It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

KC-46 undergoes weapon survivability tests at China Lake.

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Called the KC-46 Live Fire Test and Evaluation program (KC-46 LFT&E), a test run by Boeing and the Navy to test how well the KC-46 holds up to modern day threats on the battle field was conducted in April. They used specially designed warheads and shot them at a KC-46 engine nacelle all while filming the aftermath at high speed.



CHINA LAKE, Calif., June 4 (UPI) -- The KC-46 aerial tanker being developed for the U.S. military by Boeing has undergone weapons survivability testing by the U.S. Navy.

The tests at the Weapons Survivability Lab, supported by the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division -- or NAWCWD -- took place in April at China Lake, Calif., the Navy said.

The tests, outlined by the KC-46 Live Fire Test and Evaluation Program, will be used to assess KC-46 system-level survivability in high-fidelity, operational environments against ballistic and advanced threats.

NAWCWD said the survivability tests were the most complex ever conducted at the lab.






At 100,000 frames per second, this high-speed still captures the Live Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E) missile en route to the KC-46 tanker at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division’s Weapons Survivability Laboratory on April 7. The LFT&E missile is the first of its kind. The KC-46 program office requested the warhead be custom-designed by the Weapons Division to evaluate the highest threat scenario possible. U.S. Navy photo







Overview of the KC-46 test at the Weapons Survivability Lab, China Lake, California. On the left, the large, white High-Velocity Airflow System fired its nine jet engines to simulate realistic flying conditions for the mock KC-46 refueling. U.S. Navy photo








www.upi.com...
edit on 6-6-2015 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Wow, thats an amazing pic of the missile en route. Wonder how well it held up, to the tests. Of course i'm sure that's classified to ensure other countries don't counter any vunerablity.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Pretty cool. I too like the pic of the missile just before impact.

I have a question. If the engine doesn't get blown off the wing and the aircraft is flying how do they test for that sort of stress. I would imagine thevsudden amount of drag generated from half a engine dangling from the wing would/ coukd damage the wing and possibly tearing parts of it off from the sudden drag. The aircraft in the picture being tested is only a piece of the aircraft. Do they do simulations in a wind tunnel with a mock up and blow off a engine to see what it does to the rest of the whole plane while in flight?



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Not sure what the actual data set they were looking for in that particular test. Maybe looking for damage patterns and systems that are most effected due to a missile strike like they used so they can mitigate or re-route those critical systems that might be most vulnerable.
The large structure next to the test stand was used to generate realistic flying conditions (and presumably stresses) for the test.
edit on 6-6-2015 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Thanks Sammamish!!

That makes sense. I just learned something. Par for when I read most of your posts.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
I have a question. If the engine doesn't get blown off the wing and the aircraft is flying how do they test for that sort of stress.


Math


You can use those engines to put high-speed airflow over a (relatively) small area. I *THINK* (just a guess) that the engines used in the one photo are probably getting a realistic picture of what is going to happen (how is the fire going to spread) when certain components fail (i.e fuel tanks or lines punctured by white hot warhead fragments) or if a fire starts near them, how long will it take for those things or adjacent components to fail. It will stress the airframe somewhat, but again over a relatively small area. It's more to get realistic airflow to see what the flames do and how the systems are affected.


I did a stint doing ballistic testing for components, but what's going on here is rather more comprehensive.


edit on 6-6-2015 by _Del_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

They can model that quite accurately using all kinds of math, as _Del_ said. During Desert Storm a KC-135E lost both engines on one wing (and by lost, I don't mean they failed, I mean they actually came off the aircraft), and was able to fly on the remaining two and land safely back at a base without really straining the wings excessively.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   
The type of General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofan engines used on the KC-46 are the same type High-Bypass Turbofan Engine as the A-10 warthog only bigger.

The engines on the warthog can take a lot of damage.
i493.photobucket.com...



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Ok they need to test this against the SU-25 frogfoot since it apparently has majic missiles. If it can survive that its ready to field



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ANNED
What on earth are you talking garbage for?
Is it so hard to get your facts straight BEFORE you bother to hit the post button?

The KC-46 is using a version of the P&W 4000, NOT the TF/CF-34 which is tens of thousands of pounds less in thrust and built by a different manufacturer, and totally unrelated to the A-10 or it's powerplant in a way that's not even comparing apples with any kind of citrus fruit.

LEE.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: thebozeian
a reply to: ANNED
What on earth are you talking garbage for?
Is it so hard to get your facts straight BEFORE you bother to hit the post button?

The KC-46 is using a version of the P&W 4000, NOT the TF/CF-34 which is tens of thousands of pounds less in thrust and built by a different manufacturer, and totally unrelated to the A-10 or it's powerplant in a way that's not even comparing apples with any kind of citrus fruit.

LEE.


I agree its a different maker and larger but the basic design in that they are both are high bypass engines are basically the same.

The outer shell of the bypass area provides some protection to the main turbine jet engine.

By the way look at my location, I use to work in the aircraft survivability test area at China Lake doing high speed and Ultra high speed photography(code 4564 Explosive Ordinance Evaluation Group AREA R China Lake CA )


edit on 7-6-2015 by ANNED because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4

log in

join