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 1st Feb 2019, 22:00
  #841 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
You still don't see it, Ken V? Think USN / USMC requirements....
Hmmmm. Omega has been providing tanking services to the USN/USMC for over 18 years. And doing it with a KC-707. An A340 is essentially a wide body 707. So I'm still not seeing it. Care to elucidate?

And do stop your patronising "Oh My" and "mmmm..." nonsense - it's so utterly puerile.
Hmmmm is my version of your "rolleyes" emoji. Equally purile. Mine's just more old school.

KenV is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 22:54
  #842 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by Trumpet trousers View Post
oh my” indeed...
So is it that difficult to align the performance of the KC46 boom with that of the KC10? Or is that beyond logical thinking and expectations?
Difficult? Nope, technically speaking. But it requires a contract change. Ever work a DoD contract? Ever try to change a DoD contract. That is hard. How hard? I'll provide an example. C-17 was contractually designed with a forward and aft radome. Technically no big deal. Radomes require very special paint that is transparent to a wide range of RF. Again technically no big deal. Here's where things get dicey: Every electronic device and antenna in the C-17 tail cone is gone. There is no longer any need for special radome paint. The operators don't want it. The maintainers don't want it. MAJCOM does not want it. Boeing who service the tail radomes don't want it. No one wants it. But,to remove the special radome paint requirement requires a contract change. That is hard to do,. How hard? So hard that even though literally no one wants or needs the special radome paint, Boeing is contractually required to ship the radomes out to a specialist paint vendor and USAF is paying 8 times more than they would if Boeing just painted the radomes with the same paint as the rest of the airplane. Warner Robbins (the other C-17 depot) has the exact same problem. This has been going on for nearly a decade. So on the subject of "logical thinking", we are talking about lawyers, not engineers. And not just any kind of lawyer, but contract lawyers. Get the picture? If the lawyers who wrote the contract had been "logical" the contract would have referenced a technical document that provided the specs That way if an error was found in the spec the technical document could have been updated and everything resolved very quickly. But the lawyers did not do that.

What time code do you put on your Boeing timesheet for posting on here btw??
Your implication is grievously offensive. Nevertheless, lets return to the subject of "logical thinking". Has it occurred to you that perhaps I work other than a normal daytime shift? Or a normal 5 day week? I'll leave it at that.

Last edited by KenV; 1st Feb 2019 at 23:16.
KenV is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 23:24
  #843 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,190
I guess it's a competence thing. I've worked on UK MoD and US DoD contracts (and many others) for most of my adult life. Routine contract amendments happen most months on all of these due to oversights, enhancements or simply changes in the world around us. We handle these as normal business - it's a routine part of the day job for the commercial and PM staff. But I have to assume from what you say that Boeing doesn't employ competent staff in these roles. It would explain a lot.

PDR
PDR1 is online now  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 00:50
  #844 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by Bing View Post
If someone delivered me something that expensive, that late, I think happy would be overstating my position. Relieved maybe.
And there it is again. Expensive? USAF paid not one extra dime for the KC-46 than was originally contracted for. And the contract price was by all accounts the result of a very low-ball bid. Price-wise USAF got a bargain and even Airbus acknowledges that.

KenV is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 07:54
  #845 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by KenV View Post
And there it is again. Expensive? USAF paid not one extra dime for the KC-46 than was originally contracted for. And the contract price was by all accounts the result of a very low-ball bid. Price-wise USAF got a bargain and even Airbus acknowledges that.
I didn't say they'd been charged more than the original price, just that it was expensive. It's not cheap even if it is a bargain. Or are you saying the USAF should accept multi-year delays because Boeing are saving them some money?
Bing is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 07:56
  #846 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,446
Regarding the A340-200/300, just study the wing planform, dihedral angle and 2 outboard engine locations....

Airbus used the basic A340 wing for the A330MRTT, but used the outboard engine locations and plumbing to supply the AAR pods. You can't do that on the A340; even if it was aerodynamically and structurally possible to fit pods outboard of the engines (which I doubt - it isn't a 707), considerable design work would be needed to supply the pods with adequate fuel flow rates. The process of clearing receivers against a 'new' tanker design is also a very time consuming and expensive activity, except for UOR 'heart of the envelope' clearance during TTW.

Of course Boeing knows all about the problems of buffet and flutter caused by poor pod / pylon design on the original KC-767, so if a major manufacturer experiences such difficulties and programme delay, it's unlikely that anyone else trying to fit pods on an A340-200/300 would find it straightforward - or cost effective. For example, the UK wasted M through a sub-contractor trying and failing to fit AAR pods on the TriStar; it might eventually have worked, but by then there were more VC10s available anyway, so the programme was dropped.

Whereas pre-owned A330-200/300 would merely need the existing A330MRTT wing and pod modifications - even a boom if really necessary. Quite how much life is left in pre-owned A330 aircraft is a different question though.
BEagle is online now  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 09:11
  #847 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,863
Not sure about the remaining life on pre-owned A330s BEags but Filton did kick around the idea of harvesting wings from used A340s for future use. Hanging engines on the outboards did a wonderful job of preserving fatigue life.
Just This Once... is online now  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 09:15
  #848 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,190
[Deleted - on reflection the comment was unjustified]

PDR

Last edited by PDR1; 3rd Feb 2019 at 09:28.
PDR1 is online now  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 09:44
  #849 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by Bing View Post
I didn't say they'd been charged more than the original price, just that it was expensive. It's not cheap even if it is a bargain. Or are you saying the USAF should accept multi-year delays because Boeing are saving them some money?
Ken is right - the USAF aren't paying a $ so far more than they planned to - OK now they have to pay for the Warthog fix but that's washers

Expensive? That's a value judgement which has been done to death here

What is a problem is that the USAF are getting severely delayed delivery - that they didn't bargain on - on the other hand it hasn't caused the sky to fall in and if you were a super optimist you could say Mr B has actually extended the time the USAF will have to look for a replacement. Future generations may thank them......................
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 15:23
  #850 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 770
Every few years yet another USAF General, when discussing future tanker plans or KC-135 upgrades, says: ".. the last pilot to fly the KC-135 hasn't been born yet …" !

Google it - multiple times from 2008 to just recently !
RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 18:46
  #851 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
Every few years yet another USAF General, when discussing future tanker plans or KC-135 upgrades, says: ".. the last pilot to fly the KC-135 hasn't been born yet " !
A variation of the 'last Black Hawk to be flown to the boneyard will be underslung a Huey' quote.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 20:23
  #852 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,395
Originally Posted by PDR1 View Post
That's a good point, Walter. Floor sweepers often do work odd shifts.

PDR
PDR, you do know that resorting to personal insults is generally considered evidence that you're loosing the debate?

Boeing has been something of leader in the area of alternate work schedules - particularly for the white collar workers. They started this during the 777 development when they discovered the heavy use of CATIA was overwhelming their mainframe computing capabilities - so they started having the designers work alternate schedules to spread out the computer demand. This ultimately proved popular with the workers - plus it got Boeing bonus points from the traffic planners for spreading out peak commuting traffic (and the Seattle area has some of the worst traffic in the US).
Personally, I spent most my last 20 years at Boeing working an alternate work schedule.
tdracer is online now  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 21:14
  #853 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,190
[Deleted - on reflection the comment was unjustified]

PDR

Last edited by PDR1; 3rd Feb 2019 at 09:27.
PDR1 is online now  
Old 3rd Feb 2019, 08:07
  #854 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 0
Out of order I think.............. Looking back Ken has fought the good fight from Day 1 and posted a lot of technical info. Absolutely no need to go to personal attacks on ANY of these forums (or forii?)
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2019, 10:22
  #855 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 75
Posts: 431
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
Out of order I think.............. Looking back Ken has fought the good fight from Day 1 and posted a lot of technical info. Absolutely no need to go to personal attacks on ANY of these forums (or forii?)
fora, if it matters: though I'd prefer forums.
FlightlessParrot is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2019, 22:50
  #856 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 126
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
Out of order I think.............. Looking back Ken has fought the good fight from Day 1 and posted a lot of technical info. Absolutely no need to go to personal attacks on ANY of these forums (or forii?)

Bollox, he has history. xxx "Oh My" indeed.
weemonkey is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2019, 23:46
  #857 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,519
Indeed he has, Including such things as a long thread derailment concerning the F-35's helmet-mounted display, and how come he knew that a far superior Block 4 (or whatever) was right around the corner.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2019, 11:40
  #858 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Trumpville, on the edge
Posts: 21
It would appear that the Boeing timesheet scrutineers read this thread too...
Trumpet trousers is online now  
Old 4th Feb 2019, 13:17
  #859 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
Regarding the A340-200/300, just study the wing planform, dihedral angle and 2 outboard engine locations....
Airbus used the basic A340 wing for the A330MRTT, but used the outboard engine locations and plumbing to supply the AAR pods. You can't do that on the A340; even if it was aerodynamically and structurally possible to fit pods outboard of the engines (which I doubt - it isn't a 707), considerable design work would be needed to supply the pods with adequate fuel flow rates.
This is a proposed fee for services contract. There is nothing in the contract that defines the tanker configuration, and no requirement for Wing Aerial Refueling Pods (WARP). The following 6 points jump immediately to mind regarding the need for WARP to service probe equipped USN/USMC aircraft:
1. Omega has been supporting USN/USMC for 18 years using a centerline drogue equipped KC-707.
2. USAF has been supporting USN/USMC for multiple decades with KC-10s using just the centerline drogue system. While KC-10 can be equipped with WARP, only a few have been so equipped.
3. USAF has been supporting USN/USMC for multiple decades with KC-135 using a hose/drogue adapter on the KC-135's boom.
4. Dutch KDC-10 have been supporting NATO probe-equipped aircraft for decades using just the centerline drogue system.
5. USN's MQ-25 refueling drone has no WARP.
6. RAF's TriStar tankers have no WARP.

Secondarily, you are selling your European engineers short. If turning an A340 into an aerial tanker with WARP turns out to make financial sense, I'm reasonably confident the engineers at Airbus and BAE could figure out the engineering to make it happen. May I remind you that your engineers managed to put WARP on your Victor bombers. And those bombers' wings had no built in provision to deliver fuel near the wingtips where the WARP were located. And by the way, the Victors had anhedral and a downright odd wing planform, so your dihedral and planform comments appear to be red herrings.

The process of clearing receivers against a 'new' tanker design is also a very time consuming and expensive activity, except for UOR 'heart of the envelope' clearance during TTW.
It is indeed, but that is equally true for any aircraft, not just A340. Nevertheless, the fact that there are multiple commercial operators providing Fee for Service aerial refueling to probe equipped aircraft using multiple different platforms indicates this is not only feasible, but financially viable.

Now, about those "blindingly obvious" reasons you referred to? Not so much.
KenV is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2019, 13:30
  #860 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by Bing View Post
I didn't say they'd been charged more than the original price, just that it was expensive. It's not cheap even if it is a bargain.
Aviation is expensive. Every bit of it. It's the nature of the beast. And the folks receiving/operating the aircraft don't pay for them. They are ecstatic with the airplanes they've gotten.

KenV 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.