|
Once again you have selected the bit you feel you can answer. Yes, I do think the restrictions and the finicky handling are safety issues, but the crux is this bit, which I quoted to you and which you have ignored: Instead, the MD-11 was beset by a series of problems, including particularly sensitive controls at low and high altitudes; a tendency for pilots to smack the plane's tail on the runway during takeoffs; and persistent landing accidents. If you don't think those are safety issues, then I suspect you really get safety. 2. I never remotely suggested these were not "safety issues" and indeed I already stated these were "safety concerns" being evaluated by both the FAA and Boeing. But I do NOT believe these concerns have resulted in "significant flight restrictions imposed on the crews", nor resulted in a "very poor safety record" nor indicate an aircraft that is "woefully unsafe". You clearly disagree. You are welcome to do that. I'd just prefer you not misrepresent what I said when you disagree. |
Mostly old news, but none of it good.
Defense News posted an article that rehashes the KC-46 program's many woes. Particularly interesting is the sentence: "[First flight] will occur about a month later than planned, in late August or early September." We're now already pretty close to mid-September and first flight has still not happened, so the outlook is far from rosy.
WASHINGTON — The US Air Force’s chief of staff has called for increased oversight of Boeing ’s KC-46 tanker schedule, signaling the Pentagon’s rising frustration with the program’s repeated delays and cost overruns. During an exclusive interview with Defense News, Gen. Mark Welsh called on Boeing to provide a “predictable” timetable the Air Force can track from now until August 2017 — the company’s deadline to deliver 18 operational tankers to the fleet. “We’re at a point now where we really need to see the first flight of this tanker, the actual tanker variant,” Welsh said. “Then, we need to have a predictable milestone chart between now and the required-assets-available date in August of ‘17 that we can track down with some definitive consistency from this point forward.” Welsh’s remarks reflect the Air Force’s growing concern that Boeing may not meet the critical deadline. Earlier this summer, Boeing was forced to postpone first flight, a key milestone, after a mislabeled chemical was mistakenly loaded into the aircraft’s refueling line during testing. Boeing now anticipates the event will occur about a month later than planned, in late August or early September. If problems with the integrated fuel system tank persist, or if delay in first flight sets back the overall test schedule, the Air Force is concerned the program could see a domino effect. Boeing must successfully demonstrate the required refueling capabilities during flight tests before the Pentagon will certify the program, an official stamp of approval the Air Force hopes to get between January and April of 2016. In an effort to tighten Boeing ’s reins, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James announced late last month that the service is reviewing the company’s schedule for the tanker to ensure it is on track to meet its deadlines. When asked to rate his concern about a potential delay in production, Welsh said: “much more than I would have been a year ago, and a little more than I would have been six months ago. “We've taken the slack out of the program now, and now we have to perform and deliver on a timeline that's predictable,” he continued. Welsh qualified his criticism, saying he is still “confident” in the program’s leadership, on both the Boeing and Air Force side. The company has replaced the components that were damaged in the incident, and will soon resume testing, Welsh noted. “I personally am still confident they can deliver,” Welsh said. “They are back onto the fuel dock with this airplane to start the testing again. I’m very hopeful they can stay on track with that. If they do, [meeting the deadline] isn’t an issue.” If Boeing can’t meet its obligations, the Air Force may decide to rework the contract. However, Welsh said the Air Force is not even thinking about that option right now, pointing out that so far the company has met its contractual obligations. “They have done exactly what they said they would do, and they've accepted the cost for things that have gone wrong to this point with the contract, and I appreciate that,” Welsh said, referring to an $835 million pre-tax charge Boeing rang up earlier this summer stemming from developmental issues with the plane’s integrated fuel system. The Air Force is not alone in sounding the alarm over the recent hiccups. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to Defense Secretary Ash Carter late last month expressing concern that recent challenges could prevent delivery of a critical capability to the war fighter. “All too often under our current defense acquisition system, the department has started programs that were poorly conceived or inherently unexecutable, with the aim of getting programs into development and production where they can become notoriously difficult to change meaningfully or, if necessary, terminate,” McCain wrote. “The KC-46A program must not become another such failure.” |
Should have bought the 'bus! Would have been pumping real gurgle-juice into real aeroplanes by now.
airsound |
“All too often under our current defense acquisition system, the department has started programs that were poorly conceived or inherently unexecutable, with the aim of getting programs into development and production where they can become notoriously difficult to change meaningfully or, if necessary, terminate,” McCain wrote. “The F-35 program has become another such failure.” |
A rare bit of good news
Finally, a bit of good news for the program.
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md., Sept 15 (Reuters) - Boeing Co's first fully equipped KC-46A refueling plane is scheduled to complete its first flight on Sept. 25, the Air Force general in charge of tanker programs said Tuesday. Brigadier General Duke Richardson, executive officer for Air Force tanker programs, said the tanker program was doing well overall, despite earlier schedule delays. "We are definitely struggling with schedule. We are not struggling with performance," he told the annual Air Force Association conference. Richardson said it was remarkable that the first flight was still set to take place within the traget range first set in April, despite two technical issues that arose afterwards. He said Boeing had devoted significant resources to ensuring the program stayed on track. Sources familiar with the program had predicted that a chemical mixup involving the plane's fuel tank could delay the first flight by up to a month. Richardson said he was "cautiously confident" that Boeing would meet its commitment to deliver 18 tankers to the Air Force by August 2017, despite a series of issues that have eroded any margin in the program's schedule. He said the program was working through testing required for a key milestone review to be completed around April that would pave the way for an initial production contract for seven jets. |
What bits the good news Ken?
|
What bits the good news Ken? |
Being an itsy-bitsy cynical, seeing as Boeing is currently losing money hand over fist on this contract - having underbid to win it - could this be a ploy from friends in high places to allow them to renegotiate the price after the first LRIP? Sounds like the USAF is uneasy and ringing the alarm bells.
I would suggest Senator McCain should be over this like a dose of measles..... USAF General: CR Could Break KC-46 Contract NATIONAL HARBOR Md. — If the Pentagon is forced to operate for a long time under a continuing resolution, it could lead the US Air Force to break its contract with Boeing on the KC-46 tanker. Brig. Gen. Duke Richardson, the program executive on the Air Force’s next-gen tanker program, told an audience at the Air Force Association annual convention that a continuing resolution (CR) would create a “very large problem” for the program. But how big a problem wasn’t clear until after his speech, when he told a reporter that the CR could potentially break the contract with Boeing, one which is notable for the financial protection it affords the service. Under the contract, the Air Force's liability for the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the tanker program is capped at $4.9 billion; anything over is paid for directly by Boeing. So far, technical issues have cost Boeing $1.2 billion in pre-tax overages on the program. That protection has been cited by Richardson and others whenever concerns about the tanker program, which has suffered several technical issues in the last 18 months, have occurred. But that could go away under the CR, Richardson noted, if the Air Force is unable to reach a requirement to award two low-rate initial production (LRIP) contracts to Boeing once the program reaches Milestone C in April of 2016. According to Richardson, the contract requires the Air Force to award eight aircraft at minimum in the first two LRIP contracts. However, only the first LRIP contract, covering seven aircraft, has funding under fiscal 2016’s budget plan. The second LRIP contract, covering planes eight through 12, would then be unable to be awarded under a CR, breaking the contract with Boeing unless the service can get a waiver from Congress................... |
Originally Posted by KenV
(Post 9118983)
Boeing Co's first fully equipped KC-46A refueling plane is scheduled to complete its first flight on Sept. 25, the Air Force general in charge of tanker programs said Tuesday.
"We are definitely struggling with schedule" :ok: |
"I think he actually said"
"We are definitely struggling with schedule" I wonder during what airplane development program, commercial or military since the Wright Brothers, that this was not said in some form or other. If I am not mistaken there were several cynics discounting the Wright Brothers' success until those famous demonstrations at Le Mans. The KC-46 is probably not a perfect airplane, nor a perfect program either, but I anticipate a long and distinguished career - current "woes" notwithstanding. |
ORAC told us:
Brig. Gen. Duke Richardson, the program executive on the Air Force’s next-gen tanker program, told an audience at the Air Force Association annual convention that a continuing resolution (CR) would create a “very large problem” for the program. First, and likely the most major problem, was a deficiency in the fuel-system manifold that routs fuel throughout the tanker. .... “It failed a stress test. .... Richardson tells Aviation Week during a Sept. 16 interview .... The problem came to light during qualification testing required for FAA certification, and Boeing notified the service of it in February. an issue with welding that connects the fuel tubes in the system and an issue with how the fuel tubes are attached to the inside of the aircraft. airsound |
Boeing Co's first fully equipped KC-46A refueling plane is scheduled to complete its first flight on Sept. 25, the Air Force general in charge of tanker programs said Tuesday. |
Just got airborne now (Boe004) with a T38 chase (BOE38F) FR24 heading to Tatoosh
|
Well, did it actually fly today? http://aviationweek.com/site-files/a.../KC46boom1.jpg |
Re all those fuel system issues...
Do any of you have an idea how Boeing managed to mess up such a central element of their tanker? After all, it's not the first one they've done, you'd think they knew a thing or two about fuel handling systems. No bashing intended, there ought to be something to be learned here.
|
Do any of you have an idea how Boeing managed to mess up such a central element of their tanker? After all, it's not the first one they've done, you'd think they knew a thing or two about fuel handling systems. No bashing intended, there ought to be something to be learned here. BEagle, I know more than I can (or should) reveal about the fuel system problems. However I am amazed they were able to :mad: it up that bad. I appreciate melmoth's concern but I'm not too worried about repercussions because I criticized 'dumbass management' (I'm at a point in my career where they basically need me more than I need them). But if I start revealing details of what's wrong with the fuel systems, I could easily run afoul of proprietary information (or worse, ITAR, which means the government might come after me :uhoh:). Perfect world engineering is when you have such a good team that management simply needs to point them in the right direction and get out of the way. Aside from periodic status updates, the only thing we need management for is if we run into a problem that requires outside help. I've been on teams like that, and they can be a real joy. But if the team isn't good and/or experienced enough, applying that lack of management oversight can be disastrous. That's a big part of happened to the fuel system - and the original designs didn't work. Massive redesigns and rework on aircraft that had already been built and that's really, really expensive (there was also some really crappy luck thrown in - I don't know if that story has been made public - if it has I'll elaborate on a future post). It's also the primary reason the program has now gone so far the other direction, with multiple levels of micromanagement of every detail, to the point were you can't get anything done because you spend all your time in meetings and giving status briefs to different levels of management.:ugh: The good news is that I was part of the "Gauntlet" testing a few days ago (Gauntlet testing is SOP before first flight of a new model). This aircraft is in far better shape than the 767-2C that first flew back in late December. |
Do any of you have an idea how Boeing managed to mess up such a central element of their tanker? |
AAR Experts - Apologies for thread drift, but I have been updating my slides and would like to know if the underwing pods on this Boeing KC-97 at Lajes are part of the AAR system.
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c3...sryi562d5.jpeg |
KenV You could do us (people interested in following this thread) of re-sizing your photo so it doesn't blow the formatting off the screen. It seems you claim some technical competance. Now is a good time to demonstrate it.
|
Seconded..............
|
Brakedwell - Only insofar as they held extra fuel. Later-modified versions (after the KC-135s came into SAC and the '97s went to TAC) had jet pods instead.
Looking for the answer, I found this. Army fixed-wing refueling Army fixed-wing! https://airrefuelingarchive.files.wo..._refueling.jpg |
Brakedwell:
......The success of the KC-97E led to Boeing’s development of two more models. In April 1952 the corporation announced the KC-97F. Featuring improved engines and instrumentation, 159 F-Models came off Boeing’s Renton, Washington assembly line. But the biggest contract came in mid-1953, when the Air Force purchased the KC-97G. The –G offered much improved flexibility: 700-gallon capacity drop tank was added beneath each wing; the upper deck tanks of the –E and –F, used for air refueling, were moved into the lower fuselage, so the –G was immediately usable as a cargo aircraft. The –G model soon became the major production version of the KC-97. A total of 592 Gs were built before the KC-135 replaced it on the Renton assembly line in 1956. |
brakedwell, no, those are underwing tanks. The only KC-97 to feature hose-and-drogue refuelling was, as far as I'm aware, the single KC-97H which featured a centreline hose, not wing pods.
The KC-97H had a pair of podded J47s, one under each wing. MTOW take-offs must have been quite spectacular! KenV, good to read that the KC-46A has finally managed to fly. Let's see how the testing goes now..... (And yes, please re-size your photo!) |
Everyone, say Hi to STUMPY
Maybe the picture is big to, you know, make the tanker look larger than real life?
It's freaken TINY!! what was all the fuss about? :ooh: |
Tanker nerd trifecta!
(Trifecta? Damn right I did.) |
Boeing builds tough birds!
KC-97G 53-0231 of the 384th Air Refueling Squadron, out of Westover AFB, Massachusetts, collided with a B-52 during a refueling mission at an altitude of ~15,000 feet. The aircraft lost the whole left horizontal stabilizer and elevator, the rudder, and the upper quarter of the vertical stabilizer. The crew made a no-flap, electrical power off landing at night at Dow AFB, Maine; seven crew okay. "Spokesmen at Dow Air Force, Bangor, said the B-52 apparently 'crowded too close' and rammed a fuel boom into the tail of a four-engined KC-97 tanker plane." Aircraft stricken as beyond economical repair. Two crew on the B-52 ejected, parachuted safely, and were recovered by helicopters in a snow-covered wilderness area. The bomber and remaining eight crew safely landed at Westover AFB. http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=19591214-0 * The USAF used the KB-50J tankers for TAC hose refuelling in the '50's.. |
Thanks, Beagle. I was immersed in the wonderful sound track and did't notice the underwing tanks at the time. (1957)
|
Algy has helpfully posted this RAAF press release on the F35 AAR thread (in this forum).
DEFENCE MEDIA RELEASE First refuel for RAAF KC-30A refueller to F-35A (JSF) http://images.defence.gov.au/S20152721 The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has completed the first fuel transfer with the air refuelling boom from a RAAF KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) to a US Air Force (USAF) F-35A Joint Strike Fighter at Edwards Air Force Base in California. A total of 59 contacts were conducted of which five contacts transferred 43,200 pounds of fuel during the four hour sortie. Chief of the Air Force, Air Marshal Leo Davies AO CSC, described the trial as a significant step in the development of the KC-30A’s capability. “Our KC-30A is an essential force multiplier. Mid-air refuelling is critical to ensuring global reach for our aircraft, our people and our equipment,” Air Marshal Davies said. “Refuelling between the KC-30A and F-35A is an important step towards the KC-30A’s achievement of Final Operational Capability (FOC) and represents continued progress in the development of the F 35A. “This achievement is significant because the future of Australia’s air combat capability is reliant on the successful partnership between these two aircraft and our ability to be interoperable with our international partners,” Air Marshal Davies said. The KC-30A has two refuelling systems – the hose-and-drogue and Advanced Refuelling Boom System (ARBS). The two different refuelling systems allow RAAF to support a wide range of coalition aircraft on Operation OKRA where a KC-30A is currently deployed to support combat operations against Daesh in Iraq and Syria. The five KC-30As are based at RAAF Base Amberley (QLD) and Air Force will receive an additional two in 2018. A single KC-30A can carry a fuel load of more than 100 tonnes and remain 1800 kilometres from its home base with 50 tonnes of fuel available for offload, for four hours. Australia has committed to 72 F-35As for RAAF Bases Williamtown and Tindal, with the first aircraft arriving in late 2018. The F-35A will replace the ageing F/A-18A/B Hornet with a 5th-generation networked fighter aircraft. Media note: Details of FOC is available at Capability - Royal Australian Air Force Imagery is available at http://images.defence.gov.au/S20152721 airsound |
"But I think it must surely rate as another 'KC-46A woe', and hence worth having in this thread as well, no?" airsound
I don't see how the success of KC-30/MRTT sales is a KC-46A woe, though it may be a Boeing Defense woe. |
It's not about the success of "sales" - it's surely an indication of how far ahead of the KC-46A the Airbus MRTT actually is.
The US could have had that advantage - but, of course, Airbus fell foul of the 'not made here' attitude, and the subsequent political machinations that distorted and biassed the whole procurement process. The fact that the Australian KC-30A is refuelling an F-35 - obviously months, possibly years, before a KC-46A gets anywhere near doing that successfully - just reinforces the gap between the two tankers. As I said on 10 Sep, Should have bought the 'bus! Would have been pumping real gurgle-juice into real aeroplanes by now. |
As I said on 10 Sep, Should have bought the 'bus! Would have been pumping real gurgle-juice into real aeroplanes by now. airsound |
In that case, why didn't they buy the 'KC-767'? I think we know why not!
airsound |
In that case, why didn't they buy the 'KC-767'? I think we know why not! |
Sorry Ken - I thought you probably knew why the USAF didn't buy the KC-767. As wikipedia says
...some documents found in congressional investigation indicated the A330-based tanker met more of the USAF specifications than the Boeing tanker and had a lower proposed cost.[7][8]. (Pentagon procurement staffer Darleen)Druyun pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine months in jail for "negotiating a job with Boeing at the same time she was involved in contracts with the company".[9] Additional fallout included the termination of CFO Michael M. Sears, who was sentenced to four months in prison in 2005, and the resignation of Boeing CEO Philip M. Condit.[10][11] The Air Force's KC-767A contract was officially canceled by the DoD in January 2006.[12 airsound |
Originally Posted by airsound
(Post 9134134)
Sorry Ken - I thought you probably knew why the USAF didn't buy the KC-767. As wikipedia saysOr has wiki got it all wrong?
airsound I have plenty of reason to believe that, birthing issues notwithstanding, the KC-46 will have a long and glorious service life, counting on a host of capabilities built in from the start, as well as new ones not yet even conceived. The USAF is not inexperienced in this business and have learned much from what the KC-135 and its derivatives have achieved. |
Or has wiki got it all wrong? And in any event you completely ignored my original point. What Airbus is selling now (A330MRTT) does not remotely meet USAF's requirements, even more so than the KC-767 does not meet USAF's requirements. And the KC-767 was passing "real gurgle juice" WAY before the A330 MRTT. So your original point (now repeated twice) is effectively a non sequitur. |
Ken, you are indeed to be congratulated!
|
As Ken has repeatedly stated, neither the KC767 or the A330MRTT came close to meeting the USAF requirements in the final contract bidding. Had Airbus been awarded the contract, they would have had to perform major re-design work to meet the requirements. Now, perhaps they would not have botched things as bad as Boeing did, but let's not pretend that Airbus never gets it wrong (A380, A400 both way late and way over budget).
There may be a valid point that the USAF "gold plated" their tanker request, but to be fair, the KC-135 has been used for purposes far removed from the original tanker requirement - it wouldn't be surprising if the same was true for the KC-46. During the development program, when I pushed back that one of the requirements was nonsensical for a commercially derived platform, the USAF response was (almost literally) "What part of mandatory requirement don't you understand" :( The maximum rate of fuel offload for the KC-46 is much higher than what any previous Boeing tanker could meet (I don't know enough about the A330 MRTT to know if it could have met it, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if it didn't either). It was the redesign necessary to meet that fuel offload rate that went so badly wrong (among other things, again, see my previous posts as to why). There is good news. I've seen the new AR systems - including the 3d terminals, and they are trick. I suspect the Air Force tech's that control the booms (that currently lay prone in the back of the airplane) will be very grateful for the new systems.:D |
Ken, you are indeed to be congratulated! |
Just as an aside from a guy with 10 years in the left seats of both KC-135s and Airbusses. I have flown with a lot of ex military guys who commented that the Airbus is a nice airplane, but if they had to go to war they would rather be in a Boeing. I agree.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:47. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.