|
Yeah, but by then, getting parts will be hard.
|
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020...-the-boneyard/
House to block KC-135 retirements for three years, but some B-1 bombers could head for the boneyard WASHINGTON — The House Armed Services Committee will forbid the Air Force from retiring KC-135 tankers in fiscal 2021, but will allow the service to divest some B-1 bombers and KC-10 tankers. In its FY21 budget, the Air Force requested permission from Congress to retire 17 of its oldest B-1B bombers and a total of 29 aerial refueling tankers, comprising 13 KC-135s and 16 KC-10s. However, the House hopes to block the Air Force from mothballing any of its 398 KC-135s until after FY23, according to the HASC’s Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee’s markup of the FY21 defense policy bill, which was obtained by Defense News. It also would require the service to retain a total of 50 primary mission KC-10A aircraft in FY21; 38 primary mission KC-10A aircraft in FY22; and 26 primary mission KC-10A aircraft in FY23. The Air Force currently has 56 KC-10s that are considered primary mission aircraft, so the HASC’s language would allow the service to retire six aircraft in FY21 and a total of 30 tankers over the next three years, said a source familiar with the bill. That will allow the service to retire roughly the same number of tankers as it proposed, but over a longer time period........ The House committee’s reluctance to begin retiring tankers was expected given U.S Transportation Command’s concerns about a tanker shortfall and ongoing complications with the Air Force’s newest tanker, the KC-46. TRANSCOM listed $110 million in its unfunded priorities to buy back 13 KC-135 and 10 KC-10 tankers that the Air Force wanted to retire, claiming the divestments would create a “capacity bathtub” and limit options for military mobilization if military leaders were “confronted with a crisis.” Worries about the tanker fleet being too small were also compounded by the slow pace in resolving ongoing KC-46 deficiencies, particularly with its remote vision system. Prime contractor Boeing has agreed to completely redesign the RVS, which is used by the boom operator to see outside of the aircraft during the refueling process. However, the new system will not be ready until at least 2023. Without it, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein has said the aircraft will not be ready to deploy in normal operations, though it would be used in combat if necessary...... |
Maybe there's a place for Airtanker over there.................
|
Maybe there's a place for Airtanker over there................. I suspect the USAF might understand that? airsound |
Not Airtanker - but I do not believe that there is a cat's chance in hell of the KC-46A being bought in sufficient numbers to replace the entire Cold War legacy fleet of KC-135s and KC-10s. It's not just the huge delays but also the need to use funds for higher priorities in classified programs, cyber and cutting edge systems like the B-21.
It is extremely likely that there will be a significant element of contractoriztion and that the KC-46A buy will be limited to some extent by the numbers needed for the additional special missions that the platform is planned to perform (for which there was all the additional gold plating of the specification in terms of wiring and EMP protection etc). US TRANSCOM / US Air Mobility Command have been investigating contractorization for over 12 months now and have already held 2 Industry Days and come up with 5 potential options - explained here. The five potential solutions are: (1) Government Furnished Equipment to a contractor. (2) Government sale or lease of surplus aircraft to a contractor. (3) Foreign government surplus tankers purchased and used for contract air refueling. (4) Modifying existing commercial aircraft to perform contracted boom air refueling support. (5) the use of a commercial off-the-shelf tanker for contract air refueling support. In April 22, 2020 Sec AF required parameters for a further study to be submitted within 60 days. Full report here - scroll down and open the first pdf dated June 5, 2020: https://beta.sam.gov/opp/54df80f9174...ve=true&page=5 My money would be on Airbus pitching a A330 MRTT PFI - especially since they will probably be plenty of "slightly used" A330 from bankrupt airlines that could be converted for a lot less than $300M a throw a new A330 MRTT would be. Also, while that gets up and running, there may be a place for a number of small private companies eventually buying up surplus KC-135s from small air forces displacing them with A330 MRTTs and / or taking on early retirement USAF KC-135s and relieving the USAF of the manning, infrastructure and maintenance burden. |
Several years ago I discussed the notion of an A330MRTT 'lite' with a senior Airbus Military (as it was then) mate. The idea being a pre-owned A330 with minimum essential modifications to equip it for the AAR role. Similar in concept to the level of modification needed to convert the A310 to the A310MRTT / CC-150T in the early '00s.
No need for the complexity of the full-fat A330MRTT or Voyager - just a 2 pod design with a 3rd seat for an ARO who would have the same level of 'Fuel Operator Station' as in the A310MRTT / CC-150T including a Mission Computer System which actually works! No centreline FRU or boom, purely to keep cost to a minimum. Although the lack of interoperability with F-16 operators was acknowledged. Unfortunately the hierarchy wasn't interested and preferred to offer only the brand new A330MRTT at at an eye-watering price. The USAF is unlikely to adopt the probe-and-drogue AAR system, so the only real option is to stick with the much-delayed KC-46A or go back to the superior Airbus KC-45A which was the original choice over 12 years ago...…. |
The game has moved on considerably since the original KC-45A competition win / cancellation and the KC-46A debacle. The point now is the KC-46A will take another 3 > 5 years to get right (primarily the RVS), the delivery of the initial tranche under KC-X is already years behind schedule and the production rate has been slowed down.
Options need to be considered not only to maintain a 415-tanker force at an acceptable operating cost over the period it would take to buy the next batch of tankers under KC-Y - which will take another 29 years - but also reduce acquisition and operating overhead costs by contracting out an element of the overall task using one or more of the options being considered. Airbus already produces "flying boom" A330 MRTTs. Also, 30% of the US TRANSCOM / USAF AMC mission requirement is for "hose & drogue" [as the US DoD calls it over here] - so in the overall force mix there will be dual-method tankers - like the RAF Mildenhall 100 ARW KC-135Rs which have a "flying boom" and 2 x underwing "hose & drogue" pods (not just the "hose & drogue" adaptor on the flying boom). Dual-method French AF A330 MRTT here: Up-to-date info on the A330 MRTT options currently offered are here: https://www.airbus.com/defence/a330mrtt.html |
Plenty of suitable aircraft sitting around going cheap to fill the gap - as long as you keep the spec at 1990's levels instead of 2020 ones.............
|
airsound
The RAF signed up to that one but I doubt anyone else would. RAF Eng I will be interested to see how the French intend to refuel large probe and drogue receivers. |
https://www.mcchord.af.mil/News/Arti...oint-base-mdl/
First KC-10 Extender retires from Joint Base MDL |
Came across this link in the Flight Deck / Rumours & News section.
Airbus just beat Boeing to be the first to complete a wholly automated air-to-air refueling operation
|
Originally Posted by RAFEngO74to09
(Post 10816938)
The game has moved on considerably since the original KC-45A competition win / cancellation and the KC-46A debacle. The point now is the KC-46A will take another 3 > 5 years to get right (primarily the RVS), the delivery of the initial tranche under KC-X is already years behind schedule and the production rate has been slowed down.
Options need to be considered not only to maintain a 415-tanker force at an acceptable operating cost over the period it would take to buy the next batch of tankers under KC-Y - which will take another 29 years - but also reduce acquisition and operating overhead costs by contracting out an element of the overall task using one or more of the options being considered. Airbus already produces "flying boom" A330 MRTTs. Also, 30% of the US TRANSCOM / USAF AMC mission requirement is for "hose & drogue" [as the US DoD calls it over here] - so in the overall force mix there will be dual-method tankers - like the RAF Mildenhall 100 ARW KC-135Rs which have a "flying boom" and 2 x underwing "hose & drogue" pods (not just the "hose & drogue" adaptor on the flying boom). Dual-method French AF A330 MRTT here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnFj5rfVaRA Up-to-date info on the A330 MRTT options currently offered are here: https://www.airbus.com/defence/a330mrtt.html https://www.contactairlandandsea.com...amed-exercise/ |
On Flight Global.
Boeing takes $67m loss on KC-46 tanker, but sees reason for optimism Boeing has taken another multimillion dollar charge on the KC-46A Pegasus in-flight refueling tanker, but believes the programme is beginning to “clear the hurdle” in terms of how the US Air Force (USAF) views its manufacturing performance. For the quarter ended 30 September, the Boeing Defense, Space & Security division’s earnings fell because of a $67 million charge to the tanker programme caused by to coronavirus disruptions and undisclosed productivity inefficiencies, it says in an earnings call on 28 October. As a result, the division’s profit fell 16.7% to $628 million for the third quarter, compared to the same period a year earlier. Revenue for the division fell 2.2% to $6.85 billion. The KC-46A tanker programme has been plagued with problems for years. One of its most expensive problems is its remote vision system, a series of cameras that are meant to guide its refuelling boom into recipient aircraft. That camera produces distorted or washed out images creating a risk that an operator could accidentally steer the boom into an aircraft awaiting refuelling. In the first quarter of 2020, Boeing Defense took a $827 million loss to cover the cost of redesigning the boom cameras. Boeing’s tanker programme has also suffered from poor manufacturing quality. Shoddy design and manufacturing work by the company’s employees has led to leaking fuel tanks, cargo locks that come undone and foreign object debris found inside the airframes of many aircraft. Despite those problems and nearly $5 billion in losses, Boeing believes the KC-46A programme is turning a corner. “The tanker has been a drag on us for like three or four years in every way you can think of with respect to investors. But we are beginning to clear the hurdle with our customer with respect to its performance in their fleet and then their need for that tanker,” says David Calhoun, Boeing chief executive on the earnings call. “So that whole relationship, I believe, will begin to transition next year. And as opposed to being a drag on our franchise, as it’s been, I believe it will become a strength in our franchise.” |
What's the old quote.... "We lose money on every one we build, but we hope to make it up in volume....."
|
Article header on Flight Global:-
Boeing wins $2.1bn for 15 more KC-46A tankers, points to battle communications role |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10918016)
What's the old quote.... "We lose money on every one we build, but we hope to make it up in volume....."
|
Lyneham Lad - I have the same problem with Flight Global! However, that nice Mr Boeing has a media room that'll give you the details:
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-re...ts?item=130812 Briefly, he say 15 More Boeing KC-46 Tankers to Fuel the Air Force into the Future New multirole tanker contract brings number of U.S. Air Force orders to 94 Digitally advanced KC-46 an essential link connecting Air Force to broader battlefield
The KC-46 is a widebody, multirole tanker designed for state-of-the-art air refueling, cargo and medical transport. Boeing is now on contract for 94 KC-46A tankers. |
What's the old quote.... "We lose money on every one we build, but we hope to make it up in volume....." |
Originally Posted by Lyneham Lad
(Post 10977304)
Boeing wins $2.1bn for 15 more KC-46A tankers
|
https://www.defensenews.com/industry...the-air-force/
Boeing’s cost overruns on KC-46 now exceed initial contract with US Air Force WASHINGTON — With the Jan. 27 announcement of a new $275 million charge on the KC-46, Boeing has now paid as much in cost overruns for the troubled program as the U.S. Air Force invested in the tanker’s development. The new charge, which the company reported as part of fourth-quarter 2020 earnings, means Boeing has now paid more than $5.0 billion out of pocket to pay for the myriad technical problems and production issues that have cropped up since the company won the program in 2011. Under the firm, fixed-price contract signed then, Boeing is responsible for paying for any costs in excess of the contract’s $4.9 billion ceiling....... |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 15:28. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.