Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?  
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 20565 times:

According to the The DEW Line:

Quote:
Boeing is introducing into the 767-2C a central maintenance computer, a technology normally associated with the more advanced Boeing 777. This new version of the 767 is so advanced that Boeing is required to stand-up a systems integration laboratory -- the SIL Line 0.
Quote:
...suggesting the internal system changes from the baseline 767 are far more advanced than previously believed. A dedicated SIL is an expensive investment.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...oia-exposes-kc-46s-real-id-bu.html




Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
85 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 20528 times:

Since the KC-46A is really a different B-767 model than the 'standard' B-767-200ER it makes sense for Boeing to designate its own internal company designation. They have done that for the B-17, B-29, B-47, B-52, and KC-135.

Yes, the systems would be different than the 'standard' B-767 as this tanker is required to do things other B-767s (except the Japanese KC-767J and Italian KC-767A) can do.

The question I have is the new B-767-2C designation really the B-767-200LRF model of the 2008 KC-767AT, and it was continued into the 2011 KC-767NG?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31007 posts, RR: 86
Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 20341 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Didn't need an FOIA finding, Stephen, to find the 767-2C designation. All ya had to do was look at Boeing's O&D page when the first four frames were ordered.  

As to the 767-200LRF, Guy Norris mentioned it in March while commenting on the original KC-767 prototype, which is unlikely to go anywhere (Boeing would still lose $54 million on the airframe if they scrapped it - $275 million in total when the R&D costs are added).

It sounds like the KC-46A might indeed be the 767-200LRF - or at least based on it - so it might yet see the light of day if a customer places an order.


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 20143 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
The question I have is the new B-767-2C designation really the B-767-200LRF model of the 2008 KC-767AT, and it was continued into the 2011 KC-767NG?

Me too! I wonder if Boeing will give some clarity into this, or if it will be our job to find out  
Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
As to the 767-200LRF, Guy Norris mentioned it in March while commenting on the original KC-767 prototype, which is unlikely to go anywhere (Boeing would still lose $54 million on the airframe if they scrapped it - $275 million in total when the R&D costs are added).

Is this the article you are referring to?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest



It would be a shame if they scrap a brand new frame says the enthusiast in me, although I know it is common with prototyping and certification. I just do not like to think about it.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
It sounds like the KC-46A might indeed be the 767-200LRF - or at least based on it - so it might yet see the light of day if a customer places an order.

I hope your thesis is correct Stitch. The 767-200LRF was supposed to be offered to airlines. I wonder how much of the 767-2C will be delivered to the commercial line. When can we expect to know more about the B-767-2C technical information?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2143 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 19360 times:

According following article from Flightglobal :

The commercial 767-2C variant has been revealed as the core of the KC46A.

"Boeing describes the 767-2C as a "minor" variation of the 767-200ER platform, but it is clear that the company has made significant changes.

The maximum take-off weight is increased by 9,070kg (20,000lb) to just over 188,000kg, making the freighter version of the -200ER model even heavier than the 767-300ER. The length of the -200ER is also increased by 2m (6.5ft) to 50.5m for the KC-46A.

The 767-2C configuration also includes a cargo floor and door, a 787-based large display system, auxiliary fuel tanks and provisions for tanker systems, such as hose and drogue and boom refuelling systems, Boeing said.

It remains unclear, however, if Boeing has made any other changes from the basic design of the 767-200ER platform."

See : http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ial-identity-of-kc-46a-tanker.html



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4527 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 19134 times:

Interesting, I doubt any civil operators would find this 'version' appealing, even if offered you would lose the extra capacity of the -300 but with a heavier airframe.



I believe it will be a superb tanker however, with excellent performance, and the ability to deliver a lot of fuel from an Aircraft that takes up very little space on the ramp and is very economical to operate.



The additional length quoted in the article must surely be due to the length of the boom ?!



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 19097 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 4):
The length of the -200ER is also increased by 2m (6.5ft) to 50.5m for the KC-46A.

Thanks for posting! This is an interesting development. I will look forward to all details emerging for this platform. Some of the technology going into the tanker should find its way over to the commercial side?

Quoting Max Q (Reply 5):
Interesting, I doubt any civil operators would find this 'version' appealing, even if offered you would lose the extra capacity of the -300 but with a heavier airframe.

If the MTOW is higher, it does not mean that the airframe is heavier, only that it can lift more. This makes sense for a tanker. In general this would be a 767-250  



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 19018 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 6):
If the MTOW is higher, it does not mean that the airframe is heavier, only that it can lift more. This makes sense for a tanker. In general this would be a 767-250

But there is always a price to be payed for this extra capacity. Usually some reinforcements here and there which add to the empty weight of the airframe. But the overall performance should be increased with these changes. Sounds a bit like going "Frankentanker" all over again though.     


User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2143 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 18976 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 6):
In general this would be a 767-250
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 7):
"Frankentanker" all over again though



IMO the KC46A (767-2C) will basically be a 763ER(F), with a shortened fuselage to obtain sufficient clearance for the refueling boom during TO and landing.

The wing platform, center wing-box and landing gears can be taken practically unchanged from the HGW 763 seen the planned MTOW, close to the max. certified MTOW of the 767-300ER and -F variants.

Only an updated (764 -777 style) cockpit, to satisfy all future navigation needs, will differ the aircraft from the previous versions.

In fact it's a trade-off : the smallest possible space taken on the ground (minimum changes needed on military airfields) and max. possible payload (fuel off load)+ cargo volume possible, fuselage length limited by the refueling boom.

Due the ground space limitations probably the winglets will not be installed. Seen the flutter problems encountered during the certification of the hose-drogue wing refueling pods at the KC767A, this seems a low risk solution.

The present configuration exactly matches the (adapted) requirements of the US Air Force, contrary to the larger A332 derivative tanker.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 18968 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 5):
even if offered you would lose the extra capacity of the -300 but with a heavier airframe.

 

But with the -300 you have the extra weight of the extra fuselage length. And the extra fuselage length equates to extra skin drag, thus higher fuel burn. Like others have said, the extra volume is beneficial to the package carriers. The higher relatively higher MTOW is beneficial to everyone else.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 6):
If the MTOW is higher, it does not mean that the airframe is heavier, only that it can lift more.

  

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 7):
Usually some reinforcements here and there which add to the empty weight of the airframe.

Don't forget the additional weight of the "Tanker Provision". Though the provision will make it easier to do a tanker mod after the Cargo Carriers are done with the frame.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2444 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 18929 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 8):
Due the ground space limitations probably the winglets will not be installed.

I imagine that "rakes" were not considered for the same reason?



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2143 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 18896 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 10):
I imagine that "rakes" were not considered for the same reason?

Raked wingtips (as on the 764) require even more ground space than the 763 wing plus winglets.(wing span increases more.)



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 18872 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 7):
Sounds a bit like going "Frankentanker" all over again though.

It sounds to be a bit less like the Frankentanker already built. I wonder what will happen to this frame:

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/15/269e84ad-06a9-489c-afaf-48b2619fe7ce.Full.jpg

Quoting 747classic (Reply 8):
IMO the KC46A (767-2C) will basically be a 763ER(F), with a shortened fuselage to obtain sufficient clearance for the refueling boom during TO and landing.

This sounds like the most reasonable explanation for the increase in length, although not as much as the 763ER.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 9):
The higher relatively higher MTOW is beneficial to everyone else.

  



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31007 posts, RR: 86
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 18764 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 767-200LRF would have used the 767-200's fuselage, the 767-300F's undercarriage and the 767-400ER's wings.

So you would have had a plane with:

Length: 48.5m
Wingspan: 51.9m
Height: 16m
MTOW: 187t

Assuming the 767-2C uses the 767-300F's undercarriage and keeps the 767-200's wings, you have a plane with:

Length: 50.5m
Wingspan: 47.6m
Height: 16m
MTOW: 188t

For comparison, the 767-300F has the following dimensions:

Length: 55m
Wingspan: 47.5m
Height: 16m
MTOW: 185t


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4527 posts, RR: 18
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 18491 times:

My question is:


Is this Aircraft longer just because the boom projects behind the tail or is the fuselage length actually being increased slightly ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 18173 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):

Is this Aircraft longer just because the boom projects behind the tail or is the fuselage length actually being increased slightly ?

It seems like we have to wait until August to get more clarity:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...on-key-kc-46a-design-features.html

The part with a composite fuselage, must be wrong though...  

[Edited 2011-06-09 11:50:22]


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineTaromA380 From Romania, joined Sep 2005, 334 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 18084 times:

Most if not all of military programs ending late and overbudget (and sometimes eventually canceled) begun with post-bid improvment ideas.

User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17990 times:

Quoting TaromA380 (Reply 16):
Most if not all of military programs ending late and overbudget (and sometimes eventually canceled) begun with post-bid improvment ideas.

How do you know this is a post-bid improvement? The contract is fixed price.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 10):
Quoting 747classic (Reply 8):
Due the ground space limitations probably the winglets will not be installed.

I imagine that "rakes" were not considered for the same reason?

I doubt it. Ground space was not a significant part of the contract consideration, price/cost was. IMO the main reason was that winglet doesn't add much to tanker mission profile.



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17945 times:

Quoting TaromA380 (Reply 16):
Most if not all of military programs ending late and overbudget (and sometimes eventually canceled) begun with post-bid improvment ideas.

When Boeing delivered its 500th Super Hornet for the U.S. navy it was highlighted that it was delivered both in time and under budget.    Not all program are as bad as the F-35....



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 17739 times:

The Boeing offered KC-767 to the USAF was always going to have a higher MTOW than its B-767-300ERF sister. What we did not know is the fuselarge is going to be longer that the B-767-200ER, we always knew it was to be shorter than the B-767-300ER.

So, this is not the 2008 offered B-767-200LRF, nor is that model ever to be built. It is an improved and longer version of the B-767-200ER that Boeing is calling the B-767-2C. I am assuming the B-762C will have substantially more range then the B-762E does.

My guess on a major design change is there is no below main deck cargo capability, like the KC-135 and KC-10.


User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 17723 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 18):
When Boeing delivered its 500th Super Hornet for the U.S. navy it was highlighted that it was delivered both in time and under budget.    Not all program are as bad as the F-35....

Ahh, yes, the 500th Super Hornet. And what about the 1st Super Hornet? Oh yeah, Boeing probably doesn't want you to know how late and over budget the program was then...

Some people look at past aircraft and think the future should be all easy, forgetting that all of their beloved machines of yesteryear had growing pains and teething problems of their own when they were brand new. :I

If the F-14 were being developed today, that POS (F-14A) would be cancelled due to a prototype crash and having piss poor excuses for engines.

It's never as easy as A.netters foolishly think it is.

  B4e-Forever New Frontiers  


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31007 posts, RR: 86
Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 17661 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 15):
The part with a composite fuselage (for the 767-200LRF), must be wrong though...

They mean "composite" as in a "mix" - in the case of the 767-200LRF that was a mix of 767-200ER fuselage mated with 767-400ER wings and 767-300F undercarriage.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4527 posts, RR: 18
Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks ago) and read 17606 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):


The Boeing offered KC-767 to the USAF was always going to have a higher MTOW than its B-767-300ERF sister. What we did not know is the fuselarge is going to be longer that the B-767-200ER, we always knew it was to be shorter than the B-767-300ER.

So, this is not the 2008 offered B-767-200LRF, nor is that model ever to be built. It is an improved and longer version of the B-767-200ER that Boeing is calling the B-767-2C. I am assuming the B-762C will have substantially more range then the B-762E does.

My guess on a major design change is there is no below main deck cargo capability, like the KC-135 and KC-10.

It will be an interesting Aircraft.


I did not know the KC135 and KC10 have no lower deck cargo capability. Is that because the space is mostly used up by auxiliary tanks ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2325 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 17594 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 22):
I did not know the KC135 and KC10 have no lower deck cargo capability. Is that because the space is mostly used up by auxiliary tanks ?

I don't know about the KC-10, but yes, that is correct for the KC-135. There is a Forward and Aft Body tank below the main deck floor on the -135, where the cargo compartment would be on an airliner. In fact, the only way to offload fuel through the boom on a -135 is through one of the two body tanks. Almost all of the fuel in the 4 main wing tanks and Center Wing tank can be drained into the body tanks to be offloaded, or the -135 can burn all of that fuel itself.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4527 posts, RR: 18
Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 17565 times:

Quoting moose135 (Reply 23):

I don't know about the KC-10, but yes, that is correct for the KC-135. There is a Forward and Aft Body tank below the main deck floor on the -135, where the cargo compartment would be on an airliner. In fact, the only way to offload fuel through the boom on a -135 is through one of the two body tanks. Almost all of the fuel in the 4 main wing tanks and Center Wing tank can be drained into the body tanks to be offloaded, or the -135 can burn all of that fuel itself.

Thanks, how much fuel do these tanks hold ?


Do these tanks take up all of the lower hold space ?


I imagine you have to be careful with CG management ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
25 Post contains links Ken777 : Pity it can't be converted into a fire fighter. http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...job/2011/06/07/AGEd2ISH_story.html
26 Post contains images bikerthai : Your generalization forgets that most military programs are so small that they don't get proper air time. The small diameter bomb and the A10 re-wing
27 KC135TopBoom : The KC-10 also has fore and aft body tanks where the below deck cargo holds would be. I'm not sure the capacity of these tanks, but the total fuel on
28 Max Q : Thanks, KC135, Very interesting and great information.
29 moose135 : Your totals are correct, and the tank quantities sound about right. I'm away for a few days, but I can dig out the Dash-1 when I get home. We had the
30 KC135TopBoom : Yes, they did have the 5 rotor brakes at a time when the KC-135A had 4 rotor brakes and the early anti-skid system. Since the "E" or "R" modification
31 moose135 : There were 4 D-models, we had them all at Grissom in the '80s (along with all 8 RTs). We led the league in oddball -135s back then. I was qualified o
32 KC135TopBoom : Thanks. I was only qualified in 3 models of the KC-135. The "A", "Q", and "E" models.
33 Post contains links and images oykie : Statement from Boeing: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1715 I thought that would have been a composition of parts, not composite.
34 Post contains links and images Spacepope : IIRC the -D models finished out their careers with the Kansas ANG at Forbes Field in Topeka. They were still up there in the early 2000s last I saw.
35 PC12Fan : I personally can't think of any program that doesn't start that way. At any rate, it's all about the finish line.
36 KC135TopBoom : I think you are right and I was wrong about the KC-135Ds finishing their careers with the KSANG. The AKANG transitioned from the KC-135D/E in 1995 to
37 zeke : Received the following from Boeing by email : Less advanced than what is claimed on this thread.
38 Max Q : Impressive Aircraft, interesting that, not only will there be two wing mounted refueling pods, but, in addition to the centreline boom there will also
39 moose135 : The KC-10 has that capacity now, and no, they do not refuel three aircraft at one time. While three fighters might have room to do so, USAF refueling
40 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Actually, it has more advanced features than I thought it would, like the boom mounted 3D camera (a feature the A-330MRTT does not have, yet), and a
41 USAF336TFS : The details are still being held close to the vest by both the US Air Force and Boeing, so how do we really know that?
42 Max Q : In any case it is a very impressive and interesting Aircraft,and should be very capable considering its compact size. Definitely the right choice for
43 Post contains links scbriml : Boeing's low-ball bid may cost them $300m for the first contract? http://warnerrobinspatriot.com/bookm...wball-offer-to-win-tanker-contract
44 USAF336TFS : A more advanced aircraft then first thought and $300M saved by the U.S. taxpayer? I'd say that was a good deal!
45 Post contains images bikerthai : $300 mil is trifle compared to what happened to the Wedgetail program. Not something you want to do often, but I guess Boeing did learn a thing or tw
46 Post contains images Stitch : Heck, the original KC-767 demonstrator they built back for the 2002 lease deal is going to end up costing them around $150 million (they hope to get a
47 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : Yes we did.
48 Post contains images Boeing4ever : Then people need to stop whining about every new engineering project having a slip in schedule or budget. Scheduling and budgeting is NOT science. It
49 KC135TopBoom : Correct. But I think with future DOD Budget realities, I doubt you much 'creep' in the KC-46 program, at least for the first several years. That is n
50 USAF336TFS : That's the only part I disagree with you about Boomer... Contract as written, obligates to a minimum of 179 aircraft. As I think you'll agree, even t
51 Post contains images Stitch : Obama will have little to no effect on the KC-46A procurement process since he won't be in office during the entire delivery schedule. Sure, he can "
52 KC135TopBoom : But the contract can be canceled "for the convenience of the government", which has happened with aircraft and naval ships before. I agree the 179 is
53 PolymerPlane : Are those fixed-price contracts? It would be stupid if Boeing does not put language to protect them from spending development money without ever reco
54 zeke : They are now talking about another 400+ million that the government will need to pickup, somehow for the overruns the government is paying 60% and Bo
55 bikerthai : You are right. That is the nature of Military Contracts. You can talk all you want about 100+ airplanes here or a hundred + air planes there, but not
56 Post contains links and images scbriml : Yes, they've already pushed the contract close to its ceiling according to some analysts. Anything more is 100% Boeing's cost. http://www.bizjournals
57 Post contains images redflyer : You mean like they did on the A400M?
58 scbriml : No, it took some time for them to reach that point.
59 KC135TopBoom : The current contract is for the 4 SDD tankers, with an option for 14 LRIP tankers, for a total of 18 to be delivered by early 2016, or late 2015. Onl
60 zeke : More like 15-20 million each, the two engines and APU would be worth more than the bare airframe.
61 KC135TopBoom : Thanks. I was not sure about the $7M-$8M price, it seem low to me, but I did not know for sure.
62 zeke : This smells to me, to happen so early before "metal has been cut" makes me think it was always part of Boeing internal bid to grab that extra 600 mil
63 redflyer : It's probably just a major defense contractor taking advantage of the contract. Rather than make Boeing look bad, I think it only confirms what most
64 glideslope : Come on now. We have lost several billion dollar prototypes in the modern area, and keep throwing money at um. WE don't cancel. Just order less.
65 Post contains images Boeing4ever : Name me one prototype aircraft that cost in the billions per unit. Don't give me B-2...the one we lost was operational, and we did not replace it. Th
66 Stitch : Reading the full articles, the USAF expected whomever won to hit the $4.9 billion "ceiling". Boeing will likely be okay with going over the ceiling an
67 bikerthai : So, if cost hit the $4.9billion ceiling, how does that compare to the EADS bid? bikerthai
68 Post contains links arniepie : Follow-up on the Bloomberg article; http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...nker-overrun-not-our-problem-.html [Edited 2011-07-15 12:41:32]
69 trigged : That may be a heck of an idea. I would be willing to bet that Evergreen or Omni would love to get their hands on it for conversion. Omni already has
70 Stitch : Ralph Crosby, chairman of EADS North America, said their bid was $4 billion higher than Boeing's, though AW&ST believes the difference was more l
71 zeke : Not sure how true that is, this 1.3 billion overrun Boeing is talking about on the quoted price is just for the 4 SDD aircraft. The number I believe
72 USAF336TFS : If their performance on the P-8 project is any indication, then you may wind up being surprised. I personally have no doubt that they'll satisfy all
73 zeke : Think you will find that the P8 is being done by McD, not BDS like the KC-46.
74 Post contains links kanban : per Reuters: "The fact that Boeing decided that it would lose money in the development phase, presumably in the hopes of making money in the productio
75 Stitch : The P-8 is being assembled in Renton, which is a Boeing Commercial facility, on an ITAR-compliant assembly facility. And as the P-8 is officially a m
76 bikerthai : The P-8A is done by BDS. The same folks who brought you the AWACS and Wedgtail. Except the P-8A have massive BCA influences. The difference between t
77 Post contains links zeke : "Special release from the U.S. Department of Defense WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The Department of Defense announced June 14 that McDonnell Douglas Corp., a
78 kanban : I made a quick check with Boeing Public Relations and the Navy release appears to be wrong... McD still exists within Boeing for legacy programs abso
79 Post contains links Stitch : Agreed. The F/A-18 and C-17 were already in production by McD when they were merged with Boeing. The P-8 was awarded well after the two companies wer
80 Post contains links zeke : "McDonnell Douglas Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Co" http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=2782 "The Department
81 Post contains images bikerthai : All three of you are in some way correct. During the decade after the merger, Boeing did a lot of shuffling around of divisions, and operations, incl
82 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : No problem on the typo....KC-76. This is a little complicated, but for all intents and purposes, MDD no longer exsists to anyone except Boeing in 200
83 Post contains images kanban : while I'm digging out more information, I discovered that when Boeing bought McD, part of the agreement was that the McD name would survive for legacy
84 USAF336TFS : I stand by my original statement. Thanks guys for the clarifications and evidence that in fact Boeing is building both the P-8 and KC-46A.
85 KC135TopBoom : Does anyone know what the designation of the PW-4063 engines is going to be? I think F-137-100 or F-138-100 is the next DOD/USAF designation on the li
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
VC-X, KC-46, Other Updates posted Thu Apr 12 2012 08:14:46 by KC135TopBoom
KC-X RFP To Be Released Wed. 24 Feb. posted Tue Feb 23 2010 16:43:01 by KC135TopBoom
KC-45 To Be Built In Up To 13 Lots (years) posted Sun Mar 16 2008 07:03:17 by KC135TopBoom
Orion 13 Might Be First Manned Return To Moon posted Fri Oct 27 2006 08:32:51 by AerospaceFan
Il-96 To Be Offered For KC-X posted Fri Mar 19 2010 18:43:25 by Shmertspionem
Why Not More KC-10s? posted Mon Oct 26 2009 21:34:50 by Woodsboy
Will KC-10 Be Upgraded To MD-10 Flightdeck? posted Tue Sep 22 2009 23:17:09 by TF39
Will Boeing Be Able To Offer B787 For KC-X posted Fri Jul 17 2009 06:55:36 by Mptpa
Air Force To Be Allowed To Retire More C-5As posted Fri Jul 3 2009 12:12:16 by JohnM
Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs. posted Tue Jun 17 2008 17:25:31 by Columbia107

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format