Safran Aircraft Engines assure le MCO des moteurs du Dassault Rafale

Sur le même sujet

• 

  14 juin 2019 | International, Aérospatial

  KC-46 refueling system flaws will take years to fix and cost hundreds of millions, GAO says

  By: Stephen Losey New designs will be required to fix some of the issues with the refueling boom and the remote vision system on the Air Force's new KC-46 Pegasus tanker, and that could take years to fix, the Government Accountability Office said in a report released Wednesday. The refueling boom on the Pegasus could inadvertently scratch fighter jets' stealth coatings, or otherwise damage aircraft, according to the GAO. The good news is that the cost of delivering all 179 KC-46 tankers is now expected to come in at $43 billion, or nearly $9 billion cheaper than originally estimated in 2011, GAO said in the report. More, the KC-46 is ultimately expected to meet all 21 of its performance goals. But delays in the program mean that Boeing will not be able to make good on its most significant delivery requirement — delivering nine sets of wing aerial refueling pods — until mid-2020, or nearly three years later than originally expected. In addition to previously reported foreign object debris problems, the GAO report details deficiencies with the tanker's remote vision system and refueling boom — which could damage aircraft, especially stealth coatings. As has been previously reported, the remote vision system's cameras sometimes had problems with glare when the sun shone at certain angles, GAO said. This caused the display screens to be washed out or blacked out during some test flights, and the aerial refueling operators had a hard time seeing the receiving aircraft's receptacles to guide in the boom. The system also doesn't provide enough depth perception in some lighting conditions, GAO said. Boeing said it has already made changes, such as adjusting the contrast on the display screen and allowing operators to more quickly switch between different viewing options. However, GAO responded that those changes didn't fix the underlying problem: KC-46 operators need to be able to refuel aircraft in all conditions, with sufficient visual clarity in all lighting conditions. Boeing has agreed to redesign the vision system to do so, but the redesign could take three or four years, plus several more years to install it in the planes. That vision problem also caused the boom nozzle to bump into the receiving aircraft, without the knowledge of the refueling operators. This could damage the antenna or other structures near the refueling receptacle, GAO said. This especially presents a problem for low-observable planes such as the F-22 fighter, because inadvertent boom nozzle contact could scratch or damage special stealth coatings, and make them visible to radar. GAO also said the Pegasus' telescoping boom is stiffer than expected, which means lighter aircraft — such as the A-10 and F-16 — must use more power to move the boom forward while in contact to compress it and stay in refueling position. The need for additional force can create a problem when the receiving planes disconnect from the boom. When they disconnect, their additional power can cause them to lunge forward back into the boom, which could damage the plane and the boom itself. For the A-10, because the receptacle is located on its nose, a collision with the boom could damage the windshield and put the pilot at a greater risk. Boeing said that fixing that problem will require a hardware change, which could take three or four years to be designed and certified by the Federal Aviation Administration. But because the contract didn't specify how much force should be needed to compress the boom, and because the Air Force signed off on Boeing's original proposed specifications, program officials said the Air Force will have to foot the bill. The total cost for designing and retrofitting roughly 106 KC-46s? More than $300 million, GAO said. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/06/13/kc-46-refueling-system-flaws-will-take-years-to-fix-and-cost-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-gao-says/

• 

  16 octobre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  A&D Industry And The Chinese Conundrum: Get In Or Out?

  Michael Bruno Western airlines are begging for more government aid, the International Air Transport Association does not expect the industry to see positive cash flow before 2022, and credit agency analysts forecast depressed aerospace and defense business activity for up to another 1.5 years. Meanwhile, data continues to portray China as the lone bright spot in the aviation world. By August, Chinese domestic flights had recovered to about 90% of 2019 levels. “China has been effectively controlling the spread of COVID-19, limiting cases to less than 100 a day. Combined with a large domestic market, the recovery in commercial aviation is expected to outpace the rest of the world,” Jefferies analysts Sheila Kahyaoglu and Greg Konrad noted in late September. “Right now, really, the two areas of traffic that are close to normal are domestic China and the roughly 2,000 all-cargo aircraft out there today,” echoes AeroDynamic Advisory Managing Director Kevin Michaels. Otherwise, “it's a bloodbath, and we're all aware of that,” he told an Aviation Week SpeedNews conference in September. For aerospace and defense (A&D) suppliers, the dichotomy sets up a critical decision: Should suppliers and servicers run toward China—or run away? It is easy to understand why they are debating the question. Long before COVID-19 gutted commercial air traffic and kick-started what is expected to be the greatest makeover of aircraft manufacturing and the maintenance, repair and overhaul industries since the dawn of the jet age, there were already good reasons to debate being in China. Topping the list was the Trump administration's trade war with the world's second-largest economy. Ongoing questions lingered about intellectual property rights and the specter of inadvertently creating future competitors in Avic, Comac and other Chinese companies. Proponents of reshoring industry to the U.S.—or “nearshoring” to Canada or Mexico—are certainly touting potential opportunity. “The logical thing is to fill longer-term and COVID-revealed supply chain gaps,” Reshoring Initiative President Harry Moser told an Aerospace and Defense Forum audience on Oct. 6. Others agree that conditions are ripe for reshoring, not least because automation and advanced technologies that replace humans can offset North American costs. Also, A&D has been deemed a critical part of U.S. infrastructure. And Chinese unit labor costs have risen fivefold in recent decades. This summer, site-selection consultant Duff & Phelps identified A&D as a top candidate for moving to America (see chart). But siting decisions are complex, and supply chain moves are even more so. Not only is commercial aviation looking strongest in China now and in the near future, but it could accelerate a long-expected toppling of the U.S. as the world's leading aviation market, possibly as soon as 2025. Increasingly, Beijing officials talk about relying on domestic supply instead of imports. Indeed, the “Sleeping Giant” could boast a future estimated aviation market value of more than $1 trillion, according to Yi Zhang, general manager of OCO Global China. That catches suppliers' attention. Zhang spoke in June to a well-attended webinar hosted by Washington state economic development officials about aerospace opportunities in China, and that was a month before Boeing revealed it was even thinking about scrapping 787 production in Puget Sound, Washington. Now China's opportunities beckon brighter with no snapback in Western air traffic. Still, in his Sept. 24 report titled “Caveat Venditor,” or “seller beware,” Vertical Research Partners analyst Rob Stallard cautions Western A&D companies against rushing toward China. “We see the Chinese government leveraging its position of relative post-COVID strength in coming years, and no doubt aerospace will see some of the fallout,” Stallard says. “As the biggest show in town, we would expect to see more quid pro quo in China's relationship with what is still very much a Western aerospace industry. Price, supply chain and technology transfer could be on the table, as could politics. “Aviation could conceivably suffer collateral damage as part of a broader trade war,” Stallard writes. “So while investors will probably see good news in a Chinese-led aero recovery, we would be looking for any strings attached.” https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/manufacturing-supply-chain/ad-industry-chinese-conundrum-get-or-out

• 

  23 juillet 2024 | International, Terrestre

  Thales new orders jump 26%, but space business woes weigh on shares