From Omega Air Tanker on 1 Oct 2018:
They used a 707 with centreline hose for the mission.

"Best thing for Airbus with regards to USAF and the tanking is to do enough work to put in a bid to think Boeing might lose to Airbus so Boeing incur more costs"

I'm sure that AB would have preferred to win the contract - BUT if winning it gets Mr B stuck in a swamp I doubt anyone in Toulouse is crying - probably thinking how its killed off a Boeing Middle of the Market airframe for a start..........

The statement regarding "...fully compliant with civilian performance.." is likely true---but irrelevant. Also, not sure what "ancient rules" to which you're referring. The fact of the matter is that while the A330/KC-45 may be superior in balanced field length, balanced field length was not the measurement used in the specification. In any case, this is clearly a straw man, since runway length required was not where the issue was.

Regarding your V-22 point, I trust you are being sarcastic. Why would anyone want to AAR a V-22 at a speed that has to be pretty close to a KC-45 stall speed at that weight in refueling configuration, when a V-22 can easily maintain a speed 70 to 90 knots (and maybe more) faster? I'm not sure about the exact issue(s) involved, just that GAO found that the AF had not properly validated that the A330 could refuel all USAF fixed wing aircraft.


As I said some time back, I'm not going to defend the poor performance post award, I'm just discussing the award itself. Like I also said, though, given how badly this has been administered and how much extra USAF demanded beyond a basic KC-767, I suspect that had Airbus kept the award, they'd be in trouble as well.

The lack of Boeing's MMA is probably more due to all the resources having to go towards resolving 737 Max issues and the lack of foresight and decision making ability at Boeing upper management levels. I gree with those who say that since Boeing bought MDD and the latter's management got entrenched, Boeing has become more of a financial conglomerate masquerading as an airplane company.

CC

No sarcasm-not this time. Firstly study of post 1038 kindly added by Beagle shows that even a legacy aircraft has managed it. A quick search suggests that the V22 has a max cruise speed of 270 KCAS so would not need to refuel at 90 kt. The hose speed range on the A330 family hose is 180-325 which should easily cover the V22. Indeed at least one member of said family of tankers has a clearance to refuel the V22. Maybe the GAO didn't look to hard! Not only that where was the evidence that the KC46 was any better?

As far as performance is concerned the ancient rules I referred to are those that were in force when the KC135 was built/certified. The A330 does meet all current perfA requirements and does not rely on balanced field calculations-it uses an optimised V1 based on the choice of take off configuration chosen.

Some years ago now I was involved in a research project comparing tanker capabilities. Rather than relying on manufacturers' glossy brochure claims, we set the ground rules for comparison. All aerodromes would be sea level with 10000ft RW length, still air and ISA. The aim was to establish the max offload available in a set time period on an AARA at a given distance from the departure aerodrome, with recovery to the same aerodrome to land with the equivalent of an hour's transit fuel burn (to simplify diversion assumptions).

All participants were requested to provide the actual RTOM for the specified conditions and the max offload within the set criteria.

The US participants immediately requested a 12000ft RW; this we refused.

When the results came in, the KC-46 was unable to take off at anything close to its MTOM; the A330MRTT was the clear winner and even an A310MRTT with 5 rather than 4 ACTs came very close to the KC-46.

Back when ex-ba 767s were being considered as potential RAF Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft, the Boeing rep admitted "That's where Airbus has us beat" when I queried the figures shown in Boeing's own brochure, which indicated that the 767 (admittedly not fitted with the uprated engines/brakes of the KC-46) would struggle to be able to take-off at MTOM from Brize Norton except with a significant head wind and low ISA deviation. Mates who flew the thing in airline service confirmed that it was a real slug departing Africa with a full load.

There seems to be a fixation here about GAO's sustainment of Boeing's protest in terms of the technical aspects of the Airbus vs Boeing bid for the original KC-X award.

I'd like to reiterate that GAO did not sustain some of Boeing's objections on technical grounds. It never said which aircraft was "better" and even made a point of saying it wasn't in that business and wasn't doing that. What it did, as it always does, was rule on contractual grounds. It said the USAF so botched up their analysis in the award of the contract that as it stood, the award could not stand. USAF started out saying it wanted one thing, decided it wanted something else and rather than properly redo the thing just went and shoehorned the analysis so it would come out the way they now wanted.

This was not the only time this happened. TheKC-X fiasco was just one of a series of contractual screwups the USAF did in the mid 2000s. Awards were canceled or overturned, people were replaced, some even went to jail on things. It all could have been avoided even they just did their job right.

Let me again quote from GAO's findings: "In its decision, GAO recommends that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors,
obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with GAO’s decision. GAO
further recommends that, if the Air Force believed that the solicitation does not adequately state its needs, the agency should amend the
solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors".

That's all they had to do.

With respect, again, all the GAO said in its summary was that USAF had not demonstrated in its analysis that all USAF-fixed wing aircraft could be refueled by the A330 submission. It was a separate source that said it was the V-22 Whether the 767 bid could do that better was not the issue, it was USAF's lack of properly addressing the issue regardless of what aircraft the receiver in question might have been. GAO looks at contractual issues.

Regarding your second point, how it calculates V1 isn't the issue; military allowances are different (which is why a number of military aircraft never get civil certification). Runway length was not an issue in the award, protest or sustainment. This whole thing was a contractual problem, one of a number USAF experienced in the 2000s. .Like I said, USAF was doing so badly at this point that DoD seriously considered taking the authority to make the next tanker award away from them and doing it itself. That is a severe condemnation and rarely taken step .

The 767 is some proven airplane, Boeing builds tankers since forever. I don't get what the bloody problem is? It's billions of business value and Boeing is making a loss on it now? Can't be true?
What is wrong that can't be rectified within a short time?

The last KC-135 was built in 1965. The first KC-767 was built in 2003 and not exactly a total success.

People retire, corporate memory is short, and technologies change.

"What is wrong that can't be rectified within a short time?"

Pretty much everything I'm afraid............... :uhoh:

On Flight Global:-
Boeing KC-46A refuelling boom camera redesign to cost $551 million

Article intro:-

$ 551 mm for a new boom camera? How on earth does it cost that sort of cash??

no direct knowledge of it but reading the info sounds like someone signed a contract for a camera system that was a lot more difficult than it appears. I suspect that when it eventually gets sorted will be the state of the art for years to come , unless someone out there knows otherwise !

It's OK, they under bid on the first few aircraft years ago. To win the contact. Then make profit on the following.ones. I'm sure it's all going to plan. USAF are happy and it's much better than getting the A330. :ugh:

Boeing used to be run by engineers, now it is run by MBA bean counters who's only concern is to juice the stock price so they get a bigger bonus. The whole company needs a management reset.

I suppose they'll get it sorted just before everything goes contactless.:E

The way camera technology is advancing the new system will be years out of date before its delivered.

I know its comparing apples and pears but just look at the quality of micro cameras flying round on sub one thousand dollar drones.

Av Week headline:

USAF Extends KC-46A Testing For Three Years

Boeing could do quite well out of this. The A330s will be due to be phased out just as the KC-46 is ready for service...