More KC-46A woes....
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I have worked out why the KC-46A is so behind schedule - it's because Ken spends all his time on PPRuNe talking about it rather than building it.
Am of course being facetious - am enjoying the banter and learning a lot along the way also.
Seriously though, get back to work. Those planes aren't going to build themselves...
Am of course being facetious - am enjoying the banter and learning a lot along the way also.
Seriously though, get back to work. Those planes aren't going to build themselves...
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Impressive capability. By comparison, KC-46 can only "uplift" 106 tons of fuel. The thing is, USAF does not care a wit how much gas a tanker can "uplift". It cares how much gas a tanker can offload over a range of distances and/or a range of on-station times. KC-46 meets or exceeds all of USAF's fuel offload requirements.
....."Expectations shrank dramatically in 2011 following the loss of what was then an EADS-led bid to win the re-competed KC-X deal with the A330-based multirole tanker transport (MRTT). Yet today’s more sober growth plan once again is associated with the tanker as, together with Lockheed Martin, Airbus is looking to fill a capability gap the Air Force identified last year. Created partially by delays associated with Boeing’s troubled KC-46A tanker program as well as the service’s ambition to expand its refueling capability beyond that of the incoming Boeing 767-derivative, the U.S. Transportation Command (Transcom) requirements call for a platform capable of carrying a minimum of 50,000 lb. of fuel for 1,500 mi. It must perform the mission day or night and deliver fuel by boom, hose-and-drogue or both.
In response, the two companies are studying a variant of the MRTT, possibly to be supplied as part of a commercial “fee-for-service” deal. This time, the MRTT should be well-suited, says Enders. Clearly still rankled by the outcome of the KC-X, he says, “I still don’t understand why the most powerful Air Force of the world would not fly the best available tanker aircraft on the market.”......
Reading through past threads you might as well give up on getting Ken to admit the USAF made a mistake
And TBh its a bit pointless they & Boeing have made their bed and they should be allowed to lie in it
And TBh its a bit pointless they & Boeing have made their bed and they should be allowed to lie in it
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AW&ST - Jan 24th: In response, the two companies are studying a variant of the MRTT, possibly to be supplied as part of a commercial “fee-for-service” deal. This time, the MRTT should be well-suited, says Enders. Clearly still rankled by the outcome of the KC-X, he says, “I still don’t understand why the most powerful Air Force of the world would not fly the best available tanker aircraft on the market.”......
And about that Lockheed/Airbus tanker partnership? How solid is it really? Consider that Lockheed is also contemplating going it alone. Larry Gallogly, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics' business development director of USAF mobility programmes said: "A lot of people don't realise that [the KC-130] is fully capable of refuelling everything from slow-moving helicopters up through fighter aircraft. We have an extensive level of experience in that regard." So Airbus while partnered with Lockheed may also need to compete with Lockheed. Won't that be fun?
And finally, what's to prevent Boeing from teaming with Omega to provide tanking services? Boeing would mod the used commercial aircraft into tankers and Omega would operate them. Unlike Airbus and Lockheed, Boeing has experience converting used commercial aircraft into tankers and unlike Airbus and Lockheed, Omega has experience (over 2 decades worth) operating commercial tankers to support military users. And unlike Airbus and Boeing, Boeing has an entire division (Boeing Global Support) specifically dedicated to aircraft mods and a truly massive mod facility in San Antonio. Guess where those ex-Russian 747-8I airframes are going to get turned into VC-25Bs?
Forgive my pessimism, but I don't see the slightest hope of brand new A330MRTTs being able to compete on price with used commercial aircraft converted to tankers. None.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Yeah, right. And Indont think a couple of ex-RAF Tristan’s will fit the bill on numbers or availability either.
“the U.S. Transportation Command (Transcom) requirements call for a platform capable of carrying a minimum of 50,000 lb. of fuel for 1,500 mi. It must perform the mission day or night and deliver fuel by boom, hose-and-drogue or both“...
And about that Lockheed/Airbus tanker partnership? How solid is it really? Consider that Lockheed is also contemplating going it alone. Larry Gallogly, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics' business development director of USAF mobility programmes said: "A lot of people don't realise that [the KC-130] is fully capable of refuelling everything from slow-moving helicopters up through fighter aircraft.
Thread Starter
“the U.S. Transportation Command (Transcom) requirements call for a platform capable of carrying a minimum of 50,000 lb. of fuel for 1,500 mi. It must perform the mission day or night and deliver fuel by boom, hose-and-drogue or both“...
1500nm at 500KTAS is 3 hr. Say the burn rate is 5.4 T / hr and alternate requirements are a further hour's burn to tanks dry, then the tanker would need 37.8 T plus whatever time on task was required. With an offload of 50K (22.7 T), that means a tanker on station for an hour would need to have a capacity of around 66 T. Using legacy ex-airline airframes might be a possibility, but the difficult bit would be fitting the boom and associated operator's station.
Me: but presumably both NG-EADS and EADS offered a compliant solution... including provision for the cloaking device, defensive l@ser, atomic trebuchet or whatevs.
KenV: Ummmm, no.
Also KenV, about 25,000 words later in same post: Both offerings were technically acceptable in that they met all key performance parameters
He's the only guy on this board who can lose an argument with himself.
KenV: Ummmm, no.
Also KenV, about 25,000 words later in same post: Both offerings were technically acceptable in that they met all key performance parameters
He's the only guy on this board who can lose an argument with himself.
Ken - Your guys won. And you can say what you want about the various capabilities of the KC-46, but presumably both NG-EADS and EADS offered a compliant solution (with or without an upper deck cargo floor - as far as I can tell, the A330 as offered had a cargo door for casevac, but met the pallet requirement in the underfloor) including provision for the cloaking device, defensive laser, atomic trebuchet or whatevs.
Had it not been a compliant solution, it would have been rejected as such before the bids were in, and the AF would have found itself in a one-bid situation again, which didn't turn out too well the first time around. So as a US taxpayer, EADS did you a hell of a good turn by returning to the fight after the spec was "clarified" the first time around.
Had it not been a compliant solution, it would have been rejected as such before the bids were in, and the AF would have found itself in a one-bid situation again, which didn't turn out too well the first time around. So as a US taxpayer, EADS did you a hell of a good turn by returning to the fight after the spec was "clarified" the first time around.
Another interesting point is why would an airline operating an A330-300 airliner fill the tanks completely full of gas and then haul 10 tons of cargo while leaving the passenger compartment empty? Honestly, what airline has such an operating requirement? In other words, having a capability and having a useful capability are clearly two different things. And USAF's tanking requirements were based on actual useful needs. Both the KC-46 and A330MRTT meet or exceed those requirements. 'nuff said.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me: but presumably both NG-EADS and EADS offered a compliant solution... including provision for the cloaking device, defensive l@ser, atomic trebuchet or whatevs.
KenV: Ummmm, no.
Also KenV, about 25,000 words later in same post: Both offerings were technically acceptable in that they met all key performance parameters
He's the only guy on this board who can lose an argument with himself.
KenV: Ummmm, no.
Also KenV, about 25,000 words later in same post: Both offerings were technically acceptable in that they met all key performance parameters
He's the only guy on this board who can lose an argument with himself.
As an example, for their JSF bid McDonnell Douglas offered a solution that met or exceeded all the key performance parameters by a significant margin. So surely, they gotta be in like Flynn. So it would seem, but no. There was one problem. When their gas coupled lift fan failed, they substituted a lift engine on their STOVL version. Their bid was thrown out because it did not meet the "single engine" requirement.
Once again, one needs to be careful about definition of terms. Words have meaning and in a technical arena like aviation and specifically aviation procurement, they have very specific meanings.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV 
Another interesting point is why would an airline operating an A330-300 airliner fill the tanks completely full of gas and then haul 10 tons of cargo while leaving the passenger compartment empty? Honestly, what airline has such an operating requirement? In other words, having a capability and having a useful capability are clearly two different things. And USAF's tanking requirements were based on actual useful needs. Both the KC-46 and A330MRTT meet or exceed those requirements. 'nuff said.
Another interesting point is why would an airline operating an A330-300 airliner fill the tanks completely full of gas and then haul 10 tons of cargo while leaving the passenger compartment empty? Honestly, what airline has such an operating requirement? In other words, having a capability and having a useful capability are clearly two different things. And USAF's tanking requirements were based on actual useful needs. Both the KC-46 and A330MRTT meet or exceed those requirements. 'nuff said.Indeed - he also casually forgets that he is posting in an air-to-air refuelling thread, throws up a wacky 'what airline' bait-and-switch question before slipping back to air force requirements where such configurations are rather useful.
As you say, the main counterpoint to his arguments are usually his own. Meanwhile the A330T / MRTT / V'Ger tanker operators can take an aircraft that was flying full pax fit the day before, with no role change, fill it to full, add a few maintainers and assorted FJ spares before departing on a trail as rather useful capability. Once the chicks are left at their destination the aircraft is ready for tasking for pax, freight or a mix of both with no additional logistics or role equipment changes.
And for the record, having the ability to load 10 tons of stuff in a tanker when it is full of fuel is a nice feature. Another nice feature is having a tanker that has sufficient fuel capacity to be filled with fuel to its max take off gross weight. In other words, when the mission is just passing or even just moving gas by air, can you fully fill the airplane with just gas? The KC-46 can. According to this guy, the A330MRTT cannot. The customer gets to decide which feature they prefer. Not the manufacturer, nor armchair tanker operators on an internet aviation forum. And for the record, USAF tankers have the capability to be filled with fuel to their Max Take Off Gross Weight (MTOGW). It's a standard feature on USAF tankers, even the KC-10 which has a significantly higher MTOGW than A330. Just as a main deck cargo door is a standard feature on USAF tankers. That's what USAF wants and what they need. 'nuff said.
And oh yeah, about that centerwing tank in the -200 vs -300. In defense of the folks who made that claim, I think they confused them with the A340. A340, which shares the same wing with A330, has a centerwing tank while no A330 has one.
Last edited by KenV; 31st Jan 2019 at 15:08. Reason: Added A340 sentence
No point in rehashing all this stuff - lets just concentrate on how and when the USAF get a compliant aircraft that they're happy with
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very well. But words have meaning. What do you mean by "compliant" and "happy". Indeed, what do you mean by "USAF"? The USAF operators and maintainers who have already received the aircarft are not just happy but ecstatic with the KC-46s they've gotten. The USAF generals who lead these men and women are reportedly very happy with the tanker. The USAF procurement officials who signed the DD250 and formally accepted the aircraft are very happy with it. Which USAF officials do you believe are not "happy" with the delivered tankers? And in what ways do you believe the already delivered KC-46's are not "compliant." You do realize that there is a considerable difference between a "non-compliance" and a "deficiency."
You can offer a fully equipped starship Enterprise that meets all key performance parameters, but submit the proposal one hour late, or miss just one CDRL item or one SOW item in your proposal and your solicitation is non compliant.
And if my Auntie had a **** she'd be my Uncle. None of these things were material in this case (I am sure you would already have listed them in excruciating detail if they were), and indeed such matters are seldom an issue in professionally run responses.
As an example, for their JSF bid McDonnell Douglas offered a solution that met or exceeded all the key performance parameters by a significant margin. So surely, they gotta be in like Flynn. So it would seem, but no. There was one problem. When their gas coupled lift fan failed, they substituted a lift engine on their STOVL version. Their bid was thrown out because it did not meet the "single engine" requirement.
If this is true, MDC and the customers were both incompetent. But I don't recall that it was: underestimating the customer's resistance to LPLC was only one of many flaws in the MDC-led proposal.
And if my Auntie had a **** she'd be my Uncle. None of these things were material in this case (I am sure you would already have listed them in excruciating detail if they were), and indeed such matters are seldom an issue in professionally run responses.
As an example, for their JSF bid McDonnell Douglas offered a solution that met or exceeded all the key performance parameters by a significant margin. So surely, they gotta be in like Flynn. So it would seem, but no. There was one problem. When their gas coupled lift fan failed, they substituted a lift engine on their STOVL version. Their bid was thrown out because it did not meet the "single engine" requirement.
If this is true, MDC and the customers were both incompetent. But I don't recall that it was: underestimating the customer's resistance to LPLC was only one of many flaws in the MDC-led proposal.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And for the record, as I previously stated, I believe the final Airbus proposal was non compliant in the sense that it proposed an airliner configuration tanker with an option to add a main deck cargo door and floor. The airliner configuration met all the key performance parameters, and so it made sense to offer it, but it did not deliver a freighter configuration.
As an example, for their JSF bid McDonnell Douglas offered a solution that met or exceeded all the key performance parameters by a significant margin. So surely, they gotta be in like Flynn. So it would seem, but no. There was one problem. When their gas coupled lift fan failed, they substituted a lift engine on their STOVL version. Their bid was thrown out because it did not meet the "single engine" requirement.
If this is true, MDC and the customers were both incompetent. But I don't recall that it was: underestimating the customer's resistance to LPLC was only one of many flaws in the MDC-led proposal.
If this is true, MDC and the customers were both incompetent. But I don't recall that it was: underestimating the customer's resistance to LPLC was only one of many flaws in the MDC-led proposal.
KenV, you need to stop digging. Nobody 'stretched' the A330 to produce the A330-300 as it was that shape at launch. From memory the MTOW at launch was 210 tonnes and increased to 212 tonnes during the first production run, with one engine variant with a lowly 184 tonnes MTOW. The MTOW continued to grow and these days is 242 tonnes on the -300 and -200, with the latest versions at 251 tonnes. The fuel capacity differs by customer and market, with the MRTT variant making use of all the tank options. The lowest fuel capacity is on the A330-300 'Regional' jet and the highest capacities are available on both the -300, -200 and the most recent variants.
As an aside, it is pretty rare for MTOW of a design not to increase during service and development. I've no idea why you throw information around on a topic that you have little practical knowledge of.
If anyone feels the need to correct my memory of the weight history please do so as my grey matter is always strained.
Tank fits and volumes:
As an aside, it is pretty rare for MTOW of a design not to increase during service and development. I've no idea why you throw information around on a topic that you have little practical knowledge of.
If anyone feels the need to correct my memory of the weight history please do so as my grey matter is always strained.
Tank fits and volumes:
Last edited by Just This Once...; 31st Jan 2019 at 16:00.
Stonecipher admits that the MDC-led team's near tail-less aircraft design and complex engine installations were a calculated gamble. The concept included a lift-plus-lift/cruise STOVL configuration. As designed, a forward gas-turbine engine, mounted behind the cockpit, offers vertical lift, while the main power plant provides rear lift and conventional forward thrust. He feels MDC lost because the propulsion concept was considered "higher risk".
He was more or less right, although the source selection authority was probably wrong about LPLC and there were other undesirable aspects to the MDC proposal. But that doesn't mean that there was a requirement that JSF be single-engine. "Words have meanings", as someone said a few posts ago, and in the context of acquisition, a "requirement" has a specific meaning.
He was more or less right, although the source selection authority was probably wrong about LPLC and there were other undesirable aspects to the MDC proposal. But that doesn't mean that there was a requirement that JSF be single-engine. "Words have meanings", as someone said a few posts ago, and in the context of acquisition, a "requirement" has a specific meaning.
