Missed contact

However, since then EADS has been unable to make up a five month delay in phase one of the aircraft’s extensive structural modification process, and a further delay to the phase two systems installation currently underway has emerged.

These have resulted in a postponement to the start of the comprehensive phase two ground and flight test campaigns, and follow- on certification processes.

Although the KC-30 (now to be designated KC-30A in service, not KC-30B) is built on the foundation of a mature commercial airliner in the Airbus A330‑200, the development and certification of the refuelling modification is technically complex. With Australia the lead customer for the tanker, the DMO is working to prudently manage risk in an environment where the RAAF will introduce this important capability into service well in advance of other A330 based tanker programs.

The aircraft has been modified in a two stage process, the first comprising the structural modifications including hardpoints and reinforcements for the wing-mounted hose and drogue pods and associated fuel lines; the centreline Advanced Refuelling Boom System (ARBS); the Universal Aerial Refuelling Receptacle Slipway Installation (UARRSI); and various reinforcements and doublers throughout the airframe structure for the mounting of antennae, external lighting, ventilation, and the direct infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) system.

“Five months was lost in phase one, and EADS CASA has done their hardest to try to regain some of that and to stay within that respectable three to four months delay window,” AIRCDRE Steve Drury, DMO’s director general airlift and training systems, told AA. “So for a development program like this that would have been an extremely good outcome. As it’s turned out, they have not been able to recover any of those five months, and EADS has actually lost another month or so since February. But we had a good review with EADS back in July over exactly how long it’s going to take to do flight test and the re-modifying of the aircraft after flight test. A review of that schedule showed that, assuming that the six months will not be recovered, we’ve agreed with EADS CASA that an extra three months should be added to the program from the beginning of flight test, which was meant to have started on July 1. So at the moment we’re talking about at least six months, but prudently we’re talking and planning for a possible nine month delay. ” Phase two has seen the installation of military communications systems, refuelling operator consoles, fuel plumbing, modifications to the hydraulic systems, the fitting of additional avionics racks, medevac fittings, airstairs, and more than 58km of new wiring harnesses to support the military specific equipment. Most of this work had been completed at the time of writing, with the aircraft about to commence ground functionality testing prior to resuming flight testing.

“EADS’s earlier estimation for flight test was about five months, and that’s part of this increase as it’s now more likely to be about seven months,” AIRCDRE Drury added. “As the design’s matured and they’ve installed all the products, they’ve realised exactly how many flights they might need, so they’ve gone from estimations to quantifying each actual flight and its reasons, and we’ve also included the contingency for failures. ” While the development aircraft will have to take the lead in certification and acceptance testing and will remain in Spain to complete this, the modification work on aircraft two currently being performed atBrisbane by EADS and Qantas Engineering personnel is expected to be completed well before then.

“Aircraft two is currently on track,” according to EADS MRTT Australian program resident manager Valentin Merino.

“It will be ready to begin functional testing in the second quarter of next year and should be finished on time around the middle of next year. Plus, that aircraft could certainly be used for parallel testing to assist in the certification process, and perhaps could be accepted into service first while aircraft one has its flight test instrumentation removed. We have a good relationship with the DMO project team and we are discussing several possibilities. ”

Remaining Risk

The risk that remains includes the phase two ground test which will comprise the military avionics integration testing, and then qualifying the boom during flight testing.

While the boom concept has flown on EADS’s A310 demonstrator, it is yet to be proven on the A330/KC-30 with other systems such as the operator consoles, production plumbing, and the specialised communications.

“There is a fair bit of systems integration testing that’s necessary to make sure that the systems are working, that they’re talking to each other, and that the functionality is there prior to the re-commencement of the flight test program,” explained air-toair refuelling project director Ewan Ward.

“I think that risk will be substantially retired in ground test, we’ll know when we’ve switched everything on, everything’s talking, you go through all the pages on the various systems, so you’ll know then whether you’ve got a problem or not.

But the first time it comes together as a complete system is on the aircraft – there’s not an aircraft-sized test bench – the first aircraft is the test bench.

“And then for flight test, it’s the boom as a system where the majority of the risk remains. They’ve qualified the boom on the A310 demonstrator so the boom itself and its aerodynamics and flight control laws are pretty well finalised. But then that needs to be put on the A330 with the production installation, and then the production console and visual system which includes the external cameras, and has to go through its full test. Also in flight test, you’ve got to go through your performance testing, make sure your military comms and your navigation systems and all those other systems are actually working in an operational environment.

“There’s been quite a lot of developmental testing and bench level testing, but you only really know when you get it onto the aircraft and get it in the air and you actually start doing the flight trials and receiver clearances to make sure that it all works – it’s an incremental build up to that outcome. I think based on the bench level testing there are no show stoppers in there– I don’t think there’s any technological barriers that we’re facing in order to get it working, but this is a new system and with any new system, there is risk until you’ve actually gone through the test points to make sure it all works. ”

Modifications

Meanwhile, work continues on schedule at Brisbane Airport on modifying aircraft two, another ‘first’ for the A330 MRTT program in establishing a new modification facility and inducting the first aircraft into that facility, half way round the world from the original facility near Madrid.

“It’s been a challenge – we’re transferring the knowledge of the prototype in Spain to another country and a new company in Qantas which is touching the aircraft for the first time,” Merino explained. “Some of the main challenges are obviously the distance, communication and the time gap, and many of the tools had to come by ship and be re-assembled, re-certified and rechecked here. We also need to understand the certification of the qualification of the companies supporting us.

“We are trying to be autonomous to improve the responsiveness to the workshop in Australia. We currently have an EADS CASA team of 12 in Brisbane and this will grow to 18 by the end of the year. All of them have experience on the development aircraft in the areas of electrical and structural design, manufacturing and engineering, systems engineering, and there is a conversion leader with final assembly line experience as well. We’ve also brought our own CATIA (Computer Aided Three Dimensional Interactive Application) and stress analysis software so we have the capacity in house to redesign or rework an issue. ” Part of the autonomy Merino speaks of is finding locally based companies which have the capacity to support the modification work. To this end, companies in Brisbane and Melbourne have tendered for component fabrication. Some of these companies include Production Parts and Ferra (machining), Rosebank Engineering (surface finishing), Aerostaff (sheet metal), Marand Precision Engineering (tooling), and Cablex (wiring harnesses).

“Companies who work under EADS’s standards have more chance of gaining work with other divisions including Airbus,” said Merino.

Foc – Still On Track

As a result of the delays, the DMO and RAAF will compress the aircraft’s acceptance and operational build up process, with IOC (initial operational capability) being pushed back by about six months to mid 2010, while FOC (full operational capability) remains on track for mid 2011.

“IOC is based around achieving military type certification and an initial cadre oftrained crews,” said GPCAPT Noel Derwort, the director of the RAAF’s KC‑30 transition team. “So we’re talking about four crews, two aircraft, and the ability to support a probe and drogue receiver equipped deployment such as a bunch of F/A-18s and to be able to take a reasonable number of people away. ” “Even though we can’t catch up with those delays on the first aircraft, there is a catch-up going on across the whole program, so FOC at the moment is still the same, and facilities are in place,” said AIRCDRE Drury. “The new hangar and headquarters facilities are finished and they’ve started construction of the simulator training facility at Amberley as well.

When we’re talking about the second aircraft being available, there are certain things that might be able to be done to offset the delay on the first one, that we might be able to make use of that such that the setting up of 33SQN and getting to FOC is not really delayed at all. ” “The first aircraft will have all the pod refuelling system, the boom refuelling system will be working, the UARRSI will be up and running, the cargo system will be up and running, the majority of the military avionics that we need to be able to do our job will be there, so for all intents and purposes everything we’ll want to be able to do, we’ll be able to do from day one,” continued GPCAPT Derwort. “Our first pilots started training with Qantas in mid September, and the second group started two weeks after that. They’re doing all the aircraft training and conversion they need to do, then will do their military differences course. We’re planning on having them up and running by the third quarter of next year, and we’ve got in place a contingency plan, should there be the delays we’re expecting, of ways for them to maintain their currency with Qantas to ensure they’re ready when we get the aircraft.

“The initial cadre is looking at 12 pilots and we’ve also got a whole crew to worry about, but we’ll have enough people easily to meet the IOC requirement by the time that comes around. So we’ve got a fairly hefty ramp up at the start, then we’ll taper off so we don’t achieve a full squadron until FOC. And of course, the training’s not limited just to the KC-30 – we’ve got this beautiful tanker, but we haven’t got a receiver force that’s trained yet, so we’re obviously prioritising our receiver force. So when you see IOC for the tanker, you can expect there will be a receiver capability out there with the F/A-18 as well. ” One remaining issue will be deciding where and when to install the KC-30’s sophisticated DIRCM self protection system. “There’s an issue with DIRCM, in that there’s been a change in the US export policy and we can no longer fit them in Madrid,” said AIRCDRE Drury. “So it will either have to be fitted in the US or at an authorised installation which we’re hoping might be at either Brisbane or Amberley. ”

Options

For now the tanker project team is focused on delivering the five tankers under contract, but the original deal did include options for further aircraft.

It will be the White Paper process and within that, the Airlift Study, that will show if any further thought had been given to acquiring additional tankers or A330 VIP transports to bolster the fleet, or to modifying any of the current aircraft on order with main deck cargo handling facilities.

“The options we had for the three additional aircraft have expired,” explained Ewan Ward. “But we have been in discussion with EADS and Airbus to maintain flexibility should there be the desire to continue to exercise those options.

“One of the challenges of course is that the A330 is in high demand and it’s a matter of getting the production slots out of Airbus as much as anything, that is the challenge with their order books pretty full for the aircraft, but it’s certainly been considered as part of the White Paper.

“Other options may be available, but we’ve not been distracted by any of that,” added AIRCDRE Drury. “It hasn’t got to the stage of trying to get quotes or determining production schedules or anything like that – the team’s purely focused on delivering the project as it stands. ” “We’ve had some input into the wider airlift study as part of the White Paper,” EADS Australia CEO Fabrice Rochereau told AA. “It’s always possible to retrofit the cargo capability, but only aircraft four and five can be ordered as new build freighters now, as work has commenced on aircraft three. It is also possible to get a first class interior which can be moved from one aircraft to another for VIP missions if required. ” Whether its five aircraft or more, AIRCDRE Drury has confirmed they will be designated KC-30A, rather than KC-30B as originally planned.

“With the Americans designating their tankers KC-45, the RAAF will call our aircraft the KC-30A,” he confirmed.

“The logical reason for that is that we are the lead customer of the type – this is the first of the KC-30, A330/MRTT tankers, so I think that the ‘A’ is the proper reflection of the type,” added Ward.

Moving Forward

“The RAAF KC-30A is the number one priority within EADS CASA, and it’s not long before the UK’s FSTA and other tanker programs will require hangar space and will have to move in and actually start their own conversion,” said GPCAPT Derwort. “So it’s not just the pride in EADS wanting to produce the best product possible in the best time for us, but it’s also readying themselves for the rest of their programs. They’ve made numerous commitments to make sure everything possible is being done to provide our aircraft on or near time. ” “All of the kits and the parts for aircraft two have been manufactured, all of the looms have been manufactured but they’re holding off on installation until they’ve completed the first aircraft’s ground test.

Just in case there’s a wire here and there that needs to be changed, they want to do that before the looms go on the second aircraft,” added Ward.

“We’ve already learned so much for the next aircraft regarding the modifications, planning, and tooling,” Merino said. “The delay to aircraft one hasn’t flowed down to two yet, lessons learned from one have been translated to the drawings and job cards for two, and Qantas is working to further improve the processes ready for aircraft three, four and five. ” In the context of the complexity of the project and Australia’s position as lead customer for the type (selected when there were no off-the-shelf options available), these delays appear manageable and shouldn’t extend the RAAF’s tanker capability gap much further. Certainly the subsequent selection of the MRTT by Britain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the USAF (before Boeing’s successful protest) validate the RAAF’s choice of aircraft in the KC-30.