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 29th Jul 2018, 14:40
  #661 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,593
Good article, grab a story from 5 years ago and throw in Special Forces, bingo, sell papers.

Clearly no mileage in US Navy jets had to rely on Royal Air Force tankers as US tankers can't refuel them.

Or international interoperability extends flexibility.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2018, 15:45
  #662 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 375
SASless-MOD sort anything quickly??

PN

Apart from the 59 KC10s and the small no (20 wish?) MPR KC135s then. Not to mention the BDA option on the remaining 400 135s?
vascodegama is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2018, 16:38
  #663 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,593
Vasco, as the DM was happy to use a 5 year old story I didn't see anything wrong with a 15 year old story when VC10s could do that which the USAF could not.

My point is you can spin it whichever way you want.

"RAF wasted money fitting booms . . .,"
​​​​
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2018, 00:05
  #664 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,133
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator View Post
Vasco, as the DM was happy to use a 5 year old story I didn't see anything wrong with a 15 year old story when VC10s could do that which the USAF could not.​​​​
PN, the KC-10 has been able to refuel probe equipped aircraft since entry into service and has been doing so for much longer than the last 15 years that you're suggesting...

-RP
Rhino power is online now  
Old 30th Jul 2018, 11:42
  #665 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator View Post
Vasco, as the DM was happy to use a 5 year old story I didn't see anything wrong with a 15 year old story when VC10s could do that which the USAF could not.​​​​
Wait, what? Way back when I flew probe equipped A-4s we refueled from KC-135s and KC-10s routinely. Later did it in F/A-18s also. So I don't know where this "USAF could not do it" comes from.
KenV is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2018, 15:50
  #666 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 1,912
RAF aircrafts can't refuel mid-air so US have to do it instead...
​​​​​​Aircrafts? AIRCRAFTS?

Are sub-editors a thing of the past now?
The Helpful Stacker is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2018, 14:14
  #667 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 72
Posts: 1,014
FAA clears obstacle to KC-46A delivery in October

A step closer... (Flight Global article)

From the article:-
An unresolved software flaw won’t delay the first delivery of the Boeing KC-46A tanker after the US Federal Aviation Administration approved a temporary exemption from safety requirements. Boeing’s engineers discovered earlier this year that the KC-46A lacks an independent system to monitor fuel flow, as required by the FAA’s safety regulations. If a single processor fails while the KC-46A is receiving fuel from another tanker, an overpressure event in the centre fuel tank may go undetected, according to Boeing’s nearly four-month old request for a temporary exemption.

On 2 August, the FAA approved Boeing’s exemption from the safety requirement, allowing the aircraft to be used on operational flights as scheduled after October. The FAA’s approval requires the USAF to operate the KC-46A in domestic airspace with another crew member in the cockpit to physically monitor the pressure in the centre fuel tank during an in-flight refueling.
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2018, 15:01
  #668 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 243
Boeing’s engineers discovered

It's not as if it's another Tutankahmun.
k3k3 is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2018, 15:47
  #669 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,359
PN: Back when refueling was an important part of my life, I recall the USAF having MPRS equipped tankers taking care of our strike aircraft from multiple nations. Not sure what era you are recalling. I do recall that hanging a MPRS on some tankers slightly shortened their on station time.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2018, 16:02
  #670 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Despite the doom and gloom often expressed here and elsewhere, USAF appears to be confident in Boeing's ability to produce the tankers they want:

Boeing Receives $2.9 Billion For KC-46A
The U.S. Air Force awarded Boeing a $2.9 billion contract modification Sept. 10 for the fourth lot of KC-46A tankers.
The contract includes 18 aircraft, spares, support equipment, spare engines and refueling pod kits.
Boeing is now on contract for 52 KC-46 tankers. The company received its first two production lots for seven and 12 aircraft in August 2016. The third lot for 15 aircraft was awarded in January 2017.
“We’re excited to partner with the Air Force on an aircraft that will provide its fleet unmatched capabilities and versatility,” Mike Gibbons, the company’s KC-46A tanker vice president and program manager, said in a statement. “This is another big milestone for the team and we look forward to delivering this next-generation, multirole tanker for years to come.”
The program received its supplemental type certificate from the FAA that verifies the platform’s refueling and mission avionics systems meet requirements. The platform still needs to receive its military type certificate (MTC) before delivering the first aircraft to the Air Force.
The company concluded MTC flight testing in early July, which included aerial refueling, defensive and other military specific systems. In total, 3,500 flight hours were completed, and more than 3 million lb. of fuel were offloaded during refueling flights with the F-16, F/A-18, AV-8B, C-17, A-10, KC-10, KC-135 and KC-46 aircraft.
KenV is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2018, 17:58
  #671 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Derby
Posts: 0
Ken

they have no choice......
friartuck is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2018, 19:23
  #672 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,006
As stated, they’re already committed so it doesn’t signify anything - and it doesn’t cost them anything because, with the accumulated penalties, all the DoD has to do is ask Boeing to take it off the bill....

Last edited by ORAC; 13th Sep 2018 at 06:22.
ORAC is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2018, 23:20
  #673 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,518
Exactly. Their only option is to derail the program and give Boeing legal grounds to renegotiate the deal. But for the blinkered, it's evidence that the program is going fine.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2018, 15:17
  #674 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Derby
Posts: 0
It's the guff spouted by their VP that grates TBH - a little humility would be better IMHO given the delays and cost overruns
friartuck is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2018, 15:45
  #675 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by LowObservable View Post
Exactly. Their only option is to derail the program and give Boeing legal grounds to renegotiate the deal. But for the blinkered, it's evidence that the program is going fine.
Hmmmmm. The firm fixed price contract was for the first 18 tankers. It does NOT apply to any follow-on tankers. In other words, the deal has already been "renegotiated."
KenV is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2018, 22:45
  #676 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 42
Originally the average cost was estimated at $241M per tanker ($43.16B for 179 tankers). This latest order costs $153M/tanker - a massive saving of 37%..... and this order includes " spares, support equipment, spare engines and refueling pod kits."

Looking at it from afar, it seems like a big financial inducement to get an order for 18 more tankers and keep the production line going.
Preemo is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2018, 23:12
  #677 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,388
Looking at it from afar, it seems like a big financial inducement to get an order for 18 more tankers and keep the production line going.
Development, R&D, and Certification are all done and paid for. Now it's strictly to cover the recurring cost of building the things. There is also ten years worth of inflation built into the total program costs
tdracer is online now  
Old 21st Sep 2018, 14:16
  #678 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,075
Stealthy Option?

SKunk Works talking about stealthy option for KC-7?

Skunk Works Talks Stealthy Aircraft Option For KC-Z Defense content from Aviation Week

Last edited by chopper2004; 25th Oct 2018 at 17:27.
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2018, 13:53
  #679 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,075
McConnell soon?

The rumour mill reckons that the first KC-46 could be delivered to McConnell as early as next month..

https://www.kansas.com/news/business...220490225.html

cheers

Last edited by chopper2004; 25th Oct 2018 at 17:27.
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2019, 05:51
  #680 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,006
https://www.defensenews.com/breaking...ll-years-away/

Boeing delivers first KC-46, but fixes to technical problems still years away

WASHINGTON — After more than a year of delays, the U.S. Air Force took hold of its first KC-46 tanker on Jan. 10, but it will take several years for the service and manufacturer Boeing to reconcile major technical problems, and the company will not be receiving the full amount of money due upon delivery.

The agreement, finalized after months of sometimes public and contentious discussions, allows McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas to receive the KC-46 as early as this month, with more set to follow, said Air Force spokeswoman Capt. Hope Cronin. However, the new tankers will arrive with several outstanding category-1 deficiencies, the term used by the military to describe the most serious level of technical problems.

That may sound like a blow to the Air Force, whose leaders had previously implied that all category-1 deficiencies must be fixed before the service begins accepting the tankers. However, service leaders believe the Air Force retains significant financial leverage, even as Boeing delivers the KC-46 aircraft, and the service sees it as vital that Air Mobility Command be able to begin training pilots and boom operators to use the tankers even as technical problems are being corrected......

Perhaps more importantly, the Air Force holds a significant trump card in its hand. According to the terms of its fixed-price contract with Boeing, the service can withhold up to $28 million per aircraft upon delivery — and the Air Force official said the service intends to keep that amount until it sees a good faith effort by Boeing to fix deficiencies. That means Boeing could miss out on $1.5 billion if the maximum withholding is applied to all 52 aircraft on contract.

“That is not something that legitimately can be contested by Boeing. That is purely a government decision until the airplane is brought up to specification,” the official said..........

Two key problems

Before the Air Force would accept the first KC-46, Boeing and the service first had to come to terms on the aircraft’s remote vision system, or RVS, the most significant technical hurdle that had bogged down talks between the parties. In short, Boeing has agreed to embark on a redesign effort for the Rockwell Collins-designed RVS that will involve both hardware and software changes. The Air Force believes it will take three to four years to develop a fully functioning RVS, and Boeing has agreed to fix it at its own expense, Cronin said.......

However, the Air Force also made key concessions. Namely, it will have to pay for another fix using taxpayer money.

During tests, the Air Force found that certain aircraft — most often, the A-10 Warthog — had trouble generating the necessary thrust to push into the boom for refueling. Boeing presented a boom design to the government at Milestone C that set the boom resistance to the international standard of about 1,400 pounds, which the government accepted, the Air Force official said. The problem is that to refuel the A-10, the boom must have a much lower threshold of thrust resistance, around 650 pounds.

Because the Air Force is asking for a change in requirements, it has agreed to fund the additional work — though it is still working out how much it will cost for the redesign work and retrofits, the official said. That redesign and manufacturing process will probably take about two years.....









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.