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 17th Apr 2021, 01:12
  #1101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 73
Posts: 1,070
Received 151 Likes on 53 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
<excerpt>
While the A330 can carry more underfloor cargo than the KC-46, it would still fall far short of the USAF requirements.
In other words, had Airbus proposed the standard MRTT, it would have been dismissed out of hand for failing to meet the basic, mandatory requirements.
We are impressed by how the KC-46 has been meeting all the requirements so far.
GlobalNav is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2021, 01:16
  #1102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,357
Received 157 Likes on 75 Posts
Originally Posted by GlobalNav
We are impressed by how the KC-46 has been meeting all the requirements so far.
So, you're suggesting that USAF should have altered their requirements to suit what Airbus had?
That's what got the previous contract award thrown out...
tdracer is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2021, 01:26
  #1103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 73
Posts: 1,070
Received 151 Likes on 53 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
So, you're suggesting that USAF should have altered their requirements to suit what Airbus had?
That's what got the previous contract award thrown out...
I would suggest the contractor over-promised, under-bid, under-delivered, and poorly produced. Bringing shame upon itself and it’s customer’s acquisition prowess.
GlobalNav is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2021, 01:56
  #1104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,357
Received 157 Likes on 75 Posts
Originally Posted by GlobalNav
I would suggest the contractor over-promised, under-bid, under-delivered, and poorly produced. Bringing shame upon itself and it’s customer’s acquisition prowess.
You mean like the A400M?
No one is immune to that disease...
At the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time, the A330 MRTT doesn't meet the mandatory USAF requirements - not even close. It would have required a major development program to come up an A330 derivative that did - with no guarantee that Airbus would have performed much better than the lazy B.
tdracer is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2021, 07:24
  #1105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 4,268
Received 31 Likes on 23 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
Because the USAF specified a cargo aircraft that was capable of doing aerial refueling. Had the A330 been selected, it to would have had to be turned into a freighter - main deck cargo door, cargo handling equipment, etc. While the A330 can carry more underfloor cargo than the KC-46, it would still fall far short of the USAF requirements.
In other words, had Airbus proposed the standard MRTT, it would have been dismissed out of hand for failing to meet the basic, mandatory requirements.

The EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45A was selected by the USAF as compliant to their then needs only to be torpedoed by the "Buy USA" brigade and now look at the mess. Very late and not yet 100% fit for purpose.
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2021, 11:48
  #1106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: back out to Grasse
Posts: 557
Received 28 Likes on 12 Posts
Originally Posted by TBM-Legend
The EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45A was selected by the USAF as compliant to their then needs only to be torpedoed by the "Buy USA" brigade and now look at the mess. Very late and not yet 100% fit for purpose.
and of course the re-written spec would have been authored to ensure that "the A330 MRTT doesn't meet the new mandatory USAF requirements - not even close".

IG
Imagegear is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2021, 12:45
  #1107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ashton in makerfield
Posts: 78
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why make the comparison with the A400?
It is not a tanker?

The A330 is a developed tanker and is working well.

We all the know the rules for tender were changed for political reasons to ensure Boeing got the contract.
And what a disaster that has been! ( and is on going!)
Politics always interfere and rarely for the better.
gsky is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2021, 19:23
  #1108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 232
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
A few things about the KC-X award. I'm not talking about the subsequent development in which Boeing and USAF did not exactly cover themselves in glory, just the selection. Keep in mind that this took place during a time when USAF was screwing up contract after contract.

USAF put out certain specs and requirements for KC-X, which included mandatory requirements, and things they'd give extra credit for and things that would be nice but would not receive extra credit (they might count as tie breakers if all else was equal). Keep in mind that the objective was to replace the KC-135, not the KC-10 or a potential future larger tanker.

When Boeing lost to the the KC-45 they looked at the rationale USAF publicly disclosed in justifying the award. Boeing felt the award so egregiously violated the rules that they decided to, unusually for the time, protest the award. What had clearly happened was that USAF had asked for one thing, but when they saw the bids got excited by the extra cargo capacity of the more expensive A330. Instead of doing the right thing and withdrawing the solicitation and coming out with a new one that reflected their new desires, they just cooked the books to award the contact to EADS/Northrop Grumman (no one alleged that that team itself did anything untoward). When the protest got to GAO their decision was that they wouldn't say that Boeing's bid was better or worse, just that by its own criteria and their published description of how the bids would be judged the award couldn't be justified and invited USAF to explain how the award was made. USAF couldn't, so withdrew the award (and had to pay penalties).

Some, though not all, of the problems included: USAF said points for more cargo capacity would only be provided up to a certain amount. However, USAF gave credit beyond what they said. Boeing said that if USAF had disclosed that, they would have bid a tanker based on the 777, which carried even more cargo than the A330. The requirements included the ability to refuel any AAR-capable USAF fixed wing; A330 couldn't do that for at least one a/c, but this was ignored as was the requirement that the new tanker had to be able to operate from any KC-135 base. But to operate a KC-45 from said bases, modifications to the base(s) costing hundreds of millions of $ were required which USAF didn't include in the cost of the EADS/NG bid. Points were to be awarded regarding how many tankers could be parked on a ramp of a specified size. When it was found that more 767 tankers could be parked there (767 was smaller), USAF simply lowered the standard separation required between parked tankers so that the A330 could fit in more a/c (I don't know if Boeing was ever informed of this change). Air Force had a requirement that the winner would assist in setting up a transition for maintenance from the contractor to USAF. EADS/NG said they wouldn't do that; USAF characterized that as an "administrative oversight"- which normally refers to typos or minor mistakes that have no significant effect on the overall bid. There were more...

Again, GAO did Not say which plane was better for USAF, simply that per USAF's own solicitation and announced selection criteria the award could not be sustained.

Work started on a second solicitation, but it was soon seen that it was written in such a way that any problems with the A330 were simply written out of the requirement, and the suspense for response was so unusually short that there was no time to design and propose a KC-777 that wouldn't be judged "high risk". This was so obvious that the solicitation was never formally issued.

On the third try, Boeing said that it would bid a plane based on either the 767 or 777 depending on how much capacity USAF said it wanted. The new criteria were similar to the original, for a smaller KC-135 replacement. Since apparently a larger A330 based craft could not be offered for a price as low as a 767 based one, EADS (NG had dropped out) decided not to go to the expense (they cost tens of millions of $$) of making a bid.

Personally, I think if they had won EADS would have had almost as many problems, because USAF was asking for a lot more than just a 767 or A330 based tanker (this includes A330MRTT).

Last edited by Commando Cody; 17th Apr 2021 at 21:34.
Commando Cody is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2021, 19:50
  #1109 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bourton-on-the-Water
Posts: 1,017
Received 16 Likes on 7 Posts
Thanks, Commando Cody, for that in-depth explanation.

But isn't it a great piece of comic irony that this disaster-prone project is now wallowing in sh1t? I mean, as Beagle quotes
The Air Transportable Galley-Lavatory (ATGL) is a piece of palletized support equipment
I mean, who writes this stuff? Galley-Lavatory - really? Not so much a piece of palletized support as a piece of cr@p, you might think.

airsound
airsound is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2021, 21:03
  #1110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 73
Posts: 1,070
Received 151 Likes on 53 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
You mean like the A400M?
No one is immune to that disease...
At the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time, the A330 MRTT doesn't meet the mandatory USAF requirements - not even close. It would have required a major development program to come up an A330 derivative that did - with no guarantee that Airbus would have performed much better than the lazy B.
No argument re MRTT, but KC-46, in spite of promises, doesn’t meet the agreed requirements either. The company used to be capable of much better.

The problems of the A400M are not an excuse nor justification for the problems of the KC-46. But both programs are shameful failures in spite of remedial attempts to salvage them and will continue to be embarrassments for years hence.
GlobalNav is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2021, 13:58
  #1111 (permalink)  
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,874
Received 60 Likes on 18 Posts
Who knew that demonstrating and testing new technologies could avoid embarrassing withdrawal problems?

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-w...143935.article
By overlooking design changes made by Boeing to the KC-46A’s refuelling boom, the US Air Force (USAF) missed an opportunity to catch problems early and stave off a $100 million redesign effort.

The service also “did not ensure that critical technologies for the tanker’s refuelling boom were demonstrated in a relevant testing environment” the Department of Defense’s Inspector General says in a report released on 21 May.

The Inspector General’s report adds more detail to problems that continue to dog the KC-46A programme. Many of those problems, including problems with the tanker’s refuelling boom, came from immature technology that wasn’t sufficiently tested prior to the aircraft starting production.

The KC-46A’s refuelling boom is too stiff and thus not able to extend or retract while in contact with an aircraft receiving fuel, says the Inspector General. As a result, recipient aircraft pilots have to make large engine power corrections, to adjust their aircraft’s position forward or backward to maintain contact with the refuelling boom.

“The large engine power corrections could result in potentially unsafe flight operations during the process of disconnecting the receiver aircraft from the refueling boom,” says the Inspector General’s report. “Because the refueling boom was too stiff, it caused pilots of receiver aircraft to inadvertently use excess engine power or not use enough engine power, which, upon disconnecting from the refueling boom, could cause the receiver aircraft to rapidly accelerate toward or away from the tanker.”

By using aircraft throttle to maintain contact with the refuelling boom, pilots could accidentally lunge forward into the boom, causing damage, the report adds.

As a result, the KC-46A tanker could not refuel the Fairchild Republic A-10 close-air support aircraft or several variants of the Lockheed Martin C-130 transport. The USAF has said that the A-10 lacks the thrust necessary to push into the boom.

Furthermore, the USAF imposed operational limitations on many of its other aircraft, allowing the Boeing B-52, Boeing C-17, Boeing F-15, Lockheed Martin F-16, Lockheed Martin F-35A, Lockheed Martin HC/MC-130J, McDonnell Douglas KC-10, Boeing KC-46A, and Boeing KC-135 receiver to refuel in limited conditions only. For example, aircraft are allowed to refuel when the boom’s range of motion is reduced. And, aircraft are forbidden from refuelling in covert or lights-out scenarios.

Initially, the KC-46A tanker refuelling boom design was based on the KC-10’s refueling boom and its control laws were based on the control laws of the Italian KC-767A and Japanese KC-767J. Those technologies were deemed well-proven and thus it was thought further review wasn’t needed.

However, during the preliminary design review in 2012 Boeing presented a new boom design that “differed significantly”, the Inspector General says. The KC-46A’s new boom was computer controlled versus the hydromechanically controlled boom on the KC-10. The KC-46A’s boom was novel and should have been further reviewed, says the Inspector General’s report.

Ultimately, the design changes didn’t receive the review or testing necessary, the Inspector General says.

“Had KC-46 programme office officials effectively managed the development and testing of the refuelling boom for the KC-46A tanker, the Air Force would not have had to spend an additional $100 million for the redesign of the refuelling boom to achieve the required performance,” the report says.

Retrofit work is not likely to start until January 2024 and will cost the service even more, it adds.

“This delay limits the [Department of Defense’s] use of the KC-46A tanker for its intended refuelling missions,” says the Inspector General. “Additionally, the Commander of United States Transportation Command identified the aerial refuelling fleet as the most stressed of air mobility forces and stated that any delay of the KC-46 production puts the joint force’s ability to effectively execute war plans at risk.”
Two's in is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2021, 17:30
  #1112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Stockport MAN/EGCC
Age: 70
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Should save some KC-135 and KC-10 hours until/if the KC-46 gets fixed !

https://theaviationist.com/2021/06/0...-first-refuel/
David
The AvgasDinosaur is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2021, 20:19
  #1113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 4,624
Received 65 Likes on 40 Posts
USAF don`t do `hose-and-probe` refuelling.....
sycamore is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2021, 23:16
  #1114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Nevada, USA
Posts: 1,597
Received 35 Likes on 24 Posts
Originally Posted by sycamore
USAF don`t do `hose-and-probe` refuelling.....
Incorrect - the USAF does it for spec ops CV-22Bs, HH-60G and HH-60W. They also provide it for Allied nations.
A significant number of KC-135s have underwing pods - for instance the KC-135Rs of 100 ARW at RAF Mildenhall.
RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2021, 23:40
  #1115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: florida
Age: 81
Posts: 1,609
Received 52 Likes on 15 Posts
Salute!

Thank you RAFE, and the special ops folks, as well as the original century attack planes use thed probe. The F-105 could do both.
I really liked the receptacle method, as flying good formation, even in a rainstorm at night, was lots easier than trying to hit the drougue with enuf smash to seat the fuel line.
And that brings up another stoopid thing about the new tanker - the television for the refueling boom! Can't have a real experienced boom-op back there, no, we go high tech with a 3D Tv or whatever and the thing sucks according to the pilots and the old boom operators. Gonna be interesting when the tv system crashes and without a direct view and basic electric/hydraulics to control the boom is not available. Hmmmm..... I refueled a few hundred times in 'nam and later in the Viper and the nuggets just outta pilot training cracked the code and got gas easily.
I am not sure how USAF screwed up the plane, and seems mostly after the procurement and development process was well underway.
The plane I flew that seemed the least bothered by changes from test to production and operational was the Viper, with the SLuf close behind. I'll even award a tie. Sure, we had minor beefs and groans, but went from test to operational in 6 years or so. In my second career I saw the worst of our procurement when the "client" would add new capabilities that were not in the original contract. So Brand X would calmly invoke the "change of scope" clause and demand big $$$ to redo machinery, sfwe and such. So no wonder the purchse price zoomed.

Oh well, I am not happy with the new tanker, but guess we live with the thing.

Gums opines..


gums is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2021, 06:47
  #1116 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,231
Received 1,502 Likes on 679 Posts
So what’s new?

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021...rce-isnt-sure/


What’s a fair price for KC-46 spare parts? The Air Force isn’t sure

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force recently awarded Boeing an $88 million contract for spare parts for Japan’s KC-46 tankers, but service officials confirmed to Defense News on Monday the deal included about $10 million in costs that Air Force leaders investigated and could not determine if they were fair or reasonable.

That finding has led to concerns from Capitol Hill that Boeing is artificially inflating prices to help recoup financial losses incurred during the program’s development stage. Thus far, the company has paid more than $5 billion in cost overruns after winning a fixed-price contract in 2011 worth $4.9 billion.

“They’re trying to recover some of their costs on the back end, and they’re starting to recover their costs basically on some of these spares,” said one government official with knowledge of the contract discussions.

One part in particular now costs 15 times what the Air Force previously paid for it, the official said.

Virginia Rep. Rob Wittman — the top Republican on the House Armed Service’s Committee’s seapower and projection forces subcommittee — is expected to raise the issue during a HASC hearing on the Air Force budget scheduled for June 8.

“We need to change course on this troubled contract by pursuing one of two options,” Wittman said in a statement to Defense News.

“The Air Force could either change the contract incentive structure and actively manage the KC-46A development; or, seek a new path and pursue a non-developmental recompete of the tanker effort,” he said.

“Without pursuing one of these paths, at this point, I am confident that we will continue to see poor performance and an increasingly negative impact as tanker capacity is diminished.”….
ORAC is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2021, 06:55
  #1117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,060
Received 64 Likes on 39 Posts
With Boeing claimed to be working on the next commercial program NMA would there any chance to prelude it with a tanker like the KC-135 was back then and start from scratch?
Less Hair is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2021, 15:28
  #1118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 4,624
Received 65 Likes on 40 Posts
RAFEng,sorry ,just being a bit `broad -brush`..I know you can fit the `short-hose` to the boom...so it was a `generalisation`.....
sycamore is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2021, 18:02
  #1119 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
I know you can fit the `short-hose` to the boom
Hopefully with a 2-pod KC-46A, that abortion known as the 'boom drogue adapter' will be $hit-canned for ever!!
BEagle is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2021, 19:47
  #1120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: florida
Age: 81
Posts: 1,609
Received 52 Likes on 15 Posts
Salute!

I thot the beast already had drogue feeds like the KC-10, besides with a short drogue on the boom it only allows one refueling op at a time.
Gotta check the spec again..... BRB.

Gums sends...
gums is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.