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 15th Jul 2016, 08:47
  #481 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,001
Fuzzy and analog is often far better than digital precision.
ORAC is online now  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 15:14
  #482 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Back on topic, it is nice to see that the occasional hardware fix is still acceptable. There's not always "an app for that!"
There are downsides to doing things in hardware vs software. Yet another part to maintain, inspect, stock, replace and otherwise keep track of over the life of the KC-46 system, which from all indications will be a LOOONNNGGG time. That's why they hoped to accomplish this in software, with the hardware as a fall back option. It was a good idea, but not all good ideas work out the way you hope.
KenV is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2016, 13:05
  #483 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
KC-46A Pegasus completes Milestone C refueling testing
Boeing’s KC-46A Pegasus tanker completed its required Milestone C aerial refueling tests Friday when it transferred 1,500 pounds (680 kilograms or 220 gallons ) of fuel to an A-10 aircraft. The successful flight paves the way for the U.S. Air Force to award Boeing a low-rate initial production contract as early as next month.
During the previous week, the KC-46A refueled both F-16 Falcon and C-17 Globemaster III aircraft. The transfer of fuel to all three aircraft demonstrated that a hardware update, recently installed on the refueling boom to reduce loads placed on it by receiver aircraft after contact, performed as expected.
"I’m encouraged by these results," said Deborah James, secretary of the U.S. Air Force. "The KC-46 program continues to move forward, making important progress that will get this vital capability into the hands of the warfighter."
During the flight with the C-17, Boeing and Air Force air refueling operators aboard the KC-46 completed multiple contacts before offloading 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms), or about 320 gallons of fuel at 20,000 feet (6,100 meters).
Sean Martin, Boeing Test & Evaluation KC-46 chief aerial refueling operator, extended the boom out to its maximum range of 57 1/2 feet (18 meters) during refueling.
"The performance was outstanding," Martin said. "The characteristics of the boom with the updated hardware is awesome, just as ground test and modeling predicted. The boom flew exceptionally well for all contacts."
According to Tim Peters, Boeing KC-46 tanker vice president and program manager, completing the flights — along with the earlier F/A-18, AV-8B and KC-10 tests — represents a significant step in Boeing’s commitment to deliver KC-46A aircraft to the U.S. Air Force.
"These successful test flights reinforce that we are moving in the right direction and on track toward a production decision in August," Peters said.
Boeing now has five aircraft in flight test, including the first production aircraft. In total, more than 900 flight-test hours have been completed to date.
By Kymberly Vandlac
KenV is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2016, 16:18
  #484 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 664
[QUOTE]The performance was outstanding," Martin said. "The characteristics of the boom with the updated hardware is awesome, just as ground test and modelling predicted/[QUOTE]

Almost sounds as if it was intended that way in the first place. Must be a real success story...
Saintsman is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2016, 16:19
  #485 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 726
"Boeing also announced on Thursday a $393m charge on the KC46 air tanker that it is developing for the US air force based on its 767 passenger jet.

This means that the company has recorded $1.4bn of charges on the air tanker programme over the past two years."

From the FT always an interesting read.
Bigpants is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2016, 07:31
  #486 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Cripes. I remember doing some design work 15 years ago on the hose drum drive system for the hose/drogue version of the refueling rig for this aircraft. Sad to see it is still not ready for service.
riff_raff is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2016, 05:14
  #487 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,380
This means that the company has recorded $1.4bn of charges on the air tanker programme over the past two years."

Interesting tidbit - Boeing has now managed to write off a number roughly equal to the original 767 total development cost.
Yes, I know there has been significant inflation in the mean time and a billion dollars isn't what it once was, but it does demonstrate just how badly Boeing has lost it's way in the last 30 years.
tdracer is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2016, 19:15
  #488 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 664
This means that the company has recorded $1.4bn of charges on the air tanker programme over the past two years
More to the point, it shows how inflated their other products are in order to cover such costs.
Saintsman is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2016, 08:07
  #489 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,001
With a nascent joint AAR force, Airbus seems to cornered the remaining NATO partner tanker market.

Netherlands, Luxembourg Pitch In Two Airbus Tankers For NATO Fleet
ORAC is online now  
Old 29th Jul 2016, 13:35
  #490 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
More to the point, it shows how inflated their other products are in order to cover such costs.
Interesting opinion. And yet they took a multibillion dollar charge and reported negative 2nd quarter profits. So those costs were NOT "covered". The employee performance incentive bonus is going to take a serious hit because of the loss in profit.
KenV is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2016, 15:06
  #491 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,209
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
With a nascent joint AAR force, Airbus seems to cornered the remaining NATO partner tanker market.

Netherlands, Luxembourg Pitch In Two Airbus Tankers For NATO Fleet
Well that sorts out the 'How do we refuel the RC135/P8' etc problem....mutual asistance and all that.... :-)
Davef68 is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2016, 04:26
  #492 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,001
Hmmmmm, what chance of the sudden announcement of a government to government between New Delhi and Washington for KC-46?

India Cancels Deal for Six Airbus Tankers

NEW DELHI — India has withdrawn the tender for a much-awaited contract for the purchase of six multi-role tanker transport (MRTT) aircraft with Airbus Defence and Space, worth more than $1 billion, on grounds of the planes’ high operational cost. This is the second MRTT aircraft global tender to be cancelled by the ministry of defense since 2006.

"We have [recently] cancelled the MRTT deal with Airbus because platforms are too expensive and not economically viable to operate", said an MoD official who declined to be identified. "We have examined this deal very carefully and the [budgetary] approval has been rejected thrice by the Indian finance ministry," the MoD official said.

"This is indeed a setback to us, as we want the MRTT aircraft desperately, and a fresh [global] procurement will take at least five more years", said a senior air force official said who requested anonymity. The A330 MRTT came out on top of a Russian offering twice in the technical evaluation and, according to the air service, would have proven comparatively economical to operate over its lifespan.............

"The Indian government has struggled to make purchases through the open tender mechanism and is increasingly relying on the government-to-government route to meet the needs of the armed forces," independent defense analyst Nitin Mehta said. "The Airbus A330 MRTT acquisition is a case in point where twice the bidder was technically selected, declared lowest bidder (L-1), and each time the government has withdrawn in the process," Mehta added.
ORAC is online now  
Old 31st Jul 2016, 08:29
  #493 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
" This is the second MRTT aircraft global tender to be cancelled by the ministry of defense since 2006"

quite why anyone bothers with India is beyond me - I suppose it keeps your marketing people busy between talking to serious customers................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2016, 16:59
  #494 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Pentagon expected to OK production of Boeing KC-46 tanker

Everett Herald (WA) 08/12/2016
Author: Dan Catchpole

EVERETT — The Pentagon is expected to put its seal of approval on Boeing’s new KC-46 tanker later this month. That means the company can focus on ramping up production of the aerial refueling tanker as it races to deliver the first batch of 18 to the military. Boeing has already said it will not meet the August 2017 delivery deadline.

Developing the KC-46 Pegasus, which is based on Boeing’s 767 and assembled in Everett, has been a bumpy road, dogged by design and supply chain problems that have added up to more than $1.5 billion in cost overruns for Boeing. The next goal in the multi-role tanker’s development is approval from the Pentagon to officially begin production, a waypoint dubbed milestone C in the program’s timeline.

Despite the various delays and setbacks, “we believe that the aircraft has met all of the wickets that are required to meet milestone C, but of course that remains to be seen, so I’ll say stay tuned on that,” the Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James said in a briefing Wednesday.
KenV is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2016, 18:09
  #495 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 72
Posts: 1,014
And indeed it has happened:-
KC-46 Tanker Cleared for Production
WASHINGTON – The KC-46A Pegasus tanker has been cleared for production, a major step forward for the Boeing-led design.

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s acquisition head, declared the program has successfully cleared Milestone C review late Friday.

The Air Force expects to award the first two Low Rate Initial Production lots within the next 30 days. Those contracts will cover 19 and associated spare parts, for a pre-negotiated $2.8 billion combined value.
More info in the Defense News article.
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2016, 09:44
  #496 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,001
Boeing Rakes in $2.8B Contract For First Two KC-46 Lots | DefenseNews

WASHINGTON — The Air Force on Thursday awarded Boeing a $2.8 billion contract for 19 KC-46A tankers, just days after the company received the green light for low rate initial production. The award covers the first two lots of LRIP aircraft —seven aircraft in the first batch and 12 in the second — as well as spare engines and refueling pod kits. Boeing is expected to deliver 18 aircraft to the Air Force by January 2018.........

The Pentagon cleared the KC-46 for low rate initial production last week after a Defense Acquistion Board review, the Air Force announced late last Friday. Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall was responsible for making the Milestone C decision.........

Those aircraft will be delivered to McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, and Altus Air Force, Oklahoma, the Air Force said last week. Deliveries will begin in 2017, according to the Boeing statement.........
ORAC is online now  
Old 24th Aug 2016, 03:59
  #497 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,815
Why was the P&W engine chosen at all ?


The GE option was already certified and all issues resolved on the KC767, why add another unknown ?
stilton is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2016, 14:00
  #498 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Why was the P&W engine chosen at all ?
The GE option was already certified and all issues resolved on the KC767, why add another unknown ?
Hard to say. The 767 based E-4 AWACS was GE powered also. However, I've heard but cannot confirm that GE wants to stop production of the CF6-80C2 in favor of their GEnX, while P&W was willing to continue producing (and supporting) their PW4064. The KC-46 will be in production for many many years, albeit at a lowish rate compared to typical commercial production rates. Maybe GE was not willing to continue low rate production of an old engine for many more years for just a single application. On the other hand, FEDEX's 767 freighters are GE powered and they'll be in production for quite some time yet.

Maybe P&W gave USAF an offer they could not refuse? P&W does have experience producing an engine at a low rate for a single application. The F-117 (basically a PW2040) that powers the C-17 was produced at a low rate for many years and C-17 was the only application for that engine for about a decade.
KenV is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2016, 18:27
  #499 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,380
There were a number of reasons for picking the PW4000. First off, the engine installations is enough different on the 767-2C relative to the KC767 it needed to be re-certified, so that wasn't a significant consideration. The PW4062 is slightly more powerful than the CF6-80C2 (62k max TO, vs. a little over 60k for the CF6). Since the PW4000 switched to the "ring case compressor", fuel burn and performance retention have been at least on par with the CF6 (some claim slightly better). The 767 PW4000 nacelle is built in-house by Boeing, the CF6 nacelle is supplied by GE via Middle River, so it was easier on the PW4000 to make the changes to delete the thrust reverser (and scuttlebutt has been that the CF6 nacelle costs more than what it costs Boeing to do the PW4000 reverser).
I'm sure price was a factor - I suspect Pratt was willing to discount the price more than GE, especially since this is the only remaining Pratt installation for Boeing.
Ken, GE has committed to building CF6-80C2 engines for the 767F to support the FedEx orders for the next 10 years (granted, it may not have been known how many 767s FedEx would ultimately buy back when the 767-2C was being negotiated).
tdracer is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2016, 18:42
  #500 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,001
USN and USAF going separate ways...

https://www.navytimes.com/articles/c...ll-be-a-tanker
ORAC is online now  

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.