Air Force, Boeing Working To Reduce KC-46A Tanker's Weight
The Air Force and Boeing are relying on an "active" program to reduce the KC-46A tanker's weight, which is posing a technical challenge that -- if not remedied -- could erode the aircraft's ability to meet mandatory operating requirements for takeoff, mission radius and landing, according to government and industry officials.
Saturday, May 4, 2013
KC-46 weight issues
Boeing hasn't been doing well with weight estimates vs. design. Here, another problem via Inside Defense (subscription).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Perhaps Boeing could take a leaf from the Lockheed Martin design handbook, and remove the onboard fire suppression system to help hit the weight target.
After all, neither fighters nor tankers ever have to worry about fire in flight.
First off, the USAF will realistically probably require only around 1/2 the number of tankers currently expected to operate by 2025-2030.
So right there, this technicality could actually be a saving opportunity in disguise. That is, if one can look at an actual bright side to all of the tanker planning fiasco...
My personal gut feeling would be to scratch the kc-46 deal exploiting the weight issue as a valid deal-killing excuse.
Instead, how about contemplating something radically outside the box?
How about something like USAF proposing a joint-accelerated development of Boeing's proposed Cargo variant of it's B787? Then with that, propose procuring something along the lines of a modified Tanker-cargo B787 equivalent of the KC-767 Tanker Transport as delivered to Italy?
The actual unit cost might be a few million more than a KC-46, but it would provide much higher capacity and flexibility. And with maybe something around a 50%-60%(?) order size (for the KC-787 Tanker Transport), as compared to the currently expected KC-46 order size... the overall Procurement tab would be significantly reduced!
Any comments or counter-points to that proposal and analysis?
Even if you buy half the number of KC787 compared to the number of KC46, something tells me the actual price tag would be double the expense of KC46 program. Considering how much BA was charging for almost out of production 767, the program is pretty much at the end of its life and which has been depreciated fully, you are looking at $400 million dollars a copy for a KC787, at least. That's if Boeing would even do it, which I seriously doubt since it would stretch its engineering capabilities...US companies don't give away huge discounts and don't give a shit about US as a country, they just pretend to care, it's just good PR.
Anon,
My only worry, given the questionable state of our tac air community, and given all the unforeseen threats that might pop up in years to come, would be that a fleet of less tankers with more capacity might be more vulnerable to attrition than a larger fleet of smaller tankers. I also wonder what affect such a plan could have on bottle necking mission planning and op tempo.
Are these concerns valid do you think?
To Will,
I'd just counter with a consideration that Boeing is apparently considering a LRF 'cargo' derivative of the B787 as it is, at some point.
What if USAF could offer to split Development 50/50 to kick start such a Program? That could be a win-win for Boeing with probable commercial benefits.
Perhaps then, a Commercial derivative, Multi mission Tanker Transport-type variant of B787-8 Long range Freighter could be converted someone like an IAI (which has proven conversion of B767 to tankers), or other sub-contractor?
I doubt such an hypothetical commercial derivative conversion would be $400m per pop too, especially for an order size of 100 or so units and given the 'B787 LRF' Program would likely lead to additional commercial orders.
And how much will each KC-46 unit cost anyway (w/ the modified B787 cockpit)?
Maybe a tanker conversion of a B787-8 LRF could come in under $275m? Could the flexible-transport capability and increased fuel off-boarding enabled by a modern, economical platform justify the cost?
Perhaps increased adaptation of tactical buddy tanking, combined w/ future introduction UCAV into the force structure (themselves being buddy-tanked) could also reduce the reliance on the strategic tanker fleet of the future?
B787 is too new, too radical and too unproven to be betting the farm upon in tanker format. If ordinary airlines can't rely on the 787, the far more mission-critical military surely can not do so.
Unfortunately, at this point, the USAF is out of choices. Neither option A nor option B were very good to begin with. That option B was chosen and is not working out well does not magically make option A viable either.
What would have made tremendous sense would have been for the USAF to buy up retiring airline DC-10 frames and convert them all to the very capable and well proven KC-10 Extender.
FedEx instead bought as many of the good condition ex-airline DC-10s as they could find, stuck glass flight decks in them, and have been flying them daily and constantly throughout the FedEx global logistics network. The converted frames have been extremely productive and reliable workhorses for that company.
If USAF had acquired those frames instead, their far lower utilization rate relative to FedEx would mean that they were covered for tankers well into the 2030 decade.
The business mavens at FedEx, exposed to constant market discipline, were smart. The white-scarved heroes at USAF, only intermittently disciplined, were stupid. Now, intelligence and idiocy are each reaping their customary rewards.
Not to mention that that the high capacity and long-legged Extender would have been note-perfect for the notional "Pacific pivot".
Sure the B787 is brand new and radical, but that in itself shouldn't automatically disqualify it as an accelerated Plan C study candidate.
A lot of commercial airlines have put huge faith in it.
The components and concept seem to be validated and 'good enough'. It's the B787's cockpit displays which were selected for the KC-46!
It's merely the dang lithium ion cells which was the initial hang up. Perhaps that initial bump in the road has been resolved now?!?
I just feel the 787 would offer a highly competitive compromise filling the requirements for size of airframe, range, reliability, offload capacity, flexibility and economy.
Would have buying up the DC-10 fleet before FedEx been a winner solution? Most likely yes! But that's not even a piece of the equation now so why even bring it up.
It's time to get decisive, prudent, realistic and most of all honest.
The weight concern alone of this is not looking good. Maybe buy up used 767's and convert them a la Italian KC-767? I don't know... just arguing that risk-taking on bold moves should not in itself be a non-starter. Just run them through a valid computer model evaluation process and critical assessment to see if an option could likely indeed fulfill requirements at the least.
Lastly, again, one could contemplate a revised downward strategic tanker fleet size anyway by 2025-2030, so I would highly recommend assessing a maximal capability as being that candidate. Expanded buddy-tanker employment and UCAV could fill in the gaps as part of said strategy?
There is no way Boeing is coming out any time soon with a cargo 787. They have to ramp up production of 787 to 10 a month, get the 787-9 out the door, decide if they go with 787-10 which numerous airlines want, plus they just announced the new,revamped 777 and they have launched 737 MAX.
Plus,traditionally Boeing or Airbus late at least 10 to 15 years before they develop a cargo jet derived from a passenger jet.The regular 777 came out in 1995, the cargo was introduced in service in 2009....Even if BA would go 787 cargo, you wouldn't see it in service before 2025, if that....
Boeing is already up the creek with just modifying a 767 to make it a KC46. Anyone even know how the composite fuselage will like it when you cut a hole in it to install the refueling probe?
Considering the USA DoD track record of acquisitions and US military industrial complex history of delays and overruns, $400 million dollars a copy for a KC787 is on the low side....
All good points NICO.
What if someone like an IAI could do the commercial derivative conversion though, assuming Boeing is just too busy as you noted?
If Colombia can afford the IAI converted KC767, perhaps someone like IAI (or another like outfit) could offer a doable proposition to the USAF for say, 100 examples?
Hmmm! Methinks ETOPS has been conveniently ignored when mooting big twins for tankers; ergo, a lost opportunity with DC-10s.
Interesting how PowerPoint salesmanship gets cut up by reality.
Or you look at the fact that the aircraft that the tankers are derived from already have significant ETOPS.
E.g. A330 and B767 have ETOPS180 which covers about 95% of the earths surface. A330 can be certified for ETOPS240.
Or you can look at the fact that Government (hence Mil) aircraft dont need to adhere to the standards, and in a contingency almost certainly wont....
Post a Comment