itchief
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 10:15 pm

Re: KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread 2019

Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:58 pm

Boeing is paying for one of the two CAT 1 deficiencies, the USAF is paying for the other. Not all bad for Boeing.

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... ing%20News

"However, the Air Force also made key concessions. Namely, it will have to pay for another fix using taxpayer money.

During tests, the Air Force found that certain aircraft — most often, the A-10 Warthog — had trouble generating the necessary thrust to push into the boom for refueling.

Boeing presented a boom design to the government at Milestone C that set the boom resistance to the international standard of about 1,400 pounds, which the government accepted, the Air Force official said. The problem is that to refuel the A-10, the boom must have a much lower threshold of thrust resistance, around 650 pounds.

Because the Air Force is asking for a change in requirements, it has agreed to fund the additional work — though it is still working out how much it will cost for the redesign work and retrofits, the official said. That redesign and manufacturing process will probably take about two years."
 
itchief
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 10:15 pm

Re: KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread 2019

Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:09 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Ozair wrote:

TFA says:

In short, Boeing has agreed to embark on a redesign effort for the Rockwell Collins-designed RVS that will involve both hardware and software changes. The Air Force believes it will take three to four years to develop a fully functioning RVS, and Boeing has agreed to fix it at its own expense

Oy, that's a huge miss.

It looks like Boeing bet it could make the existing system work, but now they see why it cannot / does not.

They took a big bet on a risky proposition and lost.

And if Boeing thinks they can recoup some of the costs in future maintenance contracts, I would not count on it.

For one, the USAF might just buy every available second hand 767 out there and scrap them for spare parts to keep the KC-46's running. They did the same thing to keep the KC-135's running as well; buy out every available Boeing 707 and use them as parts donors.

And for future modernization work, the USAF could award the contracts for modernization to another company; it is not unheard of for the USAF and Pentagon to do this.


The USAF would have to buy every second hand 767 out there since the 767-2C is a mix of the -200, -300 and has a completely different flight deck from either of those models. The other problem with this is that almost every old 767 has already been bought for conversion to freighters. By the time the USAF can get their hands on them they will be 50 to 60 years old, this opportunity has already passed and is probably not an option for the USAF now.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19329
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread 2019

Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:11 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
For one, the USAF might just buy every available second hand 767 out there and scrap them for spare parts to keep the KC-46's running. They did the same thing to keep the KC-135's running as well; buy out every available Boeing 707 and use them as parts donors.

That would suggest USAF, DoD and Congress are doing what's best for the country as opposed to what's best for corporations, and I have strong doubts about that.

Doesn't anyone else notice the incongruity of DoD saying they would not extend the life of KC-135s while they are now requesting bids for a re-engine of the even older B-52s?

At the same time, asking for funds for an all new bomber?

IMHO KC-46 is corporate welfare with origins in the post-2001 Congress wanting to do something to help Boeing deal with the post-911 drop in airliner orders.

Up to that point USAF were projecting KC-135 had enough airframe life to last till after 2045, some reports said 2065.

When USAF saw a windfall was there for the taking they all of a sudden needed new tankers.

Yet B-52 is already slated to be in service for eighty years and with new engines it should be over 100 years.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread 2019

Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:19 pm

Revelation wrote:
That would suggest USAF, DoD and Congress are doing what's best for the country as opposed to what's best for corporations, and I have strong doubts about that.

What ever they decide to do, the corporations will benefit, one way or another. And what's best for the country is not always unanimous, even in a supposed democracy.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread 2019

Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:50 pm

Revelation wrote:
...
At the same time, asking for funds for an all new bomber?

IMHO KC-46 is corporate welfare with origins in the post-2001 Congress wanting to do something to help Boeing deal with the post-911 drop in airliner orders.

Up to that point USAF were projecting KC-135 had enough airframe life to last till after 2045, some reports said 2065.

When USAF saw a windfall was there for the taking they all of a sudden needed new tankers.

Yet B-52 is already slated to be in service for eighty years and with new engines it should be over 100 years.

We are already in the age of drones, long-range hypersonic missiles and the Chinese have just deployed anti-ship conventional ballistic missiles. Not to mention cyber warfare.

This whole concept of in-flight refueling using nostalgic aircraft (KC-135, B52, A10, C-5, F-15, etc., and yes 767) is really only good for large defense contractors and A.net geeks. Applies to aircraft carriers too, but that is not for discussion here.

Right now, the Taliban finally chased us out of Afghanistan, also leaving Syria to Iran and Russia. How much did these hundreds of billions $$ of tactical aircraft with air-refueling help "win"?

Yup, lets spend another $ billion or more to improve the KC-46 refueling video system..it is so worth it !! /s
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
texl1649
Posts: 744
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread 2019

Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:38 pm

It’s taken about 20 years to get the KC46 to delivery. Let’s not jump to some conclusion any drone/unmanned tanker can be delivered/accepted to USAF service prior to 2050. We have to replace the KC-10’s basically now, and a bunch of the 135’s. The USAF loves nothing more than it’s pilot’s, too. Cutting off pilots for tankers would make something like 1/3 of the ‘top ranked’ pilots of today mid ranked. It’s not just the evil contractors; the DoD is run by the officers.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread 2019

Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:55 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
Right now, the Taliban finally chased us out of Afghanistan, also leaving Syria to Iran and Russia. How much did these hundreds of billions $$ of tactical aircraft with air-refueling help "win"?


Don't confuse losing the war (which is a political edevor) with losing a battle (which is the military endeavor).

Here is an example of tankers helping win a battle. Recall a few years back when ISIS besiege the city of Kobani? Recall all those B-1 and B-52 sorties that were used to repel ISIS with the help of the Kurdish fighters because the Turks refused to help because they hate the Kurds more than ISIS? If we had KC-46 then, they would have contributed to the victory.

Pivoting to China or Russia and their "high tech" weapons do not preclude the need to fight some other low tech war that may pop up in the future. For these low tech war, there will still need to be loitering aircraft and refueling to keep them up.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
texl1649
Posts: 744
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread 2019

Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:32 pm

What’s this, a delivery? I have to give it to the USAF contract writers in this case, they did a good job protecting the US taxpayer.

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... ears-away/
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

Re: KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread 2019

Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:09 pm

The DD-250 was signed for A/C 15-46009. The USAF has possession of it, but it hasn't been delivered to McConnell yet. Reports are the first 4 are going to McConnell, followed by 4 to Altus.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 976
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread 2019

Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:41 pm

10 were delivered to BDS and around that number are in acceptance flights. I recall that McConnell and another base are each getting 4. Could 8 be delivered by the end of Feb?

Anyone know how many of the dozens already parked are basically ready?

The reports that a 20% retention of $28M translates to $140M per frame. Anyway getting 10 delivered is over $1B invoiced, a big help for the program balance sheet.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread 2019

Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:54 pm

Driving down East Marginal Way on Friday (just south of the Museum of flight), I saw all the stalls that typically hold P-8A's are filled with KC-46 tankers. First flight to McConnell will probably depend when they can coordinate the receiving ceremony at McConnell.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aab498, RJMAZ and 19 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos