Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Military (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/military/)

- - Aerial Refueling Capability declining… (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/military/137001-aerial-refueling-capability-decliningo.html)

Aerial Refueling Capability declining…

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excargodog (Post 3388833)

https://i.ibb.co/94XmyH6/51-A8-E390-...EFBA729-DD.jpg

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine....-refueling-gap

which of course affects both logistics and direct combat support.

My prediction, AMC and AFMC will continue to screw the pooch and the deficit will continue to grow worse.

If Boeing hadn’t pulled one of their signature business/legal chicanes and gotten the new tanker rebid we wouldn’t be years behind. Having tanked behind everything owned by a coalition force, nothing beats the Airbus tankers. Anybody who has been behind the Brits/Aussies/Canadians on a truly garbage night knows it is an excellent product. Boeing can barely get the KC-46 out of the barn in one piece.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyinthrew (Post 3388880)

Concur. Although the LED lights can be kinda bright on NVDs :o

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyinthrew (Post 3388880)

That's not what happened. Not even close. There are several issues that happened.

During RFP #2, EADS coerced the USAF to change the airfield parameters of the war fighter modeling exercise which was based on a European theater war. Why did Airbus request it? Because the Airbus MRTT is too big to operate out of many of the airfields. The airfields and ramps were much larger than what would normally be found in Europe. This gave the MRTT a big advantage. Using existing airfields, the Airbus MRTT failed a few scenarios the USAF modeled. Second, the USAF lied and said it would cost the same to buy and operate the two airplanes. It is a lie because the Airbus is a much bigger airplane (requiring new hangars everywhere) and the fuel burn would be much higher since it weighs ~80,000lbs more than the 767. Boeing rightfully protested, the GAO agreed. When RFP #3 came, it was based on meeting KC135 specs on a pass-fail basis whereas exceeding the specifications wouldn't get you any additional points. Northrop decided to withdrawal the then Northrop/EADS tanker from the competition. But as the deadline neared, the USAF kept asking if EADS was going to submit a bid. In March of 2010 the USAF inexplicably announced that it was going to extend the bid for an additional 60 days. EADS then reentered the contest knowing that their bigger tanker would be at a disadvantage. The 767 was selected. The best tanker won for the RFP that was drafted.

I've said this a million times and nobody seems to get it. You do not replace a smaller tactical sized tanker (KC-135) which a much bigger Airbus MRTT (wing span bigger than a KC-10)!! You don't have enough ramp space to park all of them; especially in forward environments. And since you can park enough of them at bases, that reduces the number of booms/drogues in the sky and the fuel available.

Additionally, our test boom operators made a big deal about the glare issue with the RVS. Every RVS system has problems with glare. This is nothing new. I wonder if the USAF had selected the MRTT, or if the USAF selects the MRTT as the "bridge" tanker, will the same test boom operators find issues with EADS design? The EADS tanker did run into delays of its own and it lost two refueling booms during testing. That's not a typo. Personally I think our test booms weren't happy without having a window anymore and they came to the realization that the new system is inferior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyinthrew (Post 3388880)

Eh, I’d have to give “best tanker” status to the KC-10, then the L1011, then maybe the VC-10.

Reminds me of an old saying…

That troop could screw up the working parts of an anvil…

Fom the Seattle Times…

Quote:

Boeing gets out the Velcro to patch over another glitch with the Air Force tanker

March 31, 2022 at 7:46 pm Updated April 1, 2022 at 5:34 pm

Quote:

Boeing this month discovered the latest in a long line of glitches on its KC-46 aircraft: Some trim hanging down above the over-wing emergency exit doors prevents them from opening.

Though the KC-46 is designed as a troop transport as well as an air-to-air refueling aircraft, Boeing somehow missed this basic exit flaw in the tanker’s emergency egress system.

Every commercial airplane Boeing designs, including the 767 that is the basic airframe for the KC-46, is tested during certification to make sure all passengers can evacuate in an emergency within 90 seconds.

For this defect-plagued military variant, which entered service in 2019, no such test was run.

“We are carefully examining our processes to determine why this issue was not identified sooner,” said Boeing in response to Seattle Times questions.
https://images.seattletimes.com/wp-c....jpg?d=780x396
The timing of the discovery is awkward.

At a media roundtable last Friday, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told reporters that the Pentagon will likely not allow Airbus to compete for the next tranche of Air Force tankers, as had been expected, but will instead opt to stay with Boeing and ask only for “a modified KC-46.”

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...-force-tanker/

Watching the KC-10 retire is annoying. It’s by far the easiest platform to tank off of. The -135 BDA or MPRS were atrocious and the -46 holds less gas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grumble (Post 3395652)

Eh, I’d have to give “best tanker” status to the KC-10, then the L1011, then maybe the VC-10.

Definitely agree with the KC-10. Best tanker to hit at night too

https://i.ibb.co/2PR4TBL/IMG-6330.jpg
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/08/kc-46a-tanker-still-has-6-category-1-deficiencies-but-fixes-are-in-the-works-usaf-official/

Quote:

“We’re down to six Cat 1 DR’s” said chief of the Air Force’s program office Col. Lee Ottati during the Life Cycle Industry Days conference here, using a shorthand for category 1 deficiency reports.

Category 1 deficiencies indicate a serious problem with an aircraft, which Air Force spokesman Brian Brackens said “are those which if uncorrected may cause death, severe injury, or severe occupational illness; or may cause loss or major damage to a weapon system; or critically restricts the combat readiness capabilities of the using organization; or which would result in a production line stoppage.”Seven category 1 deficiencies were previously listed in a January 2022 report by the Government Accountability Office [PDF], though many were identified prior to that report. One deficiency, an issue with the jet’s flight management system, was downgraded to a category 2 problem in April, Ottati said. The issue will remain open to ensure software fixes are functioning properly, he added, after which the deficiency will be closed out.

Boeing has so far incurred over $7 billion in losses to fix known issues with the aircraft.

“We are partnering with the Air Force and have a path to closure on each of these issues. The specific timeline is subject to our joint efforts and the Air Force determines when Cat 1 issues close,” the company said in a statement to Breaking Defense.

Boeing needs to shift some of their space division engineers over to the tanker.

Oh, wait a minute... :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 3678398)

Boeing needs to shift some of their space division engineers over to the tanker.

Oh, wait a minute... :rolleyes:

Boeing needs to be less bean counter focused and more engineering and innovation focused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excargodog (Post 3678289)

https://i.ibb.co/2PR4TBL/IMG-6330.jpg
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/08/kc-46a-tanker-still-has-6-category-1-deficiencies-but-fixes-are-in-the-works-usaf-official/

Sucks that Boeing still sucks, but it looks like USAF is looking to go away from airliner based tanker designs for the future. KC-46 may be a short lived bad dream. Long live the stealthy tanker bad dream!

glad the US Military keeps Boeing fully funded and subsidized

Quote:

Originally Posted by TransWorld (Post 3678414)

Boeing needs to be less bean counter focused and more engineering and innovation focused.

Word I got from a Boeing employee is that Boeing didn’t watch out for career progression of their junior people. They subcontracted out a number of short term projects for a couple of decades which let them get by with fewer employees but created a huge experience gap between the boomers who are now retiring and the more junior engineering people they now have to hire. And since they are the only remaining US airliner company they can’t exactly fill in that experience gap - at least not without headhunting Airbus engineers.