Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

More KC-46A woes....

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

More KC-46A woes....

Old 30th Jan 2015, 01:58
  #201 (permalink)  
O-P
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 192
td,


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


Just the cynic in me!
O-P is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2015, 08:51
  #202 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,047
KC-46A First Flight Facing Delay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He also highlighted two potential foreign sales opportunities: a direct commercial sale to South Korea and a foreign military sale to Japan. Korea is expected to downselect its choice of tanker in May, while Richardson said he expects an RFP from Japan sometime in April.
ORAC is online now  
Old 18th Mar 2015, 10:36
  #203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
Sounds like a man who has realised his "career enhancing opportunity" is leading to early, and sudden, retirement and gardening rather than a nice sinecure in the Defence Business

Last edited by Heathrow Harry; 18th Mar 2015 at 17:37.
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2015, 12:10
  #204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,526
"It will fly when it's ready."

Words you never want to hear from your prime contractor.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2015, 17:38
  #205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
indeed..

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

not good at all
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2015, 21:40
  #206 (permalink)  
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
I'll bet on Boeing.

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

Had Airbus won it would have been no different.

The new world-class tanker is going to happen, and if it's anything like the KC-135 or KC-10, will serve the free world for the next 50 years. Rejoice!
BenThere is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2015, 22:31
  #207 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,047
Perhaps, but has the USA lost its way for design and overseas sales?

A12, B-2, F-22, RAH-66, F35. When was the last great seller, even the C-17?
ORAC is online now  
Old 19th Mar 2015, 04:59
  #208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
Originally Posted by BenThere View Post
Had Airbus won it would have been no different.
Really? and what's with the rejoicing and free world c##p?

Last edited by glad rag; 19th Mar 2015 at 06:31.
glad rag is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2015, 09:19
  #209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 49
Posts: 715
Considering the first A330 MRTT was handed over to the launch customer in June 2011 - had Airbus won, the USAF could have a handful of KC-45s flying already.
D-IFF_ident is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2015, 09:54
  #210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
yeah but it's taken 5 years to sort out the boom on the Aussie tankers
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2015, 10:50
  #211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 49
Posts: 715
Might have taken 5 years for the RAAF to agree the software specifications for the KC-30A boom, but all the other A330 MRTT operators, who have the boom option, have been using theirs operationally for a few years.
D-IFF_ident is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2015, 12:49
  #212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
...all the other A330 MRTT operators, who have the boom option, have been using theirs operationally for a few years.
Really? Care to name them?
melmothtw is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2015, 14:44
  #213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 49
Posts: 715
It's no secret:

Airbus A330 MRTT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
D-IFF_ident is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2015, 18:56
  #214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Considering the first A330 MRTT was handed over to the launch customer in June 2011 - had Airbus won, the USAF could have a handful of KC-45s flying already.
That's ludicrous. Boeing "handed over" KC-767s to Japan way back in 2008. You fail to recognize that what USAF specified and what Airbus is now delivering are two VERY different things and not at all comparable.

Might have taken 5 years for the RAAF to agree the software specifications for the KC-30A boom, but all the other A330 MRTT operators, who have the boom option, have been using theirs operationally for a few years.
I believe there's a rather large difference between "using" something operationally for "a few years," and having all the bugs worked out to the point that the boom meets all of its specifications/requirements over its full envelop. For example, the A400 Atlas is now being "used operationally", but it is very far from reaching IOC.
KenV is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2015, 19:28
  #215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
has the USA lost its way for design and overseas sales?

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

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

And the F-22 and B-2 were never going to be exported, so they're a bit of a red herring in this context.
KenV is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2015, 23:19
  #216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 645
Partly concur with Ken & D-IFF here...

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

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

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


F/A
FoxtrotAlpha18 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2015, 12:59
  #217 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 49
Posts: 715
One boom in the bottom of the Atlantic - the other recovered back to Getafe.

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

Those who need to know the operational capabilities of nations with particular AAR assets know; those who don't need to know, probably shouldn't be relied upon for advice.
D-IFF_ident is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2015, 17:25
  #218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
I thougt KenV had apoint until I saw the bit about the F-35 ...

a lot of peopel have put down bits of paper saying they MIGHT buy a lot but the actual sales aren't startling yet
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2015, 19:43
  #219 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
KenV should be careful of confusing one operator's definition of FOC with another's.
I'm was making no such comparison. I was pointing out that "operationally using" a system is way way different than having a fully developed and operational system, regardless of the nation's definition for "operational".

a lot of peopel have put down bits of paper saying they MIGHT buy a lot but the actual sales aren't startling yet.
It's rather difficult to have "startling sales" of a fighter that is barely in low rate initial production. And the F-35 has more commitments (including billions in investments) than any other fighter in history at this stage of development/production. So yeah, it's doing well marketing-wise. Arguably better than any other fighter in history. Indeed, the F-35 has been downselected for purchase by more nations than the Typhoon and Rafael combined. Just that fact that the Air Force, Navy AND Marines have bought it speaks volumes about how well it has been marketed.

Last edited by KenV; 20th Mar 2015 at 20:00.
KenV is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2015, 20:43
  #220 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 765
Quote: ORAC
has the USA lost its way for design and overseas sales?

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



Ken V


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

And the F-22 and B-2 were never going to be exported, so they're a bit of a red herring in this context.
Agree, not sure what axe ORAC is trying to grind. Lots of good examples of export success. How about we take a look at European fighter export success?

Might I add to the success column:
C-130
H-60 in numerous versions
Several Bell Helo's
sandiego89 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.