Monday, January 26, 2015
Boeing KC-46 Tanker test aircraft completes first flight
Why is IAI able to convert civilian freight aircraft into tankers with little effort but it takes an entire design team and many years for the USAF to get a tanker based on a airliner into service?
What is the choke point for simple/fast acquisition of new gear?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
A Greek F-16 crashes soon after taking off during a NATO exercise in Spain's 'Los Llanos' (Albacete) airbase.
ReplyDelete10 dead + 13 wounded (7 seriously)
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgI5jZHdEU8
Pics: http://elpais.com/elpais/2015/01/26/album/1422291075_137549.html#1422291075_137549_1422291813
Airbus A330 MRTT (KC-45): ( to 31st October 2014)
ReplyDelete- Total Orders: 34
- Total Deliveries: 22
- Total In Operation: 22
Boeing KC-767:
- Italia: 4 (Boeing)
- Italia: 4 (Boeing)
- Colombia: 1 (IAI)
- Brazil: 3 orders (IAI)
Total in operation: 31 aircrafts (to 31st October 2014)
Total KC-46 in operation: 0 aircrafts
And if the problem is with the special characteristics requesting the USAF.
What needs the USAF, which no use other solutions?
Or they could be paying anything other than the KC-46.
Regards,
Just guessing but there is some kind of requirement in the JCIDS documents that only the KC-46 could meet and that ended up requiring far more engineering effort than originally envisioned. And/Or after the contract was awarded the USAF decided to change a couple requirement's and that required more engineering work.
ReplyDeleteI can give an example of the ground side: A random tactical vehicle has to be able to climb a 60% grade. This means the engine has to be able to oil everything at 60% and no commercial truck oil system is designed to that requirement. So the engine in the military truck has to be modified to run at 60% incline or decline. Not only does that lab work have to be completed it then has to certified in a separate test by the military. All of this can add several years and thousands if not millions of dollars onto the program just to ensure the vehicle can climb a 60% grade.
I presume you're comparing to something like this: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/brazil-picks-iais-k-767-mmtt-as-its-next-aerial-tanker-011080/ or earlier such IAI-Bedek projects?
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing: Israel operates locally and regionally at most. The same is true for most of Israel's customers. The US military, to be fair, must have solutions that can literally span the globe. SAC aircraft, for historical instance, had to be capable of taking off in the US and operating deep inside the USSR. It could just be the globe-spanning demands of the US military create different technical and operational requirements.
Or, it could just as easily be that the USAF is a bunch of spoiled brats who have money to burn and no desperate or urgent operational needs since their present toys still get the job done just fine. Manufacturers and suppliers will do whatever the paying customer demands, when they demand it.
Question: What is the choke point for simple/fast acquisition of new gear?
ReplyDeleteAnswer: WAR
I am surprised you didn't know this. All you need is a full-blown conflict. How fast was MRAP developed and purchased?
Tankers were not a priority during the Iraq & Afgan conflicts because there were more than enough flying around. But if the US were to "go on it alone" and available airframes are down, then you might see something like this.
Israel maybe fast but they've got their own set of bureaucracy and "red tapes". Israel has something the US don't have: Neighbors which are threats and hostile. So Israeli mode of thinking of common sense works to their favour in terms of getting the right things done quickly. Common sense.
It depends on what threat environment the Air Force wants to operate these tankers in. I have no idea what kinds of defensive suites the Air Force is installing on the aircraft, but wiki has this nice nugget: "Survivability is improved with infrared countermeasures and the aircraft has limited electronic warfare capabilities". Self-protection equipment is going to be something that significantly increases developmental costs to an aircraft. It's quite possible that foreign countries don't anticipate their tankers having a need defend themselves, and thus cut costs by not installing defensive systems onto their aircraft.
ReplyDeleteNot wishing to be pedantic, but thats a 767-2c, not a KC-46.
ReplyDeleteIts part of the KC-46 programme but not a -46 aircraft.
By the way, i still cant believe Boeing got the US Air Force to fund the 767-2C via this programme!
DeleteYes, the process has been convoluted and FUBARed from here to kingdom come,but the simple fact is that if the AF needs any new planes, these are the ones. The KC-135s in the fleet are as old if not older then the B-52s The first tanker was delivered in 1958, and the last one in 1965.
ReplyDeleteIf they had an emergency, they coule take a330 mrtt / kc45... But corruption...why having same thing for mess if You can pay more ?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAs for the first flight: big deal. THAT airframe.... has NO working boom. Giga-dollars for a very slow project.
ReplyDelete