Posted on 09/20/2017 4:48:46 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
A KC-46 tanker refuels a C-17 transport in mid-air. Sometimes the refueling boom impacts the receiving aircraft, damaging it.
AFA: The four-star chief of Air Mobility Command wants his new KC-46 Pegasus tankers “yesterday,” but the tanker’s boom has a nasty tendency to scrape up planes it’s trying to refuel, as well as two other category one deficiencies, and contractor Boeing has to fix those.
The paint scraping problem — formally known as “undetected contact” — by itself could “possibly” delay the new planes’ arrival at AMC, Gen. Carlton Everhart said. That date was already pushed back to “late spring” 2018 by previous problems – and there’s a lot of testing left to do.
The program has completed more than 60 percent of its developmental testing, said Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the Air Force’s senior uniformed acquisition officer.
“We’re running into a crunch period (and) we may not be able to get all those test points done by end of year,” Everhart told reporters here. “We’ve adjusting the schedule to make sure we get all our points done….sliding it out to the right.”
How far? He can’t say: “I’m looking at three or four different schedules. I really am, because it depends on who you talk to.”
What’s the problem? Aerial refueling is the logistical lifeline of America’s increasingly challenged air superiority. Tankers refuel Air Force planes in mid-air by extending a rigid boom that plugs into a receptacle on the fighter, bomber, or transport that needs to gas up. (Navy aircraft and many foreign militaries use a flexible hose instead; there’s a long-running debate over which is better). If the two planes don’t line up precisely, the boom can damage the receiving aircraft. Such “Contact Outside the Receptacle” (COTR) can occur with any tanker, but it’s happening more often with the KC-46. How much more often, and how badly, is still being analyzed.
“I don’t know what damage it’s going to do to the other airplanes, so I think we need to have it fixed,” Gen. Everhart told reporters in the hallway here after his formal press conference. “I look at it on a C-17 as I watch there, and I go, ‘that’s a big scrape.'” (Everhart’s a C-17 pilot himself so he might take such injuries personally). There’s also the issue that refueling a stealthy aircraft, such as a B-2 bomber, F-22 or F-35 fighter could result in damage to the stealth coatings. In wartime, that could render a plane useless in a first strike.
The other two deficiencies were detailed by Lt. Gen. Bunch, the military deputy for Air Force acquisition, when Colin asked him later in the day about the extent of the problems afflicting the “low risk” airborne tanker built by Boeing. One involves the “HF transmit turning off when we go into the refueling area.” The other involves “uncommanded boom extension,” which appears to mean that the boom unexpectedly extends after it’s been withdrawn from the other aircraft. Now Bunche was very honest in admitting he wasn’t sure of the exact details and we are waiting for explanations from the Program Executive Officer (PEO) for tankers, Brig. Gen. Donna Shipton. Unfortunately she was on Capitol Hill and couldn’t be reached. We’ll update this story once we know more.
So will the first KC-46 deliveries still come in early 2018? “That’s what I’m hoping,” Everhart said. Could fixing this problem push back that date? “Possibly.”
“That depends on how fast the engineers can get it fixed,” he said. “I’ve been talking to Boeing a lot. They’re looking at the data, they’re looking at analytics, they’re looking at fixing this thing.”
Interestingly, Everhart did say explicitly that whatever’s going on with the boom this time is not related to earlier issues that required a redesign of the boom.
That said, the boom isn’t the only problem that could delay the KC-46 deliveries. Although the aircraft is a variant of the long-serving civilian 767, the KC-46 still needs three different certifications (supplemental, amended, and military) from both the Pentagon and FAA by the end of the year. That requires a lot of testing in a short time. Then, after the certification tests, the plane will enter its Initial Operational Test & Evaluation under the Pentagon’s notoriously tough independent testers.
As the head of Air Mobility Command, Everhart doesn’t build the planes, he just operates them. His part of the problem is getting pilots, ground crews, trainers, simulators, and so on ready to go as soon as the airplanes show up. At that part, he warned, there’ll be a “familiarization period” as crews learn the new plane, so operations won’t start at once.
To speed the process, the Air Force is deliberately holding off on upgrades and improvements to the KC-46 until it has enough of them in service. For example, Everhart said, the tanker’s Pratt & Whitney engines can automatically transmit performance data to ground crews, letting them get ahead of potential breakdowns and replace or repair parts preemptively – but the KC-46s don’t have this feature turned on and AMC’s not set up to use it, yet. (The F-35’s controversial ALIS maintenance system operates on these lines). Everhart very much wants this kind of “preventive maintenance” across his entire force, but he’s willing to wait and get the KC-46 as-is fielded first before he starts tweaking.
“That’s going to be an added requirement, so I’m going to have to wait a couple of years until we have a set configuration,” Everhart said.
Overall on the KC-46, Everhart would rather take more time to do it right. “I don’t need an aircraft right now,” he said. “I need the right aircraft when it’s ready.”
Given how long and rugged is the road down which the Air Force and Boeing have driven just to get this far, few would disagree with him.
If the USAF had stuck with the original KC-X contract award to Northrup/EADS, squadrons would be flying KC-45As today.
Boeing must have donated more to The 0 than Northrup/EADS.
Gotta have your priorities, y’know.
(No, I won’t add /sarc......spent too much time working in aerospace and grew up too near to Chicago to bother denying reality.)
Don't worry, that'll happen less and less as it gets older... ;-)
Ain’t that the truth.
As a former Boomer qualified in the KC-135A/Q and KC-10A I had a feeling they would run into this problem with the KC-46. The Boom Operator does not sit in the back of the aircraft as in the other tankers viewing the Air Refueling via a video monitor. Without being in the back I can see how deep perception issues can occur when turning the art of making a safe contact with the receiver into a video game.
Wasn’t John McCain involved in the contract shenanigans?
Wow.
So if an enemy can do the hack right, he can ground our whole air force by making the engines demand maintenance. —all at once.
You could test it out on just a couple of planes and have it passed off as a glitch.
Naaaaaaaaaaaah. What could possibly go wrong?
Yup. And, people in Mobile would have jobs.
Patty Murry said that Alabamians weren't smart enough to built the plane.(The same people who built the Saturn-5 moon rockets back in the 60's)
I was thinking this maintenance “feature” could allow our enemies to hack in and know the position of every plane using it at all times. Useful information? No doubt.
I think John McCain was instrumental in getting an earlier Boeing contract nixed because Boeing wanted to lease the planes to the Air Force for use as tankers rather than the Air Force purchasing them. McCain looked into the deal and identified that it would cost the government billions more than buying. If memory serves, executives from Boeing and buyers from the Air Force went to jail on corruption charges over that one.
Under this deal people in South Carolina and Kansas will have jobs. Six in one/half a dozen in the other.
Interesting.
You gotta be chitting me.
The air farce has made this program as big a cluster fluck as the F-35 mess.
Is this a personnel issue? A training issue? A software issue? A design issue?
Car makers can install collision avoidance systems in cars, can't we make something that keeps the refueling boom from colliding with the refueling aircraft?
Blame Bush, not Zero.
The difference is that you want the refueling boom to collide with the refueling aircraft. The problem is where the refueling boom collides with the refueling aircraft.
I think KC-10 Boomer hit the nail on the head. The KC-46 replaces a refueling operator looking out of a small window at the back of the tanker with a pair of stereoscopic cameras, and the refueling operator sits at a console in the front of the aircraft and flies the boom using those cameras.
The stereoscopic cameras and 3d glasses may not provide the same level of depth perception that boomers are accustomed to with previous generation tankers.
KC-46A refueling station:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.