Some notes from the latest earnings call:

Boeing CEO still believes KC-46 can be profitable despite further charges in Q4

Boeing CEO says "disappointed" with latest KC-46 charge; "we are not discovering new technical risks"

Boeing CEO stopped short of saying latest tanker charge would be the last

KC-46 tanker will turn cashflow positive in 2018

https://twitter.com/R_Wall

moo wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Developement and first 4 test frames was estimated to cost less than $5b.
What was the projected bill for devel + 4 proto + ?17? first batch frames?

The first LRIP contract, issued in August 2016 for two batches (7 and 12 aircraft, plus spares) was set at $2.8Billion.

http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/08/1 ... -contract/

i.e. decidedly less than $8b for the whole shebang?

WIederling wrote:

moo wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Developement and first 4 test frames was estimated to cost less than $5b.
What was the projected bill for devel + 4 proto + ?17? first batch frames?

The first LRIP contract, issued in August 2016 for two batches (7 and 12 aircraft, plus spares) was set at $2.8Billion.

http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/08/1 ... -contract/

i.e. decidedly less than $8b for the whole shebang?

Hmm, it depends - the 2011 USAF SAR budget document for the KC-46 shows that the USAF budgeted around $7Billion for RDT&E by year end 2016, plus purchase costs of $3.5Billion for the acquisition of 19 aircraft by year end 2016.

The waters are a little muddy.

The contract price ceiling was set at $4.83Billion for the 4 development frames, plus the $3.5Billion for the first 19 aircraft would bring us to a budget of $8.33Billion for the first batch.

I'm not sure why the August 2016 contract was set at a lower cost than the 2011 budget based off the contract - I'm *guessing* that the 2016 contract for $2.8Billion includes penalties for Boeing missing targets (the first 7 aircraft were supposed to be procured in 2015 - instead, the first two batches were rolled into one procurement in 2016).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... p-2011.pdf

KarelXWB wrote:

Some notes from the latest earnings call:

Boeing CEO still believes KC-46 can be profitable despite further charges in Q4

Boeing CEO says "disappointed" with latest KC-46 charge; "we are not discovering new technical risks"

Boeing CEO stopped short of saying latest tanker charge would be the last

KC-46 tanker will turn cashflow positive in 2018

https://twitter.com/R_Wall

Do the latest charges include all penalties for the KC-46 delivery miss for 2017? If not, then thats why he didn't say anything about no more charges...

scbriml wrote:

trex8 wrote:

its actually more than that 312 million.

I think that pushes them over the $2billion mark on cost over-runs for the tanker.

Looks like it. Flightglobal writes:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... es-433523/

Boeing’s KC-46 tanker took a $312 million hit to its bottom line last quarter, bringing total charges over the course of the recapitalisation programme to more than $2 billion.

Boeing Commercial absorbed a $243 million pre-tax charge on the KC-46 Tanker programme, while its defense sector took a $69 million pre-tax charge as well. It marks the fifth cost overrun for the programme, following a $354 million and $219 million charge to Boeing commercial and defense last July associated with a refueling boom issue. In the previous quarter that year, the tanker programme cost Boeing commercial $162 million and its defense sector $91 million.

kanban wrote:

well in-spite of the problems, the government just bought 15 more
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-wi ... 20035.html

Boeing is on a fixed price contract, the USAF and DoD are loving it and of course will continue to buy the aircraft - all the financial issues from this point onward are Boeings and Boeings alone.

Boeing has to find something like $10Million savings per unit now to bring them back even with the contract - doable? Probably - it might not even blow out the per-unit profit margin.

A nice photo of the KC-46A storage area:


https://twitter.com/mattcawby

Close-up shot of LN 1111:


16-46013 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) - C/N 34109 / LN 1111 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

Further delays: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 18-434228/

Moving tests five month from August 2017 to January 2018.

Will this further affect the delivery schedule?

February 2018 is the current delivery schedule, announced after the previous delay. So I wonder if the newest delay will further affect the delivery schedule.

KarelXWB wrote:

February 2018 is the current delivery schedule, announced after the previous delay. So I wonder if the newest delay will further affect the delivery schedule.

From the article, it seems that this delay is the fall-out of the boom re-design. So February 2018 is the date negotiated between Boeing and the USAF after they went over the recovery plan.

This is typical as it may take months to re-work the contract and get it approved from the time a recovery plan is submitted.

bt

Latest photo of the storage area:


KC-46A in Storage by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

LN 1092 emerged from the EMC and has been moved to the Kilo 6 area for ground testing.


16-46006 (N884BA) USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) (VH006) - C/N 41983 / LN 1092 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

http://painefield.blogspot.com/2017/02/ ... ilo-6.html

KC-46A update :

L/N 1065 C/N 41273 B767-2LKC N461FT 11-46001 USAF KC-46A (VH001) EMD1, active, flight testing
L/N 1066 C/N 41274 B767-2LKC N464KC 11-46004 USAF KC-46A (VH002) EMD4, active, flight testing
L/N 1067 C/N 34054 B767-2LKC N463FT 11-46003 USAF KC-46A (VH003) EMD3, active, flight testing
L/N 1069 C/N 41275 B767-2LKC N462KC 11-46002 USAF KC-46A (VH004)EMD2,active, flight testing
L/N 1091 C/N 41852 B767-2LKC N842BA 16-46005 USAF KC46A (VH005) LRIP 1, #1/7, active flight testing
L/N 1092 C/N 41983 B767-2LKC N884BA 16-46006 USAF KC46A (VH006) LRIP 1, #2/7, pre flight testing
L/N 1098 C/N 41855 B767-2LKC 16-46007 USAF KC-46A (VH007) LRIP 1, #3/7, stored
L/N 1100 C/N 41856 B767-2LKC 16-46008 USAF KC-46A (VH008) LRIP 1, #4/7, stored
L/N 1102 C/N 41858 B767-2LKC 16-46009 USAF KC-46A (VH009) LRIP 1, #5/7, stored
L/N 1104 C/N 41859 B767-2LKC 16-46010 USAF KC-46A (VH010) LRIP 1, #6/7, stored
L/N 1107 C/N 34106 B767-2LKC 16-46011 USAF KC-46A (VH011) LRIP 1, #7/7, stored
L/N 1109 C/N 34107 B767-2LKC 16-46012 USAF KC-46A (VH012) LRIP 2, #1/12, stored
L/N 1111 C/N 34109 B767-2LKC 16-46013 USAF KC-46A (VH013) LRIP 2, #2/12, EMC
L/N 1113 C/N 34105 B767-2LKC 16-46014 USAF KC-46A (VH014) LRIP 2, #3/12, stored
L/N 1114 C/N 34134 B767-2LKC 16-46015 USAF KC-46A (VH015) LRIP 2, #4/12, stored
L/N 1116 C/N 41860 B767-2LKC 16-46016 USAF KC-46A (VH016) LRIP 2, #5/12, stored
L/N 1117 C/N 34108 B767-2LKC 16-46017 USAF KC-46A (VH017) LRIP 2, #6/12, stored
L/N 1119 C/N 34135 B767-2LKC 16-46018 USAF KC-46A (VH018) LRIP 2, #7/12, stored
L/N 1120 C/N 34138 B767-2LKC 16-46019 USAF KC-46A (VH019) LRIP 2, #8/12, FAL

bikerthai wrote:

From the article, it seems that this delay is the fall-out of the boom re-design.

What is wrong with the boom ?

The firing order of the last four (4) KC-46A aircraft of the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) batch 2 :

L/N 1122 C/N 34137 B767-2LKC 16-46020 USAF KC-46A (VH020) LRIP 2, #9/12, parts arriving at Everett
L/N 1124 C/N 34139 B767-2LKC 16-46021 USAF KC-46A (VH021) LRIP 2, #10/12, parts arriving at Everett
L/N 1126 C/N 34136 B767-2LKC 16-46022 USAF KC-46A (VH022) LRIP 2, #11/12,
L/N 1128 C/N 41861 B767-2LKC 16-46023 USAF KC-46A (VH023) LRIP 2, #12/12

The firing order of the next batch (LRIP 3) of 15 KC-46A aircraft is TBD.

In the picture posted by Karelxwb above you can just see a yellow object in the rear cargo hold, is this one of the auxiliary fuel tanks, is the lower
cargo hold space all taken up by these tanks and are they permanently installed or designed to easily 'slide in and out' like LD containers ?

LN 1119 spotted at the fuel dock yesterday:


Fuel Dock 3.21.2017 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

Max Q wrote:

is the lower
cargo hold space all taken up by these tanks and are they permanently installed or designed to easily 'slide in and out' like LD containers ?

I was waiting for someone else to answer, but since no one is responding, I will try my best.

These tanks are designed to be removed, but they are not like the LD containers that rolls on and off via cargo handling system. These tanks would require special equipment to lift and slide out of the aircraft.

bt

So the WARP's selected by the Air Force are used elsewhere in some variation, but they were deployed without the level of drawing details required by the FAA? My assumption is that there are drawings as the product was designed on paper before actual production, so the OEM has spent a couple years going back to suppliers to get original drawings or certified copies for every part that the FAA requires? Does anyone think a political agenda can also be at play, after all, this is the same FAA that has never seen a safety requirement by the NTSB that it liked since it would cost the industry money.
What happens if a small part supplier has already gone out of business, does that require a new supplier and a new part to be fiitted to obtain certification, how do they certify the B-52 to fly?

par13del wrote:

So the WARP's selected by the Air Force are used elsewhere in some variation, but they were deployed without the level of drawing details required by the FAA? My assumption is that there are drawings as the product was designed on paper before actual production, so the OEM has spent a couple years going back to suppliers to get original drawings or certified copies for every part that the FAA requires? Does anyone think a political agenda can also be at play, after all, this is the same FAA that has never seen a safety requirement by the NTSB that it liked since it would cost the industry money.
What happens if a small part supplier has already gone out of business, does that require a new supplier and a new part to be fiitted to obtain certification, how do they certify the B-52 to fly?

Very few military airplanes have anything to do with the FAA.

7BOEING7 wrote:

Very few military airplanes have anything to do with the FAA.

Does the KC-46A fall under FAA purview due to the 767-2C it's based on (which has some military-related hardware installed)?

Stitch wrote:

7BOEING7 wrote:

Very few military airplanes have anything to do with the FAA.

Does the KC-46A fall under FAA purview due to the 767-2C it's based on (which has some military-related hardware installed)?

This might explain it:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... Taylor.pdf

par13del wrote:

So the WARP's selected by the Air Force are used elsewhere in some variation, but they were deployed without the level of drawing details required by the FAA? My assumption is that there are drawings as the product was designed on paper before actual production, so the OEM has spent a couple years going back to suppliers to get original drawings or certified copies for every part that the FAA requires? Does anyone think a political agenda can also be at play, after all, this is the same FAA that has never seen a safety requirement by the NTSB that it liked since it would cost the industry money.
What happens if a small part supplier has already gone out of business, does that require a new supplier and a new part to be fiitted to obtain certification, how do they certify the B-52 to fly?

Why would a WARP need to be FAA certified? There aren't any non-military aircraft that would need them.

Well the article quoted by Revelation in post 1224 talks about the FAA, hence my questions.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

par13del wrote:

So the WARP's selected by the Air Force are used elsewhere in some variation, but they were deployed without the level of drawing details required by the FAA? My assumption is that there are drawings as the product was designed on paper before actual production, so the OEM has spent a couple years going back to suppliers to get original drawings or certified copies for every part that the FAA requires? Does anyone think a political agenda can also be at play, after all, this is the same FAA that has never seen a safety requirement by the NTSB that it liked since it would cost the industry money.
What happens if a small part supplier has already gone out of business, does that require a new supplier and a new part to be fiitted to obtain certification, how do they certify the B-52 to fly?

Why would a WARP need to be FAA certified? There aren't any non-military aircraft that would need them.

Don't the Omega tankers use a type of WARP system? Those are civilian aircraft.

AviationAddict wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

par13del wrote:

So the WARP's selected by the Air Force are used elsewhere in some variation, but they were deployed without the level of drawing details required by the FAA? My assumption is that there are drawings as the product was designed on paper before actual production, so the OEM has spent a couple years going back to suppliers to get original drawings or certified copies for every part that the FAA requires? Does anyone think a political agenda can also be at play, after all, this is the same FAA that has never seen a safety requirement by the NTSB that it liked since it would cost the industry money.
What happens if a small part supplier has already gone out of business, does that require a new supplier and a new part to be fiitted to obtain certification, how do they certify the B-52 to fly?

Why would a WARP need to be FAA certified? There aren't any non-military aircraft that would need them.

Don't the Omega tankers use a type of WARP system? Those are civilian aircraft.

I believe the Omega tankers operate under the experimental category, which exempts them from the FAA certification requirement for the WARP pods.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Why would a WARP need to be FAA certified? There aren't any non-military aircraft that would need them.

Did not read the article about the FAA cert. I am also not on the Tanker program. But here is what I can explain about the convoluted system of Military Derivatives.

The FAA need to certify all items that fly's with the KC-46 (and P-8A for that matter) prior to being "militarized" (military mission equipment being installed). They do not certify the military function of the equipment, they just need to certify the anything that may impact the flight characteristic of the aircraft. Any "military" related systems that is on the airplane is turned off (including the WARP). Once the FAA cert is complete, and the mission equipment is installed, then the military is responsible the the rest of the certification of the installed military system.

The note about Boeing and the supplier not realizing how much documentation needed for the WARP could probably be blamed on lost of experience internal to Boeing (or the right mix of experience people did not get on to the tanker Commercial operation - this mix is important as you need both commercial (FAA) and military (WARP) experience working closely to cover all aspect of the cert), lack of experience from the WARP designer and manufacturer with respect to the FAA cert process. (They probably never had to go through this type of cert before as all their previous cert was through a military modification process that only requires a military cert).

That is my hypothesis.

bt

AviationAddict wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

par13del wrote:

So the WARP's selected by the Air Force are used elsewhere in some variation, but they were deployed without the level of drawing details required by the FAA? My assumption is that there are drawings as the product was designed on paper before actual production, so the OEM has spent a couple years going back to suppliers to get original drawings or certified copies for every part that the FAA requires? Does anyone think a political agenda can also be at play, after all, this is the same FAA that has never seen a safety requirement by the NTSB that it liked since it would cost the industry money.
What happens if a small part supplier has already gone out of business, does that require a new supplier and a new part to be fiitted to obtain certification, how do they certify the B-52 to fly?

Why would a WARP need to be FAA certified? There aren't any non-military aircraft that would need them.

Don't the Omega tankers use a type of WARP system? Those are civilian aircraft.

Does Omega fly any tankers that are under 35 years old? I don't see them flying a KC-46 in my lifetime. By that time, the WARP's used by the USAF should have their bugs worked out. Omega can worry about getting. WARP's certified then.

par13del wrote:

What happens if a small part supplier has already gone out of business, does that require a new supplier and a new part to be fiitted to obtain certification, how do they certify the B-52 to fly?

Did not see this question until now.

If a small part suppler goes out of business and the part is critical the next level supplier, then that higher tier supplier will buy the rights to the design and built the parts themselves (or have somebody else build it). The process would be similar if one company buys out another company. The intellectual rights gets transferred (in this case the rights of the one particular parts and all the associated technology). You would need to re-certify the new part only from a manufacturing stand point as you have changed factory. All the engineering cert would remain (if the part number did not change) or the new part would be qualified through similarity (if the part number changed).

bt

Appreciate the responses, still much to be learned on this site.
Thanks

Revelation wrote:

zeke wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

From the article, it seems that this delay is the fall-out of the boom re-design.

What is wrong with the boom ?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 18-434228/ says:

But after Boeing discovered higher than expected axial loads on the refueling boom last May, the programme was forced to rebaseline its schedule.

That's seem a kind of not un dramatic.. remembering the energy put in promoting the low risk, proven aspect of the boom versus its competitor during selection, ages ago.

keesje wrote:

That's seem a kind of not un dramatic.. remembering the energy put in promoting the low risk, proven aspect of the boom versus its competitor during selection, ages ago.

Neither company has demonstrated an acceptable standard when it comes to boom design and integration...

Another 767 joined the storage area:


KC-46A's on old RWY11/29 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

LN 1102 seen at the EMC with engines:


16-46009 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) VH009 - C/N 41858 / LN 1102 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

SPREE34 wrote:

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.

the P3 can do ASW every bit as well as the P8, the P8 can get on station faster than the P3 but the endurance?? The P3 can equal and
Exceed anything the P8 can do so there is NO lack in capability between airplanes..

KarelXWB wrote:

The P3 can equal and
Exceed anything the P8 can do so there is NO lack in capability between airplanes..

Except in terms of crew comfort, and "the can".
Not sure of the P-3 has the same sonobuoy capacity as the P-8.
Finally, the P-8A was built with mission upgrade in mind. So upgrading the mission suite would be much easier with the semi-modular cabinets as oppose to the electronic racks on the P-3.

bt

LN 1102 has been moved:


16-46009 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) VH009 - C/N 41858 / LN 1102 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

Another KC-46A seen at the EMC:


KC-46A by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

LN 1102 and 1109 parked somewhere at PAE:


Stored KC-46A's by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

The bottom line is when will the first KC-46A be delivered to the USAF?

kc135topboom wrote:

The bottom line is when will the first KC-46A be delivered to the USAF?

Between February and October of 2018 depending on who you listen to.

Stitch wrote:

kc135topboom wrote:

The bottom line is when will the first KC-46A be delivered to the USAF?

Between February and October of 2018 depending on who you listen to.

So by then they will have lost that "new" car smell!!

If I recall correctly, current delivery target is March 2018.

petera380 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

kc135topboom wrote:

The bottom line is when will the first KC-46A be delivered to the USAF?

Between February and October of 2018 depending on who you listen to.

So by then they will have lost that "new" car smell!!

Nothing that a few pine air freshener and sheep skin seat cover couldn't solve

A peek inside the EMC:

1) LN 1092


16-46006 (N884BA) USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) (VH006) - C/N 41983 / LN 1092 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

2) LN 1104


16-46010 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) - C/N 41859 / LN 1104 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

3) LN 1111


16-46013 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) - C/N 34109 / LN 1111 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr