More KC-46A woes....
There comes a time when it must be acknowledged that this program is well and truly past it's sell by date. By the time any of these things arrive in service, they will be seriously obsolete. Why would the great businessman himself not kill what is obviously a dire money pit.
IG
IG
well it is for Boeing but the USAF is largely protected by a fixed price contract form the wilder shores of this financial disaster
Looking back on here there is quite a lot of discussion as to how such a great aeroplane builder managed to screw this one up so badly...............
Looking back on here there is quite a lot of discussion as to how such a great aeroplane builder managed to screw this one up so badly...............
Quite a lot when you're making money elsewhere and you are desperate to keep the opposition out
They'd never live it down if they pulled the plug now
They'd never live it down if they pulled the plug now
Anyone know if this problem with the remote vision system will allow the 46 to tank or not? Is it just that it is not as good as they want, or they can’t tank with it? or just limitations in certain scenarios. 3-4 years to fix sounds huge.
Thread Starter
6 years? Surely not - that would mean some 14 years after the first A330MRTT first entered service...
...and some 16 years after the first operational use of the A310MRTT, which will celebrate 10 years of operational use on Feb 4 this year!
...and some 16 years after the first operational use of the A310MRTT, which will celebrate 10 years of operational use on Feb 4 this year!
Unlike previous USAF tankers, the boom is operated remotely from a station just aft of the flight deck, using a 3d vision system. The capabilities of the 3d vision system are good, but aren't quite as good as was originally promised. As a result, it can do anything the KC-135 can do, but isn't quite the step improvement that the USAF wants.
Oh, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the A330MRTT doesn't meet the USAF requirements either.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope no one is suggesting A330MRTT didn’t have a protracted and troubled development. Took a long time to get it to the stage it is now.
It's not American.............
Read the thread - there are dozens of posts on the subject.
But the short answer is that the A330MRTT - as it currently exists - has a number of areas that would not comply with the published USAF requirements that both Boeing and Airbus needed to meet. No 'off the shelf' tanker would have come close. Mandatory requirements - not negotiable (some of them rather dumb but that's another issue).
That's why Boeing couldn't simply use the KC-767, which was already developed and has been in service for many years.
But the short answer is that the A330MRTT - as it currently exists - has a number of areas that would not comply with the published USAF requirements that both Boeing and Airbus needed to meet. No 'off the shelf' tanker would have come close. Mandatory requirements - not negotiable (some of them rather dumb but that's another issue).
That's why Boeing couldn't simply use the KC-767, which was already developed and has been in service for many years.
I hope no one is suggesting A330MRTT didn’t have a protracted and troubled development. Took a long time to get it to the stage it is now.
Oh, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the A330MRTT doesn't meet the USAF requirements either.
IIRC correctly, Boeing's complaint was that the USAF hadn't asked for the extra capabilities of the A330 MRTT, and so shouldn't have considered them when making its decision. It was then that Boeing started talking about the 'tactical' nature of the KC-46A, and its ability to operate closer to the fight. This was the only positive differentiatior it had, IMHO.
That's why Boeing couldn't simply use the KC-767, which was already developed and has been in service for many years
It's not American.............
Last edited by melmothtw; 14th Jan 2019 at 08:42.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
There minor tech problems
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is related to tanking stealth aircraft under certain very specific lighting conditions. USAF has approved the software fix Boeing has proposed and Boeing will apply it to all the KC-46s for free.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummm, no. Northrop/Airbus won the competition to DEVELOP a tanker based on the A330MRTT. The A330MRTT did NOT meet USAF requirements at the first competition, nor did it later, not does it now. That's total bollocks.
Of course it didn't meet the USAF requirements, which is why they didn't select it. Oh wait...
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KC-767 had a cargo door and it did not meet the requirements. No aircraft anywhere met USAF's requirements. Northrop/Airbus's proposal (as well as Boeing's) met the requirements, but not the existing aircraft. But the bottom line was that neither the A330MRTT nor the KC-767 could meet USAF's requirements. Keep in mind that in 2006 when the RFP was released, Airbus did not even have a single flight qualified refueling boom, while Boeing had two. But Northrop/Airbus's proposal was superior to Boeing's and thus it won the first competition. To put this in perspective, by the time of the final proposal, Boeing had switched to their "advanced boom" (developed on the KC-10) to overcome Airbus's superior boom envelope (the original boom was based on the KC-135 boom). USAF also required a very robust OBIGGS (tank inerting) suite that neither the A330MRTT nor the KC-767 had and which required development. This resulted in a significant delay when the manifolding was done wrong. Also consider that over 25 miles of wiring were added to the KC-767 to turn it into a KC-46. This wiring accounted for a lot of the delays in the program. I can't get into what all that wiring does, but rest assured that neither the A330MRTT nor the KC-767 includes that wiring nor the systems that wiring services. But I can say that because of those systems, the KC-46 does a LOT more than just pass fuel to other aircraft.
So, basically - saying that the A330 "doesn't meet USAF requirements" has nothing to do with the basic MRTT system, but has to do with add-ons such as OBIGGS, support for future comms roles &c, which are USAF-unique and would have been added during development.