Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

USAF KC-Y Tanker Competition

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.

USAF KC-Y Tanker Competition

Old 27th Jan 2023, 15:51
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 63
Posts: 6,324
Received 20 Likes on 12 Posts
Prettiest tanker I've seen since the KA-6D.
But wait, that one is supposed to haul troops and equipment. Just how tall is this thing?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2023, 15:57
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
'Prettiest tanker'
Form follows function

safetypee is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2023, 16:03
  #23 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 14,272
Received 137 Likes on 71 Posts
As the write-up says, itís just another iteration of Boeingís 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 itís still a way down the line.

Plus, even accepting itís 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.
ORAC is online now  
Old 27th Jan 2023, 18:08
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,896
Received 29 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
Lots of room for fuel and freight though - even if adding a boom is definitely not stealthy.
It could be - not that hard really. Simply make the boom retractable into a landing gear style bay. Stealthy receiver aircraft already do that with the probe.
Just cost and weight...
tdracer is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2023, 22:28
  #25 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 14,272
Received 137 Likes on 71 Posts
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…..
ORAC is online now  
The following users liked this post:
Old 28th Jan 2023, 08:15
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 5,862
Received 84 Likes on 42 Posts
Originally Posted by Two's in View Post
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.
That we all know - the original comment was clearly about the tanker conversion - I'm still floored that they haven't fixed it. It looked like the lowest cost, least risky conversion of all time................
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2023, 11:23
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post

...unless it extends a really long wayÖ..
Maybe that's not a display stand the model is on!
Vzlet is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2023, 23:56
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 72
Posts: 877
Received 12 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by Two's in View Post
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.
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.
GlobalNav is online now  
Old 29th Jan 2023, 07:30
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 5,862
Received 84 Likes on 42 Posts
But how are people going to make money designing and selling kit if you're going to use people???
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2023, 08:25
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,384
Received 27 Likes on 16 Posts
A330MRTT Boom Enhanced Vision System with a 3D camera vision system for day and night refuelling seems to work just fine!
BEagle is online now  
Old 7th Mar 2023, 14:52
  #31 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Nevada, USA
Posts: 1,478
Received 8 Likes on 6 Posts
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)
RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2023, 15:06
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 72
Posts: 877
Received 12 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
A330MRTT Boom Enhanced Vision System with a 3D camera vision system for day and night refuelling seems to work just fine!
Interesting. Can it successfully refuel all the aircraft types the KC46 is required to and in the same spectrum of conditions?

I wonder what ď3D camera visionď 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 hasnít found a way to successfully match the performance of the MRTT. Or perhaps they did and itís still not satisfactory.
GlobalNav is online now  
Old 7th Mar 2023, 15:31
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,943
Received 58 Likes on 28 Posts
The USAF seems to have backed itself into a corner where it absolutely cannot buy the MRTT, lest it admit its mistake with the KC-46.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2023, 16:17
  #34 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 14,272
Received 137 Likes on 71 Posts
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.
ORAC is online now  
The following users liked this post:
Old 7th Mar 2023, 16:35
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,896
Received 29 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by GlobalNav View Post
I wonder what ď3D camera visionď 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?
The short answer is yes - the operator sees a true 3d representation using multiple cameras (the console is, er, interesting). I can't elaborate for reasons that should be obvious. Apparently the issues are with resolution and poor lighting conditions - not the basic layout.

Originally Posted by GlobalNav View Post
Interesting that the supplier for KC46 hasnít found a way to successfully match the performance of the MRTT. Or perhaps they did and itís still not satisfactory.
I know the MRTT does not meet all the mandatory requirements the USAF has for the KC-46 (granted, some of those requirements were silly, but if you pushed back on a silly requirement the USAF response was 'What part of mandatory don't you understand!' What I don't know is if any of those shortcomings relate to the remote vision system.
tdracer is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2023, 16:53
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 645
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
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".
SLXOwft is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2023, 00:12
  #37 (permalink)  
 
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


Iím sure they had hopes of providing hundreds more and replacing all the KC135R airframes one for one
stilton is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2023, 05:47
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 768
Received 25 Likes on 15 Posts
Most will be needed to fuel then reengined B-52s and E-7s for a long time. So non-stealthy workhorses like MRTTs will perfectly fit.
Less Hair is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2023, 16:11
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 27,094
Received 362 Likes on 158 Posts
Originally Posted by SLXOwft View Post
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".
https://www.travelmath.com/distance/.../to/California

7,635 miles / 12 287 km flying

https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/voyager/

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 hasnít found a way to successfully match the performance of the MRTT. Or perhaps they did and itís still not satisfactory.
meanwhile....

In 2020, Airbus joined with the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) to develop the A330 SMART MRTT Ė providing the companyís 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.
https://www.airbus.com/en/products-s...330-mrtt#smart
NutLoose is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.