|
KevV: I don't think it [F-35] was seen a F-16/F-18 "replacement" so much as a replacement in those aircrafts size class.... The JSF program was touted as a replacement for the F-16, A-10, F/A-18 A-D for USN (and perhaps USMC), AV8B and UK Sea Harrier/GR7/GR9 and Tornado GR4. Also specified to complement F-22 and F/A-18 E/F. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a472773.pdf |
Not only that, many of the specifications and requirements were drawn specifically against a baseline of an F-16C, with some F/A-18C numbers mixed in for certain requirements. This gave a 'no worse than' backstop on various metrics, some of which were waived down the line when things got difficult.
|
KenV wrote:
Interesting. So the undersized pipe is not the pipe in the wing feeding the pod, it is a main feed pipe (fuel manifold) that feeds all three hose drogue systems. Interesting. |
JTO is correct. Also: Lockheed Martin is claiming that all three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will have kinematic performance better than or equal to any combat-configured fourth-generation fighter. The comparison includes transonic acceleration performance versus an air-to-air configured Eurofighter Typhoon and high angle-of-attack flight performance vis-à-vis the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. "The F-35 is comparable or better in every one of those metrics, sometimes by a significant margin, in both air-to-air, and when we hog-up those fourth-generation fighters, for the air-to-ground mission," says Billy Flynn, a Lockheed test pilot who is responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for all three variants. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-super-382078/ So the requirements can't be used as an excuse for the A2A performance. |
Hmmmmm!!
from the BA yahoo stock site blog yesterday 19th From the Evening Standard: Aerospace supplier Cobham took a £160 million hit on Tuesday to settle a long-running row with US planemaker Boeing over supply delays. The UK company, which has struggled in recent years, will pay £86 million compensation to the Chicago-based giant and £74 million to finish work on an aerial refuelling pod. Cobham promised to make two refuelling systems for the jets but both were delivered later than expected. |
Not all doom and gloom - some further progress (an article on Flight Global).
The Boeing KC-46A Pegasus air tanker refuelled a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II for the first time over California. |
Not all doom and gloom - some further progress (an article on Flight Global). The Boeing KC-46A Pegasus air tanker refuelled a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II for the first time over California. https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...manufacturing/ |
Originally Posted by Lyneham Lad
(Post 10396592)
Not all doom and gloom - some further progress (an article on Flight Global).
The Boeing KC-46A Pegasus air tanker refuelled a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II for the first time over California. Was a remote vision system for the boom operator a program requirement? I realize that there would have been costs with putting a boom operator compartment in the lower belly, but it seems for about 70 years of tanker history starting with the KB-29 the "vision system" of the boom operator was working pretty well... Was this remote system deemed high risk? I am sure they will work the bugs out, but seems the challenges were not fully appreciated. Yes I know it is hard work. |
Further to the FOD problem..... https://www.defensenews.com/digital-...er-deliveries/ US Air Force suspends KC-46 tanker deliveries ORLANDO, Fla. — Boeing’s deliveries of its KC-46 tanker to the U.S. Air Force have been suspended as the service investigates a series of problems with foreign object debris, its top acquisition official confirmed Friday. Will Roper, the service’s assistant secretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, told reporters that it will likely be “some time” before the service begins accepting new tankers from Boeing......... |
I once dropped a washer under the E-1 rack of a brand new E-3A, I lifted the insulation blanket to find it and ended up filling a FOD bag with all the junk that was there, I even had a choice of washers to use.
|
Don't the Boeing inspectors/supervisors actually inspect before stamping off a task?
|
FOD/Loose articles
This is not a new problem unique to Boeing. I remember a story (possibly in Air Clues) from many years ago, about a Beverley which suffered from a loud thumping noise from under the freight deck floor whenever there was turbulence. The cause could not be ascertained during its service life. When the aircraft was scrapped a 6 foot (10 foot?) length of steel scaffolding pole was discovered, which had been there since manufacture. At about the same time another aircraft type had problems with clogged fuel filters. Eventually traced to a blanket left in a fuel tank during manufacture. But probably the prize goes to the dining room chair left in a large fuel tank (Sunderland?). https://www.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon11.gif |
A foot long piece of wood was discovered in a Buccaneer which suffered a roll restriction at low level - and one of the early Tucanos was delivered with a workman's left over lunch in the back. Such was the build quality of the early Tucano that after they'd sat outside for a few days (to make sure that no Irish terrorist had left a little gift), they were all de-panelled and given thorough checks...
A VC10K2 in which we were doing an air test suffered smoke on the flight deck, so we did the relevant drill and landed. They found a rivet head in one of the cabin conditioning blowers, but weren't sure whether this was due to sabotage or error - the RAF was about to hand over to civilian-run majors at St Athan and feelings were high. So a complete search was ordered - but the only thing of note (apart from the fact that the lift rate modifier had never been connected to the stall warning system) was a BOAC silver teaspoon found nestling around the base of one of the control columns! It must have been there for years - this was a Standard VC10 which had been sold to Gulf Air by BOAC and had flown many years with them before coming home for conversion! But Tengah Type gets the prize for the Sunderland dining room chair story! |
But probably the prize goes to the dining room chair left in a large fuel tank (Sunderland?). |
Tengah Type: I remember Vampires, particularly the early single seaters, being involved with accidents with alleged 'engine problems' which turned out to be fuel blockages caused by the lint trapped in the fuel tanks from the material used in manufacture.
|
Originally Posted by BEagle
(Post 10406579)
A foot long piece of wood was discovered in a Buccaneer which suffered a roll restriction at low level - and one of the early Tucanos was delivered with a workman's left over lunch in the back. Such was the build quality of the early Tucano that after they'd sat outside for a few days (to make sure that no Irish terrorist had left a little gift), they were all de-panelled and given thorough checks...
|
Originally Posted by BEagle
(Post 10382026)
KenV wrote:
No, the feed to the wing pods would have been adequate using the originally specified wing fuel pipe. But with the HDU supplied simultaneously (not using some 'main feed pipe' - the systems were not interconnected), the pressure drop at the pod using the original pipe would have been unacceptable. Hence a larger bore pipe would have been needed to cater for the situation. Which was a bolleaux idea anyway! |
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019...c-46-continue/ TRANSCOM working to defer KC-135 retirement as delays with KC-46 continue WASHINGTON — U.S. Transportation Command is making preparations to push back the retirement of some KC-135 tankers due to delays in receiving the Air Force’s newest aerial refueling plane, the KC-46, the head of the command said Tuesday. “Obviously it’s going to cost money, and when the money is put into the program that’s when we’ll know, but the intent is to retain 28 [KC-135] weapon systems beyond their currently scheduled retirement,” Gen. Stephen Lyons said during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.......... According to Lyons’ testimony, the Air Force intends to divest the 33-year-old KC-10, its smallest tanker fleet, while retaining a portion of the 57-year-old KC-135 inventory into the 2050s......... |
And the beat down goes on - inspectors ? inspectors ? we dont need no stinkin inspectors !! By March 14, 2019 3:45 p.m. ET The U.S. Air Force has lost confidence in Boeing Co.’s BA -1.02% ability to maintain quality control over a new aerial refueling tanker it is building, with a senior Pentagon official saying Thursday that it could take at least a year to rebuild trust in the program.Ben Kesling in Washington andDoug Cameron in Chicago The tanker problems predate this week’s crash of a Boeing 737 MAX airliner being flown by Ethiopian Airlines, resulting in a global grounding of the passenger jet following an earlier crash of the same aircraft model last year.Boeing delivered the first of the KC-46A Pegasus tankers in January, more than a year late, after a series of production and design problems left the aerospace company nursing $3.5 billion in losses on the initial $4.9 billion contract.The Air Force then suspended deliveries in February after finding tools and other debris left in some jets, prompting a sharp rebuke from defense chiefs. |
AW&ST: http://aviationweek.com/defense/next...ely-autonomous Next U.S. Air Force Tanker Likely Autonomous The U.S. Air Force’s next tanker aircraft will probably be autonomous, the service’s top acquisition official says. “We can see it in the tea leaves,” said Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics. The Air Mobility Command was scheduled by the end of last year to complete a capabilities-based assessment for KC-Z, the aircraft that the Air Force wants to follow the Boeing KC-46A into production after 2027. The assessment marks the first step in the Pentagon’s process for launching a new acquisition program. It should be followed by a roughly yearlong analysis of alternatives, which generates the data used to set requirements ahead of a solicitation. But Roper already seems convinced that KC-Z will not use a human operator on board the tanker aircraft to guide the Air Force’s required refueling boom into a receiver. “If KC-Z isn’t autonomous, I’ll be really surprised,” Roper said. The U.S. Navy is already developing an autonomous tanker with the Boeing MQ-25A, but the Air Force’s requirements are more difficult. The MQ-25A uses only a refueling drogue, which remains stationary while receiver aircraft connect to it. The Air Force’s bombers and airlifters need a refueling system with faster off-load capacity, which can only be provided by a refueling boom. Despite that extra complexity, Roper’s certainty on KC-Z refueling technology is rooted in the painful experience of resolving flaws in the remote vision system (RVS) of the KC-46. To break a two-year impasse, Boeing agreed to redesign the KC-46’s remote vision system to detailed new parameters developed by the Air Force Research Laboratory. The RVS now allows a human operator to steer the refueling boom into a receiver using a set of cameras. Boeing’s original design did not satisfy the Air Force, but it could not explain why. A team from the Air Force Research Laboratory then developed a set of standards for visual resolution and a desired configuration for the cameras. The knowledge gained by that team can help the Air Force move beyond human operators for the next tanker aircraft. “In fixing the RVS we now have the knowledge in the Air Force to know how to go out and request an autonomous tanker and not just say, ‘give it to us,’ but specifically put on contract what we want to see,” Roper said. Meanwhile, the Air Force is continuing to mature technologies for a new refueling aircraft. Newly-released budget documents show the Air Force plans to start designing a “small, pod-mounted tactical air refueling boom for future Mobility applications.” The Air Force is also continuing to assess “promising configurations for future Mobility applications,” budget documents state, with wind tunnel tests scheduled in 2020 for “practical laminar flow treatments and coatings for highly swept wings applicable to Mobility applications.” |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:24. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.