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 24th Aug 2016, 23:29
  #501 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,362
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
USN and USAF going separate ways...

https://www.navytimes.com/articles/c...ll-be-a-tanker
ORAC, that's articles got little to nothing to do with USAF, but it might warrant a new thread on that carrier based tanker drone thingus.



Just because we used the KA-6D for tankers back in the day didn't mean "USN and USAF going separate ways" -- it meant that the Navy has a very specific mission requirement for organic tanking in a CVBG. End of. Unmanned? Heck, if it works, why not?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2016, 04:29
  #502 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,825
Can't really buy the argument of the P&W engine offering more thrust, the version i've been using on the 767-400 has 63,500 pounds available.


If GE doesn't want to support it for the next 50 ? years that's different.


Deleting the thrust reversers made no sense at all, one slippery day that decision
will come back to bite !
stilton is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2016, 14:47
  #503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,452
Can't really buy the argument of the P&W engine offering more thrust, the version i've been using on the 767-400 has 63,500 pounds available.
Not really - on the CF6-80C2B8F that thrust isn't available statically, it rolls in with forward speed. The max N1 you can set statically on the B8F rating is exactly the same as it is on the B6F rating (60K+). It's a little trick that GE pulled - to recertify the engine to a higher max thrust would cost a fortune. But as you start rolling down the runway, net thrust lapses (drops) with forward speed, so what GE did is increase max N1 between 30 and 60 knots to get back the thrust available statically. 63.5k is what you'd get if you had the 60 knot N1 statically - but the FADEC won't let you do that (unless you're in the unrated alternate mode, in which case you're overboosting the engine). Pratt is doing something similar on the 767-2C/KC-46, increasing max EPR with forward speed.

Deleting the thrust reversers made no sense at all, one slippery day that decision will come back to bite !
Perhaps, but USAF didn't want them
tdracer is online now  
Old 2nd Sep 2016, 03:42
  #504 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,825
Very interesting, thanks for the info TD.
stilton is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2016, 18:37
  #505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Defense Daily 09/22/2016
Author: Rich Abott

The State Department approved a possible $1.9 billion Foreign Military Sales (FMS) request to Japan for KC-46A aerial refueling aircraft and related equipment, training, and support.The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified Congress of the potential sale on Sept. 21.
The sale would include four KC-46A aerial refueling aircraft., which is powered by two Pratt & Whitney Model 4062 (PW4062) Turbofan engines, with one additional spare engine. Each KC-46A is set to be delivered with GPS capability and defensive systems installed plus spares. This capability set includes the Raytheon [RTN] ALR-69A Radar Warning Receiver (RWR), Raytheon Miniaturized Airborne GPS Receiver (MAGR) 2000 (2K) to provide GPS Selective Availability AntiSpoofing Module SAASM capability, and Northrop Grumman's [NOC] AN/AAQ-24(V) Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) system.

Each LAIRCM system comprises of three Guardian [email protected] Terminal Assemblies (GLTA), six Ultra-Violet Missile Warning System (UVMWS) Sensors AN/AAR-54, one LAIRCM System Processor Replacements (LSPR), one Control Indicator Unit Replacement, one Smart Card Assembly, and one High Capacity Card. All of the above major defense equipment (MDE) in the sale is worth about $1.5 billion.

Non-MDE equipment in the sale includes 12 AN/ARC-210 UHF Radios, six APX-119 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) transponders, initial spares and repair parts, consumables, support equipment, technical data, engineering change proposals, publications, Field Service Representatives' (FSRs), repair and return, depot maintenance, training and training equipment, and contractor technical and logistics personnel services.

The sale also includes U.S. government and contractor representative support, Group A and B installation for subsystems, flight test and certification, and other related elements of logistics support.

The primary contractors for the sale are Boeing [BA] as aircraft manufacturer, Raytheon as manufacturer of the ALR-69A and the MAGR 2K, and Northrop Grumman as producer of the AN/AAQ-24(V)N LAIRCM system. Final assembly and delivery of the KC-46A occurs at Boeing's Everett, Wash., production facility, DSCA said.

Japan would use these aircraft and equipment to increase its capability to participate in Pacific region security operations and improve the country’s security posture as a U.S. ally, the agency said. DSCA characterized the KC-46A sale as a “needed capability” that will help Japan meet its legitimate security and defense needs.

Side note: The 12 ARC-210 radios has me a bit baffled. The ARC-210 has been out of production for some time and we had trouble getting them for the last few C-17s, and that was a few years ago.
KenV is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2016, 20:01
  #506 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,745
Stilton
re Thrust reversers, Not just "one slippery day"...every day! For a start, idle reverse reduces the need for wheel braking to almost nothing on a limiting LDR x 1.5 (or better) runway at MLW for normal ops. Additionally, there is a small factor to improve TORR and LDR performance with reverse and so, improve max operating weights and reduce operating base field requirements. The improvements to MTOW can be important where a base with limiting TODA/TORA must be used!

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2016, 04:32
  #507 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,825
Couldn't agree more but this seems to be a USAF thing, they deleted the reversers
on the CFM56 that power the KC135R as well.
stilton is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2016, 14:53
  #508 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 768
Can anyone ballpark what the savings would be not checking the reverse option on the dealer sheet? I would imagine initial and recurring savings in several categories, but how much cost, weight, reliability and maintenance are we talking about? I do understand that some thrust reversers cause more headaches than others.
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2016, 16:11
  #509 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Deleting reversers may seem like an odd thing (and I would agree), but requiring a main deck cargo door and main deck cargo floor are not that odd. They are basic customer requirements. Airbus did not agree and Airbus/Northrup Grumman's proposal was based on the passenger version of the A330 and not the freighter version, while Boeing's proposal was based on the 767F. It was obvious failures to meet basic requirements like these (along with illegal development aid by USAF to Airbus) that resulted in Boeing's successful protest. And the rest is history.
KenV is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2016, 16:44
  #510 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
according to Flight this week the USAF are already looking at a K-46 successor for 2030-ish.......
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2016, 17:19
  #511 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,071
Not so much a successor as the planned KC-Z. It looks like the KC-Y programme will be cancelled and split between extra KC-X (KC-46) and KC-Z.

The KC-Z was supposed to be the heavyweight tanker to replace the KC-10; not sure Airbus would even have bid though, even if the A330 is better on paper than the 777 for the job. Fingers burnt and knowing that they are only being used to drive the Boeing price down.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-strat-210459/

However, it now seems that the USAF will want more of a stealth/tactical/UAV tanker, driven by the F-35s short legs and the needs of the Pacific theatre, so who knows?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...c-z-ta-429534/

maybe a spin off from the RAQ-25 CBARS?
ORAC is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2016, 17:21
  #512 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
according to Flight this week the USAF are already looking at a K-46 successor for 2030-ish.......
The KC-135 has flown for over 60 years and will continue to do so for another decade or two. Maybe longer. The C-17 is planned to fly for another 100 years. It's likely that the "successor" to the KC-46 will be a derivative of the KC-46. But there is one big fudge factor in any future large aircraft programs. Boeing is on contract by NASA to further develop the Blending Wing Body and Low Drag Trussed-Braced Wing concepts. If there's a breakthrough in those technologies, USAF may ride on NASA's coattails to make an operational version.
KenV is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2016, 17:24
  #513 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
The KC-Z was supposed to be the heavyweight tanker to replace the KC-10; not sure Airbus would even have bid though, even if the A330 is better on paper than the 777 for the job.
I've heard from a number of quarters that the 777 is too highly optimized to cost effectively turn it into a tanker. The 787 even more so.
KenV is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2016, 20:55
  #514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,362
KenV, do you mean too highly optimized for pax carriage? I had heard that 777's carry a bit of cargo as well ... but the devil is in the details.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2016, 21:50
  #515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 48
Posts: 782
The C-17 is planned to fly for another 100 years.
Now that is impressive...although I wonder what pilots born in 2096 will think of those archaic LCD displays :-)
NWSRG is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2016, 22:10
  #516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,452
Originally Posted by KenV View Post
I've heard from a number of quarters that the 777 is too highly optimized to cost effectively turn it into a tanker. The 787 even more so.
KenV, that's not the way I heard it - the 777F would have made an great tanker. But there were three primary problems:
The ARINC 629 data system would have been a bitch to harden for HIRF/EMI/EMP;
The 777 is relatively expensive to build relative to the 767;
Most importantly, during the time frame in question (~2010), Boeing was able to readily sell all the 777s it could build to commercial customers, while orders for the 767 had pretty much dried up.

Last edited by tdracer; 26th Sep 2016 at 22:25.
tdracer is online now  
Old 27th Sep 2016, 03:14
  #517 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,825
Is the KC46 'hardened' for EMP ?
stilton is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2016, 03:16
  #518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,452
Originally Posted by stilton View Post
Is the KC46 'hardened' for EMP ?
Yep, EMP, HIRF, Lightning - to very high levels.
Much of the compliance has to be done by analysis because the levels are considerably higher than what can be generated in a lab environment...
tdracer is online now  
Old 27th Sep 2016, 09:36
  #519 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
The US Air Force's head of air mobility command is calling for the service to acquire more tankers by 2035 and to possibly develop a "KC-Y" tanker to fill a procurement gap.

Based on the USAF’s current needs, Gen. Carlton Everhart says 179 Boeing KC-46 tankers the service is set to procure by 2028 are not enough. He also says the service's procurement of the future KC-Zs should be brought forward to 2035.

Even that schedule, however, would leave the US Air Force with no deliveries between 2028 and 2035 -- a gap Everhart says could be filled with an interim capability called KC-Y.
“I want to jump the leap in technology to go straight to the KC-Z,” he says. “If it means to bridge that, sure. But I’m also looking to the next leaps in technology because we do supply fuel to the nation.”

The air force will begin a study this year examining what the KC-Z tanker would look like and will start seeking investment opportunities a year after the study is completed. The USAF is considering whether the new tanker should include standoff, stealth or penetrating capabilities for an anti-access area denial environment. As the F-35 moves into denied environments, a low observable tanker should follow the fighter, Everhart says.

“We’re going to need a platform that we’ve never seen before,” he says. “The blended or hybrid wing, it’s a lifting body and it has a capability of being low observable.”
The service is also examining an unmanned tanker similar to the Navy’s MQ-25 Stingray, a programme which has shifted focus from a surveillance to air refueling role.

While Everhart has targeted a 2035 time frame for KC-Z, other factors in the service’s budget (including aircraft divestment), will affect the schedule. Science and technology (S&T) funding for KC-Z has already been covered under the KC-46 programme, Everhart says. “We gleaned some... funding off the KC-46 to help evolve the next programme,” he says. “S&T – we’ve already paid for it, it’s already been done.”
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2016, 10:32
  #520 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,071
HH, that's a copy of the second link in my post #511 above.
ORAC 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.