Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Over the summer, Boeing and the Air Force outfitted a KC-46 with the new cameras that will be used as part of the RVS 2.0 sensor suite while at the same time retaining its legacy cameras, Burns said. It then flew that tanker from the Pacific Northwest down to California, giving a split-screen comparison between imagery from the old and new camera suite.
“Everyone really wanted to stress those cameras and see what they look like. And as you can see looking at the baseline system and the new RVS 2.0 cameras, the dynamic range of these cameras is phenomenal,” he said as the video played for reporters. Burns pointed to footage where blown-out imagery from RVS 1.0 looks crisp and clear with the new camera suite. “They’re able to adapt to that changing environment,” he said.
bobinthecar wrote:
INFINITI329 wrote:bobinthecar wrote:
I assume the F-15 was in a position to divert
LyleLanley wrote:Avatar2go wrote:Even acknowledging all this, though, the article is complementary of the KC-46 from all perspectives, including boomers. It has a significant flaw in the RVS and that is not disputed by anyone. But overall, the aircraft is a major improvement.
Boeing disputed that the RVS was flawed for years. But at least there's hope: with 1.5 the cameras will be digitally aligned versus toed-in. Supposedly this will greatly reduce eye-strain. I would've thought an upgraded IMU to get our full AR envelope back would be included in 1.5, but nothing yet. Time will tell if it makes it with 2.0 or remains truncated.
If I may point out, many of the boomers who are complimentary are former 135 bubbas (including the guys from the article), whose previous aircraft - apart from cockpit displays and engines - was straight outta the stone age. It's understandable why they'd be impressed by the ability to make fire, but also important for context to what they say. Read what they're happy with in the article: ALAS and an autopilot that doesn't try to kill them or their receivers. Former KC-10 folks are less impressed, as this is stuff we've had since day one, before the A-team and ALF were on tv. 40 years later, 'pong' technology like that still impresses the 135 guys. We can do better. I just want to see what I'm doing without having to scroll between 15 different day scenes and 5 night scenes and have others tell me it's great.
Stitch wrote:An atomic bomb is quieter than a KC-135R.
Do not believe I have heard a KC-10, but I could believe the KC-46A is quieter since it has one less engine, if nothing else.
Ha! You've never heard a KC-135A, I presume! Those babies were so loud, they had to put metal rings (band aids) on the outside of the aft fuselage to keep the insanely high engine noise from ripping the fuselage apart. They're still there, by the way. THAT is loud. The R models are truly whisper jets.
The KC-46 is a little quieter than the KC-10, but nowhere near as quiet as a KC-135R. Engine noise has more to do with bypass ratio and other design aspects than # of engines.
Avatar2go wrote:Brings the KC-46 order total to 124 of the 179 total. Not sure how many have been delivered thus far.
firemansparky wrote:Avatar2go wrote:Brings the KC-46 order total to 124 of the 179 total. Not sure how many have been delivered thus far.
According to this article, the Air Force has 128 under contract, of which 68 have been delivered and are in use. In addition, Boeing is under contract for 10 additional frames; 6 for Japan, of which 2 have been delivered, and 4 for Israel.
https://www.militarytimes.com/air/2023/ ... re-kc-46s/
GalaxyFlyer wrote:As a DAL friend said about going to MD-80 school: the DC-9 bubbas thought it was the Starship Enterprise, while the B757 guys wondered how it ever got certified. When we got the FMS-800 in the C-5, couldn’t believe it—a memory stick, no more typing lat/long coordinates out of the FLIP pages.
JayinKitsap wrote:In Air Force contracts, what are the limitations on doing a follow on buy sole sourced. I'm looking at whether there are advantages and disadvantages with the KC-46. I know in Construction there are caviots with prior unit pricing that binds the contractor to that prior unit price x a standardized inflation factor. Could the AF bind Boeing into KC-X pricing x the similar escalation they are doing on the current lots in the KC-X contract, rolled over past the program of record which I am sure is important, but it seems like many programs ordered well past the record amount. The C-17 comes to mind. It might be coming with the P-8, they are getting close.
JayinKitsap wrote:On the KC-10 thread it mentioned the Cobham WARP pods for the wing drogue's. Has Cobham finally got their FAA certification? It's been years since this issue surfaced
JayinKitsap wrote:On the KC-10 thread it mentioned the Cobham WARP pods for the wing drogue's. Has Cobham finally got their FAA certification? It's been years since this issue surfaced
747classic wrote:date of issuance : Sept 4 2028
Revelation wrote:747classic wrote:date of issuance : Sept 4 2028
I presume that's a typo and should be 2018.
747classic wrote:Question : Since when are military sub-systems FAA certified ?
bikerthai wrote:747classic wrote:Question : Since when are military sub-systems FAA certified ?
Not sure about the Military Sub-system, but the original Wedgetail was certified via FAA and Austrailian regulatory agency as rhe USAF was not involved. Back in the 2000?
Fast forward to the new US E-7 configuration, I believe the FAA and USAF will be involved this time. The FAA certification is not necessarily the functionality of the military equipment but rather how the equipment impacts the flight characteristics of the airplane systems.
bt
par13del wrote:then yeah, this should be another boondoggle which Boeing will catch and should go online in 20 years when the replacement goes out to RFP.
texl1649 wrote:It sounds like the USAF is finally quite satisfied with RVS 2.0.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/02 ... on-system/
So, that's nice.
Galaxy5007 wrote:There are several jets that were assumed to be 2021 models that are actually USAF 2011 serials. From what I gather, the contract for the FY11 models had to be delivered by a certain date, so with the original builds not in any shape to be accepted by the USAF, they reserialed the following as 2011's instead of 2018s.
18-46057 is 11-46057 McGuire
18-46058 is 11-46058 Seymour-Johnson
18-46059 is 11-46059 Altus
18-46060 is 11-46060 McGuire
To add to the fun, several 2019 models were reserialized as 2015 models
19-46066 is 15-46066 Seymour-Johnson
19-46067 is 15-46067 McConnell
19-46068 is 15-46068 Seymour-Johnson
19-46069 is 15-46069 McGuire
19-46070 is 15-46070 McGuire
The last 19 model is 19-46071 and is correct
For some stupid reason to put the cherry on top of everything...
15-46007 is now 19-46007.
Source is AMC Maintenance Database to verify these serials. I was skeptical when I heard a guy at Seymour-Johnson talking about it being a 2011 tail, but he was right!
RobertoMugabe wrote:I think the follow on amount is too low to continue to recapitalize the 135 fleet,
RobertoMugabe wrote:Air Force looking to cancel KC-Y competition, order 75 additional KC-46 on top of initial 179 on contract with Boeing: https://www.airandspaceforces.com/usaf- ... th-future/
Under this plan, the Air Force will focus efforts on a low-visibility tanker over traditional tanker aircraft. I think the follow on amount is too low to continue to recapitalize the 135 fleet, while the new work to procure a stealth tanker is too slow to provide what the Air Force needs in a timely manner, or provide something to adequately substitute the tanking capacity of the KC-10, but this sounds like the most politically palatable option the Air Force can come up with without threatening program schedule even more.
Hunter said the Air Force consulted with Boeing and Lockheed Martin on when they could deliver new tankers after Boeing finishes its current contract for 179 KC-46s. Boeing could produce an uprated KC-46 by 2032 and Lockheed could provide an “LMXT” tanker, based on the Airbus A330, by 2034. By that time, USAF doesn’t want to be buying traditional tankers anymore, Hunter said.
A fresh quality issue with the center fuel tank of the 767 freighter and KC-46 tanker is bedeviling Boeing, illustrating the ongoing fragility inside its supply chain and adding to the list of production obstacles standing in the way of reaching a regular jetliner delivery tempo.
The supplier, which changed ownership from Triumph Group to Daher last year, disclosed to Boeing that cleaning and paint adhesion testing had not been followed before the center wing tank structure was shipped to Boeing for final assembly of the 767 variants, according to two people familiar with the issue.
While not considered an immediate safety concern, improperly painted and primed fuel tank structure can flake off and clog fuel filters and gum up the system that feeds the aircraft’s engines.
Revelation wrote:A fresh quality issue with the center fuel tank of the 767 freighter and KC-46 tanker is bedeviling Boeing, illustrating the ongoing fragility inside its supply chain and adding to the list of production obstacles standing in the way of reaching a regular jetliner delivery tempo.
The supplier, which changed ownership from Triumph Group to Daher last year, disclosed to Boeing that cleaning and paint adhesion testing had not been followed before the center wing tank structure was shipped to Boeing for final assembly of the 767 variants, according to two people familiar with the issue.
While not considered an immediate safety concern, improperly painted and primed fuel tank structure can flake off and clog fuel filters and gum up the system that feeds the aircraft’s engines.
Ref: https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-prod ... nter-tank/
stratable wrote:This kinda stuff is just incomprehensible. It is not like Daher is a small component manufacturer operating out of some warehouse. It is hard to understand how essential production processes, including real time monitoring and quality control, can be so poorly executed for such high value contracts.
bikerthai wrote:stratable wrote:This kinda stuff is just incomprehensible. It is not like Daher is a small component manufacturer operating out of some warehouse. It is hard to understand how essential production processes, including real time monitoring and quality control, can be so poorly executed for such high value contracts.
Here's a scenario that is easy to comprehend. As these company ramp up from the COVID slow down and begin to hire new workers again, FUBAR happens because of insufficient training or just by human nature, Bubba decides to take a short cut.
Expect more of these types off issue as Boeing and others around the supply change hire thousands of new workers to ramp up production.
bt
747classic wrote:bikerthai wrote:stratable wrote:This kinda stuff is just incomprehensible. It is not like Daher is a small component manufacturer operating out of some warehouse. It is hard to understand how essential production processes, including real time monitoring and quality control, can be so poorly executed for such high value contracts.
Here's a scenario that is easy to comprehend. As these company ramp up from the COVID slow down and begin to hire new workers again, FUBAR happens because of insufficient training or just by human nature, Bubba decides to take a short cut.
Expect more of these types off issue as Boeing and others around the supply change hire thousands of new workers to ramp up production.
bt
But Boeing will be more involved in this kind of ramp up issues, because production was not only reduced due COVID, but also due all isues with the 737MAX, 787, etc.
The experience drain issue will be more prone in US based companies ( just trow them out, together with the experience, we will hire new, cheaper ones later. ).
In Europe a lot of experienced workers kept their jobs during COVID, due government support and tighter lay-off procedures.
stratable wrote:I am wondering what options Congress (?) has here to force Boeing into compliance
stratable wrote:I am wondering what options Congress (?) has here to force Boeing into compliance (given that this is not the first major issue with the KC46).
stratable wrote:Or what Congress could be stipulating for future contracts, maybe having two separate manufacturing lines for essential equipment like this (at the expense of cost efficiency)?
bikerthai wrote:RobertoMugabe wrote:I think the follow on amount is too low to continue to recapitalize the 135 fleet,
The article mentioned the requirement for 150 KC-Y tankers. So the 75 may just be this lot buy with additional lot(s) to come.
bt
Avatar2go wrote:I think they realized they would have a production gap between KC-46 and KC-Y, which would ultimately lower tanker numbers due to attrition. So they do this 75 buy of existing KC-46 to prevent that. It also buys more time for the remainder of KC-Y to be finalized. But they said that KC-Y will also now include less development, as they focus those efforts on KC-Z.
“We have come to the determination that the kind of KC-X, -Y, -Z strategy that was established in the 2009-2010 timeframe is no longer fit for … meeting the air refueling needs of the joint force in the 2030s and beyond,” Hunter told reporters at the AFA Warfare Symposium.
Revelation wrote:Fine, yet https://www.airandspaceforces.com/hunte ... th-future/ says:“We have come to the determination that the kind of KC-X, -Y, -Z strategy that was established in the 2009-2010 timeframe is no longer fit for … meeting the air refueling needs of the joint force in the 2030s and beyond,” Hunter told reporters at the AFA Warfare Symposium.
I take them at their word, and no longer am thinking in terms of XYZ. They now use the ‘five-year KC-135 recapitalization effort' verbiage.
They now say that having a competition will result in a production gap, i.e. there won't be a competition because no one wants that production gap and the KC-46 will get the remaining orders for "traditional tankers" i.e the "KC-135 recapitalization".
KC-Y was thought of as a 150 aircraft purchase. They are saying they want to keep it to 75 for now and evaluate later via "analysis of alternatives" if they will buy the remaining 75 or if the "accelerated" NGAS "future, survivable" tanker is a viable option or not.
Personally, I have a hard time seeing this other than Boeing getting contracts for another 150 KC-46s. TFA says the current contract's last year is FY27. A bump of 75 tankers at 15/year is another five years till FY32. Therefore the all-new survivable tanker would need to be a reality in FY33. I mean it took Boeing eight years from selection to first delivery of KC-46, and they started with a plane that was already flying and had served as a tanker before. It seems far more likely NGAS won't be a thing by FY33 and they'll sign for another 75 running out till FY38. They will still be able to point at the need to retire KC-135s regardless of the status of NGAS.
Avatar2go wrote:It's more an evolution, I think. KC-Z was always meant to be a radical departure from the traditional tanker concept. But they have a dilemma in the time it will take to reach production. So KC-Y is being redefined. It was always meant as a filler or bridge effort. Now it is becoming partly, and perhaps fully, an extension of KC-X.
Revelation wrote:My real question is, was this ever a chance for A330MRTT to get back into the game, as so many seemed to hope it was?
Revelation wrote:(One) can make a good case that it should be after Boeing's ongoing foobars on KC-46.
Revelation wrote:My cynical side feels the fix was in right from the start and the only outcome was going to be Boeing getting all the business, and events are tracking right along that path so it's hard to shake that feeling.
Revelation wrote:My real question is, was this ever a chance for A330MRTT to get back into the game, as so many seemed to hope it was? You can make a good case that it should be after Boeing's ongoing foobars on KC-46. OTOH, Airbus itself said it was out after the KC-46 award. OTOH, LM came back in later. You can IMO make a good case that having two suppliers rather than one is a good idea. I still feel A330 is probably too much tanker for the job, but maybe losing KC-10 should make it easier to justify something bigger than KC-46? Yet now things are lining up for Boeing to get 179+75 orders and probably another 75 too.
My cynical side feels the fix was in right from the start and the only outcome was going to be Boeing getting all the business, and events are tracking right along that path so it's hard to shake that feeling.
Avatar2go wrote:I've said this many times, but I think it's still difficult for some to accept that the MRTT could be the optimal solution for most smaller militaries, but not for the US with a large distributed air force, requiring hundreds of tankers. It's just a different logistics problem. But it seems counterintuitive that the large tanker best fits the small force, while the small tanker (in numbers) best fits the larger force.