KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

KarelXWB · Wed May 22, 2013 8:07 pm

Employees in Wichita recently began production on the first Boeing KC-46 Tanker parts, destined to be integrated into the forward fuselage section of the aircraft. Pictured below is a Spirit Wichita employee working on a lower lobe side panel.

Here are some interesting numbers: there are 179 KC-46 Tankers and about 50 other 767 aircraft in backlog. With a production rate of 2 frames per month, the 767 line will be open for the next 10 years.

chrisnh · Wed May 22, 2013 11:04 pm

It will be good seeing these here in New Hampshire in several years' time.

AWACSooner · Thu May 23, 2013 10:59 am

I thought these were gonna be assembled at Tinker

redflyer · Thu May 23, 2013 2:31 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter):
there are 179 KC-46 Tankers and about 50 other 767 aircraft in backlog. With a production rate of 2 frames per month, the 767 line will be open for the next 10 years.

That's assuming no more orders come in.

Spacepope · Thu May 23, 2013 3:16 pm

I think the assembly is going to be the same as with all other 767s: First at vendors (what you see here) then in Washington. I thought Tinker is where they make it into an actual tanker (Boom, specialized equip, etc.).

BoeEngr · Thu May 23, 2013 3:39 pm

Assembly of the 767-2C is in Everett, and the refueling equipment/military equipment will be installed at Boeing Field in Seattle.

Stitch · Thu May 23, 2013 3:42 pm

Boeing agreed to close the Boeing-Wichita Modification Center and move the tanker modification work to the Puget Sound as part of their latest contract with the IAM.

Global Transport & Executive Systems is moving from Wichita to Tinker and Tinker is also handling the B-52 upgrades.

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/bo...-closing-Wichita-plant-2440784.php
http://www.newson6.com/story/2218955...52-planes-at-tinker-air-force-base

kc135topboom · Thu May 23, 2013 9:09 pm

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 1):
It will be good seeing these here in New Hampshire in several years' time.

Yeap, the NHANG at PSM is thought to be one of the first units to get the KC-46A. Their current KC-135Rs will be sent to other units.

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 2):
I thought these were gonna be assembled at Tinker

No, TIK has been announced as the depot for the KC-46A.

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter):
Employees in Wichita recently began production on the first Boeing KC-46 Tanker parts, destined to be integrated into the forward fuselage section of the aircraft.

Yes, Spirit is one of the sub-contractors for the KC-46A.

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter):
Here are some interesting numbers: there are 179 KC-46 Tankers and about 50 other 767 aircraft in backlog. With a production rate of 2 frames per month, the 767 line will be open for the next 10 years.

The current USAF plan is to buy the KC-46 at a rate of 15 per year.

USAF336TFS · Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:06 pm

Quoting redflyer (Reply 3):
That's assuming no more orders come in

There are active campaigns to sell the KC-46A internationally, which I believe will happen as KC-46As are delivered to the Air Force. If this program is executed anywhere near as efficiently as the P-8 Poseidon program, follow on orders shouldn't be a problem at all.

bikerthai · Thu Jun 06, 2013 1:33 pm

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 8):
If this program is executed anywhere near as efficiently as the P-8 Poseidon program, follow on orders shouldn't be a problem at all.

Yes and no. The P-8 does not have a real competitor. The KC-46 does. And as been discussed previously, foreign air forces may have different requirements that may drive them to a larger A330.

bt

USAF336TFS · Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:29 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 9):
Yes and no. The P-8 does not have a real competitor. The KC-46 does. And as been discussed previously, foreign air forces may have different requirements that may drive them to a larger A330

Or the "smaller" KC-46.

I personally believe that this aircraft will sell itself. The Italian KC-767 are carrying a substantial load with regard to intra-European aerial refueling duties and responsibility.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 9):
The P-8 does not have a real competitor

Lockheed Martin has proposed new build P-3s both to the U.S. Navy as well as international customers.

Stitch · Fri Jun 07, 2013 12:29 am

I believe the KC-46A has a decent shot at securing foreign orders now that it's going to be in significant production thanks tot he USAF buy (especially if it's chosen to replace other USAF 707-based platforms).

Of the current KC-135 operators, France have already committed to the A330MRTT, but I think Turkey and Chile could be KC-46A customers (Turkey is a customer for the Boeing 737 AEW&C) and maybe even Singapore.

Israel is a pretty safe choice as well, I would think, to replace their 707 tankers with the KC-46.

seahawk · Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:49 am

Or used 767s tanker converted by Israeli companies.

Stitch · Fri Jun 07, 2013 1:38 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 12):
Or used 767s tanker converted by Israeli companies

Ah yes, forgot about the one IAI is doing for Columbia. So yes, an IAI KC-767 makes sense.

kc135topboom · Sat Jun 08, 2013 7:54 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Israel is a pretty safe choice as well, I would think, to replace their 707 tankers with the KC-46.

Israel is getting KC-135Rs from the USAF. They won't need the KC-46A, at least for a while. 20 years down the road it may be something else if those IDF KC-135s need replacing.

Those countries that buy the F-35A and/or F-15SE may consider the KC-46 tanker. The ROKAF is making their choice now about buying either of these airplanes, but they are not needed for defensive or offensive against North Korea. They will need them against any aggression by Russia, China, or Japan. Since the F-35A has a combat radius of less than 600 nm, and the F-15SE a range of 800 nm, a tanker will be needed for these projection missions.

Boeing now has two KC-46 Booms in production, as seen in this video;

http://www.boeing.com/Features/2012/11/bds_kc46a_11_19_12.html

Here are pictures of Boom #1 in assembly in the gig;

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=13&cat=36&item=2141

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=13&cat=36&item=2142

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=13&cat=36&item=2143

cargotanker · Sun Jun 09, 2013 2:52 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
Ah yes, forgot about the one IAI is doing for Columbia. So yes, an IAI KC-767 makes sense.

I don't think the IAI 767 has a boom option, only wing pods. IDF needs a boom for its F-15s and F-16s.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Israel is getting KC-135Rs from the USAF.

Any more info out there on this? How many KC-135s? When are they being delivered? I read somewhere it was R models, so which US base has to cough up a few of their R models for the IDF? How much did they cost or was it a freebie? I haven't found much about this.

columba · Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:33 am

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 10):
Lockheed Martin has proposed new build P-3s both to the U.S. Navy as well as international customers.

Yes but the P3 even new build would be real competitor for the P8, too small and too old of a design.

kc135topboom · Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:33 pm

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 15):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):Israel is getting KC-135Rs from the USAF.
Any more info out there on this? How many KC-135s? When are they being delivered? I read somewhere it was R models, so which US base has to cough up a few of their R models for the IDF? How much did they cost or was it a freebie? I haven't found much about this.

Have not heard much more about this. It is thought 3 KC-135Rs will go to the IDF, but it could be as many as 5-6. I don't know who would loose any KC-135s, but I am thinking these tankers will be transferred as they come out of the TIK depot, with Israeli roundels. They may also have Israeli specific modifications for some avionics, and possibly a defense system (which the KC-135s do not have now). Israel may also want receptacles installed to take on fuel from the IDF KC-707s.

I am just guessing at all of this. As you know, Israeli weapons systems capabilities are not made public.

I do not know when the IDF aircrews will enter type training at LTS, but my guess is about 6 months before the first KC-135 is delivered.

My guess is the costs will be covered by the US, as is most of the Israeli weapon systems.

mffoda · Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:21 am

KC-46 on the way!

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...gy/2021276435_boeingtankerxml.html

"Boeing workers in Everett have begun assembly of the first aerial refueling tanker under the big Air Force contract to supply 179 planes."

[Edited 2013-06-26 19:22:19]

Max Q · Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:41 am

When is first flight planned ?

seahawk · Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:13 am

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 15):

I don't think the IAI 767 has a boom option, only wing pods. IDF needs a boom for its F-15s and F-16s.

Boom option is coming for the 767 MMTT

http://defense-update.com/20120216_i...o-carry-boom-refueling-system.html

kanban · Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:30 pm

Here's some news that does not require a subscription
http://skiesmag.com/news/articles/19...-first-kc-46a-tanker-aircraft.html

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2726

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...kc-46-tanker-certification-process

KarelXWB · Fri Aug 09, 2013 9:51 pm

On July 26, 2013, Spirit AeroSystems celebrated completion of the first forward fuselage section, Section 41, destined for integration into the Boeing KC-46A tanker.

USAF336TFS · Sun Aug 11, 2013 8:35 pm

Thanks for sharing Karel!!

KarelXWB · Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:04 pm

The first KC-46A tanker forward fuselage section was loaded into place on the final assembly line.

http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2013/08/cheers_to_that.html

SPREE34 · Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:17 pm

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 10):
Lockheed Martin has proposed new build P-3s both to the U.S. Navy as well as international customers.

A better, and more effcient frame for the mission.

Quoting columba (Reply 16):
Yes but the P3 even new build would be real competitor for the P8, too small and too old of a design.

Eh,.....the 737 has been in production how long? C-130? Yes, both modernized, as would be a current P3/Electra.

KarelXWB · Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:57 pm

The second tanker is in final assembly.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/Boeing-B...embling-2nd-KC-46A-Tanker-Aircraft

twal1011727 · Fri Sep 06, 2013 10:54 pm

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 2):
I thought these were gonna be assembled at Tinker

A Tinker - Tanker ?

KD

Revelation · Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:24 pm

Quoting TWAL1011727 (Reply 27):

A Tinker - Tanker ?

LOL - good one!

kanban · Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:15 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 26):
The second tanker is in final assembly.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/Boeing-B...embling-2nd-KC-46A-Tanker-Aircraft

Totally and completely wrong.. They only loaded the material for the second set of wing spars.. The Wichita components have not arrived for the first one except for the cockpit.

KarelXWB · Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:19 pm

Rumor from the factory floor: the first 767 tanker should roll out in 50 days.

http://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/383275762851123200

kc135topboom · Thu Sep 26, 2013 11:50 pm

Neither the first or second KC-46 have begun "final assembly". They have just begun assembly.

The first KC-46A will fly initially as a B-767-2C in 2014, where it will get initial FAA approval for the B-787 avionics, body fuel tanks, cargo floor and door, etc. It will later go back into the assembly building for conversion to full KC-46 configuration. The second KC-46 will complete the B-767-2C STC with the FAA wile #1 is rebuilt. It will begin flying as a KC-46A in 2015. There will be a total of 4 airplanes in the flight test program. KC-46A #5 or #6 will be the first new tankers delivered to the USAF in 2016, followed by the remaining 8 production tankers, followed by the 4 flight test tankers by late 2017.

All 18 of these tankers will initially be assigned to the 22nd Air Refueling Wing at McConnell AFB, KS and used for training and qualifications and IOC. The 157th Air Refueling Wing, NHANG, Pease ANGB, NH will be the first full deployable combat wing.

KarelXWB · Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:05 am

Very clear, thank you.

CFMitch56 · Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:05 pm

TopBoom, thanks for the explanation of the production sequence. Any idea what the first year of tail numbers will be? FY13?

Also wondering what the official Boeing civilian model designation will be... B767-2C? Or will it have a customer code stuck in there somewhere (such as B767-253C)? Does it get an ER/LR tag too, or is it like the 777F where that's implied?

kc135topboom · Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:41 pm

I believe the 4 SDD tankers will all have 2014 tail numbers, even though they were funded back in 2012. This is because they will initially be civilian airplanes. The remaining 14 tankers will have 2015, 2016, and 2017 tail numbers.

Yes, as far as I know, the official civilian designation will be B-767-2C, with the customer code after that. So, using your example it would be a B-767-2C53 with maybe an "F", "ERF", or "LRF" stuck on the end. An airplane ordered by UPS could have the Boeing designation of B-767-2C4A, FedEx would be B-767-2CS2.

Boeing could also drop the customer codes altogether like they do for the B-787-8/-9 models.

Stitch · Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:20 am

Quoting cfmitch56 (Reply 33):
Also wondering what the official Boeing civilian model designation will be... B767-2C?

Boeing's latest price list added a 767-2CFX so it stands to reason should a civilian order the type, it will be 767-2CF or 767-2CXXF (where XX is the customer code).

The military versions appear to be 767-2C as that is how the first four, at least, are identified on Boeing's O&D site. Once actual production frames enter the line, that might change to KC-46 or stay 767-2C.

CFMitch56 · Mon Sep 30, 2013 8:46 am

Anyone know if the KC-46 program has a customer code assigned to it? The C-32's are all second hand, and the P-8 and YAL-1 had their own program-specific customer codes.

bikerthai · Mon Sep 30, 2013 1:09 pm

Quoting cfmitch56 (Reply 36):
Anyone know if the KC-46 program has a customer code assigned to it? The C-32's are all second hand, and the P-8 and YAL-1 had their own program-specific customer codes.

If I understand your question correctly, the customer code that Boeing Commercial Airplane assigns to these KC-46 would be similar to the ones assigned to the P-8 which is designated to The Boeing Company. This is because the frame is delivered to Boeing Defense System which does the the Mission Installation before delivering to the Air Force.

bt

kc135topboom · Mon Sep 30, 2013 2:54 pm

Quoting cfmitch56 (Reply 36):
Anyone know if the KC-46 program has a customer code assigned to it? The C-32's are all second hand, and the P-8 and YAL-1 had their own program-specific customer codes.

The four C-32As (B-757-2G4ER) were all new builds for the USAF. The C-32Bs were bought as used aircraft. The C-32A has PW-2040 engines and the C-32B has RR RB-211 engines and an air refueling receptacle, which gives the "ER" capability.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 37):
If I understand your question correctly, the customer code that Boeing Commercial Airplane assigns to these KC-46 would be similar to the ones assigned to the P-8 which is designated to The Boeing Company. This is because the frame is delivered to Boeing Defense System which does the the Mission Installation before delivering to the Air Force.

Boeing has a different customer code for the USN and USAF. Boeing's own customer code is "20" and "T9", for the USAF it is "26" (VC-137A/B/C, some C/KC-135s, other KC-135s were "46", "48", and "66") "DM" (C-40B, the C-40Cs were all bought as used aircraft, at least two of them from Ford Motor Company, making them B-737-BBJ2CP), and "G4" (VC-25A, C-32A, the YAL-1A was a B-747-4G4F), for the USN/USMC it is "AF" (C-40A) and "FV" (P-8A).

The B-52 evolved from Boeing model B-462, B-464-29/-35/-49/-67, and B-52A as a unique military program.

INFINITI329 · Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:54 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Israel may also want receptacles installed to take on fuel from the IDF KC-707s.

USAF KC-135s can recive fuel via boom

Revelation · Sat Oct 19, 2013 4:20 pm

A few milestones:

8/23 - 2nd frame begins assembly - http://boeing.mediaroom.com/Boeing-B...embling-2nd-KC-46A-Tanker-Aircraft

Quote:

Boeing [NYSE: BA] officially began assembling the second KC-46A Tanker this week as workers loaded the aircraft’s wing spar into an Automated Spar Assembly Tool.

...

The first test aircraft is expected to roll out of the factory in January 2014, while the second is scheduled to leave the factory in March. Boeing plans to fly the fully provisioned tanker for the first time in early 2015 and make the first delivery in 2016. The company expects to build and deliver the first 18 KC-46As by 2017 and a total of 179 by 2027 if all options under the contract are exercised.

“We’re exactly where we want to be right now,” said Maureen Dougherty, Boeing vice president and KC-46 Tanker program manager. “One year from now, all four test aircraft will be out of the factory, and the first two will be flying.”

9/6 - Final design frozen - http://boeing.mediaroom.com/US-Air-F...lize-KC-46A-Tanker-Aircraft-Design

Other articles point out that the key to keep the program on track is avoiding any add-ons beyond the initial specification.

I'm sure many can dream of an E-10 type aircraft in the future, but it's damn good to see this program not get burdened by any other requirements.

KarelXWB · Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:03 pm

An update on the program:

1st KC-46 tanker program test aircraft in final body join by The Boeing Company, on Flickr

kc135topboom · Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:22 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 41):
KarelXWB

Wow, she's starting to take shape and looking like a real airplane, thanks KarelXWB.

checksixx · Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:35 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 39):
USAF KC-135s can recive fuel via boom

No, they can't.

dlednicer · Wed Nov 20, 2013 5:36 am

Quoting checksixx (Reply 43):
Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 39):
USAF KC-135s can recive fuel via boom

No, they can't.

You might want to check out this discussion: Rivet Joints For RAF (by Devilfish Mar 22 2010 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

To save you the time:

Quoting garysted (Reply 23):
Hopefully not complicating matters, but just to clarify what I said in the previous posts, but a very small number of USAF KC-135R's do have the boom receptacle fitted and are usually referred to as KC-135R/ARR's. I believe - and I'm sure some of the other posters could clarifiy - that it's only about 6/7 and they're all at McConnell. These were aircraft that were converted to other configurations and fitted for AAR, and were then converted back to the KC-135R standard. Again, I'm sure others have more detailed info.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):
Actually all KC-135s can receive fuel inflight. The process is called reverse refueling and is only accomplished in an emergency. The Boom Operator makes a contact with a large/heavy receiver (B-52, other C-135 type, E-3, C-5, etc.), the receiver pressurizes his refueling system and the Boom Operator holds the retract lever slightly in the retract position to open the fuel by-pass valve and fuel is pumped only into the aft body fuel tank. The 'on-load' depends on how much fuel is in the forward body fuel tank so the aft CG limit isn't exceeded. Before the refueling the Boom Operator must compute how much fuel to on-load into the aft body fuel tank before the refueling is accomplished. Once fuel begins showing in the aft body tank, the pilot can begin burning that new fuel.

checksixx · Wed Nov 20, 2013 9:00 am

I'm aware of the previous discussions you mentioned...a small number compared to the fleet and the statement they can receive fuel via boom is NOT a commonly accepted practice. The poster I quoted is making it seem like a normal thing they can 'just do' whenever the need hits. That is NOT the case. It's my bad for saying 'no, they can't'. I should have said it differently.

kc135topboom · Wed Nov 20, 2013 7:43 pm

Quoting checksixx (Reply 45):
I'm aware of the previous discussions you mentioned...a small number compared to the fleet and the statement they can receive fuel via boom is NOT a commonly accepted practice.

As I said in the Rivet Joint thread, it is an emergency procedure. It is an accepted practice, in fact how to do it is in the flight manual.

Aviaponcho · Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:28 pm

Hello

I was wondering if the KC46 fuse was indeed longer than 767-200

Based on that
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/def.../pdf/kc46a_tanker_backgrounder.pdf

and that
http://www.cargoleasing.com/docs/767...0SF%20General%20Specifications.pdf

I find it's the same length
Wasn't it supposed to be 2 m longer than 767-200 ?

More detailed in french here ...
http://avia.superforum.fr/t1216p20-kc-46#42725

Have a nice day

Stitch · Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:30 am

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 47):
Wasn't it supposed to be 2 m longer than 767-200 ?

The 767-2C / KC-46A is 165 ft 6 in (50.5 m) and the 767-200 is 159 ft 2 in (48.5 m).

I don't see an overall length in the IAI Freighter document, so how is it generating a discrepancy?

[Edited 2013-11-23 02:33:54]

Aviaponcho · Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:33 pm

Tailboom can increase the so called lenght maybe

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/bds/globaltanker/files/KC767A.pdf

KC767 is 19 pallet on main deck a lot o equipement near the rear door...
So ?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net