Airbus: Umm, just ignore that ... (KC-X)

[Switch]

If you've been following USAF's KC-X program to acquire a new aerial tanker then you know what a clusterfuck it has been. If you haven't been following KC-X, start reading. The two aircraft competing for the tender are Airbus' A330 MRTT and Boeing's KC-767. The civilian progenitors should be obvious in both cases.

The A330 MRTT has already been selected by the United Kingdom, Australia, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to fulfil their tanker requirements (the KC-767 has been selected by Italy and Japan) and Australia is the launch customer for the aircraft. The first airframes have just recently rolled off the production line and have been undergoing testing prior to delivery to the RAAF.

Which brings us to the latest page in the epic saga that is KC-X: an A330 MRTT was conducting a refueling exercise with Portugeuse F-16s off the coast of Spain a couple days back when the boom fell off:

An Airbus Military KC-30A tanker in testing for the Royal Australian Air Force was involved in an incident with a Portuguese air force F-16 during a refueling exercise Jan. 20.

More than a dozen refuelings had taken place when the incident occurred. Both aircraft sustained damage.

Details of what transpired are still under review, but the incident caused the refueling boom on the Airbus A330-based tanker to break off and fall into the Atlantic. Both aircraft returned safely to their respective bases.

Obviously refuelling accidents are hardly unheard of, but given that this is the first airframe off the production line, that the incident occurred during initial testing, and the fact that the boom is a first for Airbus and the major design risk in the aircraft, this is not good news for the Europeans. No doubt the Pentagon is watching all this with a raised eyebrow, red pen in hand.

Some folks at Boeing are enjoying champagne tonight.

 

[scotpens]

. . . Details of what transpired are still under review, but the incident caused the refueling boom on the Airbus A330-based tanker to break off and fall into the Atlantic.

Hmmm . . . for anyone who’s seen the opening titles of Dr. Strangelove, that has definite Freudian implications.

 

[Switch]

I think you'd have to be pretty repressed not to see the sexual imagery in either probe-and-drogue or boom-based aerial refuelling.

Speaking of which, the A330 MRTT is remarkably easy on the eyes when bits aren't falling off of it:

 

[Canadave]

^ Just looks like a grey Airbus, to me. Personally, I tend to prefer the look of Boeing's airliners.

 

[Switch]

^ Just looks like a grey Airbus, to me.

And it's the grey which makes all the difference.

I don't really know why, but I almost always prefer the aesthetics of military variants to the civilian base models.

Personally, I tend to prefer the look of Boeing's airliners.

This is because you are wrong.

 

[scotpens]

What type of plane are the two aircraft being refueled? They look so damn familiar, but I can’t place them.

 

[Canadave]

^ CF-18s, aren't they?

EDIT: F/A-18s, I mean. I forget we use a different designation than everyone else.

 

[SG-17]

They are definitely F-18s. Which version though, I can't say.

 

[Switch]

They're Spanish vanilla Hornets.

 

[scotpens]

They're Spanish vanilla Hornets.

Are those like chocolate-covered ants?

 

[Switch]

They're Spanish vanilla Hornets.

Are those like chocolate-covered ants?

Very similar, yes.

 

[MANT!]

Booms fall off quite a bit actually,

During my service with SAC, several KC135's lost all or part of the refueling boom in accidents on several occasions. It's designed to break-away if stresses exceed certain limits...

No big deal...

 

[Switch]

Booms fall off quite a bit actually,

During my service with SAC, several KC135's lost all or part of the refueling boom in accidents on several occasions. It's designed to break-away if stresses exceed certain limits...

No big deal...

It might be a big deal if they discover it was due to a design fault. Of course the investigation isn't helped by the boom being on the bottom of the ocean.

 

[RedShirt]

Booms fall off quite a bit actually,

During my service with SAC, several KC135's lost all or part of the refueling boom in accidents on several occasions. It's designed to break-away if stresses exceed certain limits...

No big deal...

It might be a big deal if they discover it was due to a design fault. Of course the investigation isn't helped by the boom being on the bottom of the ocean.

Because the design can't be corrected?
The initial test flights are all about finding the flaws and correcting them when possible.

 

[Switch]

Of course the design can be corrected. But when you're the newcomer to the field engaged in a neck-and-neck race for a $30bn contract, you don't exactly want to rock up to the gate looking like you don't know what you're doing. The Pentagon nixed Antonov's bid because they were a few hours late with the paperwork, whereas this could be a major issue with a key component of the platform. Or it simply could've been an operational incident and nothing to do with the design.

The Aussies don't even need the boom until JSF arrives which could be six years, could be never. So they don't care either way and just want the aircraft delivered.

 

[Marc]

Of course the design can be corrected. But when you're the newcomer to the field engaged in a neck-and-neck race for a $30bn contract, you don't exactly want to rock up to the gate looking like you don't know what you're doing. The Pentagon nixed Antonov's bid because they were a few hours late with the paperwork, whereas this could be a major issue with a key component of the platform. Or it simply could've been an operational incident and nothing to do with the design.

The Aussies don't even need the boom until JSF arrives which could be six years, could be never. So they don't care either way and just want the aircraft delivered.

I think you really need to go out and research the selection and design process for military aircraft.

You could even try and find copy of the documentary on the fly offs for the two aircraft competeing the JSF contract.

Then consider that after all they went through the JSF is way behind schedule and way over budget.

 

[Switch]

Of course the design can be corrected. But when you're the newcomer to the field engaged in a neck-and-neck race for a $30bn contract, you don't exactly want to rock up to the gate looking like you don't know what you're doing. The Pentagon nixed Antonov's bid because they were a few hours late with the paperwork, whereas this could be a major issue with a key component of the platform. Or it simply could've been an operational incident and nothing to do with the design.

The Aussies don't even need the boom until JSF arrives which could be six years, could be never. So they don't care either way and just want the aircraft delivered.

I think you really need to go out and research the selection and design process for military aircraft.

You could even try and find copy of the documentary on the fly offs for the two aircraft competeing the JSF contract.

Then consider that after all they went through the JSF is way behind schedule and way over budget.

We're not talking about prototypes facing years of design refinement ahead of them. This is a production airframe that may have a significant design fault. The Pentagon is looking to award the KC-X contract within the next month. Airbus absolutely does not want this cloud hanging over their heads right now.

 

[Amaris]

Come on, Boeing!
I've always liked their airframes.

 

[Marc]

Come on, Boeing!
I've always liked their airframes.

And some people in the DoD like Boeing's bribes which is why the whole thing was re-tendered leading.

And to counter a earlier point I don't think this is a production aircraft - but style in the prototye stage as the winner hasn't been decided.

Also looking at the aircraft specs from the wiki entry, in term of capacity the Boeing entry (derived from the 767 Airframe which is now 30 years old) lags behind the airbus.

 

[Switch]

And to counter a earlier point I don't think this is a production aircraft - but style in the prototye stage as the winner hasn't been decided.

The aircraft in question would probably have been en route to Australia for delivery to the RAAF this week if it weren't for this incident. KC-X is the American program.

EDIT: You can even see "Royal Australian Air Force" and the kangaroo roundels stencilled on the airframe in the images I posted.

Also looking at the aircraft specs from the wiki entry, in term of capacity the Boeing entry (derived from the 767 Airframe which is now 30 years old) lags behind the airbus

The A330 is more aircraft in almost every respect, including cost. It's not about raw capability, but capability vs. requirements vs. cost.