USAF KC-Y Tanker Competition
Originally Posted by chopper2004
But wait, that one is supposed to haul troops and equipment. Just how tall is this thing?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
As the write-up says, it’s just another iteration of Boeing’s blended wing transport as a possible C-130/C-17 replacement.
Cant see it supplanting the C-130 because of turboprop advantages. The6 are starting to think of a C-17 replacement as the early ones are getting tired because of Iraq/Afghanistan, but it’s still a way down the line.
Plus, even accepting it’s a military transport, being seated that far off the centreline in turns and turbulence is going to be an 8nteresting passenger experience.
Lots of room for fuel and freight though - even if adding a boom is definitely not stealthy.
Cant see it supplanting the C-130 because of turboprop advantages. The6 are starting to think of a C-17 replacement as the early ones are getting tired because of Iraq/Afghanistan, but it’s still a way down the line.
Plus, even accepting it’s a military transport, being seated that far off the centreline in turns and turbulence is going to be an 8nteresting passenger experience.
Lots of room for fuel and freight though - even if adding a boom is definitely not stealthy.
Originally Posted by ORAC
Lots of room for fuel and freight though - even if adding a boom is definitely not stealthy.
Just cost and weight...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
An interesting concept…
The boom is as far back as possible and extends aft to allow a receiver to break away up, down, left or right and where the aerodynamics are least effected.
Put a boom in a bay and now, unless it extends a really long way, the receiver will have to be right under the tanker and with an interesting airflow around the bay, bay doors, boom, tanker airflow and receiver.
Im reminded of the XB-70/F-104 collision…..
The boom is as far back as possible and extends aft to allow a receiver to break away up, down, left or right and where the aerodynamics are least effected.
Put a boom in a bay and now, unless it extends a really long way, the receiver will have to be right under the tanker and with an interesting airflow around the bay, bay doors, boom, tanker airflow and receiver.
Im reminded of the XB-70/F-104 collision…..
The following users liked this post:
Originally Posted by Two's in
Purely in the interests of accuracy, they have managed to get 1,271 Boeing 767s working "properly", what they haven't been able to do is design and build a Remote Vision System (RVS) that works on the KC-46. RVS 2.0 is out there and being tested, but after nearly a decade of broken promises and piss-poor performance, the Air Force is going to take a lot of persuading the fix is in. The RVS 2.0 program has already had a 19 month slip to Military Flight Release, so it's not an auspicious start. Publicly quoted numbers state that Boeing charged the DOD $4.9B (with a B) for the KC-46 Program, and have subsequently paid an additional $5B from internal funds to fux the fix-up. Not exactly business leading numbers.
Originally Posted by Two's in
Purely in the interests of accuracy, they have managed to get 1,271 Boeing 767s working "properly", what they haven't been able to do is design and build a Remote Vision System (RVS) that works on the KC-46. RVS 2.0 is out there and being tested, but after nearly a decade of broken promises and piss-poor performance, the Air Force is going to take a lot of persuading the fix is in. The RVS 2.0 program has already had a 19 month slip to Military Flight Release, so it's not an auspicious start. Publicly quoted numbers state that Boeing charged the DOD $4.9B (with a B) for the KC-46 Program, and have subsequently paid an additional $5B from internal funds to fux the fix-up. Not exactly business leading numbers.
Thread Starter
Latest USAF plan is to ditch previous KC-X, KC-Y and KC-Z programs and go for 179 x KC-46A on order - then 75 x possibly competed KC-46A / something else - then Next Generation Air-refueling System (NGAS) - which seems the same to me as KC-X, KC-Y and KC-Z in all but name - just changing the planned numbers of each!
USAF Shakes Up Its Plan for Tankers: Fewer ‘Traditional’ Refuelers, Focus on Stealth Future | Air & Space Forces Magazine (airandspaceforces.com)
USAF Shakes Up Its Plan for Tankers: Fewer ‘Traditional’ Refuelers, Focus on Stealth Future | Air & Space Forces Magazine (airandspaceforces.com)
Originally Posted by BEagle
A330MRTT Boom Enhanced Vision System with a 3D camera vision system for day and night refuelling seems to work just fine!
I wonder what “3D camera vision“ really means. What is used to display the imagery so that the operator has a true 3D view? Does each eye get a unique view?
Interesting that the supplier for KC46 hasn’t found a way to successfully match the performance of the MRTT. Or perhaps they did and it’s still not satisfactory.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
So, at a time when the threat is in the Pacific theatre where range and fuel offload is at a premium, they’re binning the KC-Y large KC-10 replacement to buy more shorter range KC-46.
That makes sense for Boeing, not the DoD.
That makes sense for Boeing, not the DoD.
The following users liked this post:
Originally Posted by GlobalNav
I wonder what “3D camera vision“ really means. What is used to display the imagery so that the operator has a true 3D view? Does each eye get a unique view?
Originally Posted by GlobalNav
Interesting that the supplier for KC46 hasn’t found a way to successfully match the performance of the MRTT. Or perhaps they did and it’s still not satisfactory.
Theoretically a '46 could fly unrefuelled one way from California to new South Wales, granted with out fulfilling it's primary mission, but taking on fuel from other tankers was even part of the KC-767 vision. Like all DoD program(me)s, it's all up for grabs until the pork gets allocated by Congress, as was reflected in the voting when members of the HASC failed in their attempt to get a mandatory full and open competition for the Bridge Tanker written into the fy23 DoD budget last June; those in favour promised to be back for another go this year. Those with Boeing supply chain constituents outvoted those with potentionally LXMT supply chain constituents.
From what I understand the Boeing offer for the Brige Tanker would be an enhanced and higher priced (i.e. profitable this time round) KC-46"B".
From what I understand the Boeing offer for the Brige Tanker would be an enhanced and higher priced (i.e. profitable this time round) KC-46"B".
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After the huge cost overruns on the KC46 program Boeing must be disappointed at the prospect of selling only 75 in addition to the original order
I’m sure they had hopes of providing hundreds more and replacing all the KC135R airframes one for one
I’m sure they had hopes of providing hundreds more and replacing all the KC135R airframes one for one
Originally Posted by SLXOwft
Theoretically a '46 could fly unrefuelled one way from California to new South Wales, granted with out fulfilling it's primary mission, but taking on fuel from other tankers was even part of the KC-767 vision. Like all DoD program(me)s, it's all up for grabs until the pork gets allocated by Congress, as was reflected in the voting when members of the HASC failed in their attempt to get a mandatory full and open competition for the Bridge Tanker written into the fy23 DoD budget last June; those in favour promised to be back for another go this year. Those with Boeing supply chain constituents outvoted those with potentionally LXMT supply chain constituents.
From what I understand the Boeing offer for the Brige Tanker would be an enhanced and higher priced (i.e. profitable this time round) KC-46"B".
From what I understand the Boeing offer for the Brige Tanker would be an enhanced and higher priced (i.e. profitable this time round) KC-46"B".
7,635 miles / 12 287 km flying
Maximum range with maximum fuel: 8,000nm (14,816km)
RVS is dumb as dirt. Boom operators using natural vision have done a great, low risk job for over half a century. RVS is a bad solution to a non-problem. Barring return to using natural, full color, 3D vision, autonomous boom operation would be a better path than RVS.
Interesting that the supplier for KC46 hasn’t found a way to successfully match the performance of the MRTT. Or perhaps they did and it’s still not satisfactory.
In 2020, Airbus joined with the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) to develop the A330 SMART MRTT – providing the company’s A330-derived Multi Role Tanker Transport with such capabilities as Automatic Air-to-Air refuelling and enhanced maintenance.
Airbus has begun flight testing for the development of the A330 SMART MRTT. The newly evolved aircraft will be the world's first to integrate the fully Automatic Air-to-Air Refuelling (A3R) capability. Using a converted tanker from the Republic of Singapore Air Force for the campaign, the SMART MRTT will also bring other innovations such as an enhanced vision system for night-time covert operations and improved sensors to capture more data and move towards predictive maintenance.
Airbus has begun flight testing for the development of the A330 SMART MRTT. The newly evolved aircraft will be the world's first to integrate the fully Automatic Air-to-Air Refuelling (A3R) capability. Using a converted tanker from the Republic of Singapore Air Force for the campaign, the SMART MRTT will also bring other innovations such as an enhanced vision system for night-time covert operations and improved sensors to capture more data and move towards predictive maintenance.
