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 23rd Jan 2019, 07:21
  #741 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 169
Originally Posted by KenV View Post
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 commercialcairliner, 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.
wow - the Airbus offering was the Wright Flyer by comparison...
Mk 1 is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 08:13
  #742 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 964
Ken has made a good point tho

The USAF want something that is way beyond a tanker. And they want it to "join the fight".

This is wayyyyyy beyond everyone else's deployment of large tankers which tries to keep them well out of harms way.

God knows if it will work and I hope we never find out. My guess is it will work against the likes of ISIS but against a decent opposition it could be a real mistake
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 08:57
  #743 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,438
ATP-3.3.4.2

Asturias56 , current policy in ATP-3.3.4.2 is as follows:
1.11. COMBAT OPERATIONS

The employment of AAR in war or other hostile environments will depend on the capabilities of the aircraft types employed, local threat assessments and proximity to unsecured airspace. It is not appropriate in this document to detail AAR operations under combat conditions; however, tankers are vulnerable and high value assets and therefore, in general, they should be placed well clear of the combat zone or protected using fighter support. The procedures and principles of AAR described in this document should be applied whenever possible.
Taking an HVAA 'to the fight' is inviting disaster as you suggest.
BEagle is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 12:47
  #744 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
Asturias56 , current policy in ATP-3.3.4.2 is as follows:
The employment of AAR in war or other hostile environments will depend on the capabilities of the aircraft types employed, local threat assessments and proximity to unsecured airspace. It is not appropriate in this document to detail AAR operations under combat conditions; however, tankers are vulnerable and high value assets and therefore, in general, they should be placed well clear of the combat zone or protected using fighter support. The procedures and principles of AAR described in this document should be applied whenever possible.
Taking an HVAA 'to the fight' is inviting disaster as you suggest.
Hmmm. "Current policy" is subject to change as new technology and tactics are developed. This "current policy" certainly did not take into account whatever survivability measures have been included in the KC-46. How effective are those survivability measures? I have no idea. And neither does anyone else on this forum. Consequently no one here has any idea what is and what is not "inviting disaster" with regard to how the KC-46 is employed. For all anyone knows, the KC-46 has a Klingon cloaking device aboard. ;-)

Last edited by KenV; 23rd Jan 2019 at 13:22.
KenV is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 13:15
  #745 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by Mk 1 View Post
wow - the Airbus offering was the Wright Flyer by comparison...
Ummm, both yes and no. Why do you folks keep going back to the off the shelf tankers? How much clearer can it be that by the final competition USAF was not interested in off the shelf tankers and neither Airbus nor Boeing offered off the shelf tankers in their final bids. So, yes both the Airbus and the Boeing offerings at the first competition were "the Wright Flyer by comparison". But no, both the final Airbus and Boeing offerings were far more advanced, with the Airbus offering costing much more than the Boeing offering. Plus the schedule for developing, integrating, and testing all the developmental stuff was so aggressive, that Northrop Grumman pulled out as a partner. And this does not even include the very aggressive schedule for delivery of the first 18 tankers. Boeing had a hot 767 production line in Everett. NG/Airbus's offering was to develop, build, shake out, and ramp up an A330MRTT production line in Mobile, Alabama. And they had zero experience building a military product on a commercial production line. These two production factors (not development/test factors) meant that they had a very very steep (i.e. very high risk) learning curve to overcome which was not true of Boeing. And because risk equates to cost, this is one of the reasons Airbus' offering was more expensive than Boeing's. Also a factor was that Boeing had very deep pockets and was both willing and able to make a low-ball bid on a firm fixed price contract.

Last edited by KenV; 23rd Jan 2019 at 17:27.
KenV is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 13:23
  #746 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Freedom Sound
Posts: 101
Maybe NG and Airbus "took a view" that it was not going to be viable and "let" good ole Boeing to suffer all the grief and hassle that has proven to be the case. As for using very very old engines, makes me wonder if GE decided that they did not wish to support their old design CF6 for many more years to come which left only PW. Let's face it, they would have only chosen an American built engine after all the PR "moaning" etc that went on when Boeing did not win in the earlier "contests".
esscee is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 15:13
  #747 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 74
Posts: 1
Also a factor was that Boeing had very deep pockets and was both willing and able to make a low-ball bid on a firm fixed price contract.
IMHO - Boeing used the gillette razor blade marketing method. Give the basic unit at ' cost' or ' less' and make make your money on the replacement ( blades ), in this case the multi year modiication, srework, impovement, repair, etc - to go on for the next 50 years or so .
CONSO is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 16:20
  #748 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Trumpville, on the edge
Posts: 21
Only one way to settle this.....

Fly KC46 and A330 MRTT in formation, line abreast, trail the hoses, and see who has the longest ones...
For bonus points, dump fuel, and see which one pisses dumps the longest...
Trumpet trousers is online now  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 17:17
  #749 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by CONSO View Post
IMHO - Boeing used the gillette razor blade marketing method. Give the basic unit at ' cost' or ' less' and make make your money on the replacement ( blades ), in this case the multi year modiication, srework, impovement, repair, etc - to go on for the next 50 years or so .
That's exactly what it was. But it required very deep pockets and accepting big risk. Boeing won the contract in February 2011. Here we are eight years later and Boeing has not only made no money on the program, but has lost around $4 billion. What company could afford such a huge investment with a payback measured in decades? (picture the hypothetical razor company investing $4B and not making a profit on the hypothetical blades for a decade.) And it's still risky, USAF can still back out of buying more tankers. USAF can decide to buy tanker services rather than buy tankers for organic tanker support. Indeed Lockheed and Airbus have just teamed up to provide such services. The "multi-year" support contract can go to someone other than Boeing. And there are plenty of other risks.

And there are other serious internal factors to consider. Boeing is made up of three divisions: commercial, military, and global support. The plane is being built by Boeing Commercial, but it's a military contract. Which division gets the profit? Can you imagine being the president of the military division who signs the contract and takes the risk, while the commercial division gets all the profits for building the product (if and when they finally appear?) That's why Northrop Grumman pulled out. The economics made no sense to them because they would take on too much risk while not getting enough profit to offset the risk. Now let's assume the Boeing Global Support division gets the support contract. How does the commercial division share in those profits? The military division? It's very very easy to talk about "One Boeing", but actually doing it is massively difficult.

Let me provide a real world example of how difficult this is. The KDC-10 contract was won by Douglas Aircraft. But they were required (by corporate McDonnell Douglas headquarters) to accept a significant loss on the project. Why? So the Dutch would buy McDonnell Douglas AH-64 Apache helicopters. And the Dutch did indeed buy Apaches. But the losses prevented Douglas from developing new airliners, including the MD-12. Bottom Line? Douglas literally no longer exists. Most of the Douglas plant in Long Beach has literally been bulldozed. Meanwhile the helicopter division in Mesa where the Apache is built is going gangbusters. Does the (former) president of Douglas think this was a good outcome? What think you?
KenV is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 17:36
  #750 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 74
Posts: 1
Does the (former) president of Douglas think this was a good outcome? What think you?
Harry stonecipher could care less- he managed one of the biggest con games in history- by using boeing money to buy MDC...and since that time- boeing for the first time in their history missed major production and delivery dates. And mcndearney could also care less.

As to the 4 billion ' loss' - whn onconsiders the tax writeoffs, and the inflation factors over say only 20 years, the 4 billion then worth maybe 2 billion NOT counting tax issues AND the miracle of program accounting, my guess is tha about 20 to 30 years from now, the KC and p-8 programs will be a cash cow.

Thus it has almost always been- thus it will almost always will be . . .
CONSO is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 18:15
  #751 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by CONSO View Post
Harry stonecipher could care less.....
Harry was the president of McDonnell Douglas, not president of Douglas. Lots of what Harry did as president of MDC ended up killing Douglas. As for investing $4B now in the hopes of "you guess about 20 or 30 years" earning a big profit, no one makes such business investments. No one.
KenV is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 18:47
  #752 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,384
Originally Posted by KenV View Post
Hmmm. "Current policy" is subject to change as new technology and tactics are developed. This "current policy" certainly did not take into account whatever survivability measures have been included in the KC-46. How effective are those survivability measures? I have no idea. And neither does anyone else on this forum. Consequently no one here has any idea what is and what is not "inviting disaster" with regard to how the KC-46 is employed. For all anyone knows, the KC-46 has a Klingon cloaking device aboard. ;-)
As I noted earlier, the KC-46 has a whole bunch of external features that I've not seen on any other 767. Some obviously related to the AR mission, many not so much.
I don't know what all that extra stuff is intended for (and obviously couldn't talk about it if I did), but consider this - when I worked on the current 747 based Air Force one aircraft 30 years ago, it incorporated an anti-missile system (no, I won't elaborate except to say it was nothing like what was portrayed in that horrible Harrison Ford Air Force One flick) - and 30 years later it's quite probable that system has been upgraded or replaced with something better.
As Ken states, we simply don't know what protection systems my have been incorporated into the KC-46, but it would be naive to think there isn't something.
tdracer is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 20:11
  #753 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 74
Posts: 1
The KDC-10 contract was won by Douglas Aircraft. But they were required (by corporate McDonnell Douglas headquarters)
Uhh check your dates. Douglas ' merged' with McDonnel in 1967-68 mainly due to fubar cost accounting on DC-9. KC contract was let about 10 years later. with first flight in 1981

Which division gets the profit?
Hint- try the annual report ..

Douglas Senior died in 1981

Donald Wills Douglas Jr. (July 3, 1917 – October 3, 2004) ....He was the president of the Douglas Aircraft Company, which his father founded, from 1957 to 1967, when the company merged with McDonnell Corporation. He was on the board of directors of Douglas Aircraft from 1953 until the merger, then on the board of McDonnell Douglas from 1967 to 1989.

Last edited by CONSO; 23rd Jan 2019 at 20:43. Reason: update re president douglas
CONSO is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 01:01
  #754 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,816
Why does the A330 MRTT not have a main
deck cargo door ?
stilton is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 06:44
  #755 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
Why does the A330 MRTT not have a main
deck cargo door ?
It does if you want it. France is the only customer to date to request it,

The other nations regard the 45 tonnes of palletized cargo in the hold to be ample for their requirements.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 09:14
  #756 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by KenV View Post
. As for investing $4B now in the hopes of "you guess about 20 or 30 years" earning a big profit, no one makes such business investments. No one.
F35 programme kinda shoots that one liner down..bout all it can mind...
weemonkey is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 13:14
  #757 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by CONSO View Post
Uhh check your dates. Douglas ' merged' with McDonnel in 1967-68 mainly due to fubar cost accounting on DC-9. KC contract was let about 10 years later. with first flight in 1981.
Hint- try the annual report ..
Douglas Senior died in 1981
Donald Wills Douglas Jr. (July 3, 1917 – October 3, 2004) ....He was the president of the Douglas Aircraft Company, which his father founded, from 1957 to 1967, when the company merged with McDonnell Corporation. He was on the board of directors of Douglas Aircraft from 1953 until the merger, then on the board of McDonnell Douglas from 1967 to 1989.
You've seriously misunderstood both what I said and how large corporate entities operate. Douglas Aircraft Company (DAC, in Long Beach) was a division of McDonnell Douglas Corporation (MDC). McDonnell Aircraft Company (MAC, in St Louis) was another division of MDC. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems (MDHS, formerly Hughes Helicopters, in Mesa) was a third division of MDC. That's three separate divisions, each with a president, all reporting to a corporate president/CEO.

DAC won the KC-10, C-17, T-45, and KDC-10 contracts. The CEO of MDC forced DAC to eat millions on KDC-10 to help ensure MDHS won the Dutch attack helo contract. In addition, after taking all the risk and cost associated with competing for, winning, and then developing & testing the aircraft and designing the production system for the T-45, MDC's CEO moved T-45 production from DAC to MAC. And oh yeah, this wasn't just an aircraft program. USN bought an entire training system, including curriculum, training devices, simulators, etc etc. MAC got it all. And oh yeah, big chunks of the C-17 ended up being built by MAC, not DAC. Not to mention big chunks of MD-11. Was the DAC president happy to eat all those dollars to help out the MDHS president? Was he happy to hand the profits of T-45 production (and to a lesser extent C-17 and MD-11 production) to the MAC president? Think about that before you answer. And of course the MDC president/CEO was happy because the overall corporation looks healthy and profitable so he gets his fat bonus. But he's cannibalized one division to prop up two others. And of course later the same guy sells the whole corporation to Boeing. And Douglas is killed in the process.

In similar fashion Boeing has primarily three divisions: Boeing Commercial Aircraft (BCA), Boeing Defense/Space (BDS) and Boeing Global Support (BGS). Each has a president and they all report to the corporate president/CEO. Would the BDS president be happy to eat billions of dollars on the KC-46 to help out BCA and (in the future) BGS? Think about that before you answer.

Now, how does this relate to the razors vs razor blades analogy which started this discussion? If Gillette had a separate razor division, a separate blade division, and separate shaving foam/gel division, would the president of the razor division be happy to take a loss to help out the blade division? Think about that before you answer. And then think about what it would take to make the presidents of all three divisions happy.

Last edited by KenV; 24th Jan 2019 at 14:21.
KenV is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 14:17
  #758 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by stilton View Post
Why does the A330 MRTT not have a main deck cargo door ?
Some do. Most don't. That's up to the customer. But keep in mind that every A330MRTT starts out as a regular airliner. After the airliner is built it gets flown to a modification center where it is taken apart to convert it into a tanker. Adding a main deck cargo door adds more cost. Adding a main deck cargo floor adds even more cost. If you only want a tanker that can also haul passengers on occasion why pay all that extra money?

So why do USAF tankers all have cargo doors and floors? USAF routinely uses their tankers as freighters. The tankers (along with C-130s, C-5s, C-17s, etc) are all in Air Mobility Command and are part of USAF's airlift fleet . Remember that most European and Asian militaries are garrison forces. That is they are not designed to deploy regionally, much less globally. Most of the US military are global expeditionary forces. They are almost all designed to deploy globally. That even includes the Army's and USMC's heavy armored divisions. On the rare occasions that non US military units deploy, they are heavily dependent on US and Russian (yes, Russian) airlift. By making every tanker also a freighter, USAF can use the tankers as freighters to get the forces into the theater, and then in theater use the same airframes as tankers to provide tanking support.

In short the answer to the question is cuz most A330MRTT customers use their tankers almost exclusively as tankers and don't need (or want to pay for) an outsize freighter capability.

BTW even with all their organic airlift capability (C-130, C-5, C-17, KC-135, KC-10, KC-46, etc), USAF still does not have sufficient airlift. That's why they also have CRAF. CRAF (Civil Reserve Air Fleet) is a program that assists major US airlines to buy commercial freighters, gives those airlines preferential access to US military cargo in peacetime, and more recently, provides access to military facilities to operate commercial freighter business. In return, the airlines commit those airframes and crews to provide DoD airlift in the event CRAF is activated in wartime. (CRAF is activated in three stages.) The first CRAF activation was in August 1990 in support of Desert Shield/Desert Storm.
KenV is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 14:32
  #759 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by weemonkey View Post
F35 programme kinda shoots that one liner down..bout all it can mind...
Really? Lockheed is investing billions now so it can maybe earn a big profit beginning in 2039 or 2049? Really?

KenV is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 14:37
  #760 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,863
Originally Posted by stilton View Post
Why does the A330 MRTT not have a main
deck cargo door ?
The fuselage is so large that the main cargo door can swallow a heck of lot as standard - the MRTT modifications do not change the basic freight capacity of the aircraft (which is rather capacious to say the least). The only in-service pain with no large upper door fitted is for aeromed.

If you look at a KC-135 the entire lower fuselage is full of aircraft systems and fuel tanks and, with the exception of the boom op area, the lower fuselage is outside of the pressure hull. When they added proper APUs to the KC-135 the only place left to fit them was in the upper fuselage in the rendition-class area. If you want to put anything in a KC-135 the upper fuselage is the only option, hence the door.



A330 Cargo Deck



Just This Once... 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.