KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

KarelXWB · Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:52 pm

Boeing tanker program seen $1 billion over budget:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...oeing-tanker-idUSBREA2K1UA20140321

Stitch · Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:54 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 100):
Boeing tanker program seen $1 billion over budget:

Frankly, kudos to Boeing for keeping it so low considering the amount most military programs bust their budgets.

ThePointblank · Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:06 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 101):
Frankly, kudos to Boeing for keeping it so low considering the amount most military programs bust their budgets.

Frankly, we are looking at a COTS solution being adapted to the military, coupled with components that are Mil-COTS. We aren't building something from scratch.

kc135topboom · Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:26 pm

The KC-46 will fly about 1000 hours per year, per airplane, slightly more than the KC-135s and KC-10s fly today.

redflyer · Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:29 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 102):
Frankly, we are looking at a COTS solution being adapted to the military, coupled with components that are Mil-COTS. We aren't building something from scratch.

Sorry, but it's not a commercial product with just a long, hard appendage attached to the bottom of the stern. Many major components, including the cockpit itself, are completely different than the commercial product and are spec'd to DOD requirements.

Max Q · Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:18 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 101):

Frankly, kudos to Boeing for keeping it so low considering the amount most military programs bust their budgets

I agree, and their determination to make this the superb tanker it promises to be is inspiring, But this is typical Boeing, without a doubt the best Aircraft manufacturer in the business.

KC135Hydraulics · Sat Mar 22, 2014 3:32 pm

I sure hope that I get a chance to work on this aircraft some day. I'm ready for a change.

INFINITI329 · Sat Mar 22, 2014 4:03 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 100):
Boeing tanker program seen $1 billion over budget:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...oeing-tanker-idUSBREA2K1UA20140321

What is causing the cost overrun? Was is caused by their low bid?

bikerthai · Sat Mar 22, 2014 10:04 pm

Quoting redflyer (Reply 104):

The cockpit structure is still commercial. Most of the systems that fly the airplane are still commercial. There may be some systems that are specifically military like the secure com link and ewsp system.

But being commercial is more than just the hardware. It's the complete manufacturing process from ordering materials to the final bolts. Boeing is taking advantage of the existing commercial infrastructure to reduce the cost of the tanker. If you can share the overhead with the other programs, you can save significant money. (Enven thoughn Boeing's overhead is pretty high).

bt

nomadd22 · Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:29 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 107):
What is causing the cost overrun? Was is caused by their low bid?

Their bid was a tad optimistic. But it's not all overrun. They're spending a billion more than scheduled for development, but the program chiefs say a lot of that is work and risk retirement that was originally planned for later, and everything is pretty much on budget, so they'll recoup some of it in the future under production expenses.
The Air Force's claim of development cost overrun doesn't agree with Boeing's claims. Boeing says it's more a case of shifting productions costs to development, and is just an accounting change. It's very common to do stuff like that to move profits and losses from one budget to another depending on corporate profit and tax situations for those years.
It's like Boeing taking billions in losses for 787 development to get certain expenses out of the production budget.
(A guess on my part. Stitch probably knows a lot more about that situation)

INFINITI329 · Sun Mar 23, 2014 7:53 pm

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 109):
Their bid was a tad optimistic. But it's not all overrun. They're spending a billion more than scheduled for development, but the program chiefs say a lot of that is work and risk retirement that was originally planned for later, and everything is pretty much on budget, so they'll recoup some of it in the future under production expenses.
The Air Force's claim of development cost overrun doesn't agree with Boeing's claims. Boeing says it's more a case of shifting productions costs to development, and is just an accounting change. It's very common to do stuff like that to move profits and losses from one budget to another depending on corporate profit and tax situations for those years.
It's like Boeing taking billions in losses for 787 development to get certain expenses out of the production budget.
(A guess on my part. Stitch probably knows a lot more about that situation)

nomadd22, Thanks for the explanation

What are Boeing's projections for the USAF past their initial 179 plane order? Im very skeptical that it would be a 1:1 replacement for the KC-135s. Either way 179 is a far cry from the current force strength of of 415 KC 135s.

andydtwnwa7 · Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:53 am

Apologize if this has already been covered-after doing a web search and scan over previous threads, I didn't see a definitive answer (not claiming perfection in my search though).

Will the KC-46 be equipped with a HUD? I've seen some mock-up pictures circulating with one, and others that do not show it.

INFINITI329 · Sun Mar 30, 2014 5:19 am

Quoting andydtwnwa7 (Reply 111):
Will the KC-46 be equipped with a HUD? I've seen some mock-up pictures circulating with one, and others that do not show it.

I baffles me why some aircraft are only built with one

KarelXWB · Sat Apr 05, 2014 2:33 pm

The second KC-46A tanker was moved out of the EMC.

http://paineairport.com/kpae10272.htm

kc135topboom · Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:42 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 110):
What are Boeing's projections for the USAF past their initial 179 plane order? Im very skeptical that it would be a 1:1 replacement for the KC-135s. Either way 179 is a far cry from the current force strength of of 415 KC 135s.

The KC-Y and KC-Z programs are planned. KC-Y will replace the KC-10s, and KC-Z the rest of the KC-135s

PC12Fan · Sun Apr 06, 2014 12:58 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 113):
The second KC-46A tanker was moved out of the EMC.

Curious, I see the forward cargo door is the standard size and not the larger like that's on the -300F series.

KarelXWB · Sun Apr 06, 2014 9:34 pm

Here's a better picture of the second tanker by Bernie Leighton:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernieleighton/13675584755/

INFINITI329 · Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:27 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 114):
The KC-Y and KC-Z programs are planned. KC-Y will replace the KC-10s, and KC-Z the rest of the KC-135s

Why have two different procurement programs to replace one aircraft?

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 116):

Here's a better picture of the second tanker by Bernie Leighton:

She looks so small

Max Q · Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:55 am

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 115):

Curious, I see the forward cargo door is the standard size and not the larger like that's on the -300F series.

Guessing that's because the cargo hold will mostly be filled with auxiliary fuel tanks. No need for a larger door to load pallets /containers.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 117):
She looks so small

It does, I think it's just the angle of the photo although the slightly longer length over the standard -200 is not apparent in that shot.

747classic · Tue Apr 08, 2014 8:53 am

Close up of the banner of the second KC46 ( 767-2C, L/N1066), KPAE flight line, 4-7-2014

Original uploaded by Moonm, see : http://www.flickr.com/photos/moonm/13709477873/

KarelXWB · Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:15 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 117):
She looks so small

Quoting Max Q (Reply 118):
It does, I think it's just the angle of the photo although the slightly longer length over the standard -200 is not apparent in that shot.

Here's another shot:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/microvolt/13753048724/

kc135topboom · Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:47 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 120):
Here's another shot:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/microvolt/13753048724/

Thanks KarelXWB. Is it just the light conditions, or is the KC-46 going to debut a new combat livery for the USAF? The rudder, which is already painted looks to be a dark blue or charcoal grey.

Is the KC-46 going to have a livery like the Chilean Air Force?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...C_Chilean_Air_Force_%28FACh%29.JPG

mffoda · Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:04 pm

"Defense News" website has new GAO report update on the KC-46A.

"WASHINGTON — The projected price tag for the new Boeing KC-46 tanker has fallen $1.8 million per aircraft, according to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.

The US Air Force program “has made good progress over the past year” as “acquisition costs have remained relatively stable” and “the program is on track to meet performance parameters,” GAO said in the report released on Thursday.

“The next 12 months will be challenging as the program must complete software development, verify that the software works as intended, finalize developmental flight test planning and begin developmental flight tests,” the report states.

The estimated price tag for the entire program has also fallen $323 million to just under $51.4 billion, according to the report.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...Projection-Drops-1-8M-Per-Aircraft

kc135topboom · Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:18 pm

That's great news for the USAF/Boeing KC-46 program. It is beginning to look as good as the USN/Boeing P-8A program.

kanban · Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:23 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 121):
Is the KC-46 going to have a livery like the Chilean Air Force?

To cut costs, they are selling banner style advertising on the sides and belly..

kc135topboom · Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:41 pm

http://cmsimg.defensenews.com/apps/p...Projection-Drops-1-8M-Per-Aircraft

Seems something new is on the wingtips, unless I missed something. I know they are not part of the LAIRCM system.

bikerthai · Fri Apr 11, 2014 10:44 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 121):

Seems to me it looks like a dark gray similar to the C-17 livery.
I say dark gray, 'cause the 707 gray is almost white

bt

KarelXWB · Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:18 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 121):
Is it just the light conditions, or is the KC-46 going to debut a new combat livery for the USAF? The rudder, which is already painted looks to be a dark blue or charcoal grey.

Is the KC-46 going to have a livery like the Chilean Air Force?

Here's a better shot in full daylight:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/microvolt/13792893024/

nomadd22 · Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:14 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 125):

Seems something new is on the wingtips, unless I missed something. I know they are not part of the LAIRCM system.

Something to do with wingtip inertia sensing?

Max Q · Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:47 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 118):
Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 115):

Curious, I see the forward cargo door is the standard size and not the larger like that's on the -300F series.

Guessing that's because the cargo hold will mostly be filled with auxiliary fuel tanks. No need for a larger door to load pallets /containers.

What do you think TopBoom, is my guess correct ?!

kc135topboom · Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:53 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 127):
Here's a better shot in full daylight:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/microvolt/13792893024/

Thanks

Quoting Max Q (Reply 129):
What do you think TopBoom, is my guess correct ?!

That would be my guess also. The body tanks are bladder tanks that need servicing every now and then. The access panes on the bottom of the KC-135 to the body tanks is a very small panel, just large enough for a man to fit through. The bladder tank segments are installed and removed through this panel, and the maintenance guys say that is a real pain in the butt.
The air refueling fuel pumps, in the body tanks are also serviced though the bottom of the KC-135, they are large, heavy, and cumbersome to fit through the panels too.

Leaving the fore and aft cargo doors reduces structural design changes and improves maintenance access. I do notice there is no bulk cargo door aft of the aft cargo door.

Max Q · Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:25 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 130):
That would be my guess also. The body tanks are bladder tanks that need servicing every now and then. The access panes on the bottom of the KC-135 to the body tanks is a very small panel, just large enough for a man to fit through. The bladder tank segments are installed and removed through this panel, and the maintenance guys say that is a real pain in the butt.
The air refueling fuel pumps, in the body tanks are also serviced though the bottom of the KC-135, they are large, heavy, and cumbersome to fit through the panels too.

Leaving the fore and aft cargo doors reduces structural design changes and improves maintenance access. I do notice there is no bulk cargo door aft of the aft cargo door.

Thanks for the info TBoom, best wishes.

747classic · Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:03 am

The third KC46 (767-2C, L/N1067) emerged from the assembly line (building 40-32) and was towed to the fueldock.

KPAE, April14 2014

Original uploaded by Matt Cawby.

For more pictures, see : http://kpae.blogspot.nl/2014/04/paine-field-april-14.html

Max Q · Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:40 am

Anyone know if the auxiliary fuel tanks are installed already on the production line or do these mods come later ?

bikerthai · Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:41 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 133):
Anyone know if the auxiliary fuel tanks are installed already on the production line or do these mods come later ?

For P-8A they had the tanks in first. Then they have to take 'em out for the mission installation phase.

From a manufacturing stand point, it doesn't make sense. But then you have to figure on how the plane was certified.

It may have been easier/cheaper to certify the tanks as part of the basic frame configuration (before the "mod") than trying to do it after.

For the P-8A the tank configuration was probably already certified by the BBJ.

For the tanker, it would depend on if they already have a certified configuration. Otherwise from manufacturing stand point, it would be better to have the tanks in during the mission system installation phase.

bt

Stitch · Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:02 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 134):
For the tanker, it would depend on if they already have a certified configuration. Otherwise from manufacturing stand point, it would be better to have the tanks in during the mission system installation phase.

I would guess cargo hold fuel tanks would not be standard equipment, or perhaps even on option, on the civilian 767-2C cargo airframe, so that could mean that they would not be part of the basic airframe certification and would be added during the mission system installation phase.

747classic · Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:08 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 133):
Anyone know if the auxiliary fuel tanks are installed already on the production line or do these mods come later ?

The aux tanks will be certified during the 767-2C amended type certification and conseq. must be installed at the assembly line.

See the speech of Major General John Thompson AFA held at the Air and Space Technology Exposition, with the titel " KC-46 Requirements " at 17 September 2013 :
http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/document...0events/af-130917-AFA-Thompson.pdf
And look at page 5.

"Then as the aircraft proceeds down the line in the plant there at Everett we are turning out a provision freighter which we refer to as the 767-2C.
That's our baseline aircraft that will come out of the end of the factory. It will have the enhanced flight deck, it will have the cargo floor and door, it will have the body fuel tanks for the air refueling mission and lots of provisions for the tanker system "

kanban · Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:28 pm

I suspect the absence of wing tips on roll out is related to the plane exiting the rear of the FAL and being towed down a narrow alley.. we may or may not ever see them installed in the FAL, but that's why the EMC is important.

bikerthai · Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:35 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 137):
I suspect the absence of wing tips on roll out is related to the plane exiting the rear of the FAL and being towed down a narrow alley.

Or . . . the wing tip contains mission system gear that gets installed at the Military Flight Center.

The only comparable thing I can think is the 737 AEW&C EWSP sensors (I think) out on the wind tip.

bt

Revelation · Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:41 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 117):
Why have two different procurement programs to replace one aircraft?

Because there are so many KC-135s being replaced.

Also I believe we can presume it is two types of aircraft: KC-135E and KC-135R, because they have different maintenance profiles.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 136):
The aux tanks will be certified during the 767-2C amended type certification and conseq. must be installed at the assembly line.

I'm wondering if similar tanks were used by KC-767 for Japan and Italy.

kc135topboom · Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:22 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 139):
Quoting 747classic (Reply 136):The aux tanks will be certified during the 767-2C amended type certification and conseq. must be installed at the assembly line.
I'm wondering if similar tanks were used by KC-767 for Japan and Italy.

The KC-767A and J models do not have body fuel tanks. They carry a lot less fuel than the KC-46 will carry, and both have a lower MTOW. The KC-767A/J carry a max fuel load of 160,000 lbs., all in the original fuel system of the B-767-200ER with a center wing fuel tank. The KC-46A will carry about 215,000 lbs. of fuel.

The KC-767A/J have a MTOW of 395,000 lbs., the KC-46A will have a MTOW of 415,000 lbs. Yes, the difference is about 50,000 lbs. in fuel, but only 20,000 lbs. in MTOW. Remember the KC-46 will not have an airliner interior with pax seats, like the Italian and Japanese models do (although it is a quick change interior for Japan). There are other features the Italians and Japanese have that are not in the US version, or are different features.

Max Q · Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:07 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 140):

The KC-767A and J models do not have body fuel tanks. They carry a lot less fuel than the KC-46 will carry, and both have a lower MTOW. The KC-767A/J carry a max fuel load of 160,000 lbs., all in the original fuel system of the B-767-200ER with a center wing fuel tank. The KC-46A will carry about 215,000 lbs. of fuel.

The KC-767A/J have a MTOW of 395,000 lbs., the KC-46A will have a MTOW of 415,000 lbs. Yes, the difference is about 50,000 lbs. in fuel, but only 20,000 lbs. in MTOW. Remember the KC-46 will not have an airliner interior with pax seats, like the Italian and Japanese models do (although it is a quick change interior for Japan). There are other features the Italians and Japanese have that are not in the US version, or are different features.

That's a lot of fuel in a very compact and agile Aircraft, in my opinion I don't think you could have found a better airframe for the job. Even the -400 version still 'only' carries 160k of fuel yet its enough to go NYC-HNL non stop, up to 12 hours sometimes in the winter in a much heavier (450k) aircraft.

215 thousand pounds of fuel in that -200 airframe is a lot of bang for the buck and it will have a lot to give away, it will also take up very little space on the ramp, have a great cargo and / or passenger capacity and be able to maneuver in flight without hard limits. I would think this could be a great advantage to the Air Force.

This was a very good choice despite the delays it took to make the decision and I hope they buy a lot more. It seems like an ideal aircraft to replace the rest of the KC135's and the AWAC'S / JSTAR fleet.

[Edited 2014-04-16 01:08:11]

85027 · Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:36 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 141):

215 thousand pounds of fuel in that -200 airframe is a lot of bang for the buck and it will have a lot to give away, it will also take up very little space on the ramp, have a great cargo and / or passenger capacity and be able to maneuver in flight without hard limits. I would think this could be a great advantage to the Air Force.

This was a very good choice despite the delays it took to make the decision and I hope they buy a lot more. It seems like an ideal aircraft to replace the rest of the KC135's and the AWAC'S / JSTAR fleet.

Hey guys!
I love that they are doing this modified 762, it's proven over and over again how awesome and capable the airframe is and has been! Funny that it's only going to hold 15K more fuel than the full take off load of it's venerable predecessor! I remember MANY 195K's over the years, and a few "more" than that during Desert Storm, OEF/OIF from Mildenhall and Incirlik!

ALWAYS a pleasure reading what you guys add to these!

135Mech

Max Q · Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:01 am

Quoting 135mech (Reply 142):
Funny that it's only going to hold 15K more fuel than the full take off load of it's venerable predecessor! I

I think thats true but it has only two very efficient engines burning that fuel load rather than four ancient ones !

85027 · Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:33 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 143):
I think thats true but it has only two very efficient engines burning that fuel load rather than four ancient ones !

VERY TRUE! LOL

AND they have a combined 40K + thrust! I do miss my old girls tho...they were awesome and insanely reliable for such old birds!

135Mech

Max Q · Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:59 am

Quoting 135mech (Reply 144):
VERY TRUE! LOL

AND they have a combined 40K + thrust! I do miss my old girls tho...they were awesome and insanely reliable for such old birds!

No question the old Pratt & Whitneys are great engines, incidentally the two engines on the KC46 will have over 120K of combined thrust !

Moose135 · Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:03 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 143):
I think thats true but it has only two very efficient engines burning that fuel load rather than four ancient ones !

We were Gods - we made water burn!

KarelXWB · Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:35 pm

Another picture:

Around KPAE 4-18-14 by moonm, on Flickr

85027 · Sat Apr 19, 2014 3:15 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 145):
No question the old Pratt & Whitneys are great engines, incidentally the two engines on the KC46 will have over 120K of combined thrust !

Oh yes, they are almost 130K... was just posting that the significance of the added thrust, and hopeful fuel savings of the more power and ability to throttle back like we did in later years!

Have a good weekend friend!

135Mech

Max Q · Sat Apr 19, 2014 4:23 am

Quoting 135mech (Reply 148):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 145):
No question the old Pratt & Whitneys are great engines, incidentally the two engines on the KC46 will have over 120K of combined thrust !

Oh yes, they are almost 130K... was just posting that the significance of the added thrust, and hopeful fuel savings of the more power and ability to throttle back like we did in later years!

Have a good weekend friend!

135Mech

Likewise, best wishes !

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net