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 delivery slipped

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   
In addition to the boom problems, the centerline drogue has a tendency to scrape the bottom of the aircraft during retraction. The Air Force considers this a minor issue at this point, and is considering extra inspections and touch up paint instead of a design change.

Boeing is prepared to deliver three aircraft a month for the first six months to deliver the required 18 aircraft. Then they will settle to 15 a year.




posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
So buggy new tech?

Hardware or software--or is no body talking?



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Will a 777 derivative be a possibility to replace the KC-10's?



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

For the three Category One problems, it looks like software/human. For the drogue, probably hardware, but not really a serious problem.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Probably not. They're probably going to skip the KC-Y and just add more -46s, and skip ahead to the LO tanker.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Barnalby

Probably not. They're probably going to skip the KC-Y and just add more -46s, and skip ahead to the LO tanker.


Yikes. They could not deliver a glorified 767 on time (Of which they had already made a few... Japan etc.) The LO BWB will be delivered sometime during my grandsons/grandaughter's time



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

The BWB/HWB will have a huge advantage over the 767. It won't be a Frankentanker, and by the time they go to the KC-Z it'll be a fairly mature airframe. The 767-2C is having to go through FAA certification which is hurting the entire process as well as being a hybrid of several aircraft.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
The Air Force has provided more details, and it appears that two of the three aren't as big a concern as originally thought.

There is currently a study going on to gather data as to how often the boom scrapes with the current tanker fleet. The big concern here is that the boom operator is supposed to notify the pilot of the receiver any time the boom makes contact outside the slipway. In several of the tests with the KC-46, the boom operator didn't notice the scraping and it wasn't discovered until later. They have yet to refuel a stealth aircraft.

The second issue is with the HF radio. When the tanker goes into A/R mode, the HF is supposed to shut down and stay shut down. This reduces the risk of a spark between the boom and the receiver. The concern here is that the HF stays off once it's off. Testing will be done in October, and if confirmed that it won't come back on if there's a problem, they will close this problem out.

The third problem is an uncommanded extension of the boom. During ground testing, the fuel flow through the boom caused the boom to extend into the test stand being used as a receiver stand in. The stand isn't designed to withstand the same pressure as a receiver aircraft, and this is similar to what is seen with current tankers. If there's a sudden disconnect by the receiver and the boom is pulled up and away, the boom will extend because of the pressure. This will also be examined in October and if not a problem, closed out.

www.flightglobal.com...



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Preliminary indications are that the number of Undetected Contacts Outside The Receptacle (UCOTR) is higher than with other tankers. Testing will determine if the boom and aircraft meet contract specifications. If they do, then the Air Force is responsible for paying for modifications. If they don't, then Boeing is responsible for paying for them.

breakingdefense.com...



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Always find it amusing how we get these high tech planes with all the gadgets DoD can think of shoved into them, and yet we still have simple planes from the 1950's and 1960's deploying to war zones doing the same mission of these high tech wonders.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

That's because the high tech wonders take six times as long to develop anymore. Even if they reduced the tech on them, they're doing so much more now than before they'd still take longer to develop.



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   
another issue, the camera system may need to be modified (replaced) to prevent scraping

aviationweek.com...



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   
IMHO
I think boom lengths are way too short.
The refueler should be able to fly it in
just the same with double the length?
If weight is a problem add a couple more airfoils
and make the whole length able to "fly".



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

The boom is the same basic boom as used on the KC-10, just upgraded. It's also the same as used on the Japanese and Italian KC-767.

I think the problem is a combination of the upgrades and camera system. Personally, I think the lack of a boom pod and putting the boom operator in the front was a mistake.



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
I think the problem is a combination of the upgrades and camera system. Personally, I think the lack of a boom pod and putting the boom operator in the front was a mistake.


Yeah I agree because unless he/she is flash blinded, the boom operator is not going to malfunction. But they sold the boom operator in the front as a cost saving related to the increased maintenance requirements of the traditional system.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join