program of record, and literature without any qualifiers about size class.

The JSF program was touted as a replacement for the F-16, A-10, F/A-18 A-D for USN (and perhaps USMC), AV8B and UK Sea Harrier/GR7/GR9 and Tornado GR4. Also specified to complement F-22 and F/A-18 E/F.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a472773.pdf

[Just This Once...]

Not only that, many of the specifications and requirements were drawn specifically against a baseline of an F-16C, with some F/A-18C numbers mixed in for certain requirements. This gave a 'no worse than' backstop on various metrics, some of which were waived down the line when things got difficult.

[BEagle]

KenV wrote: Interesting. So the undersized pipe is not the pipe in the wing feeding the pod, it is a main feed pipe (fuel manifold) that feeds all three hose drogue systems. Interesting.

No, the feed to the wing pods would have been adequate using the originally specified wing fuel pipe. But with the HDU supplied simultaneously (not using some 'main feed pipe' - the systems were not interconnected), the pressure drop at the pod using the original pipe would have been unacceptable. Hence a larger bore pipe would have been needed to cater for the situation. Which was a bolleaux idea anyway!

[LowObservable]

JTO is correct. Also:

Lockheed Martin is claiming that all three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will have kinematic performance better than or equal to any combat-configured fourth-generation fighter. The comparison includes transonic acceleration performance versus an air-to-air configured Eurofighter Typhoon and high angle-of-attack flight performance vis-à-vis the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

"The F-35 is comparable or better in every one of those metrics, sometimes by a significant margin, in both air-to-air, and when we hog-up those fourth-generation fighters, for the air-to-ground mission," says Billy Flynn, a Lockheed test pilot who is responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for all three variants.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-lockheed-claims-f-35-kinematics-better-than-or-equal-to-typhoon-or-super-382078/

So the requirements can't be used as an excuse for the A2A performance.

[CONSO]

Hmmmmm!!
from the BA yahoo stock site blog yesterday 19thFrom the Evening Standard: Aerospace supplier Cobham took a £160 million hit on Tuesday to settle a long-running row with US planemaker Boeing over supply delays. The UK company, which has struggled in recent years, will pay £86 million compensation to the Chicago-based giant and £74 million to finish work on an aerial refuelling pod. Cobham promised to make two refuelling systems for the jets but both were delivered later than expected.

[Lyneham Lad]

Not all doom and gloom - some further progress (an article on Flight Global).
The Boeing KC-46A Pegasus air tanker refuelled a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II for the first time over California. (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-kc-46a-refuels-stealth-aircraft-for-first-tim-455974/)

[melmothtw]

Not all doom and gloom - some further progress (an article on Flight Global).
The Boeing KC-46A Pegasus air tanker refuelled a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II for the first time over California. (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-kc-46a-refuels-stealth-aircraft-for-first-tim-455974/)

One step forward, two steps back...

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-tanker-jets-grounded-due-to-tools-and-debris-left-during-manufacturing/

[sandiego89]

Not all doom and gloom - some further progress (an article on Flight Global).
The Boeing KC-46A Pegasus air tanker refuelled a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II for the first time over California. (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-kc-46a-refuels-stealth-aircraft-for-first-tim-455974/)

I note the sun glare as the "latest" problem with the remote vision system with certain, limited, sun angles.

Was a remote vision system for the boom operator a program requirement? I realize that there would have been costs with putting a boom operator compartment in the lower belly, but it seems for about 70 years of tanker history starting with the KB-29 the "vision system" of the boom operator was working pretty well... Was this remote system deemed high risk? I am sure they will work the bugs out, but seems the challenges were not fully appreciated. Yes I know it is hard work.

[ORAC]

Further to the FOD problem.....

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-warfare-symposium/2019/03/01/air-force-suspends-kc-46-tanker-deliveries/

US Air Force suspends KC-46 tanker deliveries

ORLANDO, Fla. — Boeing’s deliveries of its KC-46 tanker (https://www.defensenews.com/newsletters/tv-next-episode/2019/01/20/the-air-force-accepts-the-first-kc-46but-theres-a-catch/) to the U.S. Air Force have been suspended as the service investigates a series of problems with foreign object debris (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/12/31/first-kc-46-delivery-stalled-by-mattis-departure/), its top acquisition official confirmed Friday.

Will Roper, the service’s assistant secretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, told reporters that it will likely be “some time” before the service begins accepting new tankers from Boeing (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/01/25/the-air-force-gets-its-first-new-kc-46s-an-event-decades-in-the-making/).........

[k3k3]

I once dropped a washer under the E-1 rack of a brand new E-3A, I lifted the insulation blanket to find it and ended up filling a FOD bag with all the junk that was there, I even had a choice of washers to use.

[esscee]

Don't the Boeing inspectors/supervisors actually inspect before stamping off a task?

[Tengah Type]

FOD/Loose articles

This is not a new problem unique to Boeing. I remember a story (possibly in Air Clues) from many years ago, about a Beverley which suffered from a loud thumping noise from under the freight deck floor whenever there was turbulence. The cause could not be ascertained during its service life. When the aircraft was scrapped a 6 foot (10 foot?) length of steel scaffolding pole was discovered, which had been there since manufacture.

At about the same time another aircraft type had problems with clogged fuel filters. Eventually traced to a blanket left in a fuel tank during manufacture. But probably the prize goes to the dining room chair left in a large fuel tank (Sunderland?). https://www.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon11.gif

[BEagle]

A foot long piece of wood was discovered in a Buccaneer which suffered a roll restriction at low level - and one of the early Tucanos was delivered with a workman's left over lunch in the back. Such was the build quality of the early Tucano that after they'd sat outside for a few days (to make sure that no Irish terrorist had left a little gift), they were all de-panelled and given thorough checks...

A VC10K2 in which we were doing an air test suffered smoke on the flight deck, so we did the relevant drill and landed. They found a rivet head in one of the cabin conditioning blowers, but weren't sure whether this was due to sabotage or error - the RAF was about to hand over to civilian-run majors at St Athan and feelings were high. So a complete search was ordered - but the only thing of note (apart from the fact that the lift rate modifier had never been connected to the stall warning system) was a BOAC silver teaspoon found nestling around the base of one of the control columns! It must have been there for years - this was a Standard VC10 which had been sold to Gulf Air by BOAC and had flown many years with them before coming home for conversion!

But Tengah Type gets the prize for the Sunderland dining room chair story!

[CAEBr]

But probably the prize goes to the dining room chair left in a large fuel tank (Sunderland?).

I remember being told a number of years ago by a colleague of 'small stature' who had had to get into a Vulcan fuel tank that having done so he found a chair which must have been left from original manufacture.

[Blossy]

Tengah Type: I remember Vampires, particularly the early single seaters, being involved with accidents with alleged 'engine problems' which turned out to be fuel blockages caused by the lint trapped in the fuel tanks from the material used in manufacture.

[Davef68]

A foot long piece of wood was discovered in a Buccaneer which suffered a roll restriction at low level - and one of the early Tucanos was delivered with a workman's left over lunch in the back. Such was the build quality of the early Tucano that after they'd sat outside for a few days (to make sure that no Irish terrorist had left a little gift), they were all de-panelled and given thorough checks...


Wasn't there also a little length problem, so that none of them matched when parked on the line?

[KenV]

KenV wrote:

No, the feed to the wing pods would have been adequate using the originally specified wing fuel pipe. But with the HDU supplied simultaneously (not using some 'main feed pipe' - the systems were not interconnected), the pressure drop at the pod using the original pipe would have been unacceptable. Hence a larger bore pipe would have been needed to cater for the situation. Which was a bolleaux idea anyway!OK. But if the WARP and the HDU are not "interconnected", yet the pressure drops when both are used simultaneously, then somewhere in the system they share a common feed manifold that is not of sufficient size to feed both systems simultaneously while maintaining head pressure to both systems. That means the main feed manifold needs to be enlarged by enlarging the piping or more likely by enlarging the manifold's feed pumps.

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/03/05/transcom-working-to-defer-kc-135-retirement-as-delays-with-kc-46-continue/

TRANSCOM working to defer KC-135 retirement as delays with KC-46 continue

WASHINGTON — U.S. Transportation Command is making preparations to push back the retirement (https://www.defensenews.com/newsletters/tv-next-episode/2019/01/20/the-air-force-accepts-the-first-kc-46but-theres-a-catch/) of some KC-135 tankers due to delays in receiving the Air Force’s newest aerial refueling plane (https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2019/01/10/boeing-delivers-first-kc-46-but-fixes-to-technical-problems-still-years-away/), the KC-46, the head of the command said Tuesday.

“Obviously it’s going to cost money, and when the money is put into the program (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/12/31/first-kc-46-delivery-stalled-by-mattis-departure/) that’s when we’ll know, but the intent is to retain 28 [KC-135] weapon systems (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/03/21/laser-weapon-for-kc-135-still-in-the-infancy-stage/) beyond their currently scheduled retirement,” Gen. Stephen Lyons said during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing..........

According to Lyons’ testimony, the Air Force intends to divest the 33-year-old KC-10, its smallest tanker fleet, while retaining a portion of the 57-year-old KC-135 inventory into the 2050s.........

[CONSO]

And the beat down goes on - inspectors ? inspectors ? we dont need no stinkin inspectors !!


ByBen Kesling in Washington andDoug Cameron in ChicagoMarch 14, 2019 3:45 p.m. ET The U.S. Air Force has lost confidence in Boeing (https://quotes.wsj.com/BA) Co.’s BA -1.02% (https://quotes.wsj.com/BA?mod=chiclets) ability to maintain quality control over a new aerial refueling tanker it is building, with a senior Pentagon official saying Thursday that it could take at least a year to rebuild trust in the program.The tanker problems predate this week’s crash of a Boeing 737 MAX airliner being flown by Ethiopian Airlines, resulting in a global grounding of the passenger jet following an earlier crash of the same aircraft model last year.Boeing delivered the first of the KC-46A Pegasus tankers (https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-unlikely-to-deliver-first-tanker-in-2017-1505849972?mod=article_inline) in January, more than a year late, after a series of production and design problems left the aerospace company nursing $3.5 billion in losses on the initial $4.9 billion contract.The Air Force then suspended deliveries in February after finding tools and other debris left in some jets, prompting a sharp rebuke from defense chiefs.

[ORAC]

AW&ST: http://aviationweek.com/defense/next-us-air-force-tanker-likely-autonomous

Next U.S. Air Force Tanker Likely Autonomous

The U.S. Air Force’s next tanker aircraft will probably be autonomous, the service’s top acquisition official says. “We can see it in the tea leaves,” said Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics.

The Air Mobility Command was scheduled by the end of last year to complete a capabilities-based assessment for KC-Z, the aircraft that the Air Force wants to follow the Boeing KC-46A (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ProgramProfileDetails.aspx?pgId=1104&pgName=Boeing+KC-46A) into production after 2027. The assessment marks the first step in the Pentagon’s process for launching a new acquisition program. It should be followed by a roughly yearlong analysis of alternatives, which generates the data used to set requirements ahead of a solicitation.

But Roper already seems convinced that KC-Z will not use a human operator on board the tanker aircraft to guide the Air Force’s required refueling boom into a receiver.

“If KC-Z isn’t autonomous, I’ll be really surprised,” Roper said. The U.S. Navy is already developing an autonomous tanker with the Boeing (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=12083) MQ-25A, but the Air Force’s requirements are more difficult. The MQ-25A uses only a refueling drogue, which remains stationary while receiver aircraft connect to it. The Air Force’s bombers and airlifters need a refueling system with faster off-load capacity, which can only be provided by a refueling boom.

Despite that extra complexity, Roper’s certainty on KC-Z refueling technology is rooted in the painful experience of resolving flaws in the remote vision system (RVS) of the KC-46. To break a two-year impasse, Boeing agreed to redesign the KC-46’s remote vision system to detailed new parameters developed by the Air Force Research Laboratory. The RVS now allows a human operator to steer the refueling boom into a receiver using a set of cameras. Boeing’s original design did not satisfy the Air Force, but it could not explain why. A team from the Air Force Research Laboratory then developed a set of standards for visual resolution and a desired configuration for the cameras. The knowledge gained by that team can help the Air Force move beyond human operators for the next tanker aircraft.

“In fixing the RVS we now have the knowledge in the Air Force to know how to go out and request an autonomous tanker and not just say, ‘give it to us,’ but specifically put on contract what we want to see,” Roper said.

Meanwhile, the Air Force is continuing to mature technologies for a new refueling aircraft. Newly-released budget documents show the Air Force plans to start designing a “small, pod-mounted tactical air refueling boom for future Mobility applications.” The Air Force is also continuing to assess “promising configurations for future Mobility applications,” budget documents state, with wind tunnel tests scheduled in 2020 for “practical laminar flow treatments and coatings for highly swept wings applicable to Mobility applications.”

[KenV]

Report from Aviation week that frankentanker has a version of MCAS installed in flight control system.

Once again will P8 and wedgetail have this software/hardware installed?The only version of 737 that has MCAS is the MAX version. Indeed the purpose of MCAS is so 737MAX behaves like 737NG. And both P-8 and Wedgetail are based on the NG platform, not MAX.

[ORAC]

To quote the AW&ST article:

”Boeing (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=12083)’s 767-based tankers use a version of the pitch augmentation system that grounded the 737 Max 8 fleet, the manufacturer and U.S. Air Force officials say.........

Both the KC-767 (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ProgramProfileDetails.aspx?pgId=1136&pgName=Boeing+767) and KC-46 (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ProgramProfileDetails.aspx?pgId=1104&pgName=Boeing+KC-46A) fleets delivered to air forces in Italy, Japan and the U.S. rely on the MCAS to adjust for pitch trim changes during refueling operations.

In the 1980s, Boeing’s engineers considered using a pitch augmentation system for the commercial version of the 767, but dropped the idea after finding that vortex generators provided adequate control. By 2011, Boeing had already delivered KC-767s to Italy and Japan fitted with the first version of MCAS. The use of the system then spread as Boeing won the Air Force’s KC-46 contract in February and launched the 737 Max 8 in August.

But Boeing designed the integration on the KC-767 and KC-46 slightly differently than on the 737 Max family. The single-aisle airliner uses one angle of attack vane — either the captain’s or first officer’s — to generate the data used by the flight computer to activate the MCAS. By comparison, the KC-767 and KC-46 are designed to use two sensor inputs to feed angle of attack data, Boeing says.

Boeing spokesmen declined to elaborate on which sensor inputs are used to provide the data in the tanker design. The options include multiple angle of attack vanes and flush-mounted static ports........

The U.S. Air Force has launched a review of flight procedures for the KC-46, a spokeswoman says.......”

[ORAC]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-02/air-force-again-halts-delivery-of-boeing-s-tanker-over-debris

USAF Again Halts Delivery of Boeing’s Tanker Over Debris

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/04/09/air-force-improves-new-inspection-plan-for-kc-46s-paving-the-way-for-deliveries-to-restart/

Air Force improves new inspection plan for KC-46s, paving the way for deliveries to restart

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — The Air Force has decided to start accepting KC-46 tankers (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/03/14/boeing-resumes-kc-46-tanker-deliveries-but-air-force-scrutiny-will-linger/)from Boeing again after the discovery of foreign debris halted production for the second time (https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-warfare-symposium/2019/02/28/air-force-forces-boeing-to-make-changes-after-problems-with-kc-46-production/), the service’s top weapons buyer said Tuesday.

But before that happens, all KC-46s will now be subject to stringent inspections (https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-warfare-symposium/2019/03/01/air-force-suspends-kc-46-tanker-deliveries/)that will scrutinize all sealed compartments of the plane for foreign object debris, or FOD. That includes tankers already delivered to McConnell Air Force Base, Kan., and Altus Air Force Base, Okla., which will have to have their fuel tanks drained so that personnel can climb in and determine whether FOD is present.

“The planes that we have out on the field will have to go to a Boeing facility and have these significant inspections done on them. We’re working that in coordination right now,” Will Roper, the Air Force’s assistant secretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, told reporters on the sidelines of the Space Symposium here. “The FOD that we’ve found poses no safety of flight risk. It’s well within what DCMA [Defense Contracts Management Agency] finds on many aircraft programs. But it’s not acceptable to have it on a new aircraft that we bought. We want clean aircraft, and we expect Boeing to do the inspections on their nickel and get us aircraft that were the ones that we contracted for."

Roper approved the new inspection plan on Friday. Although the Air Force is still working with Boeing to figure out the exact timing of when deliveries will restart, Roper said he anticipates the service accepting two new tankers next Friday, pending the timing of fuel tank inspections........

[Lyneham Lad]

From an article on Flight Global. (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-usaf-still-finding-fod-in-boeing-kc-46-and-ex-459031/)

The US Air Force (USAF) continues to find foreign object debris (FOD) inside the Boeing KC-46A Pegasus in-flight refuelling tanker, including loose material found this week, and it expects to discover objects for the foreseeable future.

[BEagle]

"The debris and the tools that were left on the KC-46 at the time of its delivery were unacceptable – unacceptable in any form. We took swift decisive action, and we are using this opportunity as our rallying cry to ensure we enhance our tool and FOD control process,” said Leanne Caret, chief executive officer of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, at a separate press conference at the show.

Something once taught to all RAF Apprentices at a very early stage of their training...

I once found a 12" long screwdriver which was rattling around inside the engine bay of my car after it had been serviced at a Mercedes-Benz main dealership. It could easily have shorted the battery, hit the pulley belts or punctured a radiator. When I took it back to the dealership and advised them of my dismay, I was astonished to learn that a so-called prestige car dealership has no form of tool control and the technicians use their own tools - a tool tag shadow board was an unknown concept. Bad enough in the automotive industry, but even worse in the aviation industry!

[Davef68]

I suppose we should be grateful they chose aero-engineering and not medicine.

[chopper2004]

Been working at Le Bourget all week, love Paris, love the weather ...better than 2 years ago when it was a heatwave (which is what’s happening now).

Boeing and McConnell folk wouldn’t let us on whistle stop tour of the Pegasus so made to with outside shots and got a patch from the crew so here are my photos.

Cheers


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/562x750/6f603165_8690_4202_98ea_92b413d331fb_846027620fdebf6797e57b4 e9876bf315863355e.jpeg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/93183816_78d6_45ab_9433_51a17a44e393_d486c0c82231a073e36835d dff55c8c078176a56.jpeg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/ffbbee80_a349_4455_b814_e819fbb503cf_0f727c0b2b865e0f94dacad fb274e3daf7de3b81.jpeg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/ef513360_511c_4412_a220_705c926653ec_d6de19e0526d1230e16cb9f 53b91820cd9e443da.jpeg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x960/1dd00643_7bfa_4fe5_ab7d_fb0511776d08_abfc6b494a4819ccb0ada07 a20bc9bf7f7695e33.jpeg

[greenhornet]

Something once taught to all RAF Apprentices at a very early stage of their training...

I once found a 12" long screwdriver which was rattling around inside the engine bay of my car after it had been serviced at a Mercedes-Benz main dealership. It could easily have shorted the battery, hit the pulley belts or punctured a radiator. When I took it back to the dealership and advised them of my dismay, I was astonished to learn that a so-called prestige car dealership has no form of tool control and the technicians use their own tools - a tool tag shadow board was an unknown concept. Bad enough in the automotive industry, but even worse in the aviation industry!

Hard to imagine 12’’ being long enough to short out battery terminals? 🤔

[BEagle]

Well, it only took you 34 days to come up with that. Well done...:rolleyes:

The screwdriver in question could easily have lodged between the positive terminal and some earth point....

[Lyneham Lad]

Article on Breaking Defense (https://breakingdefense.com/2019/07/air-force-gets-tough-with-boeing-withholds-360-million-from-kc-46/?utm_campaign=Breaking%20News&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=75009369&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_oT-zc8jLNWmm1DsDdIKEjIzplqaWO_3Gs3tUP_n0Alf5Xkj0eHW3MwfpKQTwK-WaHlcFN2eAydDsERj2xzSpBwqUz8Q&_hsmi=75009369):-

After years of technical and production problems, cost overruns and schedule delays afflicting Boeing’s KC-46 airborne tanker (https://breakingdefense.com/tag/kc-46/), the Air Force has lost patience with Boeing.

“The Air Force is withholding payments to protect our interests and incentivize Boeing to deliver KC-46s that meet all specification requirements in the contract,” the Air Force said in a statement. “To date, the Air Force has withheld approximately $360M from Boeing for KC-46s delivered so far.”

Click link for full article.

[GlobalNav]

$360 M. About the cost of 1 tanker, maybe 2? Considering the system issues, delays and delivery hiccups, seems like a mere slap on the wrist, more for the public’s, and maybe Congress’, consumption, than Boeing’s.

[Lyneham Lad]

More costs for Boeing. Article on Flight Global. (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-juggles-kc-46-tanker-deliveries-and-boom-rede-460233/)

Boeing delivered three more KC-46A Pegasus in-flight refuelling tankers to the US Air Force (USAF) on 8 and 9 August, a week after winning a $55 million contract to redesign the aircraft’s boom telescope actuator.

Boeing is redesigning the actuator to address hardware specification flaws coming from the service’s initial design requirements. Designing and retrofitting the aircraft will likely cost more than $300 million, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released in June 2019. Programme officials told GAO that developing a solution, and receiving Federal Aviation Administration certification, would likely take three to four years.

The boom's issues became apparent during developmental flight testing, when pilots of lighter receiver aircraft – such as Fairchild Republic A-10s and Lockheed Martin F-16s – reported they needed more force to connect and disconnect their aircraft from the boom, as compared to older tankers, like the KC-135 and KC-10, says GAO.

The additional force required can cause the receiving aircraft to suddenly lunge and collide with the boom, damaging the aircraft’s glass cockpit canopy or tail. It can also damage the boom.

Testing also uncovered a problem with the KC-46’s remote vision system, a set of cameras used to guide the refuelling boom into an aircraft's fuel receptacle. Specifically, sun glare on the cameras at certain angles can cause washout or blackout on the refeulling operator's display screen. That makes it difficult to safely guide the boom into the fuel receptacle of an aircraft that needs refuelling. A wayward refuelling boom could damage an aircraft's nearby antennae or the radar-absorbent paint coating of stealth aircraft, such as the Lockheed Martin F-22, says GAO.

Boeing is expected to pay for fixing the remote vision system issue.

The USAF is using the remote vision system on tankers it has received, though it cannot use the cameras in some circumstances. Boeing says it is still in discussions with the USAF for a final fix for the system.

Deliveries of three more tankers in early August brings to 16 the number of KC-46s delivered to the USAF. Boeing had aimed to deliver 36 tankers in 2019. However, the service is expected to accept no more than three aircraft monthly, bringing the likely total number of tankers delivered by year-end to no greater than 28.

Boeing’s KC-46 deliveries to the USAF have been slowed, and at times halted, by issues with Foreign Object Debris (FOD) found inside the airframes. Boeing says it has implemented new FOD-awareness days and clean-as-you-go practices to eliminate the problem, but declines to say if FOD has been discovered in the aircraft in recent months.

[airsound]

How sad this is. Can't Boeing do anything right at the moment?

airsound

[Duchess_Driver]

To be fair, I’d say of the two issues it would be better recorded as one c**k up each on this one.

to address hardware specification flaws coming from the service’s initial design requirements.

Agreed, perhaps Boeing should have checked the specs earlier but...

[tdracer]

Agreed, perhaps Boeing should have checked the specs earlier but...
Perhaps they did. Having had first hand experience with trying to question nonsensical requirements USAF tanker requirements, the response was always the same - "what part of mandatory don't you understand?"
:ugh:

[GlobalNav]

This is a case where the Air Force could have better specified their requirements, but it shouldn’t have surprised Boeing that the USAF wanted the tanker to work with all receiver aircraft. The fact that it doesn’t is more a matter for lawyers to argue than aviators. Looks like the lawyers did, and that’s why the USAF is paying $55M to “fix” it.

What I don’t get is why they did away with the boom operator looking directly out the tail of the airplane. How can natural vision, real 3D stereoscopic vision, be matched by a hi-falutin’ 2D video game? You’re designing performance penalties into the system in too many ways: adding delay, diminishing visual acuity, adding complexity and reducing reliability, and by the way spending more money for the privilege. If, perhaps, they wanted to add some additional visual symbology, etc., they could have still done so with “HUD” symbology overlaying the real world view.

[Asturias56]

"hi-falutin’ 2D video games" - generate more R&, more income and can be used on other, future, projects

fill that trough!!

[tdracer]

What I don’t get is why they did away with the boom operator looking directly out the tail of the airplane. How can natural vision, real 3D stereoscopic vision, be matched by a hi-falutin’ 2D video game? You’re designing performance penalties into the system in too many ways: adding delay, diminishing visual acuity, adding complexity and reducing reliability, and by the way spending more money for the privilege. If, perhaps, they wanted to add some additional visual symbology, etc., they could have still done so with “HUD” symbology overlaying the real world view.

First of all, the remote boom operator station was a USAF requirement - apparently they felt that forcing the boom operator to lay on the floor in the back and drive the boom was a bit 20th century. It also means that the boom operator stations are just aft of the flight deck, meaning they don't need access to the back when the cargo area is full of other stuff.
Second, the remote boom operation station is full 3d, not 2d. I don't know details of the 3d system (and likely couldn't talk about it if I did), but it's definitely 3d. Apparently much of the issue is that it's a ten year old video system, and 3d video technology has gotten a lot better in the last 10 years.

[BDAttitude]

...likely couldn't talk about it if I did... Apparently much of the issue is that it's a ten year old video system, and 3d video technology has gotten a lot better in the last 10 years.
It's always hilarious when your local radio shack is more advanced than classified​ military technology. Nice to know that it stll happens in 2019.

[MarkD]

WASHINGTON — In a move that could have major impacts on the already-delayed tanker program (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/05/09/remember-that-list-of-kc-46-problems-heres-how-theyre-getting-fixed/), the U.S. Air Force hasindefinitely barred the KC-46 (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/07/26/boeings-kc-46-penalties-now-up-to-34b-thanks-to-new-426m-charge/)from carrying cargo and passengers, Defense News has learned.

The decision was made after an incident occurred where the cargo locks on the bottom of the floor of the aircraft became unlocked during a recent flight, creating concerns that airmen could potentially be hurt or even killed by heavy equipment that suddenly bursts free during a flight.

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2019/09/11/air-force-restricts-kc-46-from-carrying-cargo-and-personnel/

[Imagegear]

The service uses the term Category 1 describe serious technical issues that could endanger the aircrew and aircraft or have other major effects.

I know nothing of the cargo locks on the KC-46 but I could easily imagine that having them unlock in flight could allow the load to shift, causing the CG of the aircraft to move, as it did with the 747 freighter at Bagram.

IG.

[weemonkey]

I know nothing of the cargo locks on the KC-46 but I could easily imagine that having them unlock in flight could allow the load to shift, causing the CG of the aircraft to move, as it did with the 747 freighter at Bagram.

IG.

Frankentanker (I doubt whoever penned that did not realise how apt it was to become) will not go quietly into service!!!

[msbbarratt]

Given the numerous problems besetting Boeing and its programmes at the moment and how much money they've burned through since the MAX crashes, I wonder if the USAF is beginning to quietly make contingency plans for acquiring the Airbus alternative? Some fairly respectable financial analyses I've read recently suggest Boeing are going to have to find new cash around about New Year, if they can't get the MAX back on track. If they can't, and if the company were then to go bust, getting the KC-46s running properly might be difficult.

I have a horrible feeling this is all going to get even more political.

[chopper2004]

[QUOTE=msbbarratt;10569282]Given the numerous problems besetting Boeing and its programmes at the moment and how much money they've burned through since the MAX crashes, I wonder if the USAF is beginning to quietly make contingency plans for acquiring the Airbus alternative? Some fairly respectable financial analyses I've read recently suggest Boeing are going to have to find new cash around about New Year, if they can't get the MAX back on track. If they can't, and if the company were then to go bust, getting the KC-46s running properly might be difficult.

I have a horrible feeling this is all going to get even more political.

L-M and Airbus teaming to promote MRTT in USA as a sort of Omega alternative a year back and it was reaffirmed at Le Bourget back in June.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2019/06/lockheed-martin-and-airbus-reaffirm-tanker-partnership-at-2019-paris-air-show.html

[msbbarratt]

Given the numerous problems besetting Boeing and its programmes at the moment and how much money they've burned through since the MAX crashes, I wonder if the USAF is beginning to quietly make contingency plans for acquiring the Airbus alternative? Some fairly respectable financial analyses I've read recently suggest Boeing are going to have to find new cash around about New Year, if they can't get the MAX back on track. If they can't, and if the company were then to go bust, getting the KC-46s running properly might be difficult.

I have a horrible feeling this is all going to get even more political.

L-M and Airbus teaming to promote MRTT in USA as a sort of Omega alternative a year back and it was reaffirmed at Le Bourget back in June.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2019/06/lockheed-martin-and-airbus-reaffirm-tanker-partnership-at-2019-paris-air-show.html
Hmm, Airbus and Lockheed Martin ganging up on Boeing. Must be pretty uncomfortable to be in Boeing's shoes at present.

[esscee]

Oh dear, how sad, never mind lovely boy! Just about sums up Boeing at present. Far too many corners being cut, not enough supervision and paying peanuts you get monkeys.

[ORAC]

Air Force Magazine (http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/September%202019/Boeing-Floats-Two-Step-Solution-for-KC-46-Cargo-Issue.aspx)

Boeing Floats Two-Step Solution for KC-46 Cargo Issue

Boeing is proposing a two-step solution to address a major new deficiency with its KC-46 tanker, which limits the aircraft’s ability to carry personnel or cargo.

Air Mobility Command on Sept. 11 (http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/September%202019/KC-46-Banned-From-Carrying-Cargo-Passengers-Due-to-Major-New-Deficiency.aspx) revealed the deficiency and the restrictions it imposed after multiple incidents in which cargo restraint devices broke open during operational test and evaluation flights. The locks were fully installed and inspected, but still malfunctioned during flight. “No cargo or equipment moved and there was no specific risk to the aircraft or crew,” AMC spokesman Col. Damien Pickart said.

Boeing, in a Sept. 13 statement, said the company and the Air Force team are “making good progress to resolve the issue.”

The company has suggested two paths, one an interim solution and one a long-term fix. For now, the company wants to use tie-down straps to secure the cargo.

“This solution is undergoing further analysis and will be shared with the USAF in the coming days,” the company said. “The straps will enable the USAF to resume some cargo operations.”

Secondly, the company is testing a “robust, longer-term fix” for the malfunctioning lock mechanism. Boeing said it will soon have results of its tests and will present the options to the Air Force early in the week of Sept. 15.

“We stand ready to implement any actions as quickly as possible,” Boeing said. “The safety of the KC-46 aircraft and crew is our top priority.”

[tdracer]

Oh dear, how sad, never mind lovely boy! Just about sums up Boeing at present. Far too many corners being cut, not enough supervision and paying peanuts you get monkeys.
Pay is not the problem - Boeing machinists are among the highest compensated blue color workers anywhere.
Lack of supervision is not the problem either - although piss poor management is a contributor.

That being said, Boeing uses thousands of suppliers - yet Boeing gets the flack when 0.01% of those suppliers get it wrong.

[rattman]

Pay is not the problem - Boeing machinists are among the highest compensated blue color workers anywhere.
Lack of supervision is not the problem either - although piss poor management is a contributor.

That being said, Boeing uses thousands of suppliers - yet Boeing gets the flack when 0.01% of those suppliers get it wrong.

I heard depends on where you are, the NC plants that are not unionised the pay is pretty bad, on the other hand everett which is still unionised the pay/conditions and the quality of the planes are better

[Asturias56]

TBh I think Boeing needs "to send a message" by moving their HQ back to Seattle

[ErwinS]

I am just stunned how Boeing can mess this up for over so many years. The airframe is proven, 767.
Italy and Japan are flying for years with the KC-767.
But somehow Boeing has so much trouble with the KC-46. Just beyond me such icompetence.....

[Asturias56]

Classic ase of adding on requirements standards that add very little to the overall mission but then if they'd just bought a KC-767 what would that do for the careers of the Officers given the job of buying it ?

[Scuffers]

Whilst I can understand supporting your own industries, at what point does somebody have to say that this is just not working out?

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the MRTT spec's somewhat better than this disaster?

[Asturias56]

wellll assuming they could make it work ........... but let's not get into the AvB issue again on here please..................

There is no way the current US Govt is going to buy Airbus and ditch Boeing - Trump was elected to defend AMERICAN JOBS, he's running for re-election and that's that

[etudiant]

Classic ase of adding on requirements standards that add very little to the overall mission but then if they'd just bought a KC-767 what would that do for the careers of the Officers given the job of buying it ?

If memory serves, the KC-767 was a disaster, with both subpar performance and massive delivery delays.
So one might have thought that Boeing would by now have learned how to build a tanker version of the 767. Clearly one would have thought wrong, the USAF specs allowed a whole new bunch of flaws to emerge.
I'm confident the Airbus offering would have performed vastly better, if only because they had a NATO spec product ready for production at a new US site.

[Mk 1]

If memory serves, the KC-767 was a disaster, with both subpar performance and massive delivery delays.
So one might have thought that Boeing would by now have learned how to build a tanker version of the 767. Clearly one would have thought wrong, the USAF specs allowed a whole new bunch of flaws to emerge.
I'm confident the Airbus offering would have performed vastly better, if only because they had a NATO spec product ready for production at a new US site.
Seems to be working pretty well here in Australia.

[msbbarratt]

wellll assuming they could make it work ........... but let's not get into the AvB issue again on here please..................

There is no way the current US Govt is going to buy Airbus and ditch Boeing - Trump was elected to defend AMERICAN JOBS, he's running for re-election and that's that

If things keep going badly for Boeing, defending American jobs might become very expensive. I don't know how much thought Uncle Sam is giving to whether it might have to intervene in Boeing's future, but if it does have to, I'd have thought sooner rather than later would be easiest. Left too late, the US gov might have an impossible job reconstituting the company as an operating concern. Laid off staff will disappear into the jobs market ASAP, possibly as far as Mobile...

One supposes that there's quite a lot of functions fulfilled by Boeing that are of strategic and economic importance, and must continue whatever happens. For instance, if Boeing cease operations who'd pick up the Design Authority role for all those airliners, never mind all those military aircraft? The thought of all those aircraft not flying gives me cold sweats.

[Fly Aiprt]

wellll assuming they could make it work ........... but let's not get into the AvB issue again on here please..................

There is no way the current US Govt is going to buy Airbus and ditch Boeing - Trump was elected to defend AMERICAN JOBS, he's running for re-election and that's that

Aren't some Airbuses built in the US, with American jobs ?

[tdracer]

I heard depends on where you are, the NC plants that are not unionised the pay is pretty bad, on the other hand everett which is still unionised the pay/conditions and the quality of the planes are better

All KC-46s are built in Everett, so that pretty much blows that argument (both major assembly and tanker conversion work). I don't believe there is any meaningful KC-46 content from NC.

Without rehashing hundreds of previous posts, the MRTT doesn't come close to meeting the mandatory USAF requirements (neither did the KC-767 - which is why the KC-46 development was such a huge task). The MRTT would need a massive redesign before it could be considered a viable replacement.
Or is it being advocated to replace a non-compliant Boeing offering with a non-compliant Airbus offering? :confused:

[Scuffers]

Without rehashing hundreds of previous posts, the MRTT doesn't come close to meeting the mandatory USAF requirements (neither did the KC-767 - which is why the KC-46 development was such a huge task). The MRTT would need a massive redesign before it could be considered a viable replacement.
Or is it being advocated to replace a non-compliant Boeing offering with a non-compliant Airbus offering? :confused:
OK, without doing a re-hash, what are the highlights of the requirements neither plane meet?

As for defending Boeing, that's got to be getting harder with the growing list of disasters? at what point does operational necessity override political preference?

(for the record, I have the same issues with airbus, specifically the A400 project)

[ORAC]

Let’s just say the Boeing plan to have the KC-Y programme (KC-10 replacement) be changed to just an extended purchase of KC-46s might not be so certain as expected a couple of years ago.....

[GlobalNav]

I am just stunned how Boeing can mess this up for over so many years. The airframe is proven, 767.
Italy and Japan are flying for years with the KC-767.
But somehow Boeing has so much trouble with the KC-46. Just beyond me such icompetence.....

It is stunning. It's not like the means of securing cargo is an unsolved challenge - re: C-130, C-141, C-5, C-17. Boeing (or Air Force?) chose a different method or different materials, but why? Whatever the reason, it defines "dumb as dirt"!

[c52]

“We stand ready to implement any actions as quickly as possible,” Boeing said. “The safety of the KC-46 aircraft and crew is our top priority.”

As a potential future passenger I'm a bit worried that getting the 737max right is no longer Boeing's top priority.

[rattman]

All KC-46s are built in Everett, so that pretty much blows that argument (both major assembly and tanker conversion work). I don't believe there is any meaningful KC-46 content from NC.


KC-46's are a 767 based airplanes, charlotte only building 787. When a major airline refuses to accept planes built by a specific plant then I think thats an indicator that something is not quite right

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3007049/boeing-defends-its-dreamliner-plant-north-carolina

[rjtjrt]

Seems to be working pretty well here in Australia.
Lets not forget history.
The A330MRTT was a disaster zone for the first few years. Was on the Projects of Concern.
The boom was lost on 2 occasions. There as a couple of years delay in deliveries, and then more problems.
Airbus worked through these and now the aircraft is reportedly performing well.
This all sounds similar to what the KC-46 is going through now. There seems no doubt Boeing will do what Airbus did, and eventually work the problems out.

[Saintsman]

This all sounds similar to what the KC-46 is going through now. There seems no doubt Boeing will do what Airbus did, and eventually work the problems out.

Similar?

I think not.

Yes, Boeing will eventually sort out the problems, but not before they spend an awful lot of money doing so.

Airbus was never in that position.

[bvcu]

Cargo restraint issue isn't really a major Boeing design problem , don't know actual detail but normally customer specified as there are lots of different options on cargo systems. So guessing its something new that was not in use before so finding the problems now . Anyone have any info on which company supplies it ?

[rjtjrt]

Similar?

I think not.

Yes, Boeing will eventually sort out the problems, but not before they spend an awful lot of money doing so.

Airbus was never in that position.
Please enlighten us with the way it is dissimilar.

[Scuffers]

Please enlighten us with the way it is dissimilar.

there have been two significant incidents for the A330MRTT: (from wiki)

1) On 19 January 2011, an air refuelling accident occurred between a boom equipped A330 MRTT and a Portuguese Air Force F-16 over the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Portugal. Early reports indicate that the boom broke off at the aft end of the boom near the F-16's receptacle which caused the boom to recoil into the underside of the A330 MRTT. The boom then became uncontrollable and oscillated until it broke off the boom assembly at the pivot point. Both aircraft were damaged, but landed safely. The A330 MRTT involved was an Airbus test aircraft destined for the RAAF; the air arm issued a statement that the aircraft was operated by an Airbus crew with no Australian personnel on board. At the time of the incident, Airbus had not begun deliveries.

2: On 10 September 2012 at approximately 19:30 (CEST), an A330 MRTT's refuelling boom became detached in flight at an altitude of 27,000 ft in Spanish airspace. The boom separated cleanly at a mechanical joint and fell to the ground, while the aircraft landed safely in Getafe. There were no injuries caused by the malfunction. The incident was the result of a conflict between the backup boom hoist (fitted to the UAE-destined A330 MRTTs) and the primary boom retraction mechanism, and was attributable to the testing being conducted. Airbus later explained that the malfunction was not possible under ordinary operating conditions, and that procedures had been designed to avoid similar incidents in the future. Following the incident, INTA, the Spanish regulatory authority, issued precautionary restrictions to other users of boom-equipped A330s.

So, the first was part of the development and testing of the platform, the second was again, an Airbus test of new customer requested system see full report here (https://web.archive.org/web/20121021224259/http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-military-explains-cause-of-a330-boom-detachment-377845/)

In neither of these incidents were the aircraft in customer hands.

[Davef68]

In reality this is only going to cost Boeing $$$$$ - I don't see them cancelling KC-46, and it's probably still the only candidate for KC-Y

[Mil-26Man]

In reality this is only going to cost Boeing $$$$$ - I don't see them cancelling KC-46, and it's probably still the only candidate for KC-Y


Airbus and LM bidding together for KC-Y

[Saintsman]

Please enlighten us with the way it is dissimilar.

Whist there were a few issues with the Airbus, a quick check of Wiki will show all the issues associated with the design and delays of the KC-46. The A330 MRTT entry is somewhat shorter...

[chopper2004]

Airbus and LM bidding together for KC-Y

Not quite look at my post #942 its more for contracting out tanking services simialr to what Omega does. Also speaking to Travis crews at both J-B Andrews and Fairford few months back, they siad KC-10 will not be extinct / on the chopping block once Pegasus starts replacing the 135. Might be way down the line

cheers

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2019/06/lockheed-martin-and-airbus-reaffirm-tanker-partnership-at-2019-paris-air-show.html

[NutLoose]

The U.S. Air Force has identified a potential new design flaw with the KC-46A tanker and banned the fleet from carrying cargo or passengers until a solution is found and delivered. Multiple cargo locks embedded in the floor of the aircraft released inadvertently during a recent operational test and evaluation flight, according to a statement by Air Mobility Command (AMC). Air Force and Boeing officials are working to identify a solution to the problem, AMC says.

https://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-identifies-critical-new-kc-46-design-flaw

[Jackonicko]

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x964/edah_ncu0aiabaz_c422472e492abc6f58a9c5ca4a4d0b6bda816da9.jpg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/581x425/edblhzju8aeo0dd_d81bcb83cc043be26d20a307372a1a4ef819e502.jpe g

Even the test team seem to be aware of the Frankentanker nature of the KC-46

[SWBKCB]

Cargo restraint issue isn't really a major Boeing design problem , don't know actual detail but normally customer specified as there are lots of different options on cargo systems. So guessing its something new that was not in use before so finding the problems now . Anyone have any info on which company supplies it ?

From Flight Global:

The company believes the cargo restraints, manufactured by Ancara Cargo, are well made and designed, but interact in an unexpected way with the track on the aircraft deck. It is considering a secondary lock to hold the first lock in place, but it is concerned an additional mechanism might slow loading and unloading speeds. Each pallet is clamped to the cargo floor via four restraints – one on each side.

From the same article:As Boeing looks for a solution to the KC-46As cargo lock problem, General Arnold Bunch, commander of the US Air Force Materiel Command, says the last tanker the service received was free of foreign object debris (FOD). The service previously criticized the company’s “culture” for allowing aircraft to be delivered with tools, rubbish and left-over parts such as loose nuts inside the airframe.

Boeing KC-46A programme director James Burgess says culture issues stemmed from letting its best practices lapse, such as requiring tool check in and check out. “We've made a bunch of improvements in terms of our procedures, training, adherence to existing procedures,” he says. “We've really put an emphasis all the way through the production system around cleaning as you go.”

Boeing eyes KC-46A cargo fix as FOD issue dissipates (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-eyes-kc-46a-cargo-fix-as-fod-issue-dissipate-460913/)

[NWSRG]

"Boeing KC-46A programme director James Burgess says culture issues stemmed from letting its best practices lapse, such as requiring tool check in and check out. “We've made a bunch of improvements in terms of our procedures, training, adherence to existing procedures,” he says. “We've really put an emphasis all the way through the production system around cleaning as you go.”

Hopefully a sign that Boeing is taking it's culture issues seriously...good culture costs money, but they're finding that bad culture costs even more!

[Thrust Augmentation]

"letting its best practices lapse, such as requiring tool check in and check out"

Such fundamental issues really are scraping far, far below the bottom of the barrel - for an aircraft manufacturer this is just beyond bizarre......

[Blossy]

But he says they made a 'bunch' of improvements. Not a very precise term I suggest.

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-force-association/2019/09/18/amc-commander-boeing-has-not-made-progress-on-kc-46/

AMC commander: Boeing has not made progress on KC-46

[Davef68]

I wonder how they check for FOD in inaccessible areas? Xray? Test fly it, bunt and listen for the rattle?

[Grebe]

and now we have

Air Force Says It Will Be Years Before Boeing's Faulty New Tankers Are Fully Operational

Problems with the boom operator's vision system and the boom itself persist and a recently disclosed issue prevents the aircraft from carrying cargo.
By Joseph Trevithick September 19, 2019
The U.S. Air Force has admitted that it will not be able to deploy its new KC-46A Pegasus aerial refueling tankers on operational missions for at least another three to four years, due to persistent technical and quality control problems. This comes as the service continues to take delivery of the aircraft, which have hundreds of issues still left to fix, and that appear to have extremely limited utility in the interim. The mounting delays could have cascading impacts on its plans to retire older KC-135 and KC-10 tankers in the coming years.

[weemonkey]

..Will the Frankentanker, like its namesake Stein, be the one to eliminate it's maker???

[GlobalNav]

Having been peripherally involved in the KC-46 program since it began, until a few years ago, I never thought to question the inclusion of the Remote Visual System for the boom operator, whose station is located in the forward cabin just behind the flight deck. Was RVS a necessity? Was it impossible to have a boom operator station located in the tail with a window and controls, like it is in the KC-135?

It's Monday morning quarterbacking, I know, but it seems like great increase in complexity, with associated increase in failure modes etc., for a military system. Having a few decades of EO experience, I'm of the opinion its nigh impossible to replicate the visual acuity of the Mk 1 eyeball with a visual system comprised of cameras and displays. Not just a question of resolution but depth perception, system delay, etc. If, for some reason, there was a need to add precise symbology and flight data, etc., something like a HUD could have been used.

What am I missing? Now, considering the difficulties the RVS is posing to the program and the IOT&E, I wonder who else might be asking the same question.

[BEagle]

KDC-10 and A330MRTT remote visual systems seem to be working well enough...

[GlobalNav]

KDC-10 and A330MRTT remote visual systems seem to be working well enough...

Perhaps, then why was it so hard to get right for the KC-46?

[BEagle]

GlobalNav wrote: Perhaps, then why was it so hard to get right for the KC-46?

Because, perhaps unlike the KC-767J whose remote boom system also works fine:https://youtu.be/xPxAdlRAjns the USAF wanted a 'sixth generation boom system' for the Pigasaurus? Which doesn't seem to be doing very well.

[Lyneham Lad]

On Flight Global.
Boeing looks at laser-range finder for KC-46A refuelling boom (https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/boeing-looks-at-laser-range-finder-for-kc-46a-refuelling-boom/135692.article)

Boeing is researching adding a laser-range finder to the KC-46A Pegasus’ problem-plagued refuelling boom camera system.

The laser-range-finder retrofit onto the boom cameras, known as the remote vision system (RVS), would give operators additional information about the true distance between the end of the KC-46A’s boom and a receiving aircraft’s receptacle during in-flight refuelling, says Will Roper, assistant secretary of the US Air Force (USAF) for acquisition, technology and logistics at the Reagan National Defense Forum on 7 December.

[ORAC]

What are AirTanker doing with those spare airframes now Thomas Cook aren’t using them? Of course they’d have to add a boom, but that’s off the shelf - and I’m sure the MOD would be happy to do a deal...

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/12/13/the-air-force-needs-more-tankers-could-the-defense-industry-have-the-answer/

The US Air Force needs more tankers. Does the defense industry have the answer? (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/12/13/the-air-force-needs-more-tankers-could-the-defense-industry-have-the-answer/)

SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill. — With no end in sight to the demand on the tanker fleet, the U.S. Air Force is actively seeking agreements with defense contractors for aerial refueling services (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/12/05/lockheed-airbus-venture-ups-the-pressure-on-boeing-to-deliver-its-us-air-force-tankers/).

On Dec. 17, Air Mobility Command will hold an industry day at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, in the hopes of better understanding how it can contract for commercial air refueling services to supplement tanking missions performed by the Air Force’s KC-135s, KC-10s and KC-46s (https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/airlift-tanker-annual/2018/10/27/kc-135s-and-c-130js-are-the-next-aircraft-to-enter-the-air-forces-data-driven-maintenance-program/).

“We do think that this is an opportunity that needs to be pursued,” Lt. Gen. Jon Thomas, the command’s deputy chief, said during an exclusive interview with Defense News on Dec. 10. “If we can find a viable, clear path with industry, we should do it.”

The Air Force believes there are a certain set of aerial-refueling missions conducted in a uncontested environment that could provide a predictable stream of business, Thomas said. Through the industry day, the service is hoping to better understand how companies might be able to fulfill those requirements.

“There are several providers … that would propose that they have their own tanker that’s already flying and doing great work for other air forces,” he said. “That’s fascinating to us. There’s another vendor that has procured boom-equipped tankers from a foreign air force that is a proven capability. There are some others that may be doing the same thing with a different foreign air force. So I would say that they’re out there and they’re committing to the idea that if the Air Force is serious, we’re serious about this, too.”......

[Davef68]

Hmm, those ex-RAT Tristars are still at Bruntingthorpe

[GlobalNav]

Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein told Senate legislators March 3 the service would not use the new KC-46 tanker unless absolutely necessary to fight a powerful adversary. “If we go to a high-end contingency, we will put every KC-46 we have into the fight,” Goldfein said of a conflict with a country like Russia or China. “We won’t use it for day-to-day operations, but it will be made available for a contingency.”

[Asturias56]

In case of fire break glass...................

[Rhino power]

https://www.airforcemag.com/goldfein-usaf-wont-use-kc-46-unless-it-has-to/?fbclid=IwAR1u-nk8_YYYLsT6PQ6zEJ_N1p-ms_YvGT58Av6bcpH1lkNz7VKcBJaUGlQ

-RP

[Lyneham Lad]

Flight Global article.
US State Department approves sale of 8 Boeing KC-46A tankers to Israel (https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/us-state-department-approves-sale-of-8-boeing-kc-46a-tankers-to-israel/137063.article)

The US State Department has approved the sale of eight Boeing KC-46A Pegasus in-flight refuelling tankers to Israel for an estimated $2.4 billion.

The US Congress has been notified of the possible sale, says the Defense Security Cooperation Agency on 3 March.



The KC-46A programme has been hobbled by engineering and manufacturing problems, in particular with its refuelling boom camera, called the Remote Vision System. The camera can distort images that boom operators see, leading to accidental collisions with recipient aircraft.

Boeing is working on a fix for the issue, though the retrofit won’t be ready and installed on service aircraft until 2022 or 2023, delaying the tanker’s operational use for several more years, the USAF has said.

[Lonewolf_50]

For Lyneham Lad:
I wonder if the Israelis are already working on an organic/homegrown mod to make sure that they can see what they are doing back there ... I'll wager a nominal 5 bucks that they are.

[airsound]

For Lyneham Lad and Lonewolf:

Dear Israel
Did you know you could have bought the A330MRTT with a working boom? Something like 12 other countries have done that, and 42 MRTTs have been delivered out of a total order, so far, of 60.

airsound

[Speedywheels]

Yes, but as I'm sure we all know, Israel will be getting the KC-46A at a much lower 'price' than the A330 MRTT

[Lonewolf_50]

For Airsound:
And yet the Israelis went for the KC-46 anyway: maybe they don't trust the French.
(And the rest of Airbus multinational team)
Or, maybe they got yet another good deal under the table - as has happened for a variety of other hardware over the years :p

[airsound]

With all the sad travails of the KC-46A, I would have thought that any potential customer could expect a good (financial) deal, over or under the table.... Or maybe not?
Whatever, not many other countries seem to be tempted. :\

airsound

[ORAC]

If in “deal” you mean the cost will be borne by the American tax payer, you are doubtless correct, to the amount of around $1.8B in FMS/FMF per annum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_military_relations#Military_aid _and_procurement

[wub]

For Lyneham Lad and Lonewolf:

Dear Israel
Did you know you could have bought the A330MRTT with a working boom? Something like 12 other countries have done that, and 42 MRTTs have been delivered out of a total order, so far, of 60.

airsound


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1299/63aa1c55_4f1d_46d0_85e2_d1080b81764a_e71d8765f661ce884388123 00add5147713422ad.jpeg
Spotted this over Singapore last week

[SASless]

To add to GlobalNav's Post........

https://www.airforcemag.com/goldfein-usaf-wont-use-kc-46-unless-it-has-to/?fbclid=IwAR05f7_Kh225dmSA-I3lNWupKq8UnpkoQR1OiO8tSOitOmjoR58JXS3IEy0