No, that's incorrect. The A330MRTT first flew in June 2007. The other Airbus tanker-transport, the A310MRTT, first flew in December 2003 and was already in service with both the Luftwaffe and RCAF long before ol' Bubba had finally managed to sort out the inferior KC-767I and deliver it to the ItAF - which was six years later than planned.

Like most of your other posts, KenV, your facts were utter BS....:rolleyes:

So, KenV, my point stands. If the USAF were to now change their minds they would't see a KC45 or MRTTfor a long time, mainly due to the amount of orders that ADS are yet to fulfil.

I agree that what is good for one is not good for the other, but at ARSAG the Boeing guys had to work hard to come up with scenario where the KC46 outperformed the MRTT as a tanker. For this reason I have never really understood the 'full to the brim' pallet thing. Surely once you load these pallets, any AAR capability is zero. This was not required for the UK, we have, like the USAF, a dedicated Airlift fleet for that with C17, C130 and A400M to come.

However, as you have said, the customer is the key. In years to come it will be interesting to see how much utilisation that cargo door gets. Not a pointed comment, just real interest.

What I have never quite understood is why the US Gov made the U-turn from Airbus to Boeing? Did they run a second competition or did someone change the requirements to be outside of the A330 capability?

I really don't give a damn who flies what around the world, and I fail to see why others are concerned, as long as we in the RAF get the best value for money and a service that meets the needs of the end user. For us, the A330 provides that capability.

Quote:

---

No, that's incorrect. The A330MRTT first flew in June 2007.

---

I stand corrected on the A330MRTT first flight. The KC-767 flew only one year before the A330MRTT. Mea culpa.

Quote:

---

The other Airbus tanker-transport, the A310MRTT, first flew in December 2003 and was already in service with both the Luftwaffe and RCAF long before ol' Bubba had finally managed to sort out the inferior KC-767I and deliver it to the ItAF....

---

My goodness the desperation is getting palpable. The "other Airbus tanker-transport?!!" What does the A310MRTT have ANYthng do with this discussion? If you're going to throw previous tankers into this discussion, then Boeing's KC-10 (about the same size as the A330MRTT) first flew decades before the A330, and the KC-135 first flew decades before Airbus even existed. And before that Boeing flew KB-29Ps and KC-97s. And if you're going to say that the A310MRTT is closely related to the A330MRTT, then the A330MRTT is a far far more freakish "Frankentanker" than the KC-46.

And my goodness what do delays in the KC-767 program have anything to do with this discussion? Should I bring up the numerous delays in the Australian MRTT program? FYI, the Aussie MRTT had serious problems as late as July of last year. Can the same be said for the Italian and Japanese KC-767s? And it's still unclear if all the Aussie bugs have been worked out.

And finally, I notice you returned to your true believer "agenda/mantra". I have never remotely suggested that the KC-46 is "superior" to anything or that the MRTT is "inferior" to anything. My point has always been that they are just different and some customers prefer some of those differences over others. This "inferior/superior" mantra was all yours and one that you continue to repeat, loooong after it makes the least sense to do so.

Congratulations. You've turned a discussion about the differences between air tankers into a tanker cult discussion. Well, for your information, my Ford is WAAAAY "superior" to your Chevy. And your Dodge. (I have no idea what the UK equivalent is of the US car cults.) Or do you prefer the dog vs cat cult?

I totally agree with you that USAF would wait a long time to take delivery of any KC-45s. However I disagree that that would be because of the number of orders. KC-45 development would take a few years and all those existing orders would likely have all been fulfilled before KC-45 production began. Further, the A330NEO first flight is scheduled for mid 2016 and first deliveries in late 2017. By the time Airbus finished development of the KC-45, all the A330 deliveries would be complete and Airbus would be producing A330NEOs. Would Airbus be willing to keep the A330 line going and opening a second line to produce A330NEOs? I don't know.

The reasons are numerous and complex. See post #139 on page 7 for some details. If you still have questions, feel free to ask and I'll try to answer. But the short answer is that the requirements changed because the players changed. The first set of requirement was put together by former SAC tanker guys (SAC used to own ALL tankers) and they wanted a big tanker like the KC-10 and the KC-30 (later KC-45) won. By the time the 3rd competition rolled around (the 2nd never got out of the starting gate) AMC owned all tankers and the AMC guys added a plethora of new requirements which favored the KC-46.

EDIT: I failed to mention all the ITAR and "dual use" export issues. European and US laws on ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) and "dual use" (civial and military) technology export are similar at high levels, but the devil is in the details. There were huge controversies and long arguments about what parts and what mods were ITAR controlled. For example, since the cargo door was added on afterward was the door and ALL its associated engineering ITAR controlled? If so, what about the wiring, hydraulic, pneumatic, and environmental systems that had to be rerouted to accomodate the door? If they were ITAR controlled, then Airbus would have to make most if not all of the A330 line ITAR compliant. EADS North America was ready to do that, but EADS Europe was not. Boeing not only made the entire 767 line ITAR compliant, but made ALL the 767 engineering drawings ITAR compliant. And every Boeing employee that works on the 767 recieves ITAR training and has completed ITAR certification.

My reference to the A310MRTT was to indicate that Airbus is quite capable of designing and building tanker transports which do NOT require a 6 year gestation period.....

KC-767I development was unbelievably protracted. Perhaps that was to enable ol'Bubba's lot to obtain data for the Frankentanker, rather than to deliver a very simple aircraft on time and on budget? IAI are capable of doing so with their B767 derivatives, so why aren't Boeing?

D-IFF, the first link resulted in an error message. I was able to open the 2nd link.

May I suggest you carefully read the 2nd link. Northrop Grumman paid to have the MRTT (which did NOT have a cargo door) flown to Dresden for the installation of cargo doors. This confirms what I stated earlier: cargo doors were NOT offered by Airbus and NG had to add them after the airplane was built and delivered to NG. Such mods are not cheap and add cost to the proposal. Also note that the article states that USAF part owns one of the KC-45s. Do you understand the significance of that fact? It means USAF financially aided one vendor in submitting a proposal to a competitive RFP. That was one reason why the competition was tossed out and a recompete started.

Uh huh. And that is relevant to the delivered product how? I never remotely questioned Airbus' ability to design and build a tanker. I was discussing the features of the delivered product, not the gestation difficulties associated with that product. Your obsession with "inferior" and "superior" is now causing you to disparage the development process when your attempts to disparage the product failed. Is this not an example of the "weird agenda" spoken of earlier?

No more so than Aussie MRTT development. One could easily argue that the Aussie MRTT development was more protracted than the Italian KC-767 development. And in any event, that is utterly irrelevant to this discussion and an example of a desperate grasping at straws.

Your obsession with "inferior" and "superior" is now causing you to disparage the vendor when your attempts to disparage the product have failed. Is this not yet another example of the "weird agenda" spoken of earlier?

As to why, I do not know, and neither do you. But if you really want an answer I can certainly speculate.

First, do you understand the technical and developmental differences between an aircraft with a flying boom with a RARO station, plus centerline hose/drogue system, plus wing hose/drogue pods and with military avionics, versus a "simple" former commercial aircraft equipped with just wing hose/drogue pods? It would seem not.

Second, do you know the difference between a production certificate, a modification certificate, and a service/maintenance certificate? Do you know what an STC is? Do you know the differences between the FAA's, the JAA's and USAF's certification requirements relative to Israel's, Colombia's and Brazil's certification requirements? Your answer almost surely lies there.

And in any event all these side issues are totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, are examples of both a "weird agenda" and desperation, and are non sequiturs. Good for you.

And finally, you never answered if you understood the differences between ZFW, OEW, and MEW and how this affected the "in the know" boys' (comical) discussion of the Voyager.

You were right when we spoke earlier, vasco'...:rolleyes:!

Regardless of the debates about the KC-45/KC-46, You do wonder if this would have been in service with the USAF for the last few years if it hadn't been for Darleen Druyun..

Boeing - KC-767 - AirTeamImages.com

Anyone know what happened to this airframe?

EDIT - found it was scrapped in 2012

http://paineairport.com/kpae5296.htm

I'm wondering where this thread will head off to next. :)

What I do see is that there is a poster in the thread with a lot of tanker experience, and there is a poster explaining a lot about the Boeing product.

I suppose the fun here is that we are all anonymous, so anyone could be an expert :)

:D

And it would appear, as ever on PP, everyone is!! (Or are they?):)

That would seem doubtful for one huge reason: leasing. The early tanker proposals/programs all included leasing schemes. The reason for this is an arcane fact of DoD funding euphamistically called "the color of money". Congress provides one color of money for the services to operate and sustain their equipment (called O&S funds), and another color of money to procure their equipment. These colors of money MUST NOT be mixed. USAF thought they found a way around their lack of procurement funds by proposing to lease new tankers. How so? Because a lease is not a procurement (the vendor still "owns" the aircraft) USAF could use O&S funds to pay for the lease. Problem solved!!! But Senator McCain blew the lid off of this scheme and well and truly killed any future ideas that involved a lease or lease option. Thus was born the various tanker procurement competitions. Apparently Parliament does not put this restriction on the RAF because they're leasing their Voyagers.

So when you include the three failed leasing schemes, there were SIX tanker "competitions" in the USA spanning nearly two decades. Northrop Grumman won one of them with the A330 based KC-30 which became the KC-45. I was a member of that winning team and so was able to provide some insights into that particular competition.

In my previous reply I failed to mention all the ITAR and "dual use" export issues. European and US laws on ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) and "dual use" (civial and military) technology export are similar at high levels, but the devil is in the details. There were huge controversies and long arguments about what parts and what mods were ITAR controlled. For example, since the cargo door was added on afterward was the door and ALL its associated engineering ITAR controlled? If so, what about the wiring, hydraulic, pneumatic, and environmental systems that had to be rerouted to accomodate the door? If they were ITAR controlled, then Airbus would have to make most if not all of the A330 line ITAR compliant. EADS North America was ready to do that, but EADS Europe was not. Boeing not only made the entire 767 line ITAR compliant, but made ALL the 767 engineering drawings ITAR compliant. And every Boeing employee that works on the 767 recieves ITAR training and has completed ITAR certification.

Give me 30 cc adrenalin
Charge 200

Clear

Bzzzzzzzzt

I have a pulse - thread resurrected to restate a previously made point

Good night out was it Cornish?

S-D

Too many Pasties.

Well, the 767-2C Engineering and Manufacturing Development aircraft was supposed to have flown for the first time yesterday, but didn't. Although it did complete some high speed taxy runs.

Today is the back up day. There'll be a lot of people at Everett with their fingers and toes crossed, I guess.

No such thing as too many pasties !
Anyone want to wager if Bubba will get his latest and greatest creation airborne ?

BEagle, the internal Boeing schedules have shown Dec. 27th for taxi tests, Dec. 28th for First Flight for the last couple weeks. The biggest worry after they completed taxi tests on Saturday was that the weather wouldn't cooperate and we'd have to slide to Monday (the forecast for Sunday was pretty bad, fortunately the worst of it hit overnight). They even managed to find a couple days in there to paint it :E.

It flies!
 

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/...tdm36zegeg.jpg
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/...bi1bmhs9yn.jpg

DOT&E 2014 Annual Report - KC-46A Section
 

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/...2014kc-46a.pdf

-RP

KC-46 tanker testing will begin at least a year behind schedule
 

From Flightglobal: KC-46 tanker testing will begin at least a year behind schedule - 1/23/2015 - Flight Global

:uhoh:

Glad to see it fly.

I can't help but think how many variants we will see of this airframe, surely not as many as the K/C/E-135, but I wonder if the miles of wiring and open archetecture will weigh in its favor to help secure future projects like replacements for AWACS, Mercury, E-4, J-STARS, VIP, W, laser redux, etc. Yes I understand that most of those those are a complete strip out for conversion, but at least you already start with a hardened MILSPEC tanker, not an "airliner"...

Automation and reduction in the size of electronics make it highly unlikely any airframe of this size and associated crew will be required.

The E-8 replacement is now intended to be a business jet; the USN is replacing it's NP-3D range surveillance aircraft with G550 CAEW etc. Everything points to the E3 force being replaced with similar sized aircraft in an integrated net with off-board data fusion.

So, except for the KC-Y, KC-Z competitions, I can't see it. Pax aircraft such as the C40 are more likely to be replaced with off the shelf 737 or 787 models.

and of course Air Force One

Can't see Jeb Bush wanting to get off a GV when he's Pres.

The current schedule for the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization (PAR) effort specifies aircraft delivery "not earlier than 2021." So POTUS 45 (whomever she or he is) will need to win a second term to fly the 747-8 (or VC-46).

ORAC and sandiego89, I can't elaborate for what should be obvious reasons, but there are a lot of 'provisions' on the KC-46 that have nothing to do with the aerial refueling mission or hauling cargo/personnel.
So I wouldn't be at all surprised to see other variations of the KC-46 in the future.

Exactly while I surmised that there may be mission growth. It obviously has some extra "stuff".

I just do not see a bizjet size aircraft being the the solution for some of the current fleet. I agree some missions such as theatre ELINT and range clearance (and you only need a handfull of aircraft for range clearance) are a good fit for biz jets, and 737 a good fit for clipper C-40 replacement, I still see a market for some larger specialized aircraft. I also surmise that in today's threat envionment a special transport replacement (air force 2, head of delegation, DOS, etc) a hardened VIP transport based on the 46 may be attractive.

While improved black boxes and automation may allow for smaller aircraft, some roles still require a good sized crew and endurance- so a larger platform may be able to offer that. I'm not sure we have turned the corner on data linking everything. Like in a AWACS role, there is something about having the controllers and monitors all in the same tube, and relief crews for long missions. Yes I know some bizjets have impressive range. I think the Japanese AWACS may be a model.

Specialized subversions of an already "proven" aircraft (which I have no doubt the 46 will eventually be) may fare better that a "lets place of bunch of black boxes on bizjet" for future programs. Surely endurance and reduced risk will be good marketing points.

ORAC - some things have changed in the year since then (your article dated 27 January 2014).

The USAF has opened up the just-unfunded program (first-year funding in the FY2015 budget) to more options:
Air Force Works to Replace JSTARS Fleet | DoD Buzz

Note the B737-700 option - there is a fully-mil-spec B737-based option, which is currently being integrated into the DOD supply/maintenance/training establishment (which would lower operating cost for a USAF version), that has recently been tested for JSTARS-like capabilities: as I noted back on 7 November 2014: http://www.pprune.org/8731875-post835.html

The USAF just needs to modify it with USAF-required systems, and >50% of the R&D cost can be bypassed.

IN UK parlance MMA stands for Multi Mission Aircraft so no need to add the land and maritime bit - they are both covered by the multi mission bit.

I guess if they've stopped building 747's by 2021 POTUS will have to do with a modded B-52.......

This suggests the time frame for the new Air Force Ones may be moved up from 2018 to 2016 to make sure the 747-8 is still an option. Regardless I imagine it will years between between green airframes and fitting out.

Air Force may speed up Air Force One replacement to snag two of the last 747s - Puget Sound Business Journal

which suggests that POTUS 2070 will be flying around in a 747 -

that is going to look terribly quaint....................

but he/she will get a lot of spotters at each destination I guess

Regarding all the E-8 J-STARS replacement discussions:

USN is trying to leverage its way into the radar ground surveillance business. All the P-8s will be capable of accepting the AAS radar, which does everything the J-STARS radar does and lots more. The airframe already has lots of processor power and display/control consoles, cooling, on and off board networking, etc on board, so all that would be needed besides the radar hardware is additional software in the control consoles. So putting a J-STARS capability on a P-8 will be MUCH cheaper then developing a dedicated replacement for the E-8. And USN will have hundreds of P-8s vs USAF's 16 E-8s, which should provide operational cost advantages.

Boeing has had the EP-X, a development of the P-8 on the shelf since not long after P-8 development began.


It was initially proposed to replace the EP-3E Aries but this has been delayed by the USN. It was also designed so it could be configured for J-STARS, RJ and other missions as a cheaper alternative to the cancelled E-10 which was based on the 767-400 airframe.

Now that really is a hilarious statement.

So you are claiming that Boeing will stop building new airliners altogether?

Or is your contention that the USAF will never change its "4-engine" preference?

Funny - the USAF used to feel that supersonic bombers were the only possible future bombers - but they changed that in the 1960s. They used to think that all fighters had to be M2-capable, but they changed that.

The USAF has replaced its Presidential aircraft every 20 years or so - with different requirements for performance and equipment almost every time.

But I guess you can't help yourself.

And the decision is made: Boeing Tapped for Air Force One Replacement

And the decision is made: Boeing Tapped for Air Force One Replacement 28th Jan 2015 20:55
Hmmm. The linked article had lots of nice boilerplate verbiage about "cost effective", "low cost", "commercial off the shelf", etc etc. Those same words were used more than a decade ago in the "Marine One" solicitation which Agusta/Westland won with a version of the AW101. But the government added so much gold plate and fluff to the requirements that the cost ballooned exponentially, the airframe became so heavy it could barely get off the ground, and the whole program was scrapped. And so POTUS is still flying in ancient VH-3 Sea Kings. I would not be surprised if this is repeated on the 747-8.

Ken,


I believe the USAF has set aside $1.65B for the TWO 747-8s. At that price they'd better be made from gold! (That's the purchase price, not annualized running costs!!!)

O-P
I was right in the middle of the VC-25 program (the current Air Force Ones). They were so heavily modified from the run of the mill 747-200 that it was estimated they cost ~$500 million. Each! :mad: Heck, when I was troubleshooting engine issues on the first VC-25 we were informed that dropped tools, etc. had already done over $500,000 damage to the executive interior :rolleyes:.
Since it was a fixed price contract for a small fraction of that, Boeing took a financial bath on the program.