More KC-46A woes....
 

Ol' Bubba Boeing has had to come clean about further delays to the KC-46A Pegasus Frankentanker programme. Not only has the date for the first flight of the B767 (remember those?) based aircraft slipped, but it seems that the Pig'sAr$e programme is going to cost Ol' Bubba a cool extra $1billion (having already passed the capped limit agreed between DoD and Boeing), but they've finally admitted that the flight test campaign might slip a year.....:hmm:

From Bloomberg: More at Boeing Seeks Revised Schedule for U.S. Aerial Tanker - Bloomberg

Dear oh dear. It makes 't Bungling Baron Waste o' Space look almost competent.

Should have stuck with the vastly superior A330MRTT-based KC-45...:\

But at least it's American companies those extra billion $$ are going to..

No, coming from - cost capped - all from Boeing and any other cost sharing subcontractors......

Oh, I imagine they will somehow factor that into the subsequent lot orders- thats when you really make the big bucks. The taxpayer again will eventually be the loser. Boeing really seems to have lost the bubble on wiring issues.

Ahh an edit direct from the article: "Boeing executives previously have said they expect to recoup the $1 billion in excess development costs during the program’s $39 billion production phase". How nice of them. So they eat the overrun now, and quietly tack it on during subsequent orders. I am quite confient that the profit margin will not suffer in the long run- even if it is their mistake.

BEagle - I'm curious, what are your "humorous" names for EADS and Airbus?

"Bubba" and "'t bungling Baron" are surely not alone in defence procurement debacles (A400M and A330MRTT development delays, as an example), and in the civil sphere, the A380 has had as much negative press as the 787.

Not that I'm defending Boeing, BAE or Airbus, but Airbus are hardly any better.

A major military aircraft procurement program going over budget and late?

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

Feel free to refuse the gas from the new tanker if/when it becomes operational.

Must stick to one's standards.

Good thing there are no UK MoD and/or European horror stories otherwise the hypocrisy might become apparent.

Now then boys! Play nicely.

Please, Sir, he started it by calling people names! :p

I know it can be galling brickhistory to have foreigners disparage your national industry/products, but even the most ardent Americanophile (and I am one myself) has to concede that the A330 MRTT is a superior product in every regard to the KC-46A.

I'm usually able to see the relative merits in competing platforms, noting how the capabilities of one might suit a particular user while the capabilities of another might suit a different one, but with the MRTT vs KC-46A debate I cannot find a single criteria (except political with regard to KC-X) which favours the latter - there is simply no competition when it comes down to platform performance.

That said, yes there are developmental problems with all aircraft (MRTT boom detachments anyone), but the KC-46A's deficiencies go beyond the here-and-now problems that the programme might be experiencing.

And don't forget also, the KC-45 was to be built in Alabama, and so would have been a US-built product.

To the contrary, I take no offense at the "disparagement."

I am not a tanker expert.

But BEagle's post was pointedly skewed.

If he'd simply pointed out the buffoonery of Boeing (again, shocked, I tell you), I'd have been fine with it.

On a related note, domestic politics influencing defense procurement involving billions of dollars?!

Shock is taking a beating today.

And yes, I'd rather Boeing get my tax dollars than Airbus, regardless of where it's constructed. Built is very different than design ownership.

Suppose there is a political fall-out in future years between the U.S. and Airbus nations?

Follow-on support, upgrades, tech specs, etc.

No chance of that lever of power to be pulled if thought necessary?

A little more difficult for Boeing to stick it to Uncle Sam than Eurobus.

And yes, we could, probably have, done the same. I'd rather not be on the losing side of that proposition, if possible.

I dare say there may be a few folk in Mobile who disagree with your definition of US-built, but I take your point on wanting to spend US taxpayers' dollars on a US designed and manufactured product.

It's interesting to note though that in a different competition Boeing chose to offer a European product (AW101) to the US President himself, in direct competition to the US product from Sikorsky, so proving their definition of 'US jobs' changes as and when it suits them.

But that's big business the world over I suppose.

As Brick says swings and roundabouts, Nimrod anyone?

Successes,

Airbus Lakota 300 helicopters delivered to the US military both on time AND on budget

Airbus Group Delivers 300th On-Time, On-Budget UH-72A Lakota Helicopter to U.S. Army

Similar I believe the P-3 rewing is actually ahead of delivery.

If it's cost them an extra $1Bn, they have to have spent it somewhere.....

Nutloose

When you said "Nimrod anyone" my first thought was 'which one, we messed up twice' :)

Some of the Boeing management decisions on the KC-46 absolutely boggle the mind :ugh:. They basically took the development tools and managers from the 787 and turned them loose on the 767 - with similar results :eek:
These 787 transplants totally ignored that fact that we'd been building 767s for 30 years and decided we needed to scrap everything and start over with the same development tools that had proved so bad on the 787.
The systems interface database - that had successfully built 1000 airplanes - was dumped, and we had to input everything into a POS 787 tool, totally ignoring the engineering objections that we had something that worked, and that the 787 tool didn't work. I put 1000 hours into my work statement just for that task, and I underestimated by at least a factor of 2:=. Worse, many of the current wiring problems trace directly to that interface tool :mad:


The worst part is, we are carrying over many of those same mistakes to the 777X :*

There's plenty to complain about for customers of both Boeing and Airbus' latest tankers. The obvious difference between the two is that the Airbus product is currently operational with 4 nations and the KC-46A prototype is yet to fly.

There's a possibility that the delays Boeing are experiencing might mean a more mature product at delivery, without some of the teething problems that the A330 MRTT has experienced. But then again, when was there ever a new aircraft type that had no teething problems?

You can argue that the 'Scrapheap Challenge' comes to mind when you look at the KC-46A design, or that the A330 MRTT build process is akin to taking your shiny new Ford Capri to 'Pedro's Body Kit, Paint and Detailing Shop'. Both options may have their flaws, but both designs must meet rigorous design and safety standards, comply with contract specifications and be accepted by the customers.

The greater concern for the USAF must be how to generate enough tankers every day, amending any drawdown plans and extending airframe lives to maintain capability during any known or forecast delays to delivery. Considering how many nations other than the US rely on AMC tankers and the NATO requirements for AAR, any delay to the KC-46 may have effects that reach beyond Washington State.

I wonder if Ulick is dusting off his boom designs and having those ex-JAL DC-10s serviced?

The Nimrod AEW3 and MRA4 were both disastrous, it is true. Although the airframe wasn't problematic, the mission system in the AEW3 was totally inferior to even the most basic E-3A. Whereas the mission system in the MRA4 worked well, but the aircraft itself was an utter pig and would probably never have achieved military specification. Coincidentally, both were as ugly as sin.

Yes, the A400M suffered funding problems and a 3 year programme delay. But 174 are now on order with the likelihood of further sales being achieved.

Both the A310MRTT and A330MRTT suffered some in-service teething issues, particularly the latter's boom system. The A310MRTT was delivered more or less on time and budget and the pace of A330MRTT delivery was really only hampered by problems with the boom system. Slow government agreement to the FSTA contract delayed the Voyager's entry into service for the UK, but 5 nations now operate A330 tankers, with the prospect of 4 more.

Whereas Boeing's track history with the 767 tanker programme has been pretty poor. Even the basic KC-767I for Italy was 6 years late after problems with flutter and with the AAR system. It is a relatively simple version converted from the B767-200 airliner, lacking the additional fuel capacity or uprated systems intended for the KC-46A. Leaving aside the political shenanigans over the KC-X programme, development of the KC-46A has been both tardy and eye-wateringly expensive. When EADS North America learned that this Frankentanker was no longer to include a 767-400 based cockpit, but instead one derived from the 787, they correctly identified that this would pose huge risk to the programme.

Unless there are significant 'financial incentives', there doesn't seem much likelihood of Boeing selling what is still a 'paper plane' to any other customers, given the fact that the aircraft's on-paper capability is vastly inferior to the A330MRTT - which of course is already in service.

As for the 787, the delays and problems facing the programme resulted in a 3½ year delay for the launch customer. Oddly though, a senior Boeing spokesman stated some years ago that the 787 wasn't suitable for tanker conversion owing to its 'configuration' :confused:. So any future Boeing tanker will probably be based on the ageing 767 or perhaps the 777. Whereas the A350XWB is coming along just fine, with 750 on order; when airlines begin to replace their A330s with the A350XWB, there will be a plentiful supply available to receive simpler, A310MRTT-style conversion.....

.. or the A330neo ?

Beags - Not sure about the 787's tanker suitability, but back in 2005, when the 787 was new, I asked why used 767s (of which there were quite a few with plenty of hours left) could not be modified for USAF and others.

The answer was that the -300 had no tail clearance for the boom at rotation because of the longer body and that there were not enough HGW -200s in the fleet.

But then, a few months ago....

http://www.defesaaereanaval.com.br/w...I-para-FAB.jpg

The difference with American development projects isn't that they always get them right, it's that they can always afford to get them wrong.

Beagle,,

Would you to disclose your prior affiliations with EADS, Airbus on the RAF A330 MRTT plane?

GF

GF, that's easy - none!

LowObservable, yes, IAI quietly developed and supplied a 767-200 based tanker to Colombia (pods only) and later developed a FBW boom for the 767. They now have a contract to deliver 2 767-300ER based tankers to Brazil, but I don't know whether they will be boom equipped.

The Brazilians don't have anything with a boom receptacle, unless I am overlooking something. Mind you, they say that around Copacabana you can find a few booms in places where you don't exp[That's enough of that. - Ed.]

To all those stateside ppruners who feel they're being hounded by beagle(!) let me say that he is equally ready to lash UK manufacturers, or anyone else who, rightly or wrongly, he feels deserves it. Generally in procurement matters, the USA could teach us a thing or three. In this instance the criticism seems fully justified.

GF,

Don't know what affiliations Beags had, has, or perhaps will have with Airbust, but RAF do not have the A330 MRTT. They (sometimes) fly the Airtanker supplied FSTA... same kennel, different dog.

"Better" is in the eye of the beholder
 

With regard to the clear "superiority" of the A330 MRTT to the KC-46, that all depends on the user's priorities.

The A330MRTT is derived from the passenger version of the A330. It does not have a cargo door nor a cargo floor. The KC-46 is derived from the 767 freighter and has both a large cargo door and a main deck cargo floor. So if cargo is priority for the user, A330 loses.

Further, the A330's short nose gear gives the A330 a decided nose-down attitude when on the ground. This make loading of cargo containers and pallets problematic. That nose gear is why it took so long to make a freigher version of the A330 and why it sold so poorly. If ground cargo handling is a priority for the user, A330 loses. Again.

If the tanker is also going to be used for aeromedical evacuation, a cargo door is very important. Hauling evacuees in litters up the airstairs and then making a 90 degree turn inside the aircraft is nigh on impossible with seats installed. Reconfiguring for an aeromedical mission by removing the seats of a passenger configured aircraft is nightmarishily slow and a montrous headache. And even then the overhead luggage bins remain a huge problem. There are numerous modular kits available today for reconfiguring a KC-10, a KC-135, a C-17, a C-5 and other aircraft with a cargo door and a cargo floor to perform aeromedical evac. So if aeromedical evac is a priority for the user, the A330 loses. Again.

The A330MRTT is significantly larger than KC-46 and the KC-135. If the user has a large number of KC-135s and desires to operate the new tanker from the same bases as the old tanker, the A330 loses. Further, when supporting forward deployed forces from size contstrained forward bases, MOG (Maximum On Ground) becomes a serious issue. MOG is why the smaller C-17 can actually deliver far more cargo in a given period (throughput) than the much larger C-5. So when the operation is MOG contrained, the A330 loses. Again.

For many (most?) Air Forces MOG is a minor concern because most Air Forces operate a small number of air tankers. But when the user has a fleet of air tankers numbering in the hundreds that must support large numbers of forward deployed air assets (fighters, bombers, transports, and yes, even other tankers) the A330 loses. Again.

If fuel burn while orbiting and waiting to service receivers is a priority, the bigger airplane burns much more per hour than the smaller airplane. And so the A330 loses. Again.

And without divulging anything specific or classified, consider that the KC-46A has well over 70 (70!) MILES of additional wiring than the base 767F. The tanker mission alone most certainly does not require all that additional wiring. There are other "things" being installed in those airframes that have nothing to do with the tanker mission. Airbus simply could not do these other "things". And those "things" were yet another high priority for the KC-46's user. 'nuff said.

It is clear that the KC-390 is intended to be able to receive fuel in flight. Unless a decision is made to include a centreline hose on the KC-X2, or perhaps on another KC-390, a boom on the KC-X2 and UARRSI on the KC-390 would be logical.

For those who think I'm 'anti-American' when it comes to aircraft - think again. Why we persisted with the Tornado F2 and GR4 when the F-15C and F-15E were so clearly far superior is quite beyond me.

Re. the A330MRTT cargo door, it is a customer option because the capacious lower deck cargo holds are adequate for all current users. Both holds have large 107" doors and the hold capacity is unaffected by any AAR requirements. Whereas the Frankentanker needs an upper deck cargo door because the lower cargo areas are too narrow for paired LD3s and are compromised by the extended centre tanks....:rolleyes:

The difference in fuel burn between an A330 and a 767 whilst on a refuelling anchor is virtually insignificant - that was one red herring used to try to bolster the alleged benefit of the KC-46A. Anyway, until it actually flies no-one, knows how much fuel it will burn....:hmm:

The A330 MRTT has underfloor cargo space for 45 tonnes of pallets (it can actually carry more cargo than the A400M). All of the MRTT's fuel is carried in its usual tanks, with no need for auxiliary tanks in either than main cabin or under the floor.

The KC-45 was to have a cargo door at the USAF's request, but that is not a requirement for any other operator.

By contrast, the KC-46A loses much of its underfloor cargo space to auxiliary tanks, and while the A330 MRTT can carry over 200 passengers the KC-46A is only certified to carry 58 (and has space for just 114 in its usual configuration).

The KC-46A may have a very marginally shorter take-off run than the MRTT, when you take into account the actual length of runway required due to safe abort distances there is next to no difference as to the size of airfield required by both. Interestingly, the KC-46A will not be able to take-off from Mildenhall or Fairford with a fuel fuel load for this reason.

I don't know the fuel burn figures for the KC-46A, but the A330 MRTT's is 4 tonnes per hour in the cruise and 6 tonnes per hour with the hoses deployed. I'd be surprised if the KC-46A was a meaningful factor less than this.

Are you referring to the EMP hardening, ballistic and NBC protection of the cockpit? Granted, the A330 MRTT doesn't have that, but then no one has requested it.

I don't know the facts related to your other points.

KenV,

Hi, actually you can order an A330MRTT with Main Deck Cargo door, yes the French have ordered them on their second batch of 6!

Not sure what you mean about the low Nose-wheel Gear problem. Many airlines daily seem to manage to load and offload Pallets and ULDs without any issue! They have Hi-loaders that adjust for height you know!

You may be correct in saying they are too big for every occasion, but they would sure replace a KC-10 quite well.

I would have thought a mixed fleet maybe the best for USAF in reality. :eek:

A converted passenger A330 or a tanker based on the pax airframe has a nose-down sit, but a KC based on a freighter has a modified nose gear.

And the secret "things" that Airbus "simply could not do"? As a matter of technology or of restrictions on the assembly line?

It not only sounds most improbable, but if there really were secret requirements that disqualified the Airbus design, whoever was running an alleged "competition" should be spanked, drawn and quartered and sued up the kazoo and down again, by both sides, for deceptive practices that wasted millions of dollars.

So advanced planning for an RC-46B then........

I thought one of the prime arguments that Boeing put up against the original contract was that the Airbus exceeded the requirements...

Call me old fashioned but as a military aircraft, anything over the contract requirements is a bonus.

Well the IDF/AF got a lovely 'array' of 707 tankers :E:cool: as this popped over my head last year , summer time, approaching the 'hall

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...pse51cac04.jpg

cheers

sorry - I lost track in the answering of all of Ken's points......

whats the score now ?

Because the view from the cheap seat over here is 'Bubba done gone sideways and his ole frankentanker (built in 'murica by 'muricans to a 'murican design ) just is not up to it.

I mean it's not like they are trying to reinvent the wheel again are they?

Maybe the 'other stuff' that is a 'high priority' for the KC-46A customer should have been included in the RFP. In fact, if there were requirements specifically omitted from the published, and publicly available, RFP then surely the process was illegal and any competitors to the contract winner would have a right to appeal to the GAO?

KenV doesn't say they weren't in the RFP, just that Airbus couldn't do them

I'll start by reiterating the first sentence in my previous post: "With regard to the clear "superiority" of the A330 MRTT to the KC-46, that all depends on the user's priorities."

USAF's priorities are different than many other users' priorities. For many users a tanker about the size of a KC-10 is preferable, which leads them to the MRTT. For others a tanker about the size of a KC-135 is preferable, which leads them toward the KC-46. In USAF, the KC-46 is replacing KC-135s, not KC-10s.

As for the many other points:
Adding a cargo door does not turn an MRTT into a good cargo carrier. It would still need a cargo floor, and would still need to have all the luggage bins, galleys, lavs, etc etc removed. And the nose gear installation would need a redesign. Airbus redesigned the A330 freighter's nose gear installation for a very good reason, and not on some whim. I haven't a clue why Airbus is not using the A330 freighter as the basis for the MRTT, but the fact is they are not. For many potential users, that is a bad choice. For others who want to transport passengers, that's a good choice. But USAF does not want to use their tankers to haul passengers. USAF has a CRAF fleet for hauling passengers. And in a pinch, the KC-46 can be very quickly equipped with existing seat pallets and comfort pallets to enable it to carry passengers. The reverse cannot be said of the MRTT.

As for the "things" I mentioned, think sensors and comm gear. Imagine multiple orbiting tankers that are able to be "servers" for a digitally connected battle force and able to be electronic "vacuum cleaners" of the EM spectrum. Keep in mind that one of the F-22's major assets is its ability to be a battle space EM vacuum cleaner. There's more, but I'll leave it at that.

As for size of the aircraft, I was not referring to runway length. I was referring to the tarmacs, maintenance hangars, etc etc currently used by HUNDREDS of KC-135s. The 767 can use all those KC-135 facilities. The A330 cannot. The facilities issue was one of the drivers of the C-17's size. The C-17 can use all the facilities used by the C-141 and the C-17 replaced the C-141 just as the KC-46 will replace the KC-135. to put this in perspective, sure the C-5 and the 747F are larger can call haul far more than the C-17. Ther was massive pressure to use those existing larger aircraft rather than develop a new, smaller C-17. But both these "superior" air transports would require massive amounts of MILCON (military construction) to either modify all those C-141 facilities or build entirely new facilities. The same is true of the KC-135 and 767 vs A330. The total ownership costs include the facilities needed to operate and service/maintain the aircraft. A 767 sized tanker significatly reduces those costs for USAF relative to an A330 sized tanker because they can use the KC-135 facilities. For other users that don't have an existing fleet of tankers being replaced, this point would be moot.

Independent of the ability to use existing facilities, bigger is most certainly NOT always better. If bigger were better, Boeing could have proposed a 777F based tanker that would have been "far superior" to the 767, A330 AND the KC-10. But for the mission USAF was doing, bigger was NOT better. By comparison, Brazil chose the Gripen over the Super Hornet. For Brazil the small, single engine fighter fit their needs much better than the "far superior", but larger, Super Hornet. A C-130J is obviously "far superior" to a C-27J. But if your mission calls for a smaller aircraft, then the C-130's size does not necessarily make it "superior." The 747-8F, 777F and A330F freighters are all bigger and "far superior" to the 767F, yet UPS, FEDEX, and others chose the 767F over those bigger aircraft. And that had nothing to do with politics.

So I will end where I began and provide an addition. "Superior" is in the eye of the beholder. And in some beholder's eyes, "bigger" often does NOT equal "superior".

EDIT: I forgot one point. Boeing significantly underbid Airbus for the firm fixed price development contract. Boeing was willing to take a huge financial risk to develop the tanker. Airbus was not. Boeing may have "won" the contract, but at the current pace of spending, they will certainly lose a LOT of money on the first few dozen aircraft. Rather a Pyrrhic victory.

There was a reason Northrop Grumman was the prime and Airbus (technically, EADS) was a subcontractor in the beginning of this competition. When N-G pulled out and Airbus chose to go it alone, a considerable amount of capability was lost.

Please excuse my bluntness, but this statement indicates a lack of understanding of basic military procurement processes. What you are describing is called "goldplating", which is not only bad practice, but is (generally) illegal.

Please keep in mind that USAF already has a "mixed fleet" of KC-130s, KC-135s and KC-10s. The KC-46s will replace the KC-135s. The KC-10s won't be replaced till some (far) future date. Maybe the A350? 777X? Other?