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
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:
So now you are repeating what I wrote back at me? You do realise that means you are battling against yourself, again?
You really struggle with facts; I get that. You don't like source material; I get that too. You like to challenge people by asserting something you have no idea about; I also get that.
But why do it in public?
I don't get that.
... made the claim that the Max Take Off Weight (MTOW) of the A330 has "steadily gone up" over the years .... There's not a single source that supports that claim...
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.
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.
A340, which shares the same wing with A330, has a centerwing tank while no A330 has one.
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.
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.
A340, which shares the same wing with A330, has a centerwing tank while no A330 has one.
But why do it in public?
I don't get that.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So now you are repeating what I wrote back at me? You do realise that means you are battling against yourself, again?
You really struggle with facts; I get that. You don't like source material; I get that too. You like to challenge people by asserting something you have no idea about; I also get that.
But why do it in public?
I don't get that.
You really struggle with facts; I get that. You don't like source material; I get that too. You like to challenge people by asserting something you have no idea about; I also get that.
But why do it in public?
I don't get that.
1. Struggle with facts? Don't like source material? I have no idea if the data you presented was "source material" but as soon as you presented it I a) acknowldeged it, and b) accepted it at face value. I don't understand how that constitutes a "struggle" or "not liking it." Maybe this is a Brit thing, and I'm not a Brit so just "don't get it."
2. Challenge people? Sorry, no. I did challenge the oft repeated implications that:
a) the final USAF tanker RFP was the same as the first
b) the final RFP was for an off the shelf tanker with little or no development
c) the offerors/manufacturers had the power to tell USAF that their stated requirements "weren't needed"
d) that the US taxpayers are burdened with an over budget tanker program
e) that Boeing in some unexplained fashion "stole" the tanker program from Airbus
f) that either tanker is "superior" to the other. In fact they are quite different and satisfy a different set of requirements that the customer must decide best suits their needs. USAF's needs just happen to be better served by KC-46.
g) KC-46 is not any more survivable in hostile airspace than any other airliner based tanker, including the legacy tankers
If challenging these oft repeated false notions is "challenging people", then guilty as charged. But in America we view that quite differently.
3. Concerning this statement of mine which you bolded and therefore presume you have a problem with:
can you fully fill the airplane [A330MRTT] with just gas? The KC-46 can. According to this guy, the A330MRTT cannot.
Your "source material" does not answer this question. So, is Beagle right and the MRTT will reach its MTOW with full fuel and no cargo, or is Just This Once right and the MRTT with full fuel can still accept 10t of cargo? I personally believe it's the latter and said so right in this thread years ago. What say your "source material?"
4. "Why do it in public?" First off I don't "Do it in public" And secondly, I post here mostly for its entertainment value. I do take people's postings seriously, but I don't take them personally. That would ruin the point of it all.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rather a vague and incomplete requirement - does the platform have to fly 1500nm, offload 50K and then fly 1500nm back? Over what period of time does the platform need to be on station?
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.
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.
And FYI, someone claimed that a one hour late proposal arrival was "not material in this case. [KC-X}" In fact US Aerospace's proposal for the KC-X arrived 5 [u]minutes late because the courier delivering it got held up at the entry gate to Wright Pat. Their proposal was rejected and not considered. So yeah, actually quite material.
Last edited by KenV; 1st Feb 2019 at 01:10.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by KenV; 1st Feb 2019 at 01:50.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.janes.com/article/86037/...-boom-redesign
The US Air Force (USAF) will redesign the problematic boom on the Boeing KC-46A Pegasus aerial refuelling tanker to better accommodate lighter aircraft such as the Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II.
USAF Secretary Heather Wilson said on 24 January that the boom does not disconnect as well from lighter aircraft as it does with heavier aircraft. The service has identified an actuator fix that will make the boom a little more sensitive, and she believes it is likely that the A-10 is the only aircraft affected by this issue.
The A-10 is a lighter aircraft compared with some of the USAF's other aircraft such as transports, bombers, and even other tactical combat aircraft. The Lockheed Martin C-130H Hercules weighs 34,686 kg empty and the A-10 weighs 9,183 kg empty, while the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) weighs 13,290 kg empty.
At Boeing's KC-46A first delivery ceremony, Wilson said that the USAF is paying for the boom redesign as it meets the international standard that the service gave to Boeing. In the deal reached in mid-January over the first delivery, the USAF agreed to pay for the boom fix while Boeing would pay for upgrading the remote vision system (RVS). Boeing is planning both hardware and software fixes to the RVS to allow it to automatically adjust and operate effectively in both the sun's glare and in shadow.
Wilson also said that this boom redesign will be the first programme change in the history of the KC-46A.
The US Air Force (USAF) will redesign the problematic boom on the Boeing KC-46A Pegasus aerial refuelling tanker to better accommodate lighter aircraft such as the Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II.
USAF Secretary Heather Wilson said on 24 January that the boom does not disconnect as well from lighter aircraft as it does with heavier aircraft. The service has identified an actuator fix that will make the boom a little more sensitive, and she believes it is likely that the A-10 is the only aircraft affected by this issue.
The A-10 is a lighter aircraft compared with some of the USAF's other aircraft such as transports, bombers, and even other tactical combat aircraft. The Lockheed Martin C-130H Hercules weighs 34,686 kg empty and the A-10 weighs 9,183 kg empty, while the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) weighs 13,290 kg empty.
At Boeing's KC-46A first delivery ceremony, Wilson said that the USAF is paying for the boom redesign as it meets the international standard that the service gave to Boeing. In the deal reached in mid-January over the first delivery, the USAF agreed to pay for the boom fix while Boeing would pay for upgrading the remote vision system (RVS). Boeing is planning both hardware and software fixes to the RVS to allow it to automatically adjust and operate effectively in both the sun's glare and in shadow.
Wilson also said that this boom redesign will be the first programme change in the history of the KC-46A.
"his boom redesign will be the first programme change in the history of the KC-46A"
is that true?
is that true?
At Boeing's KC-46A first delivery ceremony, Wilson said that the USAF is paying for the boom redesign as it meets the international standard that the service gave to Boeing.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Ken - that makes sense now
presumably the USAF lawyers insist that any previous "changes" are in fact a legal duty of Mr B due due to non performance of the original contract
In this case it was the USAF who screwed up so they had to ask for the "change"
presumably the USAF lawyers insist that any previous "changes" are in fact a legal duty of Mr B due due to non performance of the original contract
In this case it was the USAF who screwed up so they had to ask for the "change"
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone asked "When is Boeing going to deliver a tanker that is compliant and that USAF is happy with?" Boeing just delivered two more KC-46, for a total of four. Several more are already built and awaiting government approval to be delivered. USAF can't accept them as fast as Boeing is able to deliver them. As for "compliant" and "happy", yes the delivered aircraft have "deficiencies" but they are compliant. There is a significant difference. The operators/maintainers of the KC-46 are ecstatic. The generals who lead them are very happy. The USAF procurement officials who signed the DD250 and accepted the aircraft are also very happy. So in answer to "when?" It's already happened.
Thread Starter
The Omegas of this world can offer a converted used A330, probably A340 (which are very cheap cause no one really wants them anymore, and have greater fuel capacity and MTOW than A330) used 777, or used 747.
Incidentally, only the later stretched -500 and -600 variants have greater fuel capacities than the A340-200/300.
I note that the Luftwaffe is to replace its pair of A340-300 with 3 x A350XWB. Perhaps thought should be given to doing an in-house EFW A310MRTT-style AAR conversion to 2 of them, given that the Luftwaffe has ruled out the F-35 as a Tornado replacement and is considering the Typhoon and/or F/A-18E/F. No boom therefore needed for Luftwaffe requirements.
The boom is designed to the spec in the contract. Sadly that spec was good for every plane except the A-10. USAF screwed up and provided the wrong spec for A-10. That's why this is the "first program change" on the program. Boeing paid for all the previous screw ups and delays. USAF pays for this one.
I note that the Luftwaffe is to replace its pair of A340-300 with 3 x A350XWB. Perhaps thought should be given to doing an in-house EFW A310MRTT-style AAR conversion to 2 of them, given that the Luftwaffe has ruled out the F-35 as a Tornado replacement and is considering the Typhoon and/or F/A-18E/F. No boom therefore needed for Luftwaffe requirements.
From Jane's:
Germany, Norway sign for five NATO-owned MRTT tanker-transports
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2017Author: Gareth Jennings
Publication: Jane's Defence Weekly
Germany and Norway have placed a firm order for five Airbus Defense and Space (DS) A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft to be fielded under the auspices of the European/NATO Multinational Multi Role Tanker Transport Fleet (MMF).
The announcement by Airbus DS on 25 September came some three months after the two nations formally joined the MMF programme, alongside members Luxembourg and the Netherlands, which had already signed up for two aircraft to be handed over between 2020 and 2022. In addition to the seven MRTTs now contracted, there are options for a further four aircraft should other nations join the programme.
As noted by Airbus DS, the four nations now funding the MMF programme will have the exclusive to operate these NATO-owned aircraft in a pooling arrangement. The aircraft will be configured for in-flight refuelling, the transport of passengers and cargo, and medical evacuation flights.
The Organisation for Joint Armament Co-operation (OCCAR) is managing the acquisition phase of MMF on behalf of the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA), which will then be responsible for the complete life-cycle management of the fleet.Comment
As previously noted by director of OCCAR, Arturo Alfonso-Meiriño, there is the option for additional countries to join the programme beyond the four that have already signed up. While not named in the announcement, Belgium and Poland have previously declared their interest in a pooled tanker capability.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the "KC135/KC10" booms, they are very different in design and operation, including their various protection systems and consequently have different specs. KC-46 uses the KC-10 boom with a modernized version of its axial load limit protection system. The parameters for the KC-46 boom axial load protection system were defined by the contract, which as noted above, inadvertently did not include the lower A-10 load limit. Happy now?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note that the Luftwaffe is to replace its pair of A340-300 with 3 x A350XWB. Perhaps thought should be given to doing an in-house EFW A310MRTT-style AAR conversion to 2 of them, given that the Luftwaffe has ruled out the F-35 as a Tornado replacement and is considering the Typhoon and/or F/A-18E/F. No boom therefore needed for Luftwaffe requirements.
KC-46 uses the KC-10 boom with a modernized version of its axial load limit protection system.
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?
What time code do you put on your Boeing timesheet for posting on here btw??
Thread Starter
You still don't see it, Ken V? Think USN / USMC requirements....
And do stop your patronising "Oh My" and "mmmm..." nonsense - it's so utterly puerile.
And do stop your patronising "Oh My" and "mmmm..." nonsense - it's so utterly puerile.
Someone asked "When is Boeing going to deliver a tanker that is compliant and that USAF is happy with?" Boeing just delivered two more KC-46, for a total of four. Several more are already built and awaiting government approval to be delivered. USAF can't accept them as fast as Boeing is able to deliver them. As for "compliant" and "happy", yes the delivered aircraft have "deficiencies" but they are compliant. There is a significant difference. The operators/maintainers of the KC-46 are ecstatic. The generals who lead them are very happy. The USAF procurement officials who signed the DD250 and accepted the aircraft are also very happy. So in answer to "when?" It's already happened.
So you're saying that Stonecipher was "probably right" and "incompetent."
Nope. I'm saying that while the JSF requirement was written around a single main engine (lift/cruise in the STOVL version) it was to the best of my knowledge agnostic as to how STOVL was to be incorporated - other than requiring that it had to be demonstrated on test rigs and in the air within the schedule, which limited the field somewhat. While it was known that some people on the customer side were strongly opposed to LPLC, there wasn't a requirement that eliminated it. Indeed, the MDC team selected LPLC under a government-funded concept definition and design research contract awarded in Dec 1994, so to argue that the customer specifically ruled out such a solution seems strange.
Nope. I'm saying that while the JSF requirement was written around a single main engine (lift/cruise in the STOVL version) it was to the best of my knowledge agnostic as to how STOVL was to be incorporated - other than requiring that it had to be demonstrated on test rigs and in the air within the schedule, which limited the field somewhat. While it was known that some people on the customer side were strongly opposed to LPLC, there wasn't a requirement that eliminated it. Indeed, the MDC team selected LPLC under a government-funded concept definition and design research contract awarded in Dec 1994, so to argue that the customer specifically ruled out such a solution seems strange.
Last edited by LowObservable; 1st Feb 2019 at 20:01.
