USAF KC-Y Tanker Competition

[RAFEngO74to09]

Lockheed Martin will be offering the LMXT built in America which - if successful - would negate the delivery timescale bottleneck of the European A330 > MRTT conversion program.

Briefing Sheet: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2021/lmxt-strategic-tanker.html

Lockheed Martin on Twitter: "Our LMXT offering for the @usairforce will be built in Georgia and Alabama and extend our 60+ year history of delivering tankers to U.S. and global operators. Watch for more on how our proven, ready solution will fuel future missions. https://t.co/jdtgGPrlEV" / Twitter

[sandiego89]

Will be an interesting competition. Wonder what the spec will say about vision systems for the boom operator...

[Imagegear]

NIH - will probably get excluded on the re-spec - again.

IG

[Davef68]

Lockheed Martin will be offering the LMXT built in America which - if successful - would negate the delivery timescale bottleneck of the European A330 > MRTT conversion program.

Briefing Sheet: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2021/lmxt-strategic-tanker.html

Lockheed Martin on Twitter: "Our LMXT offering for the @usairforce will be built in Georgia and Alabama and extend our 60+ year history of delivering tankers to U.S. and global operators. Watch for more on how our proven, ready solution will fuel future missions. https://t.co/jdtgGPrlEV" / Twitter (https://twitter.com/LockheedMartin/status/1488170327083569154)


Ssssshhh. Don't mention Airbus.....

[Asturias56]

logically they'll have to give it to Boeing to help keep them in business after they screwed up with the 787, the Max and the... what was that other programme?

[Jhieminga]

Should we start a poll on what will happen first? 1. The KC-Y going in service or 2. the KC-46 vision system getting fixed...:p

[Martin the Martian]

LM will get the go ahead, some senator will kick up a fuss, the competition will be reopened and eventually Boeing will get the contract.

I never used to be this cynical.

[steamchicken]

Link

> new bidder! wants to convert used 777-300ERs!

[RAFEngO74to09]

More detail on the LMXT here. Like the A330 MRTT, will be built as an A330 first in one plant (2 years) then converted to a LMXT in another (further 18-24 months).

Also, will have a permanently fitted Aeromed suite.

Lockheed's Plan To Bring Its Version Of The Airbus A330 Tanker To America (Updated) (thedrive.com) (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44089/lockheeds-plan-to-bring-its-version-of-the-airbus-a330-tanker-to-america)

[Davef68]

Link (https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1488487733693669376)

> new bidder! wants to convert used 777-300ERs!

Has the USAF ever bought second hand tankers? can't see this being a goer

[ORAC]

The price of a 2005(ish) 777-300ER is about $40M, conversion to a freighter about another $30M, so about $70M in all.

Problem being hardening the wiring and ARINC data-bus to the required military standard, which I presume would then need some sort of recertification. Once you add in the AAR certification I’m not sure it would still be such a bargain.

There is also the issue of how much space it takes up. Boeing made a big thing of the wingspan of the MRTT compared to the KC-46 and the issues it raised - and the 777-300ER has a 4m greater wingspan than the MRTT and over 14m greater than the KC-10 it’s intended to replace. Then there’s pavement loading, runway length etc.

[sandiego89]

.........

There is also the issue of how much space it takes up. Boeing made a big thing of the wingspan of the MRTT compared to the KC-46 and the issues it raised - and the 777-300ER has a 4m greater wingspan than the MRTT and over 14m greater than the KC-10 it’s intended to replace. Then there’s pavement loading, runway length etc.

Different program, the KC-X program was a KC-135 replacement program which was always going to be a "smaller" aircraft. The MRTT did not get any extra bonus points for being larger that what the spec really called for. The KC-Y program, now seeming called the Bridge Tanker program was always going to be a bit larger than the KC-X tanker, and is likely a better fit for the MRTT or 777 sized aircraft. I do agree that Boeing will likely tout that it has more capacity and size is not an issue for this one.

[ORAC]

S89,

Not sure if that is still true. The original plan was X was the KC-135 replacement, Y was the KC-10 replacement and Z was awaiting definition.

Latest stories have Y now being very much an run-on of X, which is why Boeing is rumoured to be pushing for follow on KC-46 orders and Z being either a stealth tactical tanker or a mix of a large MRTT/777 size tanker with stealthy UAV adjuncts (e.g. MQ-25) to ferry fuel forward to the combat zone in the Pacific.

Initial "sought for" request reflects that.

https://sam.gov/opp/df2d170039c448988ad8111a6dac295d/view

"....The Air Force is seeking companies that have the capability to deliver approximately 140-160 Commercial Derivative Tanker Aircraft—at a rate of 12 to 15 per year—to supplement the Air Force Tanker Aircraft fleet at the end of KC-46A production, and bridge the gap to the next Tanker recapitalization phase. The Commercial Derivative Aircraft must be operational by 2029.

The Air Force is still finalizing the requirements for this acquisition. However, the baseline for aircraft capability will be based on the requirements from phase one of tanker recapitalization with subsequent and emerging requirements as defined by the Air Force...."

[sandiego89]

Thanks for the clarification ORAC. It does seem to be a moving target, and actual requirements are still to be determined, and if bigger will be better. Guess the final offload requirements will dictate if Boeing offers a KC-46 or a 777 based bid.

[golder]

Has the USAF ever bought second hand tankers? can't see this being a goer
Even if they could do it for half the cost. There are no votes in it from the senate. To pork their electorate with jobs, for the new build.

[chopper2004]

https://twitter.com/AvWeekGuy/status/1617946061179609088?s=20&t=4YnYrdXdNWI4JOQNE4C05g
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/680x510/fnqzxrvwiaazjcu_b54b071e72750195ce10a9f578a66fc24f4a9858.jpe g
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/680x510/fnqzxrvxeasj0nk_65285bc7ca54ac3b663ef9258c9c745b2937d84b.jpe g

[Asturias56]

wow!

that looks easy to build and to bring into service ;) - considering they can't get a 767 to work properly without years of effort would you buy this dream machine?

[melmothtw]

wow!

that looks easy to build and to bring into service ;) - considering they can't get a 767 to work properly without years of effort would you buy this dream machine?

So, all aircraft design should be frozen in the here and now? I don't quite get what you're saying - of course no one is going to buy it as a conference display model.

[Just This Once...]

Boeing is struggling with both the 'here' and the 'now' bits. I guess when they get that nailed down again they can look to the future again but for now they have been reigning-in even the previously planned near-future. Boeing is not what it was.

[Two's in]

wow!

that looks easy to build and to bring into service ;) - considering they can't get a 767 to work properly without years of effort would you buy this dream machine?

Purely in the interests of accuracy, they have managed to get 1,271 Boeing 767s working "properly", what they haven't been able to do is design and build a Remote Vision System (RVS) that works on the KC-46. RVS 2.0 is out there and being tested, but after nearly a decade of broken promises and piss-poor performance, the Air Force is going to take a lot of persuading the fix is in. The RVS 2.0 program has already had a 19 month slip to Military Flight Release, so it's not an auspicious start. Publicly quoted numbers state that Boeing charged the DOD $4.9B (with a B) for the KC-46 Program, and have subsequently paid an additional $5B from internal funds to fux the fix-up. Not exactly business leading numbers.

[Lonewolf_50]

https://twitter.com/AvWeekGuy/status/1617946061179609088?s=20&t=4YnYrdXdNWI4JOQNE4C05g
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/680x510/fnqzxrvwiaazjcu_b54b071e72750195ce10a9f578a66fc24f4a9858.jpe g
Prettiest tanker I've seen since the KA-6D. :}
But wait, that one is supposed to haul troops and equipment. Just how tall is this thing?

[safetypee]

'Prettiest tanker'
Form follows function

[ORAC]

As the write-up says, it’s just another iteration of Boeing’s blended wing transport as a possible C-130/C-17 replacement.

Cant see it supplanting the C-130 because of turboprop advantages. The6 are starting to think of a C-17 replacement as the early ones are getting tired because of Iraq/Afghanistan, but it’s still a way down the line.

Plus, even accepting it’s a military transport, being seated that far off the centreline in turns and turbulence is going to be an 8nteresting passenger experience.

Lots of room for fuel and freight though - even if adding a boom is definitely not stealthy.

[tdracer]

Lots of room for fuel and freight though - even if adding a boom is definitely not stealthy.

It could be - not that hard really. Simply make the boom retractable into a landing gear style bay. Stealthy receiver aircraft already do that with the probe.
Just cost and weight...

[ORAC]

An interesting concept…

The boom is as far back as possible and extends aft to allow a receiver to break away up, down, left or right and where the aerodynamics are least effected.

Put a boom in a bay and now, unless it extends a really long way, the receiver will have to be right under the tanker and with an interesting airflow around the bay, bay doors, boom, tanker airflow and receiver.

Im reminded of the XB-70/F-104 collision…..

[Asturias56]

Purely in the interests of accuracy, they have managed to get 1,271 Boeing 767s working "properly", what they haven't been able to do is design and build a Remote Vision System (RVS) that works on the KC-46. RVS 2.0 is out there and being tested, but after nearly a decade of broken promises and piss-poor performance, the Air Force is going to take a lot of persuading the fix is in. The RVS 2.0 program has already had a 19 month slip to Military Flight Release, so it's not an auspicious start. Publicly quoted numbers state that Boeing charged the DOD $4.9B (with a B) for the KC-46 Program, and have subsequently paid an additional $5B from internal funds to fux the fix-up. Not exactly business leading numbers.

That we all know - the original comment was clearly about the tanker conversion - I'm still floored that they haven't fixed it. It looked like the lowest cost, least risky conversion of all time................

[Vzlet]

...unless it extends a really long way…..

Maybe that's not a display stand the model is on!

[GlobalNav]

Purely in the interests of accuracy, they have managed to get 1,271 Boeing 767s working "properly", what they haven't been able to do is design and build a Remote Vision System (RVS) that works on the KC-46. RVS 2.0 is out there and being tested, but after nearly a decade of broken promises and piss-poor performance, the Air Force is going to take a lot of persuading the fix is in. The RVS 2.0 program has already had a 19 month slip to Military Flight Release, so it's not an auspicious start. Publicly quoted numbers state that Boeing charged the DOD $4.9B (with a B) for the KC-46 Program, and have subsequently paid an additional $5B from internal funds to fux the fix-up. Not exactly business leading numbers.

RVS is dumb as dirt. Boom operators using natural vision have done a great, low risk job for over half a century. RVS is a bad solution to a non-problem. Barring return to using natural, full color, 3D vision, autonomous boom operation would be a better path than RVS.

[Asturias56]

But how are people going to make money designing and selling kit if you're going to use people???

[BEagle]

A330MRTT Boom Enhanced Vision System with a 3D camera vision system for day and night refuelling seems to work just fine!

[RAFEngO74to09]

Latest USAF plan is to ditch previous KC-X, KC-Y and KC-Z programs and go for 179 x KC-46A on order - then 75 x possibly competed KC-46A / something else - then Next Generation Air-refueling System (NGAS) - which seems the same to me as KC-X, KC-Y and KC-Z in all but name - just changing the planned numbers of each!

USAF Shakes Up Its Plan for Tankers: Fewer ‘Traditional’ Refuelers, Focus on Stealth Future | Air & Space Forces Magazine (airandspaceforces.com) (https://www.airandspaceforces.com/usaf-shakes-up-its-plan-for-tankers-fewer-traditional-refuelers-focus-on-stealth-future/#.ZAcAxbzmt3I.twitter)

[GlobalNav]

A330MRTT Boom Enhanced Vision System with a 3D camera vision system for day and night refuelling seems to work just fine!

Interesting. Can it successfully refuel all the aircraft types the KC46 is required to and in the same spectrum of conditions?

I wonder what “3D camera vision“ really means. What is used to display the imagery so that the operator has a true 3D view? Does each eye get a unique view?

Interesting that the supplier for KC46 hasn’t found a way to successfully match the performance of the MRTT. Or perhaps they did and it’s still not satisfactory.

[melmothtw]

The USAF seems to have backed itself into a corner where it absolutely cannot buy the MRTT, lest it admit its mistake with the KC-46.

[ORAC]

So, at a time when the threat is in the Pacific theatre where range and fuel offload is at a premium, they’re binning the KC-Y large KC-10 replacement to buy more shorter range KC-46.

That makes sense for Boeing, not the DoD.

[tdracer]

I wonder what “3D camera vision“ really means. What is used to display the imagery so that the operator has a true 3D view? Does each eye get a unique view?

The short answer is yes - the operator sees a true 3d representation using multiple cameras (the console is, er, interesting). I can't elaborate for reasons that should be obvious. Apparently the issues are with resolution and poor lighting conditions - not the basic layout.

Interesting that the supplier for KC46 hasn’t found a way to successfully match the performance of the MRTT. Or perhaps they did and it’s still not satisfactory.
I know the MRTT does not meet all the mandatory requirements the USAF has for the KC-46 (granted, some of those requirements were silly, but if you pushed back on a silly requirement the USAF response was 'What part of mandatory don't you understand!' What I don't know is if any of those shortcomings relate to the remote vision system.

[SLXOwft]

Theoretically a '46 could fly unrefuelled one way from California to new South Wales, granted with out fulfilling it's primary mission, but taking on fuel from other tankers was even part of the KC-767 vision. Like all DoD program(me)s, it's all up for grabs until the pork gets allocated by Congress, as was reflected in the voting when members of the HASC failed in their attempt to get a mandatory full and open competition for the Bridge Tanker written into the fy23 DoD budget last June; those in favour promised to be back for another go this year. Those with Boeing supply chain constituents outvoted those with potentionally LXMT supply chain constituents.

From what I understand the Boeing offer for the Brige Tanker would be an enhanced and higher priced (i.e. profitable this time round) KC-46"B".

[stilton]

After the huge cost overruns on the KC46 program Boeing must be disappointed at the prospect of selling only 75 in addition to the original order


I’m sure they had hopes of providing hundreds more and replacing all the KC135R airframes one for one

[Less Hair]

Most will be needed to fuel then reengined B-52s and E-7s for a long time. So non-stealthy workhorses like MRTTs will perfectly fit.

[NutLoose]

Theoretically a '46 could fly unrefuelled one way from California to new South Wales, granted with out fulfilling it's primary mission, but taking on fuel from other tankers was even part of the KC-767 vision. Like all DoD program(me)s, it's all up for grabs until the pork gets allocated by Congress, as was reflected in the voting when members of the HASC failed in their attempt to get a mandatory full and open competition for the Bridge Tanker written into the fy23 DoD budget last June; those in favour promised to be back for another go this year. Those with Boeing supply chain constituents outvoted those with potentionally LXMT supply chain constituents.

From what I understand the Boeing offer for the Brige Tanker would be an enhanced and higher priced (i.e. profitable this time round) KC-46"B".

https://www.travelmath.com/distance/from/New+South+Wales/to/California

7,635 miles / 12 287 km flying

https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/voyager/

Maximum range with maximum fuel: 8,000nm (14,816km)
;)

RVS is dumb as dirt. Boom operators using natural vision have done a great, low risk job for over half a century. RVS is a bad solution to a non-problem. Barring return to using natural, full color, 3D vision, autonomous boom operation would be a better path than RVS.

Interesting that the supplier for KC46 hasn’t found a way to successfully match the performance of the MRTT. Or perhaps they did and it’s still not satisfactory.

meanwhile....

In 2020, Airbus joined with the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) to develop the A330 SMART MRTT – providing the company’s A330-derived Multi Role Tanker Transport with such capabilities as Automatic Air-to-Air refuelling and enhanced maintenance.

Airbus has begun flight testing for the development of the A330 SMART MRTT. The newly evolved aircraft will be the world's first to integrate the fully Automatic Air-to-Air Refuelling (A3R) capability. Using a converted tanker from the Republic of Singapore Air Force for the campaign, the SMART MRTT will also bring other innovations such as an enhanced vision system for night-time covert operations and improved sensors to capture more data and move towards predictive maintenance.


https://www.airbus.com/en/products-services/defence/military-aircraft/a330-mrtt#smart

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/08/02/us-air-force-to-issue-new-refueling-tanker-request-in-september/

US Air Force to issue new refueling tanker request in September

DAYTON, Ohio — The U.S. Air Force expects to release its formal request for information for a KC-135 tanker recapitalization in September, which will pave the way for an official acquisition strategy for the program it previously referred to as a “bridge tanker.”

In a roundtable discussion with reporters at the service’s Life Cycle Industry Days event in Dayton, Ohio, the deputy program executive officer for mobility aircraft, Scott Boyd, outlined the force’s plan for the next two stages in a major overhaul of its tanker fleet (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/03/07/us-air-force-reworks-tanker-modernization-plans-slashes-next-buy/).

But, Boyd cautioned, much remains undecided over how to eventually field an advanced refueling aircraft it now calls the next-generation aerial refueling system (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/02/06/everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-usaf-plots-new-refueling-tanker/), or NGAS.

The Air Force originally referred to its two final stages as KC-Y, or the bridge tanker, and KC-Z, following its procurement in recent years of the KC-46. Those three modernization stages are to replace the service’s legacy KC-135 Stratotanker fleet.

The Air Force initially had loose plans for KC-Z to arrive in the 2040s. The service originally planned to buy about 150 tankers as an interim step until then — possibly more KC-46s, although Lockheed Martin is pitching its LMXT strategic tanker (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/06/06/lockheed-picks-engine-to-bolster-interim-tanker-case-for-us-air-force/), based on Airbus’ A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport, as an alternative.

However, in March the Air Force shifted course on its future tanker modernization effort. Top leaders announced plans to speed up the acquisition of its most advanced future tanker, which was redubbed NGAS, to the mid- to late-2030s, and to cut in half the number of interim tankers it would buy.

Top service officials worry China’s advancing air capabilities will make it increasingly difficult for existing tankers to survive in highly contested airspace, and that a more advanced, survivable refueling aircraft able to operate in combat zones will need to hit the fleet sooner than anticipated. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said in March that NGAS would require a new design, not derived from a commercial aircraft, and that a blended wing design is a possibility for its body.

During Monday’s roundtable, Boyd stressed the service’s acquisition strategy is not set in stone.

“Doesn’t matter what any person, senior leader, otherwise has said: We don’t know what our acquisition strategy is,” Boyd said. “We’ve engaged with Congress on that as well to try to make clear that we still don’t know what our strategy is.”

But Boyd said the Air Force is working through a process on joint capabilities, integration and development in order to get the final requirements for the interim tanker approved by the Pentagon……..

The Air Force is still figuring out what NGAS will be, Boyd said. In early fiscal 2024, he added, the Air Force will start its formal analysis of alternatives, which is expected to produce recommendations on what would be needed to meet the service’s goals for NGAS. The service believes it could field an NGAS tanker as early as 2035, he noted.

Even though the service has dramatically accelerated its NGAS schedule, Boyd explained, it will still need the KC-135 recapitalization as an interim step.

Hanging over the process is the service’s decision to slash the number of purchased interim tankers to 75. And, Boyd said, it remains to be seen whether the Air Force will strike the right balance between that reduced buy and when NGAS might actually arrive.

“If we end up getting 2035 wrong, then perhaps we got the quantity of what we needed [on KC-135 modernization] wrong,” Boyd said. “That’s everyone’s concern — Air Force has that same concern, Congress has that concern, industry certainly has that concern.”

[madhon]

So its the usual case of "The answers Boeing, now what's the question" in action again

[GlobalNav]

So its the usual case of "The answers Boeing, now what's the question" in action again

The question is when, if ever, Boeing gets it act together and returns to quality design and production of airplanes?
When will it purge itself of the toxic McDonnell-Douglas culture?

[tdracer]

The question is when, if ever, Boeing gets it act together and returns to quality design and production of airplanes?
When will it purge itself of the toxic McDonnell-Douglas culture?
Global, I'm seeing some positive signs (I know a few Boeing 'new hires' and occasionally see one of the 'older' hands that are still there), but the progress is painfully slow.
Then again, I said something similar shortly before the MAX MCAS hit the fan :{

[GlobalNav]

Global, I'm seeing some positive signs (I know a few Boeing 'new hires' and occasionally see one of the 'older' hands that are still there), but the progress is painfully slow.
Then again, I said something similar shortly before the MAX MCAS hit the fan :{

I truly hope so, the company means so much to our area, and it’s employees, not to mention the tremendous resource to our national economy and security.

[NutLoose]

However, in March the Air Force shifted course on its future tanker modernization effort. Top leaders announced plans to speed up the acquisition of its most advanced future tanker, which was redubbed NGAS, to the mid- to late-2030s, and to cut in half the number of interim tankers it would buy.


Is that an acroymn for No Gas? Judging by the 767 fiasco it might well end up that way, they will still be arguing in the courts by the mid 2030's