More KC-46A woes....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 16:37.
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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?
A12, B-2, F-22, RAH-66, F35. When was the last great seller, even the C-17?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
a lot of peopel have put down bits of paper saying they MIGHT buy a lot but the actual sales aren't startling yet
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV should be careful of confusing one operator's definition of FOC with another's.
a lot of peopel have put down bits of paper saying they MIGHT buy a lot but the actual sales aren't startling yet.
Last edited by KenV; 20th Mar 2015 at 19:00.
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.
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.
Might I add to the success column:
C-130
H-60 in numerous versions
Several Bell Helo's