USAF KC-Y Tanker Competition
 

Lockheed Martin will be offering the LMXT built in America which - if successful - would negate the delivery timescale bottleneck of the European A330 > MRTT conversion program.

Briefing Sheet: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us...ic-tanker.html

Will be an interesting competition. Wonder what the spec will say about vision systems for the boom operator...

NIH - will probably get excluded on the re-spec - again.

IG

Ssssshhh. Don't mention Airbus.....

logically they'll have to give it to Boeing to help keep them in business after they screwed up with the 787, the Max and the... what was that other programme?

Should we start a poll on what will happen first? 1. The KC-Y going in service or 2. the KC-46 vision system getting fixed...:p

LM will get the go ahead, some senator will kick up a fuss, the competition will be reopened and eventually Boeing will get the contract.

I never used to be this cynical.

> new bidder! wants to convert used 777-300ERs!

More detail on the LMXT here. Like the A330 MRTT, will be built as an A330 first in one plant (2 years) then converted to a LMXT in another (further 18-24 months).

Also, will have a permanently fitted Aeromed suite.

Lockheed's Plan To Bring Its Version Of The Airbus A330 Tanker To America (Updated) (thedrive.com)

Has the USAF ever bought second hand tankers? can't see this being a goer

The price of a 2005(ish) 777-300ER is about $40M, conversion to a freighter about another $30M, so about $70M in all.

Problem being hardening the wiring and ARINC data-bus to the required military standard, which I presume would then need some sort of recertification. Once you add in the AAR certification I’m not sure it would still be such a bargain.

There is also the issue of how much space it takes up. Boeing made a big thing of the wingspan of the MRTT compared to the KC-46 and the issues it raised - and the 777-300ER has a 4m greater wingspan than the MRTT and over 14m greater than the KC-10 it’s intended to replace. Then there’s pavement loading, runway length etc.

Different program, the KC-X program was a KC-135 replacement program which was always going to be a "smaller" aircraft. The MRTT did not get any extra bonus points for being larger that what the spec really called for. The KC-Y program, now seeming called the Bridge Tanker program was always going to be a bit larger than the KC-X tanker, and is likely a better fit for the MRTT or 777 sized aircraft. I do agree that Boeing will likely tout that it has more capacity and size is not an issue for this one.

S89,

Not sure if that is still true. The original plan was X was the KC-135 replacement, Y was the KC-10 replacement and Z was awaiting definition.

Latest stories have Y now being very much an run-on of X, which is why Boeing is rumoured to be pushing for follow on KC-46 orders and Z being either a stealth tactical tanker or a mix of a large MRTT/777 size tanker with stealthy UAV adjuncts (e.g. MQ-25) to ferry fuel forward to the combat zone in the Pacific.

Initial "sought for" request reflects that.

https://sam.gov/opp/df2d170039c44898...a6dac295d/view

"....The Air Force is seeking companies that have the capability to deliver approximately 140-160 Commercial Derivative Tanker Aircraft—at a rate of 12 to 15 per year—to supplement the Air Force Tanker Aircraft fleet at the end of KC-46A production, and bridge the gap to the next Tanker recapitalization phase. The Commercial Derivative Aircraft must be operational by 2029.

The Air Force is still finalizing the requirements for this acquisition. However, the baseline for aircraft capability will be based on the requirements from phase one of tanker recapitalization with subsequent and emerging requirements as defined by the Air Force...."

Thanks for the clarification ORAC. It does seem to be a moving target, and actual requirements are still to be determined, and if bigger will be better. Guess the final offload requirements will dictate if Boeing offers a KC-46 or a 777 based bid.

Even if they could do it for half the cost. There are no votes in it from the senate. To pork their electorate with jobs, for the new build.

Boeing unveild BWb concept
 

Twitter

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....24f4a9858.jpeg
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b2937d84b.jpeg

wow!

that looks easy to build and to bring into service ;) - considering they can't get a 767 to work properly without years of effort would you buy this dream machine?

So, all aircraft design should be frozen in the here and now? I don't quite get what you're saying - of course no one is going to buy it as a conference display model.

Boeing is struggling with both the 'here' and the 'now' bits. I guess when they get that nailed down again they can look to the future again but for now they have been reigning-in even the previously planned near-future. Boeing is not what it was.

Purely in the interests of accuracy, they have managed to get 1,271 Boeing 767s working "properly", what they haven't been able to do is design and build a Remote Vision System (RVS) that works on the KC-46. RVS 2.0 is out there and being tested, but after nearly a decade of broken promises and piss-poor performance, the Air Force is going to take a lot of persuading the fix is in. The RVS 2.0 program has already had a 19 month slip to Military Flight Release, so it's not an auspicious start. Publicly quoted numbers state that Boeing charged the DOD $4.9B (with a B) for the KC-46 Program, and have subsequently paid an additional $5B from internal funds to fux the fix-up. Not exactly business leading numbers.