KC-46A 2017

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23298
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Sep 2019, 21:24

:devil: Yeah butt - buy bye 'merican eh. Let us hope the tanker does not emulate the 737 MAX - simulator or not. :doh:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23298
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Sep 2019, 00:25

MORON the same:
12 Sep 2019 "...Boeing is implementing an Air Force-funded design change to the actuator on the refueling boom to make it more sensitive [ooh that's nice] to smaller receiver aircraft, such as A-10s and F-16s.

Meanwhile, Boeing has submitted a proposed redesign of the remote vision system (RVS) to correct what the Air Force calls a “rubber sheeting” [for the LEAKY effects on the BOOM operator?] affect that distorts the image on the visual display used by the boom operator during refueling operations. Boeing has agreed to pay for an RVS design that received approval by the Air Force." https://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-i ... esign-flaw
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1310
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post17 Sep 2019, 00:33

You just need to stick with what works.
Attachments
1280px-KC-97L_Texas_ANG_refueling_A-10s_1977.jpg
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23298
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Sep 2019, 09:06

Well that TANKER sure goes slow enough for the Warties.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1310
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post17 Sep 2019, 16:55

Well that TANKER sure goes slow enough for the Warties.


That's actually the 'fast' KC-97 with the 2 jet engines outboard augmenting the radials.....230 knots KCAS for AAR.

My understanding is that the major advantage of the KC-46 over the MRTT is the larger total offload capability. But of course one has to be able to offload it. :doh:

Evidently LM & Airbus are working together and considering offering DOD a contracted AAR capability using upgraded A330MRTTs. This may not be so far fetched considering all the contracted adversary support in play now. It may be a reasonable alternative if Boeing's problems drag on. Company top priority evidently went from the safety of MAX passengers to the safety of the KC-46 crew, passengers and aircraft as a result of the cargo lockdown problem. Can you have two top priorities?

Anyway for grins, here's the KC-97 without the jets.....210 knots KCAS for AAR. Notice the deck angle on the flapless (hapless) F-100Cs. :shock:
Attachments
KC-97G_Illinois_ANG_refueling_F-100C_DC_ANG_1964.jpg
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1813
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post17 Sep 2019, 17:30

Wow look at those Huns - if you hadn't posted that I might have been suspecting Photoshop!
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1310
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post17 Sep 2019, 17:41

They've still got a good 15-20 knots to the stall. :D Not a lot of knots of deceleration room for aft adjustments though, and thrust wise you're probably pretty close to mil to hang on.

Stick is centered and it's all rudder for lateral adjustments, true stick and rudder. Far as I know it's not photoshopped, it looked worse in real life.
Attachments
F-100C_New_Jersey_ANG_refuels_from_KC-97.jpg
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23298
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Sep 2019, 22:23

Thanks for the great pics: STOP DRAGGIN' Me HUNS Around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5i7j0VhEHw

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23298
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Sep 2019, 14:42

Attachments
767frankentankerGrfx.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 666
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post19 Sep 2019, 00:30

spazsinbad wrote:Let us hope the tanker does not emulate the 737 MAX - simulator or not. :doh:

I believe the KC-46 actually has the MCAS system or something similar installed.

The whole tanker acquisition program was a corrupt nightmare. First Boeing bribed DOD acquisition officials and won, then Airbus/NG actually won, and then finally Boeing's senators had Boeing win again.
outlaw162 wrote:Stick is centered and it's all rudder for lateral adjustments, true stick and rudder. Far as I know it's not photoshopped, it looked worse in real life.

The Hun is probably one of the best examples of an aircraft with poor handling qualities...
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23298
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Sep 2019, 06:02

I've read shameful (to me) things about why BOING! have left over stuff in tanker - LACK of TOOL CONTROL - this is basic.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... te-460913/ & https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... sl-460944/
18 Sep 2019 both
AMC commander: Boeing has not made progress on KC-46
18 Sep 2019 Valerie Insinna

"...“Eight months have passed since our first delivery, and Boeing has not made any progress [on the Remote Vision System]," she [Gen. Maryanne Miller] said....

...Currently, the RVS presents imagery that is distorted in certain lighting conditions, posing difficulties for boom operators and leading to incidents of accidental scraping of the surface of receiver aircraft with the boom — leading to two category 1 deficiencies.

According to Miller, Boeing needs to make progress in improving the “acuity” of the system, which currently presents imagery comparable to what a person with 20/50 vision would see. The company also needs to improve what Miller termed “depth plane compression,” which is how the user internalizes the distance between the boom and the receiver aircraft based on that imagery.... [more at the URL]

...Last week, the Air Force put restrictions on the KC-46 that will keep it from being able to carry passengers and cargo for an indefinite period of time. The problem, which was discovered on a single tanker, was that multiple cargo restraint devices had became unlocked during a series of flights. Although the restraint devices did not completely open up and release the cargo, allowing it to roll freely throughout the cabin, AMC officials worried that such a scenario would pose considerable safety risks to personnel and potentially unbalance the plane during flight.

While the root cause is still under investigation, Boeing believes that the vibrations from flying or landing is creating friction between the rails of the cargo floor and the latch on the back of the lock, causing the latch to move to a position in which it is no longer fully engaged, Burgess [Jamie Burgess, Boeing’s KC-46 program manager] said...." [more at URL]

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... -on-kc-46/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23298
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Sep 2019, 09:57

And the HITS keep on coming....
USAF: Our New Tanker Should Be Ready for War in 3 or 4 Years
18 Sep 2019 Marcus Weisgerber

"...The latest delays come as the office of the Pentagon’s inspector general announced it would investigate whether the Air Force followed its own engineering process in designing and developing the plane’s refueling boom. Right now, there are nine “critical performance parameters” with the plane’s refueling systems, Miller [Gen. Maryann Miller, head of Air Mobility Command] said. “We are, in my opinion, making progress on seven of those,” she said. “Two are very difficult.”...

...The plane also has about 500 less-serious problems, Miller said....

...Despite the long list of problems and lengthy delays, Miller said the Air Force would not consider buying aircraft from rival Airbus, leaving Boeing as the only option to build the 179 tankers it plans to order. “The airmen love the airplane,” she said. “The capabilities that that airplane brings to the fight — will bring to the fight — is a whole new dimension for us in the facts of sensing the battlefield, connecting to the battlefield. We look forward to that capability.”"

Source: https://www.defenseone.com/business/201 ... rs/159984/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1310
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post19 Sep 2019, 21:21

The Hun is probably one of the best examples of an aircraft with poor handling qualities...


Very true. I did a local checkout with the Ohio ANG at Columbus, no formal school slots available at the time....took awhile to get the hang of it. Everyone that flew it probably had a "damn, I was lucky that time" moment at least a couple of times. I count four. :shock:

If I might say one more thing for 'BASHER' before getting back to the KC-46. That photo of 5 F-100Cs and 5 KC-97Gs is from the USAF archives. It was the first all ANG non-stop deployment to Europe, Operation Ready Go in 1964, before my time.
If those DC Guard guys stayed with the tankers all the way at 210 KCAS or so (maybe at best 300-320 KTAS) it must have been miserable. At least the winds were probably out of the west.

Now back to the KC-46:

"The airmen love the airplane...etc, etc" possibly because they've found free tools or because they're getting extra time off during the fixes. And.....

.....whose "capabilities that that airplane brings to the fight — will bring to the fight...etc, yada, yada" (apparently 3-4 years down the road).

What a lovely managerial assessment, particularly the double 'that'. Evidently no reason to hold one's breath.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23298
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Sep 2019, 21:45

I did not pay much attention to the initial problems with the FOD for example but having 'visual acuity' / three dimensional depth perception issues with remote viewing for the boom operator' seems to be a complete fail to me. Perhaps the tankers built so far will make great drogue refuellers for the USN/USMC 'probers' whilst another different NEW tanker does the boom refuelling job as is being forewarned in this article.
Years Late, It’s ‘Pass-Fail’ Now For Boeing’s KC-46 Tanker: Gen. Miller
18 Sep 2019 Colin Clark

"The cascade of problems with the plane, which Boeing called low risk and promised to deliver 18 combat-ready aircraft in 2017, is unlikely to deliver planes ready for war for several more years, Gen. Maryanne Miller, the head of Air Mobility Command, made clear today....

...From the beginning, Boeing sold its plane as a low-risk solution to the need for a new tanker....

...Miller said Boeing’s solutions for the Remote Vision System (RVS), which Breaking D readers know is crucial to effective tanking since the planes don’t have a window to watch the boom, just aren’t good enough. The cameras used to monitor the fueling systems feed three images to the screen and Boeing has struggled to provide effective depth perception, which makes it pretty challenging to mate the boom and manage refueling. Repeatedly calling the RVS acuity problems complex and capable of solution, Miller said she had faith the company would fix it. But they aren’t there yet.

The House also clearly is worried. The House Armed Services Committee version of the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act says it “believes that the Secretary of the Air Force has several viable options to ensure future tanker capability, to include acquiring a non-developmental commercial derivative tanker (emphasis added) while “bridging” from the end of the KC-46A production to the new developmental tanker. The Air Force Secretary would be required to submit a report on the future of airborne tankers for the military by Sept. 30, 2020."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/09/yea ... en-miller/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post19 Sep 2019, 23:24

This plane is an abomination and Boeing is an abomination. We could have been done with this a long time ago, but thanks to John McCain among others - killing the corrupt leasing deal, and then playing dead and letting AF run a competition that was designed to have only one winner, even after Boeing officials went to jail. We have wasted time and money and still don't have a replacement for a 60 year old aircraft.

There is a reason why Boeing lost the ATF, JSF, ATB, and LRS-B programs. If the Navy is smart, they would be wise to re compete the MQ-25 contract and award it to LM or NG.

They have excelled at one thing in the military space, and that's lobbying and influence peddling. How else can you explain the KC-46 or their success at getting the AF to purchase the F-15EX despite it being about the same cost as the F-35 not having a requirement for them? Now they are trying to force the AF to make NG accept them as a partner for the $63 billion GSBD program. Boeing claims the AF will get system sooner if it is involved. NG doesn't want them as a partner. I wonder why.

This is what a Boeing executive said about their conversations with NG.

"We talked to them immediately after we sent our no-bid letter in July. They considered it for about a month and then told us ‘no thanks,’”

That is so sad and pathetic.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests