par13del wrote:

One of the thing always mentioned is the fact that the USAF has a large dedicated tanker fleet and a large cargo fleet, so the need for a multi-role tanker is minimal compared to other countries, ok, I get that. Now without having to review all the old tanker threads, the reason for the a/c to have almost full FAA civilian certification is.......?

The original contract required Boeing to maximize the amount of the tanker design that is FAA certified. To that end, the underlying frame (767-2C) has an Amended Type Certificate for the 767-200 as a "provisional freighter". A Supplemental Type Certificate then applies to the KC-46A with the refueling equipment and military avionics installed.

par13del wrote:

One of the thing always mentioned is the fact that the USAF has a large dedicated tanker fleet and a large cargo fleet, so the need for a multi-role tanker is minimal compared to other countries, ok, I get that. Now without having to review all the old tanker threads, the reason for the a/c to have almost full FAA civilian certification is.......?

Maybe to be able to operate in civilian airspace and from civilian airports I would assume. Not 100% sure though.

Does anyone know if the KC-46 will have powered rollers on the main deck?

INFINITI329 wrote:

Does anyone know if the KC-46 will have powered rollers on the main deck?

No it will not.

INFINITI329 wrote:

Does anyone know if the KC-46 will have powered rollers on the main deck?

Yes, they are called Airmen.

par13del wrote:

Now without having to review all the old tanker threads, the reason for the a/c to have almost full FAA civilian certification is.......?

. . . Cost. The specification for FAA certification is well established within the aviation industry all the way from the prime down to the lowest level sub contractor. Keeping the basic air frame under FAA certification keep you supplier base without having extensive paperwork needed to cert these suppliers to any Military requirement. Often time the certification requirements for the FAA and Military are the same, just the specific design requirements are different, so paying an FAA person to do the work would be cheaper than paying a military subcontractor to do the same work. Even the Military have going away from mil-spec where they can, converting many of the former MIL-Spec to NASM spec, so the actual maintenance of the specification is maintained on the less expensive civilian side.

There is still requirement for the Military side of the certification to handle stuff that the FAA would not touch . . . aerial refueling, weapons system and other highly sensitive hardware.

bt

AIUI, the theory behind maintaining FAA certification on a commercial-derivative military aircraft is cost savings. Engineering work is expensive, so staying as close as possible to an already-certificated design minimizes the amount of clean-sheet engineering to be done, and should save money.
As we are seeing in this program, though, it doesn't always work out that way.

*** EDIT: Didn't notice there was another page of (better) replies. Sorry about that...

The KC-46 program took another $329 million charge in Q3 2017:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN1CU1LO

KarelXWB wrote:

LN 1116 in storage at PAE:

??? ???

Current aircraft in storage at runway 11/29:

16-46014 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) - C/N 34105 / LN 1113

16-46015 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) - C/N 34134 / LN 1114

16-46008 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) VH008 - C/N 41856 / LN 1100

16-46007 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LK) (VH007) - C/N 41855 / LN 1098

16-46012 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) - C/N 34107 / LN 1109

16-46013 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) - C/N 34109 / LN 1111

16-46016 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) - C/N 41860 / LN 1116

These pictures are not visible. I saw in the 787-production-thread that there a lot of KC-46's in the background. Does anyone have a new picture of all these KC-46's? Thanks.

INFINITI329 wrote:

par13del wrote:

One of the thing always mentioned is the fact that the USAF has a large dedicated tanker fleet and a large cargo fleet, so the need for a multi-role tanker is minimal compared to other countries, ok, I get that. Now without having to review all the old tanker threads, the reason for the a/c to have almost full FAA civilian certification is.......?

Maybe to be able to operate in civilian airspace and from civilian airports I would assume. Not 100% sure though.

The main reason is so the KC-46A can share in the commercial global parts supply program. This is the same as the KC-10A, it was also FAA certified. That allowed the USAF to contract with World Airways in Oakland, CA in the early years of the KC-10 operations. World was a DC-10 operator with lots of KC-10 maintenance experience and did the phase inspections for the USAF ("C" checks).

kc135topboom wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

par13del wrote:

One of the thing always mentioned is the fact that the USAF has a large dedicated tanker fleet and a large cargo fleet, so the need for a multi-role tanker is minimal compared to other countries, ok, I get that. Now without having to review all the old tanker threads, the reason for the a/c to have almost full FAA civilian certification is.......?

Maybe to be able to operate in civilian airspace and from civilian airports I would assume. Not 100% sure though.

The main reason is so the KC-46A can share in the commercial global parts supply program. This is the same as the KC-10A, it was also FAA certified. That allowed the USAF to contract with World Airways in Oakland, CA in the early years of the KC-10 operations. World was a DC-10 operator with lots of KC-10 maintenance experience and did the phase inspections for the USAF ("C" checks).

Very interesting. Wonder how the USAF makes sure the civvies didn't muck with the more sensitive systems on these A/C (comms, etc)?

Revelation wrote:

kc135topboom wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

Maybe to be able to operate in civilian airspace and from civilian airports I would assume. Not 100% sure though.

The main reason is so the KC-46A can share in the commercial global parts supply program. This is the same as the KC-10A, it was also FAA certified. That allowed the USAF to contract with World Airways in Oakland, CA in the early years of the KC-10 operations. World was a DC-10 operator with lots of KC-10 maintenance experience and did the phase inspections for the USAF ("C" checks).

Very interesting. Wonder how the USAF makes sure the civvies didn't muck with the more sensitive systems on these A/C (comms, etc)?

I wouldn't be surprised if USAF required some level of a security clearance for those whom would work those planes

INFINITI329 wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if USAF required some level of a security clearance for those whom would work those planes

Yeah I expect they need ITAR and then whatever the appropriate security clearance is.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ng-tankers says:

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has bluntly warned Pentagon weapons buyers that he won’t let the Air Force accept new refueling tankers from Boeing Co. if they’re flawed or don’t meet all contract obligations, according to a person familiar with the issue.

Seems the idea of waiting till after delivery to fix things isn't going to fly, so to speak. Meanwhile, Boeing must be running out of unused runways to store all the undelivered KC-46s.

The article says 2 of the 3 remaining “Category 1” deficiencies are on the way to being resolved, whereas the scraping issue is still "under investigation".

Revelation wrote:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-01/mattis-is-said-to-warn-he-won-t-accept-any-flawed-boeing-tankers says:

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has bluntly warned Pentagon weapons buyers that he won’t let the Air Force accept new refueling tankers from Boeing Co. if they’re flawed or don’t meet all contract obligations, according to a person familiar with the issue.

Seems the idea of waiting till after delivery to fix things isn't going to fly, so to speak. Meanwhile, Boeing must be running out of unused runways to store all the undelivered KC-46s.

The article says 2 of the 3 remaining “Category 1” deficiencies are on the way to being resolved, whereas the scraping issue is still "under investigation".

Doesn't stop the Pentagon from taking delivery of the F-35.

LMP737 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-01/mattis-is-said-to-warn-he-won-t-accept-any-flawed-boeing-tankers says:

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has bluntly warned Pentagon weapons buyers that he won’t let the Air Force accept new refueling tankers from Boeing Co. if they’re flawed or don’t meet all contract obligations, according to a person familiar with the issue.

Seems the idea of waiting till after delivery to fix things isn't going to fly, so to speak. Meanwhile, Boeing must be running out of unused runways to store all the undelivered KC-46s.

The article says 2 of the 3 remaining “Category 1” deficiencies are on the way to being resolved, whereas the scraping issue is still "under investigation".

Doesn't stop the Pentagon from taking delivery of the F-35.

Despite the huge and not comparative nature of the two contracts and development programs the F-35 met every single IOC requirement, the KC-46 hasn't.

Revelation wrote:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-01/mattis-is-said-to-warn-he-won-t-accept-any-flawed-boeing-tankers says:

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has bluntly warned Pentagon weapons buyers that he won’t let the Air Force accept new refueling tankers from Boeing Co. if they’re flawed or don’t meet all contract obligations, according to a person familiar with the issue.

Seems the idea of waiting till after delivery to fix things isn't going to fly, so to speak. Meanwhile, Boeing must be running out of unused runways to store all the undelivered KC-46s.

The article says 2 of the 3 remaining “Category 1” deficiencies are on the way to being resolved, whereas the scraping issue is still "under investigation".

If true, first delivery at the end of Q1 next year will be difficult.

KarelXWB wrote:

If true, first delivery at the end of Q1 next year will be difficult.

Well they have until October 2018 to deliver 18 certified KC-46s and nine refueling pods before any late delivery penalties kick in. That being said, the USAF feels that an expected March 2018 delivery may now not happen that quickly.

Revelation wrote:

Meanwhile, Boeing must be running out of unused runways to store all the undelivered KC-46s.

Given the low production rate, it's almost amazing how many aircraft have been built already. The photo below doesn't even include all aircraft.


https://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/937914238550413312

Ozair wrote:

Despite the huge and not comparative nature of the two contracts and development programs the F-35 met every single IOC requirement, the KC-46 hasn't.

Oh I'm sure that they put in the contract that it was okay to deliver aircraft that could not perform their missions as intended.

KarelXWB wrote:

Given the low production rate, it's almost amazing how many aircraft have been built already. The photo below doesn't even include all aircraft.

First flight was over two years ago and I expect Boeing has been producing around one a month since so that would be at least two dozen. The original plan was to have the first 18 delivered by August of last year and Boeing planned to have at least 22 frames either completed or in outfitting by then, so a year on from that...

I believe the USAF has approved a total of 34 frames via LIRP through mid-2019 at the moment so I expect we're probably getting up to that number by now.

LMP737 wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Despite the huge and not comparative nature of the two contracts and development programs the F-35 met every single IOC requirement, the KC-46 hasn't.

Oh I'm sure that they put in the contract that it was okay to deliver aircraft that could not perform their missions as intended.

The Block Development Approach was planned from the beginning on the F-35, or did you mean something else?

Stitch wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Given the low production rate, it's almost amazing how many aircraft have been built already. The photo below doesn't even include all aircraft.

First flight was over two years ago and I expect Boeing has been producing around one a month since so that would be at least two dozen. The original plan was to have the first 18 delivered by August of last year and Boeing planned to have at least 22 frames either completed or in outfitting by then, so a year on from that...

I believe the USAF has approved a total of 34 frames via LIRP through mid-2019 at the moment so I expect we're probably getting up to that number by now.

That's crazy! Going to be a lot of movement and flying once certification is achieved.

Slug71 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Given the low production rate, it's almost amazing how many aircraft have been built already. The photo below doesn't even include all aircraft.

First flight was over two years ago and I expect Boeing has been producing around one a month since so that would be at least two dozen. The original plan was to have the first 18 delivered by August of last year and Boeing planned to have at least 22 frames either completed or in outfitting by then, so a year on from that...

I believe the USAF has approved a total of 34 frames via LIRP through mid-2019 at the moment so I expect we're probably getting up to that number by now.

That's crazy! Going to be a lot of movement and flying once certification is achieved.

Interesting time for a new presser ( http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2017-12-05- ... rst-Flight ) to come out:


EVERETT, Wash., Dec. 5, 2017 – [b]The first Boeing [NYSE: BA] KC-46A tanker that will be delivered to the U.S. Air Force next year successfully completed its first flight and airborne tests today, taking off from Paine Field at 10:32 a.m. PST and landing approximately three-and-one-half hours later.

During the flight, Boeing test pilots took the tanker to a maximum altitude of 39,000 feet and performed operational checks on engines, flight controls and environmental systems as part of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-approved flight profile. Prior to subsequent flights, the team will conduct a post-flight inspection and calibrate instrumentation.

“We’re very proud of this aircraft and the state-of-the-art capabilities it will bring to the Air Force,” said Mike Gibbons, Boeing KC-46A tanker vice president and program manager. “We still have some tough work ahead of us, including completing our FAA certification activities, but the team is committed to ensure that upon delivery, this tanker will be everything our customer expects and more.”

The newest tanker is the KC-46 program’s seventh aircraft to fly to date. The previous six are being used for testing and certification and to date have completed 2,200 flight hours and more than 1,600 “contacts” during refueling flights with F-16, F/A-18, AV-8B, C-17, A-10, KC-10 and KC-46 aircraft.
[/b]

So, of all those frames stacked up like cordwood at KPAE, only 7 have flown.

Revelation wrote:

So, of all those frames stacked up like cordwood at KPAE, only 7 have flown.

It's kind of hard to fly airplanes without engines, but seriously, why fly them if they're not going anywhere. Any flights would have to e re-flown and the engines would have to be maintained properly. Assuming they're all up to date except for possible software issues, once certification is complete it won't take much to hang the engines and shove them out the door.

7BOEING7 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

So, of all those frames stacked up like cordwood at KPAE, only 7 have flown.

It's kind of hard to fly airplanes without engines, but seriously, why fly them if they're not going anywhere. Any flights would have to e re-flown and the engines would have to be maintained properly. Assuming they're all up to date except for possible software issues, once certification is complete it won't take much to hang the engines and shove them out the door.

Yes, that's largely true. You hope the acceptance flights don't turn up anything but minor squawks. Also it seems many will need a trip to the paint bay. Could be something of a backlog to get them all painted before delivery.

Revelation wrote:

So, of all those frames stacked up like cordwood at KPAE, only 7 have flown.

Another set of terrible teens (hmm, terrible toddlers

i.e. is this frame a late/fresh or an early/from storage production item?

WIederling wrote:

i.e. is this frame a late/fresh or an early/from storage production item?

This is one of the 18 frames Boeing is contractually required to deliver by October 2018 so it is a recent build.

What's with the KC-46 flying from Guam this week on FA? BOE465.

Spacepope wrote:

What's with the KC-46 flying from Guam this week on FA? BOE465.

Nothing in the news about it. While not an official candidate base, with things getting testy in the Pacific perhaps the USAF is doing a "facilities check" to see how the KC-46 integrates should the active force need to be deployed there in 2019 or later.

Stitch wrote:

Nothing in the news about it. While not an official candidate base, with things getting testy in the Pacific perhaps the USAF is doing a "facilities check" to see how the KC-46 integrates should the active force need to be deployed there in 2019 or later.

Probably part of the flight test program.

WIederling wrote:

Revelation wrote:

So, of all those frames stacked up like cordwood at KPAE, only 7 have flown.

Another set of terrible teens (hmm, terrible toddlers

i.e. is this frame a late/fresh or an early/from storage production item?

It is the 5th aircraft of LRIP 1 (total 7 aircraft), so one of the first batch of LRIP aircraft.

L/N 1102 C/N 41858 B767-2LKC 15-46009 USAF KC-46A (VH009) LRIP 1, #5/7
See : http://boeing-test-flights.blogspot.nl/ ... first.html

L/N 1137 C/N 34110 B767-2LKC 17-46029 USAF KC-46A (VH029) LRIP 3, #6/15 was moved from the Everett Modification Center to the Boeing flightline at Dec 21th.


Original uploaded by Matt Cawby on twitter, see : https://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/943995426490826752

KC-46A :
EMD aircraft :
L/N 1065 C/N 41273 B767-2LKC N461FT 11-46001 USAF KC-46A (VH001) EMD1
L/N 1066 C/N 41274 B767-2LKC N464KC 11-46002 USAF KC-46A (VH002) EMD4
L/N 1067 C/N 34054 B767-2LKC N463FT 11-46003 USAF KC-46A (VH003) EMD3
L/N 1069 C/N 41275 B767-2LKC N462KC 11-46004 USAF KC-46A (VH004)EMD2

LRIP batch1 :
L/N 1091 C/N 41852 B767-2LKC N842BA 15-46005 USAF KC-46A (VH005) LRIP 1, #1/7
L/N 1092 C/N 41983 B767-2LKC N884BA 15-46006 USAF KC-46A (VH006) LRIP 1, #2/7
L/N 1098 C/N 41855 B767-2LKC 15-46007 USAF KC-46A (VH007) LRIP 1, #3/7
L/N 1100 C/N 41856 B767-2LKC 15-46008 USAF KC-46A (VH008) LRIP 1, #4/7
L/N 1102 C/N 41858 B767-2LKC 15-46009 USAF KC-46A (VH009) LRIP 1, #5/7, First aircraft to be delivered !
L/N 1104 C/N 41859 B767-2LKC 15-46010 USAF KC-46A (VH010) LRIP 1, #6/7
L/N 1107 C/N 34106 B767-2LKC 15-46011 USAF KC-46A (VH011) LRIP 1, #7/7

LRIP batch 2 :
L/N 1109 C/N 34107 B767-2LKC 16-46012 USAF KC-46A (VH012) LRIP 2, #1/12
L/N 1111 C/N 34109 B767-2LKC 16-46013 USAF KC-46A (VH013) LRIP 2, #2/12
L/N 1113 C/N 34105 B767-2LKC 16-46014 USAF KC-46A (VH014) LRIP 2, #3/12
L/N 1114 C/N 34134 B767-2LKC 16-46015 USAF KC-46A (VH015) LRIP 2, #4/12
L/N 1116 C/N 41860 B767-2LKC 16-46016 USAF KC-46A (VH016) LRIP 2, #5/12
L/N 1117 C/N 34108 B767-2LKC 16-46017 USAF KC-46A (VH017) LRIP 2, #6/12
L/N 1119 C/N 34135 B767-2LKC 16-46018 USAF KC-46A (VH018) LRIP 2, #7/12
L/N 1120 C/N 34138 B767-2LKC 16-46019 USAF KC-46A (VH019) LRIP 2, #8/12
L/N 1122 C/N 34137 B767-2LKC 16-46020 USAF KC-46A (VH020) LRIP 2, #9/12
L/N 1124 C/N 34139 B767-2LKC 16-46021 USAF KC-46A (VH021) LRIP 2, #10/12
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

LRIP batch 3:
L/N 1129 C/N 34121 B767-2LKC 17-46024 USAF KC-46A (VH024) LRIP 3, #1/15
L/N 1131 C/N 41863 B767-2LKC 17-46025 USAF KC-46A (VH025) LRIP 3, #2/15
L/N 1132 C/N 34127 B767-2LKC 17-46026 USAF KC-46A (VH026) LRIP 3, #3/15
L/N 1134 C/N 34126 B767-2LKC 17-46027 USAF KC-46A (VH027) LRIP 3, #4/15
L/N 1135 C/N 34124 B767-2LKC 17-46028 USAF KC-46A (VH028) LRIP 3, #5/15
L/N 1137 C/N 34110 B767-2LKC 17-46029 USAF KC-46A (VH029) LRIP 3, #6/15
L/N 1139 C/N 34112 B767-2LKC 17-46030 USAF KC-46A (VH030) LRIP 3, #7/15

747classic wrote:

L/N 1137 C/N 34110 B767-2LKC 17-46029 USAF KC-46A (VH029) LRIP 3, #6/15 was moved from the Everett Modification Center to the Boeing flightline at Dec 21th.

Thanks for the informative post since there seems to be a lot of activity on the program in the last few days/weeks/months.

Man, there's a lot of undelivered hardware sitting around KPAE these days. Are all the frames in your list already built?

Some good news: it has got one of the two required FAA certifications: http://ksn.com/2017/12/21/boeing-kc-46- ... -aircraft/ says:

EVERETT, Wash. (KSNW) – The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has granted Boeing’s [NYSE: BA] KC-46 tanker program an Amended Type Certificate (ATC) for its core 767-2C aircraft configuration, verifying that the fundamental design of the KC-46 tanker is safe and reliable.

and:

In order to receive the certification, Boeing’s team, which included Commercial Airplanes and Defense, Space & Security personnel, completed a series of analyses and lab, ground and flight tests that focused on the aircraft’s fundamental capabilities including avionics, auto-flight and environmental control systems, as well as its new fuel system. The resulting data validated that all systems operated as intended.

The ATC is one of two FAA airworthiness certifications required for the KC-46 program. A combined Boeing/Air Force team has been concurrently completing Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) work, which encompasses the military systems that are installed on the 767-2C to make it a tanker.

“We continue to make good progress on the STC effort – 83 percent complete at present – and have moved into the FAA flight-testing phase,” Gibbons added.

Yet we learned a few weeks ago ( https://www.upi.com/Boeing-will-miss-it ... 512409722/ ) that the program would be missing its goal of delivering by the end of the year and ( http://aviationweek.com/aviation-week-s ... rocky-year ) that it will be taking yet another write down ( $329 million ).

Revelation wrote:

Thanks for the informative post since there seems to be a lot of activity on the program in the last few days/weeks/months.

Man, there's a lot of undelivered hardware sitting around KPAE these days. Are all the frames in your list already built?

All KC-46A aircraft up to L/N 1137 have been known to be completed.
L/N 1138, N153FE for Fedex has been delivered at December 19th, see : http://boeing-test-flights.blogspot.nl/ ... press.html

Most probably L/N1139 (the last of the list) has also left the 767 FAL already..

747classic wrote:

All KC-46A aircraft up to L/N 1137 have been known to be completed.
...
Most probably L/N1139 (the last of the list) has also left the 767 FAL already..

Very interesting! By my count that means 30 frames have been produced (in various stages of completion), even more than what was suggested earlier (quote below). That is an amazing amount of hardware Boeing has had to purchase and assemble with no payment beyond the $6B they got to start (and have blown past by $2B already).

Stitch wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Given the low production rate, it's almost amazing how many aircraft have been built already. The photo below doesn't even include all aircraft.

First flight was over two years ago and I expect Boeing has been producing around one a month since so that would be at least two dozen. The original plan was to have the first 18 delivered by August of last year and Boeing planned to have at least 22 frames either completed or in outfitting by then, so a year on from that...

I believe the USAF has approved a total of 34 frames via LIRP through mid-2019 at the moment so I expect we're probably getting up to that number by now.

A large number of frames, the silver lining if they execute properly after certification is that the Air Force will get a number of frames quickly to speed integration into the fleet, from pilot training to facility management.

Revelation wrote:

[Yet we learned a few weeks ago ( https://www.upi.com/Boeing-will-miss-it ... 512409722/ ) that the program would be missing its goal of delivering by the end of the year and ( http://aviationweek.com/aviation-week-s ... rocky-year ) that it will be taking yet another write down ( $329 million ).

How much have Boeing written down so far? Presumably it's less than the $2B mentioned by Revelation above?

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2017-12-22- ... -46-Tanker tells us:

Through the Foreign Military Sale process, the U.S. Air Force has awarded Boeing [NYSE: BA] a $279 million contract for the Japan Air Self-Defense Force’s (JASDF’s) first KC-46 tanker and logistics support, marking the aircraft’s first international sale.

In an article from 2015 FG: Japan chooses Boeing KC-46, halting Airbus tanker winning streak tells us:

Just months after being rejected by South Korea and weeks after first flight, Boeing’s KC-46A has been selected by Japan to supplement the nation’s KC-767 tanker fleet.

According to Boeing, KC-46 is particularly attractive to Japan as it will be capable of refuelling the Japan Air Self-Defense Force’s planned fleet of Bell-Boeing MV-22 Osprey helicopters.

Japan intends to procure three tankers for fielding in the 2020 time frame, at a cost of more ¥20.8 billion – about $173 million per tanker.

So Japan now has one tanker under contract, with a target of 3.

SamYeager2016 wrote:

How much have Boeing written down so far? Presumably it's less than the $2B mentioned by Revelation above?

Nope, it really is that high.

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2017/1 ... 1512409722 says:

To date, Boeing has had to pay out roughly $2.9 billion in pre-tax fees, equating to about $1.9 billion after taxes.

par13del wrote:

A large number of frames, the silver lining if they execute properly after certification is that the Air Force will get a number of frames quickly to speed integration into the fleet, from pilot training to facility management.

And from Boeing's point of view, they'll get a flood of delivery checks from Uncle Sam.

Of couse, the boom scraping issue needs to be sorted out first, but that seems to be the last major blocking item that is not sorted.

Excellent choice, perfect standarization
The JASDF present 767 derived fleet consist of eight aircraft (4x E-767 and 4x KC-767J) all powered with GE CF6-80C2 engines
Now the KC-46A, powered by PW4000's is added.

Well they could have gotten GE engines on the A330 MRTT, but the CF6-80E1 that uses is a fair bit different from the CF6-80C2 so not sure how much standardization between them there would be. Plus an A330 airframe has very little standardization with a 767 airframe.

Stitch wrote:

Well they could have gotten GE engines on the A330 MRTT, but the CF6-80E1 that uses is a fair bit different from the CF6-80C2 so not sure how much standardization between them there would be. Plus an A330 airframe has very little standardization with a 767 airframe.

Seen the present political situation around the Chinese Sea and the (military) backing of Japan by the USA a US built tanker is the only option.
IMHO a better choice for the JASDF would be : adding more KC-767J aircraft, updated with some improved KC46A features., but with the same engines and refueling pods.

747classic wrote:

IMHO a better choice for the JASDF would be : adding more KC-767J aircraft, updated with some improved KC46A features., but with the same engines and refueling pods.

At this point it might very well be cheaper to take the KC-46A than have additional custom KC-767J's built.

Stitch wrote:

747classic wrote:

IMHO a better choice for the JASDF would be : adding more KC-767J aircraft, updated with some improved KC46A features., but with the same engines and refueling pods.

At this point it might very well be cheaper to take the KC-46A than have additional custom KC-767J's built.

The additional benefit is plugging into the specific KC-46 program that would gain them everything from a larger spares pool and training program to software and hardware updates. Given the US is about to start rotating a fleet that comprises 179 aircraft through Japan it makes sense to standardise around that variant.

Stitch wrote:

747classic wrote:

IMHO a better choice for the JASDF would be : adding more KC-767J aircraft, updated with some improved KC46A features., but with the same engines and refueling pods.

At this point it might very well be cheaper to take the KC-46A than have additional custom KC-767J's built.

Purchase costs of the KC-46A may be lower, but operational costs will always be far higher when operating two different (sub)types with large differences..
Engines, cockpit lay-out, refuelling systems, almost all operational systems are different, requiring more spares, etc. Also a new full flight simulator and a KC-46A remote refueling control panel simulator will be required. (or simulator time may be bought in the USA at the USAF KC-46A simulator center, requiring additional flight crew, travel and lodging costs)

747classic, if your argument hold water, then it would be cheaper to scrap the older Japanese tankers and go with an all KC-46 fleet.

Boeing would not offer the 767 mod. They do not have the expertise left to do the mod let alone showing the Japanese how to do it.

Believe me, the Japanese would not want to buy an airplane built from mylars and drawings and without a digital mock-up just to maintain commonality.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

747classic, if your argument hold water, then it would be cheaper to scrap the older Japanese tankers and go with an all KC-46 fleet.

bt

The most cost effective solution for the JASDF would indeed be to trade in the four KC-767J aircraft, but I think Boeing will not be very interested in these aircraft, but some (fake) pressure from POTUS could help.

bikerthai wrote:

Boeing would not offer the 767 mod. They do not have the expertise left to do the mod let alone showing the Japanese how to do it.

I know that the Japanse tankers were modified at the former Boeing Wichita facility.
According your statement Boeing is not even able to produce a derative 767-200 aircraft, with all the digtal drawings for the STC well documented and on file.
The 767 FAL must be able to produce a few "green" 767-200 aircraft.
Your trust in the present capabilities of the Boeing factory has gone far below zero.
Remember : The fourth and last KC-767J was delivered in Janary 2010, only 8 years ago.

SamYeager2016 wrote:

How much have Boeing written down so far? Presumably it's less than the $2B mentioned by Revelation above?

production outlay does not go into the "write down" basket. That is "inventory" or "deferred production".

Write downs are done for unexpected work in development or industrialization.

747classic wrote:

The 767 FAL must be able to produce a few "green" 767-200 aircraft.

I am sure they could, but the 767-2C is in a number of ways a different frame than the passenger 767-200ER that was the basis for the KC-767 family and by now I expect the FAL is designed to sequence only freighters* so running a couple "non-conforming" frames through it might very well impact FAL efficiency and Boeing needs the line at the current 2.5 per month just to meet FX's delivery needs. Then there is the outfitting from 767-200ER to KC-767J - with Wichita gone, that work would probably need to be done at the EMC and the EMC is already full of KC-46As and once the FAA's STC is approved, existing KC-46As may need to be rolled in there for any Change Incorporation necessary to get them to the final certified configuration.


* - I expect how to sequence freighters and passenger frames to be one of the things Boeing is studying in regards to restarting 767-300ER production.