More KC-46A woes....
Ken - May I remind you of basic Internet etiquette: ALL CAPS is shouting. Please stop.
You're right about one thing. Boeing underbid on the initial contract. But let's get things clear: the customer, Gawd bless him, is going to end up paying what it cost to develop the airplane, plus margin, irrespective of the initial price. Boeing will make its money back once the USAF needs support and services and Boeing owns the IP on the commercially certificated baseline aircraft,
As for whether Airbus would have incurred the same delays - we don't know. However, it does seem that a very conscious Boeing decision, post-award, to change the way the KC-46 was built has played a part in the problems. To get the cost closer to the price they'd bid, Boeing decided to build the aircraft at Everett, as the 767-2C, up to the point where the boom and pods (and other things) got bolted on, because commercial manufacture was cheaper. I believe it's been suggested here that some commercial/military standards conflicted.
Also, enough with the red herrings over the cargo floor. Previous MRTTs did not have one. However, by the time the contract for KC-X was awarded, the A330-200F had been in service for a year, so it was not exactly a risk factor.
You're right about one thing. Boeing underbid on the initial contract. But let's get things clear: the customer, Gawd bless him, is going to end up paying what it cost to develop the airplane, plus margin, irrespective of the initial price. Boeing will make its money back once the USAF needs support and services and Boeing owns the IP on the commercially certificated baseline aircraft,
As for whether Airbus would have incurred the same delays - we don't know. However, it does seem that a very conscious Boeing decision, post-award, to change the way the KC-46 was built has played a part in the problems. To get the cost closer to the price they'd bid, Boeing decided to build the aircraft at Everett, as the 767-2C, up to the point where the boom and pods (and other things) got bolted on, because commercial manufacture was cheaper. I believe it's been suggested here that some commercial/military standards conflicted.
Also, enough with the red herrings over the cargo floor. Previous MRTTs did not have one. However, by the time the contract for KC-X was awarded, the A330-200F had been in service for a year, so it was not exactly a risk factor.
What's the Balanced Field Length requirement with all 93 tonnes of fuel? My understanding is that it needs a longer runway than a 330 MRTT with 111 tonnes of fuel.
Edited to add:
The 767 tanker proposed to the UK was using ex BA 767s powered by the RB211-524H. Quite frankly, the Rolls 767 was a dog - heavier engine, poor TO performance, lousy fuel burn - the engine simply wasn't a good match to the airframe (there was a reason why only 40 were built, compared to the several hundred each for both the PW4000 and the CF6-80C2). I suspect some of the negativity aimed at the KC-46 from the other side of the pond is based on the crappy specs of the proposed Rolls powered UK tankers.
Last edited by tdracer; 17th Jan 2019 at 02:28.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
KC-767I is powered by the GE CF6-80C2, but I understand that even after the RW at Pratica di Mare was extended, the Italian Air Force cannot operate it with max fuel for most of the year.
Quadra-national think-tank comparison of KC-767 (not the old ex-ba aircraft the MoD was offered), A330MRTT and A310MRTT with an equal task requirement at ISA / SL / zero wind showed how poor the Boeing RW performance truly was. The RW was a level 10000ft balanced field and each aircraft was required to land with an hour's average burn to tanks dry (simulating an alternate aerodrome requirement) and the reps were required to calculate the max fuel available on take-off. The first thing the US rep said was "Can we make it 12000ft?" - which was refused. As the Boeing rep told us during FSTA times "Yes, that's where we think Airbus has us beat"...
Presumably the KC-46 has uprated engines and uprated brakes if it can really operate from an 8000ft balanced field within normal certification limits? Or was 8000ft the take-off ground roll?
Quadra-national think-tank comparison of KC-767 (not the old ex-ba aircraft the MoD was offered), A330MRTT and A310MRTT with an equal task requirement at ISA / SL / zero wind showed how poor the Boeing RW performance truly was. The RW was a level 10000ft balanced field and each aircraft was required to land with an hour's average burn to tanks dry (simulating an alternate aerodrome requirement) and the reps were required to calculate the max fuel available on take-off. The first thing the US rep said was "Can we make it 12000ft?" - which was refused. As the Boeing rep told us during FSTA times "Yes, that's where we think Airbus has us beat"...
Presumably the KC-46 has uprated engines and uprated brakes if it can really operate from an 8000ft balanced field within normal certification limits? Or was 8000ft the take-off ground roll?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh my. Requirements that can't be met? The suggestion was made that if someone had stood up against USAF and eliminated the main deck cargo door and floor requirement they'd already be flying new tankers. That's utter tosh. Those items were ALREADY developed, tested and certified. The delays and cost increases have NOTHING to do with the cargo door and floor. But lets suppose USAF did eliminate the cargo door and floor requirement for the KC-46 because they already have hundreds of cargo door and floor equipped tankers. Those tankers will ALL be retired and then USAF will only have tankers with no main deck cargo door and floor. You might as well argue to eliminate the boom requirement. After all, USAF already has hundreds of boom equipped tankers. The delays are all due to various developmental items the no tanker anywhere has. USAF wanted those items in their new tanker because they wanted the new tanker to do much more than just pass gas or haul trash. They wanted them to be part of future fights. That's one reason the KC-46 (unlike any other tanker, including A330MRTT) is EMP hardened.
USAF wanted those items in their new tanker because they wanted the new tanker to do much more than just pass gas or haul trash.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KC-767I is powered by the GE CF6-80C2, but I understand that even after the RW at Pratica di Mare was extended, the Italian Air Force cannot operate it with max fuel for most of the year.
Quadra-national think-tank comparison of KC-767 (not the old ex-ba aircraft the MoD was offered), A330MRTT and A310MRTT with an equal task requirement at ISA / SL / zero wind showed how poor the Boeing RW performance truly was. The RW was a level 10000ft balanced field and each aircraft was required to land with an hour's average burn to tanks dry (simulating an alternate aerodrome requirement) and the reps were required to calculate the max fuel available on take-off. The first thing the US rep said was "Can we make it 12000ft?" - which was refused. As the Boeing rep told us during FSTA times "Yes, that's where we think Airbus has us beat"...
Presumably the KC-46 has uprated engines and uprated brakes if it can really operate from an 8000ft balanced field within normal certification limits? Or was 8000ft the take-off ground roll?
Quadra-national think-tank comparison of KC-767 (not the old ex-ba aircraft the MoD was offered), A330MRTT and A310MRTT with an equal task requirement at ISA / SL / zero wind showed how poor the Boeing RW performance truly was. The RW was a level 10000ft balanced field and each aircraft was required to land with an hour's average burn to tanks dry (simulating an alternate aerodrome requirement) and the reps were required to calculate the max fuel available on take-off. The first thing the US rep said was "Can we make it 12000ft?" - which was refused. As the Boeing rep told us during FSTA times "Yes, that's where we think Airbus has us beat"...
Presumably the KC-46 has uprated engines and uprated brakes if it can really operate from an 8000ft balanced field within normal certification limits? Or was 8000ft the take-off ground roll?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right about one thing. Boeing underbid on the initial contract. But let's get things clear: the customer, Gawd bless him, is going to end up paying what it cost to develop the airplane, plus margin, irrespective of the initial price. Boeing will make its money back once the USAF needs support and services and Boeing owns the IP on the commercially certificated baseline aircraft,
As for whether Airbus would have incurred the same delays - we don't know. However, it does seem that a very conscious Boeing decision, post-award, to change the way the KC-46 was built has played a part in the problems. To get the cost closer to the price they'd bid, Boeing decided to build the aircraft at Everett, as the 767-2C, up to the point where the boom and pods (and other things) got bolted on, because commercial manufacture was cheaper. I believe it's been suggested here that some commercial/military standards conflicted.
Also, enough with the red herrings over the cargo floor. Previous MRTTs did not have one. However, by the time the contract for KC-X was awarded, the A330-200F had been in service for a year, so it was not exactly a risk factor.
At the end of the day Boeing took a commercial decision - no doubt at the highest level- to go lo-ball on a technical spec that was challenging -I'd love to know if they were warned what the risks were...
they have the income from elsewhere to be able to take the hit - the only people hurting are the shareholders - and the USAF guys waiting and waiting for their promised super gas tank...
Maybe Airbus dodged the bullet..............
they have the income from elsewhere to be able to take the hit - the only people hurting are the shareholders - and the USAF guys waiting and waiting for their promised super gas tank...
Maybe Airbus dodged the bullet..............
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" That's one reason the KC-46 (unlike any other tanker, including A330MRTT) is EMP hardened. "
KC135 and variants have been emp hardened for years and years
some hints and other related data at
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...2hhrg71448.htm
KC135 and variants have been emp hardened for years and years
some hints and other related data at
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...2hhrg71448.htm
Last edited by CONSO; 17th Jan 2019 at 15:35.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KC-135 availability and mission capability rates have held steady for more than a decade and currently stand at 65% and 80% respectively. This compares to KC-10 of 65% and 79% over the same period. To put these numbers in perspective that's more than three times better than A400M (which has been holding for some time at under 20% availability) and more than twice better than Typhoon, both of which are are much much newer than either KC-135 or KC-10. Can't speak to A400M mission capability because it's still not cleared for many of its tactical capabilities.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are correct. I misspoke. More accurately, KC-135 and KC-10 while hardened, were not hardened to the levels of MIL-STD-2169. KC-46 is hardened to more then twice the level of MIL-STD-2169 (although not quite to the level of VC-25 and E-4) and has been HEMP tested per TOP 01-2-620. Further, no legacy tanker has been HEMP tested per TOP 01-2-620 for the simple reason that those tests had not been developed when those aircraft were designed and certified. I may not go into any more detail than that.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe Airbus dodged the bullet..............
Last edited by KenV; 21st Jan 2019 at 15:47.
Of course the RAF surge Voyagers were built, flown elsewhere to be turned into tankers, then flown to the UK to be turned back into airliners again!
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deleting the thrust reverser doesn't affect TO performance calculations since the FARs don't allow you to take credit for thrust reversers (real life of course is different).
EMP/HIRF hardening requirements on the KC-46 were so high that at many frequencies there were no test facilities capable of creating the required fields - much of the validation had to be by analysis because it couldn't be tested. There is so much shielding on the engine wiring that deleting the T/R was a blessing in disguise - otherwise there wouldn't have been sufficient room for the wire bundles.
Last edited by tdracer; 17th Jan 2019 at 22:29.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the length and complexity of this thread (not to mention the various dead ends and red herrings) the following synopsis is provided:
No, not a single off the shelf tanker met USAF’s final RFP requirements for a new tanker. The RFP included many items which no manufacturer had ever before produced and which would require development, integration, and testing. Doing so required time and money. USAF’s budget and schedule for all this development plus delivery of the first 18 aircraft and all their maintenance documentation as well as spares and support equipment was very aggressive.
No, the A330MRTT being delivered today would not remotely meet USAF’s latest tanker requirements.
No, the KC-46 does not meet the A-10’s refueling receptacle requirements. But USAF admits that the A-10s requirements stated in their RFP (and to which Boeing worked) were in error. USAF and Boeing are working on correcting that now.
No, the vendor/manufacturer cannot tell USAF their requirements are “not necessary” or are “gold plating” or whatever and then ignore/alter those requirements.
No, neither the A330MRTT nor any legacy tanker can remotely meet USAF’s latest EMP/HERF requirements.
No, the KC-767I offered by BAE could not take off from a 9000 ft balanced airfield when fully loaded. But the KC-46 has more powerful engines, more powerful brakes, a slightly larger wing and shorter fuselage which enables it to take off fully loaded from an 8000ft runway on a plus 15C day.
No, Airbus was not the first to produce a fly-by-wire refueling boom. The DC-10 boom is fly-by-wire and entered service in the mid 70s. And an updated version of that boom is on the KC-46.
No, the main deck cargo door and floor have nothing to do with Boeing’s cost and schedule difficulties delivering the KC-46. The 767C2 airframe on which the KC-46 is based is the airframe for the 767LRF (Long Range Freighter), which was developed and certified well before KC-46 came into being and has been in production for some time.
No, Boeing’s cost over runs have not cost USAF or the taxpayers a dime. This is a firm fixed price contract and Boeing has borne all extra costs.
No, Boeing’s late delivery of KC-46 has not caused an airlift/tanker shortfall. The KC-135 and KC-10 availability rates have held steady for the past decade. Shortfalls are the result of an increase in tanking requirements, not a decrease in tanker availability.
No, Boeing did not get away with late deliveries without penalty. Although the late delivery did not result in an airlift shortfall, it did result in an increase in operational/maintenance cost to USAF to keep the legacy fleet going. USAF is computing that cost and Boeing will be penalized for those costs.
No, the KC-46 (unlike the A330MRTT) is not built as a commercial airliner, flown to a modification center, taken apart, and converted into a military tanker. Lessons learned from building the military P-8A MMA (based on 737) on a commercial production line were applied to 767, and the KC-46 is consequently built on a commercial production line in Everett. And yet meets all the Commerce Department’s Export restrictions and State Department’s Trafficking in Arms restrictions. This was one of the innovations Boeing used to meet their aggressive selling price which won them the contract.
No, not a single off the shelf tanker met USAF’s final RFP requirements for a new tanker. The RFP included many items which no manufacturer had ever before produced and which would require development, integration, and testing. Doing so required time and money. USAF’s budget and schedule for all this development plus delivery of the first 18 aircraft and all their maintenance documentation as well as spares and support equipment was very aggressive.
No, the A330MRTT being delivered today would not remotely meet USAF’s latest tanker requirements.
No, the KC-46 does not meet the A-10’s refueling receptacle requirements. But USAF admits that the A-10s requirements stated in their RFP (and to which Boeing worked) were in error. USAF and Boeing are working on correcting that now.
No, the vendor/manufacturer cannot tell USAF their requirements are “not necessary” or are “gold plating” or whatever and then ignore/alter those requirements.
No, neither the A330MRTT nor any legacy tanker can remotely meet USAF’s latest EMP/HERF requirements.
No, the KC-767I offered by BAE could not take off from a 9000 ft balanced airfield when fully loaded. But the KC-46 has more powerful engines, more powerful brakes, a slightly larger wing and shorter fuselage which enables it to take off fully loaded from an 8000ft runway on a plus 15C day.
No, Airbus was not the first to produce a fly-by-wire refueling boom. The DC-10 boom is fly-by-wire and entered service in the mid 70s. And an updated version of that boom is on the KC-46.
No, the main deck cargo door and floor have nothing to do with Boeing’s cost and schedule difficulties delivering the KC-46. The 767C2 airframe on which the KC-46 is based is the airframe for the 767LRF (Long Range Freighter), which was developed and certified well before KC-46 came into being and has been in production for some time.
No, Boeing’s cost over runs have not cost USAF or the taxpayers a dime. This is a firm fixed price contract and Boeing has borne all extra costs.
No, Boeing’s late delivery of KC-46 has not caused an airlift/tanker shortfall. The KC-135 and KC-10 availability rates have held steady for the past decade. Shortfalls are the result of an increase in tanking requirements, not a decrease in tanker availability.
No, Boeing did not get away with late deliveries without penalty. Although the late delivery did not result in an airlift shortfall, it did result in an increase in operational/maintenance cost to USAF to keep the legacy fleet going. USAF is computing that cost and Boeing will be penalized for those costs.
No, the KC-46 (unlike the A330MRTT) is not built as a commercial airliner, flown to a modification center, taken apart, and converted into a military tanker. Lessons learned from building the military P-8A MMA (based on 737) on a commercial production line were applied to 767, and the KC-46 is consequently built on a commercial production line in Everett. And yet meets all the Commerce Department’s Export restrictions and State Department’s Trafficking in Arms restrictions. This was one of the innovations Boeing used to meet their aggressive selling price which won them the contract.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts