KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Stitch · Wed Mar 18, 2015 5:08 pm

Well (per Wiki) the RAAF had to wait more than two extra years for their first KC-30As and once they had them, there were additional delays getting them to full service capability. That being said, later customers appear to have much better success in terms of meeting delivery dates and service capability.

[Edited 2015-03-18 10:45:57]

KarelXWB · Thu Mar 19, 2015 8:50 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 149):
So which ghost plane was it that did some flights in Dec-2014, an Italian or Japanese bird painted in US Air Force colours?

The tanker has yet to fly, the plane that flew in December 2014 was a 767-2C without the tanker modifications.

The first a/c with tanker configuration was supposed to fly in April 2015 and that target is now sliding to the right.

[Edited 2015-03-19 01:51:58]

KarelXWB · Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:34 pm

A bit more information on the latest delay:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ers-behind-on-deliveries-gao-finds

Quote:
Boeing Co.’s suppliers on its $51 billion KC-46 tanker program have fallen behind in designing and manufacturing the aircraft’s aerial refueling systems, according to congressional auditors.

Subcontractors are having difficulty making the boom used to connect to another aircraft for midair refueling, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in its annual weapons assessment report. The boom for the first KC-46 has been “delayed by eight months due to design changes and late parts deliveries,” according to the agency, which didn’t name the subcontractors.

scbriml · Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:47 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 152):

The boom! After everything that has been said (by some members here) about the EADS boom? How ironic.

KarelXWB · Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:18 pm

Quoting tarheelwings (Reply 147):
Probably still light years ahead of the "other guy" had they won

Perhaps I'm missing an inside joke but the A330 tanker is already in service.

Revelation · Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:47 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 153):
After everything that has been said (by some members here) about the EADS boom? How ironic.

No worries - the USAF will just put it into service without a boom.

par13del · Thu Mar 19, 2015 11:29 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 151):
the plane that flew in December 2014 was a 767-2C without the tanker modifications.

Which will be modified to the tanker specs, it is one of 4 frames to be used for testing and certification, I believe it is two and two.

queb · Fri Mar 20, 2015 12:32 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 155):
No worries - the USAF will just put it into service without a boom.

But they also have problems with pods...

"In addition to troubles with the refueling boom, the GAO said “another supplier has experienced significant delays in manufacturing” aerial refueling wing pods that will allow the aircraft to simultaneously refuel two F/A-18E/F Super Hornet jets.

The delays are “due in part to challenges with parts delays and engineering design changes,” the GAO said."

ssteve · Fri Mar 20, 2015 12:45 am

I'm sure the USAF will be eager to go through all this again with another airframe. Not.

Last new tanker till 2060, or ever.

chuchoteur · Fri Mar 20, 2015 7:19 am

"The new tanker's first flight will probably end up being pushed back beyond its planned date in April.

Saying he was "not comfortable" about confirming the April date, program director Brigadier General Duke Richardson is now aiming for a first flight at some point in the second quarter of this year."

Lots of little articles springing up about 1st flight delay...

Spacepope · Fri Mar 20, 2015 8:12 pm

Quoting queb (Reply 157):

Glad to see I'm not the only one that can't get stuff shipped in a timely manner. West coast dock strike still having an effect?

ThePointblank · Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:53 pm

Quoting spacepope (Reply 160):
Glad to see I'm not the only one that can't get stuff shipped in a timely manner. West coast dock strike still having an effect?

From chatting with my logistics team, the after effects are still there. Lots of containers backed up. Fortunately for my company, everything we were bringing in was routed through Vancouver or Prince Rupert and then intermodal on rail or by truck to us.

kc135topboom · Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:37 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 151):
The tanker has yet to fly, the plane that flew in December 2014 was a 767-2C without the tanker modifications.

That B-767-2C that flew actually does have some tanker equipment aboard. The body fuel tanks, and refueling system plumbing is installed. It also has the B-787 avionics installed.

LMP737 · Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:18 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 144):
Does anyone know if the KC-46 will have a tiller on the "F/O" side?

From what I hear no tiller on the FO side. Unneeded weight and complexity.

LMP737 · Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:48 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 162):
It also has the B-787 avionics installed.

It has the displays and some of the functionality of the 787 but it does not have the Common Core System that the tanker has.

INFINITI329 · Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:14 pm

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 163):
From what I hear no tiller on the FO side. Unneeded weight and complexity.

How much weight does a duplicate tiller system actually add? Im just a big proponent of both pilots having the ability to steer the airplane (civil & military). So many airplanes have the dual tiller system I think it just builds a bit of redundancy. Esp. for military aircraft where they may land somewhere without the adequate support. Its hard to Charlie-Mike when your sole system fails

By mid april USAF will announce the next round of bases selected to host the KC-46. Senator Schumer (NY) is pushing for the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station to be one of the host bases. From his press release is making good point, but I won't surprised if NFAR loses to McGuire

UPS757Pilot · Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:45 pm

I am counting on a west coast location - Fairchild, perhaps March.

par13del · Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:24 pm

Quoting UPS757Pilot (Reply 166):
I am counting on a west coast location - Fairchild, perhaps March.

If you are on either coast your odds improve, the a/c does not carry as much disposable fuel as the KC-10 so if they factor that in mind along with the budget which may not allow a -10 replacement anytime, they will need bases to allow "easier" drags across the Pond / Pacific.
Now we are talking about military planning, so one should not expect any deployment to Hawaii anytime soon.

STT757 · Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:48 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 165):
By mid april USAF will announce the next round of bases selected to host the KC-46. Senator Schumer (NY) is pushing for the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station to be one of the host bases. From his press release is making good point, but I won't surprised if NFAR loses to McGuire

Niagara Falls lost their tankers in the last BRAC, they're a Joint Reserve/Guard base that shares C-130Hs. It makes the most sense to base them at JB MDL, with the NJ ANG's 108th ARW.

Max Q · Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:37 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 165):
How much weight does a duplicate tiller system actually add? Im just a big proponent of both pilots having the ability to steer the airplane (civil & military). So many airplanes have the dual tiller system I think it just builds a bit of redundancy. Esp. for military aircraft where they may land somewhere without the adequate support. Its hard to Charlie-Mike when your sole system fails

Agree with that, both Pilots should have a complete set of controls for flight and ground operation, it's just safer, seems like we had a long, argumentative thread about that a few years ago !

flyingcello · Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:29 pm

Way back at the start of this thread, there was some discussion about the true length of the 767-2C against the 767-200. According to Wikipedia, the 762 is 48.5m long; the Boeing site doesn't seem to quote a figure any more. However, the Boeing site does quote the 767-2C as 50.4m long. So, not the same airframe...or is some of this data wrong? And if they are different, what about Type Certificate? Apologies if this has already been clarified...

ssteve · Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:58 pm

Quoting Flyingcello (Reply 170):
Way back at the start of this thread, there was some discussion about the true length of the 767-2C against the 767-200. According to Wikipedia, the 762 is 48.5m long; the Boeing site doesn't seem to quote a figure any more. However, the Boeing site does quote the 767-2C as 50.4m long. So, not the same airframe...or is some of this data wrong? And if they are different, what about Type Certificate? Apologies if this has already been clarified...

Rivet counting of unpainted airframe-- posts 275 & 277 here:
KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery (by KarelXWB May 22 2013 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)
KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery (by KarelXWB May 22 2013 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

... pretty much settled the issue. It's the same fuselage length as the 200. I don't recall the confusion of what 50.4 is supposed to mean actually being settled.

[Edited 2015-04-03 14:58:53]

flyingcello · Fri Apr 03, 2015 10:21 pm

Thank you Steve...maybe post 280 explains...the extra 2m possibly being down to boom extending beyond tail?

kc135topboom · Fri Apr 03, 2015 10:40 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 169):
Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 165):How much weight does a duplicate tiller system actually add? Im just a big proponent of both pilots having the ability to steer the airplane (civil & military). So many airplanes have the dual tiller system I think it just builds a bit of redundancy. Esp. for military aircraft where they may land somewhere without the adequate support. Its hard to Charlie-Mike when your sole system fails
Agree with that, both Pilots should have a complete set of controls for flight and ground operation, it's just safer, seems like we had a long, argumentative thread about that a few years ago !

A second tiller is not needed. The both the pilot and co-pilot can steer the airplane with differential braking, if needed.

LMP737 · Fri Apr 03, 2015 10:49 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 165):
How much weight does a duplicate tiller system actually add? Im just a big proponent of both pilots having the ability to steer the airplane (civil & military). So many airplanes have the dual tiller system I think it just builds a bit of redundancy. Esp. for military aircraft where they may land somewhere without the adequate support. Its hard to Charlie-Mike when your sole system fails

Since weight is such a critical issue with the tanker everything is taken into consideration. As the saying goes every little bit counts. In this case a tiller on the FO side is not vital for safe operation of the aircraft so it's not incorporated.

scbriml · Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:15 pm

Quoting Flyingcello (Reply 172):
the extra 2m possibly being down to boom extending beyond tail?

Yes, that's the difference to the length of a 767-200.

INFINITI329 · Sat Apr 04, 2015 7:50 am

Quoting STT757 (Reply 168):
Niagara Falls lost their tankers in the last BRAC, they're a Joint Reserve/Guard base that shares C-130Hs. It makes the most sense to base them at JB MDL, with the NJ ANG's 108th ARW.

But a lot of the infrastructure from what I understand to support tankers is still there, The guard unit transitioned away from the C-130 to operate the MQ-9... (utter waste of pilots)

NBGSkyGod · Sat Apr 04, 2015 3:31 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 165):
By mid april USAF will announce the next round of bases selected to host the KC-46. Senator Schumer (NY) is pushing for the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station to be one of the host bases. From his press release is making good point, but I won't surprised if NFAR loses to McGuire

I thought it had already been announced that the 157th ARW at Pease was going to be the first to get them?

karadion · Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:51 pm

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 177):

This is another round. Schumer is just trying to bring the moola home to please the people that writes his campaign checks.

11Bravo · Sun Apr 05, 2015 3:06 am

Quoting Karadion (Reply 178):

Isn't that what he's supposed to do? You act like that's unethical or something. I don't live in NY, so I really don't care about his basing plans, but I'd like my senator to lobby for stuff in my state. I assume that's exactly what the people in NY want him to do.

cargotanker · Mon Apr 06, 2015 1:16 am

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 179):
Isn't that what he's supposed to do? You act like that's unethical or something. I don't live in NY, so I really don't care about his basing plans, but I'd like my senator to lobby for stuff in my state. I assume that's exactly what the people in NY want him to do.

No, no, no. I guess that's how far things have gotten in this country that most assume that the job of an elected official is simply to bring pork to their district, instead of prioritizing national defense when it comes to how best to spend scarce national security dollars.

I would prefer that my representative or senator turn down federal money that is unneeded or wasteful, and let the military decide the best basing locations for its equipment and personnel. If that would ever happen, we'd see a lot fewer military bases. But we'd probably see a unicorn first.

ssteve · Mon Apr 06, 2015 3:19 am

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 180):
I would prefer that my representative or senator turn down federal money that is unneeded or wasteful, and let the military decide the best basing locations for its equipment and personnel. If that would ever happen, we'd see a lot fewer military bases.

If basing were up to the military branches, they'd each have bases in all 50 states to ensure pull with all 100 senators.

INFINITI329 · Mon Apr 06, 2015 3:40 am

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 180):
I would prefer that my representative or senator turn down federal money that is unneeded or wasteful, and let the military decide the best basing locations for its equipment and personnel. If that would ever happen, we'd see a lot fewer military bases. But we'd probably see a unicorn first.

At the end of day it is Air Force's decision. There's probably a box in the corner of their meeting room where they chuck all these letters from congress.

karadion · Mon Apr 06, 2015 1:01 pm

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 179):

US Politics 101. I never said it was unethical, don't assume that's what I'm thinking. The point is he's doing what any politician does, use political capital / influence to bring the moola back home. That's it. Nothing more to read past that.

[Edited 2015-04-06 06:05:29]

cargotanker · Mon Apr 06, 2015 2:15 pm

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 181):
If basing were up to the military branches, they'd each have bases in all 50 states to ensure pull with all 100 senators.

That comment is not reflected with current events. DoD officials frequently talk about how they would like to reduce excess infrastructure and close bases or have another BRAC round. Its the Congressman who all want to have a military base, however small or insignificant, in their district.

Look at the 2005 BRAC. The DoD had a decent plan to close a good number of bases. Then congress got involved and made sure almost all stayed open.

kc135topboom · Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:05 pm

Chuck Schumer has been in Congress since 1981, and in the Senate since 1999. He wasn't able to keep Plattsburgh AFB (PBG) and Griffiss AFB (RME) open, and both were in NY State

747classic · Tue Apr 14, 2015 11:31 am

PAE, April 13 2015, refuelling boom installed at the KC-46A prototype.

Original uploaded by WoodysAeroimages, see : http://www.flickr.com/photos/woodysaeroimages/16935322227/

Revelation · Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:29 pm

Quoting 747classic (Reply 186):
PAE, April 13 2015, refuelling boom installed at the KC-46A prototype.

Seems like he'll soon be "ready for action":

Max Q · Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:02 am

Interesting shot there, the boom looks far more compact and proportionate than the giant 'appendage' on the A330 tanker.

It's probably just the angle of the shot but if the APU is installed in its usual location it looks like the exhaust would impinge on part of the boom ?

Anyone know what the 'bump' on the upper surface of the fuselage between the trailing edge of the rudder and the tail cone is ?

INFINITI329 · Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:30 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 188):
It's probably just the angle of the shot but if the APU is installed in its usual location it looks like the exhaust would impinge on part of the boom ?

Maybe they will install something similar to what the Q400 to direct apu exhaust upwards, if it does become a problem

This is picture of a KC-767 setup

Source: http://www.airteamimages.com/boeing-...air-self-defense-force_203646.html

Big version: Width: 600 Height: 419 File size: 92kb

[Edited 2015-04-14 23:36:04]

Stitch · Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:37 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 189):
This is picture of a KC-767 setup

And that configuration looks like it might already be present on the KC-46.

bikerthai · Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:58 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 188):

Anyone know what the 'bump' on the upper surface of the fuselage between the trailing edge of the rudder and the tail cone is ?

If I were to guess, it would be part of the EWSP system. Usually that sensor would be located under the tail cone. Obviously that space is not available in this case.

bt

Max Q · Thu Apr 16, 2015 6:43 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 189):
Maybe they will install something similar to what the Q400 to direct apu exhaust upwards, if it does become a problem

This is picture of a KC-767 setup

Great picture Inf3.

That explains a lot.

kc135topboom · Sat Apr 18, 2015 10:51 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 191):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 188):
Anyone know what the 'bump' on the upper surface of the fuselage between the trailing edge of the rudder and the tail cone is ?

If I were to guess, it would be part of the EWSP system. Usually that sensor would be located under the tail cone. Obviously that space is not available in this case.

It is part of the AN/AAQ-24 Nemesis LAIRCM, as well as part of the missile warning system.

pygmalion · Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:10 pm

The "beaver tail" is not there to keep the APU exhaust off of the boom. Its there to keep a fuel leak running along the belly of the airplane from going up into the APU exhaust even if that leak is unlikely.

Some commercial airplanes have the same thing. The 787 for one.

For most commercial airplanes there is a fuel leak shroud around the fuel line to the APU to prevent any possible fuel leak from leaking into the area over the cargo bays or into areas under the passenger compartment. Those shrouds empty to drain ports on the aft belly. The 767 has one. I am also sure the KC-46 has a larger fuel shroud to protect the much larger fuel line going to the boom.

the deflector is to prevent that possible leak path from getting to the APU exhaust unless its aft and off the fuselage.

kc135topboom · Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:42 pm

Does anyone have an update to the flight testing program. When will the #2 KC-46 fly? This airplane is suppose to have the full KC-46A configuration.

Revelation · Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:03 am

Quoting pygmalion (Reply 194):
pygmalion

Thanks for the detailed info! Hadn't seen you post in a while, so thanks again.

KarelXWB · Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:03 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 195):
When will the #2 KC-46 fly? This airplane is suppose to have the full KC-46A configuration.

Boeing is now aiming to get the tanker in the air by June 30.

hilram · Wed May 13, 2015 11:05 am

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the 767 tanker at one point meant to have a -300 fuselage and wings from the -400 ? If yes, when was this idea abandoned in favor of a "clean" -200 exterior?

Stitch · Wed May 13, 2015 3:50 pm

Quoting hilram (Reply 198):
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the 767 tanker at one point meant to have a -300 fuselage and wings from the -400 ? If yes, when was this idea abandoned in favor of a "clean" -200 exterior?

I am pretty sure the 767-200 fuselage was always considered.

Boeing's offering to the 2008 KC-X RFP (the "Frankentanker") had the 767-200 fuselage and the undercarriage and wings from the 767-300F. The civilian version would have been known as the 767-200FLR.

[Edited 2015-05-13 08:50:34]

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net