France orders A-330 based MRTT
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,064
Received 2,934 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
I bet the French didn't or won't strangle their military into a contract with a civilian provider
A330 v MRTT
KenV,
You make it sound as if Airbus could just make military tankers alongside civil A 330s with no problem. The A330 manufacture and assembly process is completely civil and has been from the start. Some 1354 A330s have been delivered or are on order against, even with the French and others in the pipeline, 54 MRTTs.
Whilst physically it is possible to segregate the military ones, the IT issues are not so easy with custom designed and, now, ageing software. Even with purely European military applications we had to consider the requirements of our national export control regulations. However, once the U.S. Regulations (ITAR) have to be considered it becomes very difficult indeed. With the ITAR complications in mind we never passed any military wing work to Wichita, for instance, and Wichita frequently asked for assurance that new tasking did not involve the MRTTs.
Better minds than mine decided that it was better to segregate the military aircraft entirely from the civil. This meant a green aircraft (ie entirely civil but without customer installations) was produced in Toulouse and flown to Madrid for modification into a MRTT. Once in Madrid, at least, partial disassembly was necessary to get the military modifications in.
When we and NG won the original USAF order for 179 aircraft we put a lot of effort into trying to integrate the lines, as for an order that size it made commercial and operational sense if we could. This would have meant the militarised component assemblies being shipped to Mobile for Airbus final assembly before NG USAF specific modification (to avoid the U.S. Eyes Only problems amongst others). I and my colleagues spent many hours discussing which modifications could be considered civil and which were military and, especially, which were US and, therefore, ITAR controlled. We had a concept of green (entirely civil), blue (European only militarised) and brown (ITAR as well). The last of those (ITAR) meant we needed a duplicate IT system to manage things at the very first stage that ITAR components became involved. Even so, we considered every one of the mods to try to agree what constituted an ITAR and what did not. Part of the problem is how the US considers its ownership of anything it actually uses. That is, no doubt, not apparent as a problem from your perspective but it is from ours.
One example was the freight door. At that time the A330 freighter did not exist and the plan was to retrofit a door into the civil fuselage. The door to be used was the A300 door (civil) but in an A330 for a military requirement was it still civil? North American Airbus and EADS view was that it was military. European view was that it was not. What about the reroute of piping because of the door – same problem even though form and function were entirely unchanged ITAR says must also consider fit. Our engineers took a lot of persuading because it is alien to their civil design philosophy.
I could go on but suffice to say we did try hard to satisfy the requirements in the most sensible way but the contract was pulled before we resolved all the issues. We went round them again for the new competition and, I am sure, could have resolved them but we all know what then happened.
You make it sound as if Airbus could just make military tankers alongside civil A 330s with no problem. The A330 manufacture and assembly process is completely civil and has been from the start. Some 1354 A330s have been delivered or are on order against, even with the French and others in the pipeline, 54 MRTTs.
Whilst physically it is possible to segregate the military ones, the IT issues are not so easy with custom designed and, now, ageing software. Even with purely European military applications we had to consider the requirements of our national export control regulations. However, once the U.S. Regulations (ITAR) have to be considered it becomes very difficult indeed. With the ITAR complications in mind we never passed any military wing work to Wichita, for instance, and Wichita frequently asked for assurance that new tasking did not involve the MRTTs.
Better minds than mine decided that it was better to segregate the military aircraft entirely from the civil. This meant a green aircraft (ie entirely civil but without customer installations) was produced in Toulouse and flown to Madrid for modification into a MRTT. Once in Madrid, at least, partial disassembly was necessary to get the military modifications in.
When we and NG won the original USAF order for 179 aircraft we put a lot of effort into trying to integrate the lines, as for an order that size it made commercial and operational sense if we could. This would have meant the militarised component assemblies being shipped to Mobile for Airbus final assembly before NG USAF specific modification (to avoid the U.S. Eyes Only problems amongst others). I and my colleagues spent many hours discussing which modifications could be considered civil and which were military and, especially, which were US and, therefore, ITAR controlled. We had a concept of green (entirely civil), blue (European only militarised) and brown (ITAR as well). The last of those (ITAR) meant we needed a duplicate IT system to manage things at the very first stage that ITAR components became involved. Even so, we considered every one of the mods to try to agree what constituted an ITAR and what did not. Part of the problem is how the US considers its ownership of anything it actually uses. That is, no doubt, not apparent as a problem from your perspective but it is from ours.
One example was the freight door. At that time the A330 freighter did not exist and the plan was to retrofit a door into the civil fuselage. The door to be used was the A300 door (civil) but in an A330 for a military requirement was it still civil? North American Airbus and EADS view was that it was military. European view was that it was not. What about the reroute of piping because of the door – same problem even though form and function were entirely unchanged ITAR says must also consider fit. Our engineers took a lot of persuading because it is alien to their civil design philosophy.
I could go on but suffice to say we did try hard to satisfy the requirements in the most sensible way but the contract was pulled before we resolved all the issues. We went round them again for the new competition and, I am sure, could have resolved them but we all know what then happened.
Last edited by Xercules; 22nd Nov 2014 at 09:49. Reason: Omission.
No question that ITAR is a royal PITA, and I doubt the European equivalents are significantly different.
For the 767-2C/KC-46, much of the military stuff is being installed during production. It rolls out as a 767-2C with military provisions, then the airplane is pushed to a 'mod' center where the tanker specific stuff (e.g. booms/WARPS) are installed.
To do this, the 767 final assembly line became ITAR with controlled access. To gain access, you need to take a special ITAR training. So even commercial 767s are built in an ITAR environment.
For the P-8, they have a specific ITAR 737 line - but then again they're currently building about 42 737s a month.
For the 767-2C/KC-46, much of the military stuff is being installed during production. It rolls out as a 767-2C with military provisions, then the airplane is pushed to a 'mod' center where the tanker specific stuff (e.g. booms/WARPS) are installed.
To do this, the 767 final assembly line became ITAR with controlled access. To gain access, you need to take a special ITAR training. So even commercial 767s are built in an ITAR environment.
For the P-8, they have a specific ITAR 737 line - but then again they're currently building about 42 737s a month.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Outstanding orders for civil 767s total 44 x 767-300 Freighters. No new orders since March 2012.
ANALYSIS: Is the passenger-carrying 767 really dead?
ANALYSIS: Is the passenger-carrying 767 really dead?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,064
Received 2,934 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
International Traffic in Arms Regulations?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In case you have trouble sleeping here is a link to the ITAR regulations:
https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar.html
https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar.html
And, how many civil 767s is Boeing building each month?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 53
Posts: 1,235
Received 52 Likes
on
21 Posts
Shame they're not calling it Voyageur.
Is the plan to build these on the current or neo airframe?
Airbus DS to offer upgraded A330 MRTT Enhanced - IHS Jane's 360
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Xercules,
You made several great points, all of which seem to argue FOR using the civil freighter rather than the civil airliner as the baseline for the MRTT. The cargo door, floor, landing gear mods, cargo handling equipment, etc etc would all be fully "civil" certified with little or no export control issues. That's the approach used by Boeing with the KC-46, which is based on the 767 freighter, not the airliner, and thus has far fewer ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) and U.S. "dual use" export control issues. The 767 with all the "group A" military mods (tanker unique wiring, plumbing, structural changes, etc) is completed on the regular assembly line, and then a separate assembly line installs all the "goup B" military unique components (such as the wing pods, refuel boom, RARO station, some avionics, etc). I can't remember if the UARRSI receptacle is installed on the main or the secondary assembly line.
Back when I worked for NG on the KC-30/46 program, these were precisely the kind of issues that became huge stumbling blocks in our proposal. We won the competition, but there were still HUGE issues left unresolved. Some were intended to be resolved by the two "prototype" KC-30s NG paid to have built. But the original tanker contract was killed before those aircraft were completed and then NG pulled out of the subsequent competition. I understand that those two prototypes are still parked in Spain with huge disputes about who actually owns them and USAF even claiming they own a portion of one. This last item was one of the "improprieties" that caused the original tanker contract to be killed in the first place.
You made several great points, all of which seem to argue FOR using the civil freighter rather than the civil airliner as the baseline for the MRTT. The cargo door, floor, landing gear mods, cargo handling equipment, etc etc would all be fully "civil" certified with little or no export control issues. That's the approach used by Boeing with the KC-46, which is based on the 767 freighter, not the airliner, and thus has far fewer ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) and U.S. "dual use" export control issues. The 767 with all the "group A" military mods (tanker unique wiring, plumbing, structural changes, etc) is completed on the regular assembly line, and then a separate assembly line installs all the "goup B" military unique components (such as the wing pods, refuel boom, RARO station, some avionics, etc). I can't remember if the UARRSI receptacle is installed on the main or the secondary assembly line.
Back when I worked for NG on the KC-30/46 program, these were precisely the kind of issues that became huge stumbling blocks in our proposal. We won the competition, but there were still HUGE issues left unresolved. Some were intended to be resolved by the two "prototype" KC-30s NG paid to have built. But the original tanker contract was killed before those aircraft were completed and then NG pulled out of the subsequent competition. I understand that those two prototypes are still parked in Spain with huge disputes about who actually owns them and USAF even claiming they own a portion of one. This last item was one of the "improprieties" that caused the original tanker contract to be killed in the first place.
KenV
You are quite right there were huge problem areas which we started to work on (I can only speak for the ITAR/non-ITAR aspects as I was the export controller in the UK at the time).
From our perspective part, if not a lot, of the problem, was the differing philosophies between NG and EADS NA on the one hand and Airbus/EADS Europe on the other.
The European regulations are in general the same as the U.S. - that is until you take in all the US additional bells and whistles which make them very much more restrictive and difficult, if not in reality impossible, to handle under European and UK law.
We had many arguments as to whether a USAF requirement made the resulting solely European design an ITAR item. I am sure we would have achieved a working solution eventually because we had to - not just because of the size of the order but as well because of the grief it caused Boeing (witness the squealing that resulted) but we were never given the time to do it before the plug was pulled.
As to variants - much water has rolled under the bridge since then and now the freighter version is a reality but then it wasn't, although different memories will, I think, have to agree to differ there.
You are quite right there were huge problem areas which we started to work on (I can only speak for the ITAR/non-ITAR aspects as I was the export controller in the UK at the time).
From our perspective part, if not a lot, of the problem, was the differing philosophies between NG and EADS NA on the one hand and Airbus/EADS Europe on the other.
The European regulations are in general the same as the U.S. - that is until you take in all the US additional bells and whistles which make them very much more restrictive and difficult, if not in reality impossible, to handle under European and UK law.
We had many arguments as to whether a USAF requirement made the resulting solely European design an ITAR item. I am sure we would have achieved a working solution eventually because we had to - not just because of the size of the order but as well because of the grief it caused Boeing (witness the squealing that resulted) but we were never given the time to do it before the plug was pulled.
As to variants - much water has rolled under the bridge since then and now the freighter version is a reality but then it wasn't, although different memories will, I think, have to agree to differ there.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to variants - much water has rolled under the bridge since then and now the freighter version is a reality but then it wasn't, although different memories will, I think, have to agree to differ there.