More KC-46A woes....
Of course if the USAF had acquired a civilised aircraft such as the A330MRTT in the first place, they wouldn't have any need for this 'rendition class' palletised seating nor for the 'Air Transportable Galley-Lavatory, a combined kitchen and bathroom' - which sounds quite disgusting, particularly for long flights...
The following users liked this post:
Of course if the USAF had acquired a civilised aircraft such as the A330MRTT in the first place, they wouldn't have any need for this 'rendition class' palletised seating nor for the 'Air Transportable Galley-Lavatory, a combined kitchen and bathroom' - which sounds quite disgusting, particularly for long flights...
Or do we need to go through the whole 'the MRTT didn't meet the USAF requirements' debate again?
Can the A330MRTT carry 20 pallets of main deck cargo (and a cargo loading door to go with it)? Because that was one of those USAF non-negotiable mandatory requirements. If the idea was to just carry SLF on the main deck, I'm sure Boeing would have been happy to provide main deck seating - but the USAF wanted an aircraft that was a jack of all trades.
Or do we need to go through the whole 'the MRTT didn't meet the USAF requirements' debate again?
Or do we need to go through the whole 'the MRTT didn't meet the USAF requirements' debate again?
Thread Starter
The Luftwaffe already operated the A310 MRT in 'combi' fit before the tanker conversion. The additional fuel for the tanker conversion was carried in 4 x removeable auxiliary tanks in the lower holds, although it would have been feasible to have included a 5th tank. The upper deck freight floor and rear passenger seats were retained, so that the aircraft had a wide variety of possible operating fits.
Luftwaffe AAR is now provided by the A330MRTT, operated by the multinational tanker force at Eindhoven and Köln/Bonn.
Even in the non-freighter variant, the A330MRTT has prodigous lower hold space for a wide variety of freight options and is fitted with large lower hold doors, so that there is no real need for the upper deck cargo and cargo door option.
Luftwaffe AAR is now provided by the A330MRTT, operated by the multinational tanker force at Eindhoven and Köln/Bonn.
Even in the non-freighter variant, the A330MRTT has prodigous lower hold space for a wide variety of freight options and is fitted with large lower hold doors, so that there is no real need for the upper deck cargo and cargo door option.
The Luftwaffe already operated the A310 MRT in 'combi' fit before the tanker conversion. The additional fuel for the tanker conversion was carried in 4 x removeable auxiliary tanks in the lower holds, although it would have been feasible to have included a 5th tank. The upper deck freight floor and rear passenger seats were retained, so that the aircraft had a wide variety of possible operating fits.
Luftwaffe AAR is now provided by the A330MRTT, operated by the multinational tanker force at Eindhoven and Köln/Bonn.
Even in the non-freighter variant, the A330MRTT has prodigous lower hold space for a wide variety of freight options and is fitted with large lower hold doors, so that there is no real need for the upper deck cargo and cargo door option.
Luftwaffe AAR is now provided by the A330MRTT, operated by the multinational tanker force at Eindhoven and Köln/Bonn.
Even in the non-freighter variant, the A330MRTT has prodigous lower hold space for a wide variety of freight options and is fitted with large lower hold doors, so that there is no real need for the upper deck cargo and cargo door option.
As for doing some sort of 'combi' setup, another one of those messy mandatory requirements is for full FAA certification (no idea why - it added considerable costs to the program with no real value added - but "What part of Mandatory don't you understand"
). FAA/JAA/EASA really upped the regulations for a 'Combi' after Helderberg disaster - to the point where I don't think anyone has successfully certified a new "combi" configuration since then.
While the A330 has a much larger cargo hold than the 767, it in no way compares to the main deck cargo capability of the 767 when configured as a freighter - the A330 can't take full size freighter pallets under the floor, the 767F can on the main deck. And once again, there is that messy USAF MANDATORY requirement for main deck cargo carrying.
As for doing some sort of 'combi' setup, another one of those messy mandatory requirements is for full FAA certification (no idea why - it added considerable costs to the program with no real value added - but "What part of Mandatory don't you understand"). FAA/JAA/EASA really upped the regulations for a 'Combi' after Helderberg disaster - to the point where I don't think anyone has successfully certified a new "combi" configuration since then.
As for doing some sort of 'combi' setup, another one of those messy mandatory requirements is for full FAA certification (no idea why - it added considerable costs to the program with no real value added - but "What part of Mandatory don't you understand"
). FAA/JAA/EASA really upped the regulations for a 'Combi' after Helderberg disaster - to the point where I don't think anyone has successfully certified a new "combi" configuration since then.I think the part of 'mandatory' that I dont understand is the part where it seemingly wasn't required when the initial A330 selection was made, but suddenly became a must have when Boeing forced a rerun.
The following users liked this post:
The A330 can take pallets on the upper deck with a door fitted (as was spec'd on the USAF KC-45 and as fitted to the French Phenix).
I think the part of 'mandatory' that I dont understand is the part where it seemingly wasn't required when the initial A330 selection was made, but suddenly became a must have when Boeing forced a rerun.
I think the part of 'mandatory' that I dont understand is the part where it seemingly wasn't required when the initial A330 selection was made, but suddenly became a must have when Boeing forced a rerun.
BUT, you can't spec the aircraft to do both!
You can have one or the other. The only other option is to do some sort of Combi configuration - but good luck getting FAA/EASA certification of a combi with the current regulations...
Regarding the 'rerun' - Boeing protested because the USAF gave the A330 'extra credit' for exceeding the required capacities -rather than matching what the KC-135 could do (which is what the RFP specified - a KC-135 replacement, not something bigger). That broke the stated procurement rules - which don't allow for 'extra credit' unless it's specified in the RFP.
Regarding all those messy mandatory requirements, the new request after the successful Boeing protest including a bunch of 'new stuff' relative to the previous RFP - it seems that since the USAF couldn't grant 'extra credit', they created a big wish list of everything they wanted the 'tanker' to do and made them all mandatory. Obviously can't detail what, but there was a lot of stuff in the new RFP that had absolutely nothing to do with aerial refueling - and the existing A330 MRTT didn't meet those requirements (nor did the existing KC-767). To have competed in the revised competition would have required a major redesign of the A330 MRTT - just like it did the KC-767 - to meet all those requirements.
For the most part, it was the redesign needed to meet all those new mandatory requirements that caused problems with the KC-46.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023...top-7-billion/
Boeing’s tanker losses top $7 billion
WASHINGTON — Boeing reported a $245 million charge on the KC-46A Pegasus tanker in the first quarter of 2023, due to a supplier’s quality issues.
The penalty means the KC-46 has now racked up more than $7 billion in charges, and follow a $1.2 billion hit the company took on the Air Force tanker in the third quarter of 2022.….
Boeing said the charge was largely driven by a previously disclosed quality issue due to a supplier, but did not offer further details in a call with analysts.
The aviation news website the Air Current reported in March a subcontractor had not followed proper painting and priming procedures on the center fuel tanks of some KC-46s and 767s, on which the KC-46 is based, which has held up deliveries. That quality issue could risk contamination of the aircrafts’ fuel systems, Air Current reported.
Brian West, Boeing’s chief financial officer, confirmed the quality issue with the 767 center fuel tanks later that month at a Bank of America conference.
David Calhoun, Boeing’s chief executive, said on Wednesday’s call work is progressing on fixing that problem. But the company warned investors more losses on the KC-46 could come during the remainder of the year…..
Boeing’s tanker losses top $7 billion
WASHINGTON — Boeing reported a $245 million charge on the KC-46A Pegasus tanker in the first quarter of 2023, due to a supplier’s quality issues.
The penalty means the KC-46 has now racked up more than $7 billion in charges, and follow a $1.2 billion hit the company took on the Air Force tanker in the third quarter of 2022.….
Boeing said the charge was largely driven by a previously disclosed quality issue due to a supplier, but did not offer further details in a call with analysts.
The aviation news website the Air Current reported in March a subcontractor had not followed proper painting and priming procedures on the center fuel tanks of some KC-46s and 767s, on which the KC-46 is based, which has held up deliveries. That quality issue could risk contamination of the aircrafts’ fuel systems, Air Current reported.
Brian West, Boeing’s chief financial officer, confirmed the quality issue with the 767 center fuel tanks later that month at a Bank of America conference.
David Calhoun, Boeing’s chief executive, said on Wednesday’s call work is progressing on fixing that problem. But the company warned investors more losses on the KC-46 could come during the remainder of the year…..
It would appear that Boeing should be hammering on its suppliers to meet (and maintain) quality standards rather than cost targets. 787, 737 MAX, now this have cost the company billions - much more than just doing the job right would have cost.
More fallout from the MacDac merger...
More fallout from the MacDac merger...
It feels like some time ago they changed their traditional QC for cheaper "watertight" legal contracts that didn't prevent practical hiccups from happening and became much more costly in the end. I'd move it back to more real world QC. Add fixed price contracts like for this tanker and much left to do this is expensive and might only turn profitable with services and spare parts on a very long run if ever.
The B-52 business will make up for it.
The B-52 business will make up for it.
Six Troubesome Cat 1 Deficiencies
Just read about the latest status of the KC-46 program and 6 Category 1 deficiencies remain. I’m surprised that although these all concern military unique parts and systems that FAA certification is still an issue with some of the “fixes”. I just hope the Air Force and FAA are relentless is ensuring the safe and effective resolution of these deficiencies.
The Air Force defines a Category 1 deficiency as one which “may cause death, severe injury, or severe occupational illness; may cause loss or major damage to a weapon system; critically restricts the combat readiness capabilities of the using organization; or result in a production line stoppage.”
The Air Force defines a Category 1 deficiency as one which “may cause death, severe injury, or severe occupational illness; may cause loss or major damage to a weapon system; critically restricts the combat readiness capabilities of the using organization; or result in a production line stoppage.”
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...combat-mission
KC-10 Extender Has Flown Its Last Combat Mission
After more than four decades during which it provided vital inflight refueling and airlift, the U.S. Air Force’s venerable KC-10A Extender has flown its last combat mission.
While the Air Force already began sending KC-10s to the boneyard in 2020, the latest milestone signals the impending retirement of the type, although it’s not yet entirely clear what the service’s future tanker fleet will consist of.
Photos published today by the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service (DVIDS) show a KC-10 departing Prince Sultan Air Base (PSAB), in Saudi Arabia, on October 5.
According to accompanying captions, the departure of the Extender concluded the type’s final combat deployment at the base.
Air Mobility Command (AMC) confirmed to The War Zone that this was the last combat deployment of the KC-10 anywhere in the world, not just in the Middle East.
“For nearly four decades, the KC-10 has helped secure global reach for America,” AMC spokeswoman Jessica Brown said. “It’s expected to redeploy to its home station soon.”….
KC-10 Extender Has Flown Its Last Combat Mission
After more than four decades during which it provided vital inflight refueling and airlift, the U.S. Air Force’s venerable KC-10A Extender has flown its last combat mission.
While the Air Force already began sending KC-10s to the boneyard in 2020, the latest milestone signals the impending retirement of the type, although it’s not yet entirely clear what the service’s future tanker fleet will consist of.
Photos published today by the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service (DVIDS) show a KC-10 departing Prince Sultan Air Base (PSAB), in Saudi Arabia, on October 5.
According to accompanying captions, the departure of the Extender concluded the type’s final combat deployment at the base.
Air Mobility Command (AMC) confirmed to The War Zone that this was the last combat deployment of the KC-10 anywhere in the world, not just in the Middle East.
“For nearly four decades, the KC-10 has helped secure global reach for America,” AMC spokeswoman Jessica Brown said. “It’s expected to redeploy to its home station soon.”….
Well that explans why there were so many KC-10s in close proximity over Europe yesterday morning, a flight of 3 into Mildenhall and another flight of 3 into Spangdahlem. 43 years since first KC-10 flight, 67 since first KC-135 flight and in the later case that's well over half the 120 since Kitty Hawk.
I'm pleasantly shocked by the 43 years of the KC10. Everyone's aware of the longevity of the 135- I just would never have said the 10 was so long. Brilliant!
CG
CG
Wonder the sort of airframe hours any particular 10 or 135 has logged, certainly long service, then again might wonder about the venerable 52 as well. Damn things last longer than we do.
By comparison, most commercial aircraft are in the 3,000-4,000 hours/year range.
I do find it interesting that - in spite of it's alleged advantages in capabilities, they are retiring the KC-10 before the 20+ year older KC-135s.