Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
747classic wrote:My point is : For the JASDF adding KC-46 tankers into a present KC-767J and E-767 fleet is a relative expensive deal because this means adding another sub type, with large operational differences, increasing the operating costs.
If Boeing is unwilling to trade in KC-767J's or is unable to produce new KC-767J's, both for a reasonable price , I would have gone for a far more economical and more logical alternative :
Ordering a few additional converted 767-200ER* tankers, powered by CF6-80C2B4F or -B6F engines from IAI. The STC for a 767-200MMTT is already certified for the Colombia Air Force and can be adapted for a KC-767J look alike, even refuelling pods are possible..
Conversion costs at IAI are a fraction of Boeing conversions, also the flexibility to solve unforseen issues is exceptional at IAI.(smaller company with short internal communication lines).
*= late model 767-200ER aircraft.
AviationAddict wrote:747classic wrote:My point is : For the JASDF adding KC-46 tankers into a present KC-767J and E-767 fleet is a relative expensive deal because this means adding another sub type, with large operational differences, increasing the operating costs.
If Boeing is unwilling to trade in KC-767J's or is unable to produce new KC-767J's, both for a reasonable price , I would have gone for a far more economical and more logical alternative :
Ordering a few additional converted 767-200ER* tankers, powered by CF6-80C2B4F or -B6F engines from IAI. The STC for a 767-200MMTT is already certified for the Colombia Air Force and can be adapted for a KC-767J look alike, even refuelling pods are possible..
Conversion costs at IAI are a fraction of Boeing conversions, also the flexibility to solve unforseen issues is exceptional at IAI.(smaller company with short internal communication lines).
*= late model 767-200ER aircraft.
When dealing with the military cost isn't always the most important factor. The JASDF might feel the KC-46 offers strategic advantages the KC-767 can not.
Revelation wrote:Some good news: it has got one of the two required FAA certifications: http://ksn.com/2017/12/21/boeing-kc-46- ... -aircraft/ says:
Yet we learned a few weeks ago ( https://www.upi.com/Boeing-will-miss-it ... 512409722/ ) that the program would be missing its goal of delivering by the end of the year and ( http://aviationweek.com/aviation-week-s ... rocky-year ) that it will be taking yet another write down ( $329 million ).
par13del wrote:A large number of frames, the silver lining if they execute properly after certification is that the Air Force will get a number of frames quickly to speed integration into the fleet, from pilot training to facility management.
Revelation wrote:Absolutely true, but 747classic's proposal makes a lot of sense. I wonder if Japan considered going that path, or went straight for the "strategic advantages" approach.
strfyr51 wrote:the Japanese gave away or revealed technical secrets about previous US designed weapon systems because they thought they owned the technical aspects of what they bought. The US didn't see it that way so now they're not getting in the programs anymore to their satisfaction. That's why the P1 and not the P8A
bikerthai wrote:strfyr51 wrote:the Japanese gave away or revealed technical secrets about previous US designed weapon systems because they thought they owned the technical aspects of what they bought. The US didn't see it that way so now they're not getting in the programs anymore to their satisfaction. That's why the P1 and not the P8A
Boeing is pitching the P-8 to Japan. The would not do so if they did not get permission from the US government. Now, whether they are pitching the I or A version, I do not know. My sense is that either version would be better than than the P-1. But Japan has invest so much in the P-1 and C-2 that it would be difficult to give those up now.
bt
strfyr51 wrote:the Japanese gave away or revealed technical secrets about previous US designed weapon systems because they thought they owned the technical aspects of what they bought. The US didn't see it that way so now they're not getting in the programs anymore to their satisfaction. That's why the P1 and not the P8A
747classic wrote:
If Boeing is unwilling to trade in KC-767J's or is unable to produce new KC-767J's, both for a reasonable price , I would have gone for a far more economical and more logical alternative :
Boeing is still working to fix three deficiencies related to the refueling process of the KC-46 Pegasus that must be resolved before the troubled tanker can enter service.
WIederling wrote:strfyr51 wrote:the Japanese gave away or revealed technical secrets about previous US designed weapon systems because they thought they owned the technical aspects of what they bought. The US didn't see it that way so now they're not getting in the programs anymore to their satisfaction. That's why the P1 and not the P8A
anythings specific you could bring up on this?
strfyr51 wrote:WIederling wrote:strfyr51 wrote:the Japanese gave away or revealed technical secrets about previous US designed weapon systems because they thought they owned the technical aspects of what they bought. The US didn't see it that way so now they're not getting in the programs anymore to their satisfaction. That's why the P1 and not the P8A
anythings specific you could bring up on this?
I read it in Aviation Week.. Quite a while ago a Japanese officer (I Think an Admiral made the comment) If they bought the program?
Then they felt like they "owned" the related Data and they could do with it as they pleased.
I didn't agree with that, and evidently neither did Boeing or Lockheed. thus their C1 and P1 were built out of necessity because they were Not going to get the tech data to do with as they pleased.
strfyr51 wrote:WIederling wrote:strfyr51 wrote:the Japanese gave away or revealed technical secrets about previous US designed weapon systems because they thought they owned the technical aspects of what they bought. The US didn't see it that way so now they're not getting in the programs anymore to their satisfaction. That's why the P1 and not the P8A
anythings specific you could bring up on this?
I read it in Aviation Week.. Quite a while ago a Japanese officer (I Think an Admiral made the comment) If they bought the program?
Then they felt like they "owned" the related Data and they could do with it as they pleased.
I didn't agree with that, and evidently neither did Boeing or Lockheed. thus their C1 and P1 were built out of necessity because they were Not going to get the tech data to do with as they pleased.
KarelXWB wrote:As per USAF, first delivery is now due in late 2018:
https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status ... 8355247104
This was expected. While FAA certification may be imminent, the USAF will not accept the current boom design.
The top issues slowing progress are the same as they have been for the past year—achieving airworthiness certifications and getting through flight tests, Grabowski said.
Although the FAA late last year granted Boeing an amended type certification for the tanker derivative of the 767-2C, the company still has not obtained a crucial supplemental type certification for all the military and aerial refueling appendages that turn that 767-2C into a KC-46.
And Boeing has yet to correct a major problem: a tendency of the tanker’s rigid refueling boom to scrape the surface of receiving aircraft. This is of particular concern for stealth aircraft, such as the B-2 bomber, F-22 or F-35 fighters, if the boom causes damage to low-observable stealth coatings.
The industry-government team currently is collecting flight test data to determine how the rate and severity of these incidents compare with international norms, Grabowski previously told Aviation Week. This data will inform a decision on whether changes to the remote camera used for aerial refueling are needed, expected this month.
par13del wrote:So which international countries are operating Stealth a/c and encountering refueling boom issues from international tankers which will provide these statistics for the US Air Force to evaluate. (international norms)
kanban wrote:I find this whole issue odd... refueling in the air is no smooth sailing, air turbulence is bound to have both planes bouncing around and more or different cameras aren't going to prevent it.. I don't think where the operator is or what kind of controller is used makes any difference. So what if the planes with fragile coating used drogue refueling? and only the heavies use the boom.
kanban wrote:I don't see why deliveries should be delayed while they find a way to teflon coat the receiving ports and put a sponge ball on the boom. Besides are we actually using any "stealth" aircraft where a radar ghost has any actual impact on a mission? It all smacks of political positioning.
Stitch wrote:The issue is not confined to just stealth aircraft so the data does not need to be only from air forces that operate such aircraft. So I expect them to look at NATO and other allied fleets.
par13del wrote:....so the reason for them mentioning international data in this request for data is?
kanban wrote:Where's TopBoom these days? maybe he could shed some sanity on the issues.
par13del wrote:Personally, I smell a rat, after all, this is the same Air Force that screwed up the tanker RFP multiple times, so........
Ozair wrote:... <boom vs drogue>
scbriml wrote:kanban wrote:Where's TopBoom these days? maybe he could shed some sanity on the issues.
After all his endless digs at Airbus's tanker, he's probably too embarrassed to post.
kc135topboom wrote:
Nope, the Airbus tanker is a non-issue for the USAF now.
The scrapping issue is only a problem with stealth airplanes, the B-2, F-22, and F-35.
I might add the A-330MRTT has not refueled stealth airplanes yet so we don't know if they will also have a scrapping issue, or not. They will Boom refuel them eventually.
kc135topboom wrote:I might add the A-330MRTT has not refueled stealth airplanes yet so we don't know if they will also have a scrapping issue, or not. They will Boom refuel them eventually.
Stitch wrote:As I understand it, if the "scrape rate" of the KC-46A is no worse than contemporaries, the USAF has to pay for the modifications. If it is worse, then Boeing pays.
kanban wrote:I find this whole issue odd... refueling in the air is no smooth sailing, air turbulence is bound to have both planes bouncing around and more or different cameras aren't going to prevent it.. I don't think where the operator is or what kind of controller is used makes any difference. So what if the planes with fragile coating used drogue refueling? and only the heavies use the boom.
I don't see why deliveries should be delayed while they find a way to teflon coat the receiving ports and put a sponge ball on the boom. Besides are we actually using any "stealth" aircraft where a radar ghost has any actual impact on a mission? It all smacks of political positioning.
Where's TopBoom these days? maybe he could shed some sanity on the issues.
kc135topboom wrote:But you have to ask yourself why isn't this an issue with the KC-135? The KC-135 and KC-10 have been refueling stealth airplanes for over 35 years now, beginning with the F-117, and scraping has not been a serious issue.
So, my guess is the issue is a combination of the camera system and the Boom flight controls, as well as a blocked vision issue. An issue I see is the KC-46 Boom fuel tube is a lot thicker just before the nozzle than the KC-135 or KC-10 Booms. That could be an issue of blocking the receptacle from view at some Boom elevations or azimuth offsets. If that is the main issue, then a major redesign of the Boom will be needed, such as narrowing the lower portion of the Boom fuel tube. But, fuel pressure would need to increase slightly to maintain the 1200 gpm requirement. This would be a problem with smaller receivers, not a problem with large receivers. Then again, no fighter can accept a 1200 gpm transfer rate, so it won't be a major issue.
Revelation wrote:As you mention, it's hard to get the larger flow rate without causing some amount of vision blocking.
bikerthai wrote:It's time to design an automated engagement system for the boom receptacle. We all know the AI system has a much quicker response than a human. At least get a AI assist system going. You can start with a visual system and switch to an RF system later.
Stitch wrote:As I understand it, if the "scrape rate" of the KC-46A is no worse than contemporaries, the USAF has to pay for the modifications. If it is worse, then Boeing pays.
Revelation wrote:It's strange if B sees resolution of the payment issue for this issue important enough to delay shipping product. You would think that with all the airframes they've paid out of pocket to assemble they would be working to find a way to bypass the payment issue and get product moving.
Stitch wrote:Stitch wrote:As I understand it, if the "scrape rate" of the KC-46A is no worse than contemporaries, the USAF has to pay for the modifications. If it is worse, then Boeing pays.Revelation wrote:It's strange if B sees resolution of the payment issue for this issue important enough to delay shipping product. You would think that with all the airframes they've paid out of pocket to assemble they would be working to find a way to bypass the payment issue and get product moving.
The USAF will not accept the KC-46A into service until the issue has been addressed. Who pays for addressing it is not the hold-up.
Revelation wrote:Yet one outcome of 'data gathering' could be 'there is no problem to be addressed', if I understand correctly.
kc135topboom wrote:I might add the A-330MRTT has not refueled stealth airplanes yet so we don't know if they will also have a scrapping issue, or not.
Stitch wrote:par13del wrote:....so the reason for them mentioning international data in this request for data is?
More data points than just the KC-135 and KC-10 fleet? I could see them asking Italy and Japan for information on the KC-767A and KC-767J since those are also 767s.
As I understand it, if the "scrape rate" of the KC-46A is no worse than contemporaries, the USAF has to pay for the modifications. If it is worse, then Boeing pays.
brindabella wrote:And yes, where is TopBoom when we need him?
cheers
Ozair wrote:Drogue refuelling has a slower flow rate. Tactically it means the receiver spends more time pulling gas from the tanker, and spending gas doing it, compared to a boom receiver. Conversely a boom can refuel only one aircraft at a time. There is also a difference in the skills required, with a drogue requiring the pilot to make the connection while a boom has the operator make the connection. The USAF is set on the boom and their fighter fleet doesn't have a drogue attachment to refuel from anyway.
Stitch wrote:Revelation wrote:Yet one outcome of 'data gathering' could be 'there is no problem to be addressed', if I understand correctly.
That is not my understanding of the situation. To my knowledge it has to be addressed prior to the USAF accepting delivery, but this data collection will determine who (in the end) pays for that addressing.
I would expect Boeing is working to resolve the issue now on their own dime and if the USAF is later determined to be responsible for paying for it, Boeing will bill them (likely as part of future KC-46A purchases).