Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
par13del wrote:Now the Air Force will be paying for some portions of the update / replacement of the RVS....
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/05/air ... 0the%20fix.
JayinKitsap wrote:The KC-46 has now done the longest endurance tanker flight, 24.2 hours. I'm sort of surprised that we didn't do 36 hour mission tests back in the hot parts of the cold war. What are the longest ferry flight lengths, and say B-52 flights.
https://www.airforcemag.com/kc-46-sets- ... ur-flight/
Avatar2go wrote:par13del wrote:Now the Air Force will be paying for some portions of the update / replacement of the RVS....
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/05/air ... 0the%20fix.
Sounds like they are treating the panoramic system as more of an upgrade than a fix. Boeing will pay for the development and surrounding infrastructure, including displays and station redesign. USAF will pay for the production external cameras for each aircraft. That seems like a fair resolution as the improvement in capability will be substantial.
With the boom system, there was an issue of non-usability with some aircraft and some conditions. That obviously is a significant issue and an intolerable deficiency. With the panoramic system, the issue was the range at which aircraft identification could be made. But not an issue for aircraft being able to use the drogue refueling systems. So it may have been tolerable, but at least now will be addressed.
The KC-46’s panoramic sensor suite comprises three line replaceable units, or LRUs, which provide video to three panoramic displays used by boom operators to see aircraft flying towards the KC-46. Currently, each LRU has a single long wave infrared camera. The upgraded panoramic suite will add a electro-optical camera to each LRU as well as replace the existing infrared sensor with the same, more modern system that will be used as part of the Remote Vision System, Morrison said.
“The Air Force will purchase the new panoramic sensors to support fleet retrofit and to provide to Boeing, as Government Furnished Equipment, in support of production,” she said. “While the panoramic displays will remain the same, the improved panoramic sensors and the ability to display panoramic imagery on the upgraded primary display will result in significant improvements in capabilities.”
If the upgrades to RVS 2.0 or the panoramic sensor suite do not end up having the intended effect, the Air Force will be responsible for paying for future modifications to the system, as the RVS 2.0 design approved last month is now considered the official design specification for the system.
However, the Air Force believes “the approved RVS 2.0 design, to include the panoramic sensor upgrades, provides the lowest technical risk toward meeting all requirements and resolving deficiencies,” Morrison said.
JayinKitsap wrote:The KC-46 has now done the longest endurance tanker flight, 24.2 hours.
https://www.airforcemag.com/kc-46-sets- ... ur-flight/
LyleLanley wrote:A picture is worth a thousand words, but the current panoramic system is an absolute PoS and needs to be replaced. You know those old TV sets, where you see the cyclic lines that move from top to bottom? No kidding, that happens on the panoramic. Unbelievable.
Whether they call it a fix or an upgrade is because of contract rules and 'who pays for what?'. But the deeper issue at-play has to do with equipment redundancy and operation according to both FAA and Air Force rules. Boeing says they're delivering to contract and the USAF shakes its head at how deeply Boeing is spec'ing everything exactly "to contract" because of penny-pinching, instead of tailoring to its largest and most important customer. If Boeing put the same energy (read: money) into engineering that they've put into their contract compliance and legal teams, we wouldn't be in this position right now.
Avatar2go wrote:The cyclic lines are due to differences in scan rates between the display and the recording device. They are not apparent to the naked eye.
Also the issue has nothing whatever to do with penny-pinching. In fact the opposite, Boeing has paid for every major design change except the boom force adjustment, which was a USAF error.
In the article referenced in the above comment, the USAF talks about why program issues occurred and the unsuitability of the fixed-cost contract. The true driver was differing expectations between Boeing and the USAF, about what the KC-46 was to be, based on lack of adequate design review. Both Boeing and USAF played a role in that.
LyleLanley wrote:
As a current and qualified KC-46 boom operator, the lines are visible to the naked eye. I’m not speaking of wearing the shades, either. I’d take a video of it, but that wouldn’t really help
We’re just gonna have to disagree with our apparently different definitions of penny-pinching, but my contention is that if Boeing hadn’t gone cheap-spec on everything aft of the cockpit; I.e. RVS, pano, and other issues, the 46 would be in much better shape and wouldn’t still be years from IOC. Penny wise and pound foolish. Just like some other notable Boeing programs of late… It’s not all Boeing’s fault, but to say a world-leading corporation like Boeing was outmaneuvered by a bunch of AF blue suiters is wishful thinking and indicative of denial.
Avatar2go wrote:General Von Ovost said that she would have liked to have contract leverage to negotiate for changes, but even the boom force required special actions to get around the original contract.
par13del wrote:Shocked that a general seems to think that a fixed price contract is only there to protect the tax payors from the possible corruption of Boeing, the special actions are required to protect the tax payors and Boeing from the possible corruption of the Air Force and its partners who would choose to go outside of what they represented to the people that they needed / wanted and was thus funded. Anyone ever hear the tax payers being blamed for not putting up enough money?
Fixed price contracts unfortunately are needed because corruption does not care which side of the political or economic divide one resides on....
Avatar2go wrote:par13del wrote:Shocked that a general seems to think that a fixed price contract is only there to protect the tax payors from the possible corruption of Boeing, the special actions are required to protect the tax payors and Boeing from the possible corruption of the Air Force and its partners who would choose to go outside of what they represented to the people that they needed / wanted and was thus funded. Anyone ever hear the tax payers being blamed for not putting up enough money?
Fixed price contracts unfortunately are needed because corruption does not care which side of the political or economic divide one resides on....
I believe their position is that the fixed price contract is not appropriate for projects that involve substantial development. But is still appropriate for production.
The U.S. Air Force has confirmed that it is still not using its fleet of KC-46A Pegasus aerial refueling tankers to support combat operations, and will not for the foreseeable future except in response to "emergency need." This is despite the service recently touting that these aircraft can now "support 97 percent of the daily Joint Force air refueling demands" as part of what it calls an Interim Capability Release plan intended to help move the long-troubled jets toward a truly operational state.
keesje wrote:The U.S. Air Force has confirmed that it is still not using its fleet of KC-46A Pegasus aerial refueling tankers to support combat operations, and will not for the foreseeable future except in response to "emergency need." This is despite the service recently touting that these aircraft can now "support 97 percent of the daily Joint Force air refueling demands" as part of what it calls an Interim Capability Release plan intended to help move the long-troubled jets toward a truly operational state.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/k ... hole-story
I assume every effort is made to get the KC46A fully operational and to keep this process out of the new tanker selection process, handle it as two separate topics.
keesje wrote:The U.S. Air Force has confirmed that it is still not using its fleet of KC-46A Pegasus aerial refueling tankers to support combat operations, and will not for the foreseeable future except in response to "emergency need." This is despite the service recently touting that these aircraft can now "support 97 percent of the daily Joint Force air refueling demands" as part of what it calls an Interim Capability Release plan intended to help move the long-troubled jets toward a truly operational state.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/k ... hole-story
I assume every effort is made to get the KC46A fully operational and to keep this process out of the new tanker selection process, handle it as two separate topics.
Avatar2go wrote:Also "emergency need" just means lack of availability of another refueling asset. The KC-46 could step in at any time. As the USAF officials said, you will see them operating in combat theaters during exercises and training, but won't be dispatched there for routine operations.
Avatar2go wrote:The "foreseeable" part is TWZ being disingenuous, as they know the new RVS is being rolled out next year, and will begin factory integration the following year.
kitplane01 wrote:keesje wrote:The U.S. Air Force has confirmed that it is still not using its fleet of KC-46A Pegasus aerial refueling tankers to support combat operations, and will not for the foreseeable future except in response to "emergency need." This is despite the service recently touting that these aircraft can now "support 97 percent of the daily Joint Force air refueling demands" as part of what it calls an Interim Capability Release plan intended to help move the long-troubled jets toward a truly operational state.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/k ... hole-story
I assume every effort is made to get the KC46A fully operational and to keep this process out of the new tanker selection process, handle it as two separate topics.
(Summary) In 2020, the KC-46 was not used for any refueling missions. In 2021, It was allowed to support transport missions, including the ferrying for several types of fighter jets. It is not allowed to support combnat missions, nor are there any plans to do so in the foreseeable future.
(Quotes)
"in 2020 ... that the service was not using the KC-46A for routine combat or non-combat aerial refueling missions"
"In May 2021, the KC-46A was not cleared to operationally support any USTRANSCOM missions..."
"On May 31, 2022... approved... the KC-46As, which the service currently has 59 of in inventory. This authorizes "daily task-able operational use" of these tankers to refuel more Air Force, as well as U.S. Navy and Marine Corps aircraft, "during U.S. Transportation Command-tasked missions."
"The U.S. Air Force has confirmed that it is still not using its fleet of KC-46A Pegasus aerial refueling tankers to support combat operations, and will not for the foreseeable future except in response to "emergency need."
kitplane01 wrote:[quote="Avatar2go]
I believe they spoke to exactly that issue, complete with quote from the USAF officer.
"Whatever the case, the KC-46A remains years away from reaching an official IOC, which will come after the redesigned RVS is determined to be adequate and is actually integrated onto a sufficient number of tankers. As it stands now, that's not expected to occur until at least some time in 2024 at the earliest. It remains unclear when the service may feel comfortable using these tankers to support combat operations when it doesn't absolutely have to.
“Until that visual system is upgraded, AMC does not have a plan to declare this aircraft fully operationally capable,” Air Force Brig. Gen. Ryan Samuelson, the KC-46 Cross-Functional Team lead[/quote][/quote]
scbriml wrote:Imagine how bad things would be if Boeing didn't have all those decades of tanker experience.
Avatar2go wrote:scbriml wrote:Imagine how bad things would be if Boeing didn't have all those decades of tanker experience.
As many here have tried to explain, the KC-46 is not the KC-135, it's significantly more advanced, as requested by the USAF. The decades of experience with the KC-135 won't overlap very much with the KC-46. All the systems are different, airframe is different, boom is different, fuel system is different, avionics are different, certification is different, hardening is different, defenses are different.
kitplane01 wrote:Development started 11 years ago.
First flight was 8 years ago.
First delivered to the air force 3 years ago.
Might be cleared for combat operations in another 3 years "at the earliest".
scbriml wrote:Imagine how bad things would be if Boeing didn't have all those decades of tanker experience.
Stitch wrote:"See! This is what happens when you award a contract to a company without decades of tanker experience!"
kitplane01 wrote:I thought it might be interesting to compare the two programs. I've started their timelines at program start.
KC-46
Development started 11 years ago.
First flight took 3 years after program start
First delivery to the air force took 8 years after program start
Might be cleared for combat operations in 14 years after program start "at the earliest".
A330 MRTT
Development started 18 years ago
First flight took 3 years after program start
First delivery (to the Australian air force) took 7 years after program start
Clear for all operations took 7 years after program start
Avatar2go wrote:kitplane01 wrote:I thought it might be interesting to compare the two programs. I've started their timelines at program start.
KC-46
Development started 11 years ago.
First flight took 3 years after program start
First delivery to the air force took 8 years after program start
Might be cleared for combat operations in 14 years after program start "at the earliest".
A330 MRTT
Development started 18 years ago
First flight took 3 years after program start
First delivery (to the Australian air force) took 7 years after program start
Clear for all operations took 7 years after program start
Second, the A330 MRTT was not fully cleared for Australian operations until 2014, because it too had teething problems. So that is 10 years after program start.
Avatar2go wrote:Third, many of the features of the KC-46 did not appear in the A330 MRTT until the "New Standard" aircraft, which first flew in 2016, and were not delivered for 2 more years, as an evolution of the earlier aircraft. It was also in this time frame that the UK modified a few of their Voyagers for civilian transport certification, similar to the KC-46. So if those are included to get a common basis of comparison, 14 years total.
Avatar2go wrote:Lastly would point out that the KC-46 production rate is higher and has already matched the A330 MRTT production, meaning that airframes are being built while the testing and teething problems are being worked out (concurrency). So it will take longer to retrofit the existing aircraft because there are far more of them to modify.
Avatar2go wrote:kitplane01 wrote:I thought it might be interesting to compare the two programs. I've started their timelines at program start.
KC-46
Development started 11 years ago.
First flight took 3 years after program start
First delivery to the air force took 8 years after program start
Might be cleared for combat operations in 14 years after program start "at the earliest".
A330 MRTT
Development started 18 years ago
First flight took 3 years after program start
First delivery (to the Australian air force) took 7 years after program start
Clear for all operations took 7 years after program start
Some caveats to this analysis. First, most of the technology for the A330 version was derived from the A310 version. Which is somewhat similar to the KC-767 & KC-46 development.
Second, the A330 MRTT was not fully cleared for Australian operations until 2014, because it too had teething problems. So that is 10 years after program start.
Third, many of the features of the KC-46 did not appear in the A330 MRTT until the "New Standard" aircraft, which first flew in 2016, and were not delivered for 2 more years, as an evolution of the earlier aircraft. It was also in this time frame that the UK modified a few of their Voyagers for civilian transport certification, similar to the KC-46. So if those are included to get a common basis of comparison, 14 years total.
Lastly would point out that the KC-46 production rate is higher and has already matched the A330 MRTT production, meaning that airframes are being built while the testing and teething problems are being worked out (concurrency). So it will take longer to retrofit the existing aircraft because there are far more of them to modify.
Avatar2go wrote:I consider them both to be comparable in quality and capability, in final form, but due to large difference in size, they are optimized for different missions. That is the true discriminator.
kitplane01 wrote:I believe that today the A330 MRTT is fully operational in all it's missions, and the KC-46 is not.
kitplane01 wrote:Avatar2go wrote:I consider them both to be comparable in quality and capability, in final form, but due to large difference in size, they are optimized for different missions. That is the true discriminator.
If "in final form" means "once it works" then that's an uninteresting observation.
I believe that today the A330 MRTT is fully operational in all it's missions, and the KC-46 is not.
And yes, there is a size difference.
Does anyone know the price difference between a KC-46 and an MRTT? Price does matter!
JayinKitsap wrote:If only had Boeing executed the KC-46 like they did with the P-8A.
Avatar2go wrote:kitplane01 wrote:Avatar2go wrote:I consider them both to be comparable in quality and capability, in final form, but due to large difference in size, they are optimized for different missions. That is the true discriminator.
If "in final form" means "once it works" then that's an uninteresting observation.
I believe that today the A330 MRTT is fully operational in all it's missions, and the KC-46 is not.
And yes, there is a size difference.
Does anyone know the price difference between a KC-46 and an MRTT? Price does matter!
As you acknowledged, the A330 MRTT began in 2004,which was 18 years ago, and achieved full operational capability in 2017, so that is a period of 13 years. The KC-46 began in 2011, which was 11 years ago, and will reach full operational capability in 2025 (if one includes the modified boom), so that will be 14 years. So I don't see a substantial difference. Both aircraft had developmental issues.
The cost of an A330 MRTT is $300M for a new aircraft, about $240M for a used aircraft conversion. The US full contract cost for a new KC-46, including development, is also about $240M. The unit cost for a new KC-46 is estimated to be around $180M.(from Japan procurement). The Israeli cost for the KC-46 was $300M, but includes a broad parts, support equipment, and services package.
kitplane01 wrote:
Why do you think the airbus a 330 MRTT did not attain full operational capability until 2017? And why do you think the plane had any operational deficiencies before 2017
Avatar2go wrote:kitplane01 wrote:
Why do you think the airbus a 330 MRTT did not attain full operational capability until 2017? And why do you think the plane had any operational deficiencies before 2017
I posted the link to the Australian Defense Ministry statement above.
kitplane01 wrote:
I read that. It does not say the airplane had any deficiency. It reads like the squadron has moved from IOC in 2014 to full OC in 2017. That they completed training and procedures. I see no reason the believe the plane had significant deficiencies in 2014.
The prototype aircraft (MRTT#1) was accepted on 29 December 2011 following refurbishment to remove the extensive suite of flight test instrumentation, repair structural damage, install retrofit modifications, and to complete the interior fit out. In accordance with the commercial settlement, MRTT#1 was handed back to Airbus Defence and Space for use during 2012 for testing of modifications to the military avionics and boom refuelling systems.
Commencement of qualification flight testing was delayed due to additional inspections and repairs to MRTT#1 to correct quality and maintenance deficiencies. Flight testing of the military avionics was completed in October 2012, with ongoing technical investigation of two functions.
Certification of modifications to the boom refuelling system was further delayed due to completion of investigation into the in-flight loss of boom incident in September 2012 on a United Arab Emirates Air Force aircraft being operated by Airbus Defence and Space. Certification (safety) flight testing was completed February 2013.
Qualification (contract compliance) flight testing commenced in March 2013 but was unable to be completed prior to induction of the test aircraft into heavy maintenance in July 2013 due to a number of test anomalies. Flight test resumed in November 2013 with certification and qualification flight test to be conducted through 2014. Completion of boom testing is planned for July 2014.
The ARBS Qualification flight test program was successfully completed in July 2014 with Contractual acceptance of the ARBS achieved in December 2014. FMR is currently forecast for May 2016, 39 months behind the original planned date.
Avatar2go wrote:scbriml wrote:Imagine how bad things would be if Boeing didn't have all those decades of tanker experience.
As many here have tried to explain, the KC-46 is not the KC-135, it's significantly more advanced, as requested by the USAF. The decades of experience with the KC-135 won't overlap very much with the KC-46. All the systems are different, airframe is different, boom is different, fuel system is different, avionics are different, certification is different, hardening is different, defenses are different.