Quoting Karadion (Reply 297): Completely different situation? One is a trillion dollar boondoggle which is years behind schedule whereas the KC-46A still has a target delivery date agreed to by the Air Force (even though it was revised before) which mistakes have been caught by Boeing themselves and they're agreeing to spend extra money knowing that the Air Force won't compensate them for those cost overruns. The first tranche is still on target for delivery with EMD-1/-2/-3/-4. The development of 179 tankers goes out to 2027. So if you're under the impression that Boeing is delivering more than 20 tankers a year, you're mistaken.

If Boeing would be aloud to move more than the agreed upon development cost over to the Air Force that would be in breach of the bid.

As I did understand was that the bid is not for 179 frames but for 18 frames. The full 179 frames order being dependent on the satisfactory outcome of the first 18 "test" frames.

That the A330MRTT is that more expensive than a KC45 is a skewed calculation. Yes, the A330MRTT costs 10% more per frame but can also deliver about 20% more fuel or cargo per flight. I think Leeham estimated a 6% higher trip cost for the A330MRTT. One condition of this bid was exactly that the Air Force was not aloud to take in account added capabilities. That was when Northrop Grumman pulled out and called the biding process tailored to the 767.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 301): If Boeing would be aloud to move more than the agreed upon development cost over to the Air Force that would be in breach of the bid.

You haven't even followed the development process at all. Sequestration for example caused delaying the delivery of the KC-46A which the Air Force couldn't take delivery sooner than was supposed to happen. So Boeing had to delay the development of the process to match the Air Force's schedule. One of the major effects of sequestration was that it delayed their decision on where to place the KC-46A's (which would later be Pease). Now do you even know what the starting delivery date for up to seven LRIP KC-46A's is? April 2016. That is not to say the Air Force must have 7 KC-46A's in their hand by April 2016, they want at least 1 KC-46A. Right now it's pretty obvious that Boeing has been committing additional dollars that was voluntarily on their part in order to meet that date. They could have dragged their feet and done the bare minimum but that didn't happen.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 301): As I did understand was that the bid is not for 179 frames but for 18 frames.

No, the purchase agreement is for all 179 frames. But because of how the United States Government operates, the money is allocated in phases on a yearly basis with each yearly DoD budget. So right now the money has been allocated for the first 4 TEST frames, not 18 as you insinutate. EMD-1/EMD-2/EMD-3/EMD-4 are the test frames. The following 14 KC-46A's are going to be produced on LRIP 2 and LRIP 3. Then the program will go into full production after LRIP 3. The money comes in increments which comes with a specific amount of agreed to frames. Each phase matches the start of the annual DoD budget.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 301): That the A330MRTT is that more expensive than a KC45 is a skewed calculation.

I didn't say it is more expensive than the KC-45A. Don't put words in my mouth.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 301): One condition of this bid was exactly that the Air Force was not aloud to take in account added capabilities.

They're not supposed to. The RFP says what is the requirements. They don't get extra points for having additional capabilities. If the Air Force had given extra points, they would have said so. So you either meet the requirement or you don't. Both the 767 and A330 did meet the requirement for the category you're arguing on. Boeing won because they were the lowest bidder, that is as simple as it gets. The same concept applies to any government RFP which it's great if the contractor can throw in additional stuff but that's not what the request is about. That's why contractors in general sticks to what was requested.

[Edited 2015-08-01 17:12:56]

Quoting Karadion (Reply 302): Right now it's pretty obvious that Boeing has been committing additional dollars that was voluntarily on their part in order to meet that date.

A strange sentence. There is nothing "voluntary" about the additional dollars by Boeing. Boeing made a bid, if Boeing miscalculated, it is Boeing´s headache.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 303):

No, it is not. Either Boeing can drag it out and focus on delivering at least 1 aircraft by April 2016, the cheaper option, or they can pay to rush everything to get all the EMD aircrafts in working specification plus extra aircrafts to reach up to seven. That means getting parts expedited, increasing overtime, increasing the amount of people needed above recommended levels, redoing the supply chain process, increasing inventory that supports the program, etc. Did you think that "charge" was going to the Air Force?

Keep complaining, I'm comfortable in the fact that the Air Force is not "looking at the competition again." The Air Force will get their aircrafts and up to 179 of them.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 301): Yes, the A330MRTT costs 10% more per frame but can also deliver about 20% more fuel or cargo per flight.

You seem to not think 10% is a significant amount when you're multiplying it across 179 frames?

Keep in mind KC-46 is replacing KC-135 series aircraft so it's quite a nice bump in capacity, without having to deal with the larger cost and footprint of A330MRTT.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 301): Yes, the A330MRTT costs 10% more per frame but can also deliver about 20% more fuel or cargo per flight.

The increase in capacity (both in fuel off load and cargo load) is why most of the rest of the world would select the A330 tanker. But as discussed in the many previous threads, the USAF are not looking for capacity rather the quantity of booms (for the price). If they want capacity, then Boeing would have offered the 777 tanker .

As I recall from TopBoom, rarely does a tanker off-load it's capacity. So a larger plane would be carrying more structure weight which would burn more fuel . . . increasing your operating expenses.

bt

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 306): As I recall from TopBoom, rarely does a tanker off-load it's capacity. So a larger plane would be carrying more structure weight which would burn more fuel . . . increasing your operating expenses.

And, from the C-17 thread:

Quote: Quoting Karadion (Reply 36): They literally said that the MILCON cost of the KC-45 was the same as the KC-46. In the GAO report (now that I read it again) it turns out since the cost was about 10 billion was for 4 bases (cost came from the hearings and the number of bases from the GAO report) in other words since we have $3 billion for 3 bases - KC-46, a buck a pop vs $10 billion for 4 bases - KC-45, $2.5 a pop. Clearly the cost of infrastructures around the world to accommodate KC-45 would have been staggering which would have been about $100 billion or so for the KC-45 vs $40 billion for the KC-46 since internet searches reveals that there are about 40~ refueling bases.

In contrast : In the seventies modification of the 747 prototype with a KC135 boom took approx. two months !

See : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE4P5ysqKXE

Video shows KC33 modifications in 1972, followed by connection trials with B-52, SR71, F4E and FB-111 aircraft.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 308): In contrast : In the seventies modification of the 747 prototype with a KC135 boom took approx. two months ! See : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE4P5ysqKXE Video shows KC33 modifications in 1972, followed by connection trials with B-52, SR71, F4E and FB-111 aircraft.

This time, you are dealing with all new boom, a new variant of an existing aircraft that needs its own certification, plus different refueling systems and avionics. In short, this is a major developmental program.

Plus the buffer for risk now is a hell of a lot less than then. If you were willing to take on more risk I'm confident Boeing would having something in the air in two months but things might go wrong like booms falling off.

Not that doesn't happen these days. :p

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 309): This time, you are dealing with all new boom, a new variant of an existing aircraft that needs its own certification, plus different refueling systems and avionics. In short, this is a major developmental program.

The KC-46 is basically a standard 767-200, with aerial fuelling capacity, like the KC33 is/was a tanker version of the 747-100.

The original design of both aircraft types is straight forward, however the USAF has a lot of (very expensive) extra requirements :

- Full redundant wiring for a simple airlift or fuelling mission (it's an airlifter/tanker, not a fighter or bomber!)

- A completely non- standard cockpit lay-out (compared to the now standard three screen civil cockpit, also used for cockpit upgrades of earlier built 767's)

- Both the arial refueling boom and the refueling pods are already flight tested at the Italian and/or Japanese 767 tankers
.
- Remote controlled, refuelling booms are already operational for years in the Dutch KDC10 aircraft.

It's a sign of the present time that Boeing , together with the USAF, is unable to produce a relative simple tanker, in time and within budget.

First fully missionized KC-46A Pegasus in full USAF markings

View Large View Medium

Photo © Bill Shemley

Quoting 747classic (Reply 311): - Both the arial refueling boom and the refueling pods are already flight tested at the Italian and/or Japanese 767 tankers

But the boom and WARPS on the KC-46 are completely different than those on the Italian and Japanese tankers.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 309): This time, you are dealing with all new boom, a new variant of an existing aircraft that needs its own certification, plus different refueling systems and avionics. In short, this is a major developmental program.

The boom on the KC-46 is basically a KC-10 boom.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 313): The boom on the KC-46 is basically a KC-10 boom.

With an all new fly-by-wire control system.

Also, imagine the certification requirements; Boeing needs to get a civilian FAA Amended Type Certificate just for the airframe, plus supplemental type certificates for all of the military modifications. Then, the aircraft needs a military type certificate, which is MUCH more intensive and difficult.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 313): But the boom and WARPS on the KC-46 are completely different than those on the Italian and Japanese tankers.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 314): The boom on the KC-46 is basically a KC-10 boom. With an all new fly-by-wire control system

So the USAF is inventing the wheel again with the KC46, as said : it's a basic transport/ tanker aircraft not a 5th generation fighter aircraft.

A standard 767-200F with standard wiring installed and only upgraded with lower hold fuel tanks and a adapted KDC10 remote controlled boom would have done the job perfectly
(and hopefully also without the USAF approved toilet seats)

I experienced the modification of the two ex. MP DC-30CF aircraft into KDC10 tankers in our KLM hangar at AMS. Suddenly the hangar became a top secret location, with a lot guards and a continuous flow of high brass arriving during the whole modification process.
When the military is involved everything becomes complicated ( and very expensive).

[Edited 2015-08-07 03:54:45]

Quoting 747classic (Reply 315): A standard 767-200F with standard wiring installed and only upgraded with lower hold fuel tanks and a adapted KDC10 remote controlled boom would have done the job perfectly

Standard 767-200 would not be able to operate in an EMP environmrent.

Bt

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 316): Standard 767-200 would not be able to operate in an EMP environmrent.

All standard 767-avionics are EMP tested (lightning strikes etc), however not Nuclear EMP tested, like the E4B's and VC25A's

Luckely the 767still has conventional flight controls.

Is the A330MRRT NEMP tested ?????

Quoting 747classic (Reply 317): Luckely the 767still has conventional flight controls. Is the A330MRRT NEMP tested ?????

A very good point there.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 317): Luckely the 767still has conventional flight controls.

The engines are all electronically controlled through the FADEC on a Boeing 767, and of the three hydraulic systems, one of them is electrically powered. Even then, the hydraulic systems are all powered by electric motors, so they will go down in such a situation.

The Airbus A330 has manual back-up control on the rudder and engines. If all of the fly by wire systems goes down, it is possible to control the aircraft for a safe landing, and it is practiced.

Don't forget; many military fighters ARE digital fly-by-wire controlled; the F-16 is a great example of this, along with the F-22, F-35, Tornado, Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, and the F/A-18. So it is possible to build a digital fly-by-wire control system that is resistant to EMP attacks.

In either case, all of the radio's and navigation systems will also die in such a situation, and in any case, you will have bigger issues regardless in either a Boeing 767 or an Airbus A330 in an nuclear EMP situation. In fact, the only case where you might still be flying is if you were flying something like a Douglas DC-3.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 319): The engines are all electronically controlled through the FADEC on a Boeing 767, and of the three hydraulic systems, one of them is electrically powered. Even then, the hydraulic systems are all powered by electric motors, so they will go down in such a situation.

In case of an complete electrical failure the left and right hydraulic systems will still be operational by engine driven pumps (FAA requirement). The PW4062 FADEC on the KC46A will also able be to control the engines in a degraded (less accurate mode) when even partial failed in case of EMP.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 319): In either case, all of the radio's and navigation systems will also die in such a situation, and in any case, you will have bigger issues regardless in either a Boeing 767 or an Airbus A330 in an nuclear EMP situation. In fact, the only case where you might still be flying is if you were flying something like a Douglas DC-3.

This supports my opinion over the of the multiple redundacy of the KC46 wiring bundels compared to the standard normal EMP proof B767 wiring.
Or are we building a multiple redundant tanker aircraft in case of bullets or scrapnell damage. (highly unlikely at the nomal operating altitudes for air refuelling).

Quoting 747classic (Reply 320): Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 319):The engines are all electronically controlled through the FADEC on a Boeing 767, and of the three hydraulic systems, one of them is electrically powered. Even then, the hydraulic systems are all powered by electric motors, so they will go down in such a situation. In case of an complete electrical failure the left and right hydraulic systems will still be operational by engine driven pumps (FAA requirement). The PW4062 FADEC on the KC46A will also able be to control the engines in a degraded (less accurate mode) when even partial failed in case of EMP.

  

And let's not forget about the RAT. With failure of all EDP's and EMP's it provides hydraulic power to the primary flight controls -- handles perfectly fine on RAT alone -- I've done it at least a hundred times -- checked on every B1 and C1 during production testing.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 321): handles perfectly fine on RAT alone -- I've done it at least a hundred times -- checked on every B1 and C1 during production testing.

To clarify, you keep the engines spinning but use the RAT for power?

The RAT provides power to the flight controls in the event of a dual flameout on the 757 / 767.



Not sure what you mean by keep the 'engines spinning' if they are shut down or fail for whatever reason they will
windmill but this does not affect the RAT and its function.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 322): To clarify, you keep the engines spinning but use the RAT for power?

Yes, during the test both engines are running but all the hydraulic pumps are turned off so RAT is only source of hydraulic power.

Nice aerial view of L/N1065, N461FT, now stationed at Boeing Field for further flight tests, see :
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE1/history


View Large View Medium

Photo © jason w. wong

[a [/qote]

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 319): The Airbus A330 has manual back-up control on the rudder and engines. If all of the fly by wire systems goes down, it is possible to control the aircraft for a safe landing, and it is practiced.

The A330 uses FADEC on it's engines. Is there some unknown mechanical backup?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 314): With an all new fly-by-wire control system.

Which is wires and control laws. The boom is the big money item in that system. By using the KC-10 boom Boeing saved itself a lot of time and money.

Basic flutter testing of the wing pods and stowed boom is completed.
First flight date of the fully equipped KC-46 has not been set.
According a Boeing spokesman "Right now it looks to be roughly a month beyond our previous plan to fly EMD-2 in the late August to early September timeframe ",

See : http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ests-as-emd-2-flight-faces-415745/

Quoting 747classic (Reply 311): Both the arial refueling boom and the refueling pods are already flight tested at the Italian and/or Japanese 767 tankers

USAF wanted a bigger box for hook-ups, so the KC-767 boom was replaced by a new boom based on the KC-10 boom. The pods are also a different design.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 311): - Remote controlled, refuelling booms are already operational for years in the Dutch KDC10 aircraft.

Again, while the basic control station is based on the KDC-10 station, the 3-D visuals are quite different.

The first flight of the KC46 seems to be delayed further till late September or early October, following a chemical mix-up last month that damaged the plane’s fuel system.

See : http://ht.ly/R16xi

Quoting 747classic (Reply 329):

No, one of the KC-46's has been delayed. The other is still doing test flights. The plane in question they're talking about is equipped with the fuel system that is needed for air refueling. Boeing is still going ahead with production and roll outs which obviously will require change incorporation (which had to be done anyways even if the fuel contamination hadn't happened). The media's kind of blowing out of proportion when EMD-1 is still being used for tests to eliminate issues that props up in flight. The Air Force will still get up to 18 of their KC-46A's by end of 2017. From the article, you get the impression that they have to have all 18 KC-46A's when that's not the case. It's also subjected to Congressional approval which Congress must allocate money for the purchases of the entire batch of the KC-46A's.

[Edited 2015-08-18 00:36:51]

Quoting Karadion (Reply 330): No, one of the KC-46's has been delayed. The other is still doing test flights.

EMD-2 (the first fully operational aircraft) seems to be effected, so the start of operational KC46A testing is indeed delayed by another month.
Seen the already very tight flight test schedule, this is not good news for the program
.
The other aircraft (N461FT), with non operational boom and wing pods, is still doing only basic aerodynamical test flights

[Edited 2015-08-18 00:55:26]

Mods: Might be time to start Part 3.

[Edited 2015-08-18 17:11:52]

Another KC46 boom arrived at Paine field (with security present), August 18 2015



Original uploaded by Moonm, see : http://www.flickr.com/photos/moonm/20067051364/

Quoting Karodin post reply 330:

"No, one of the KC-46's has been delayed. The other is still doing test flights. The plane in question they're talking about is equipped with the fuel system that is needed for air refueling. Boeing is still going ahead with production and roll outs which obviously will require change incorporation (which had to be done anyways even if the fuel contamination hadn't happened). The media's kind of blowing out of proportion when EMD-1 is still being used for tests to eliminate issues that props up in flight. The Air Force will still get up to 18 of their KC-46A's by end of 2017. From the article, you get the impression that they have to have all 18 KC-46A's when that's not the case. It's also subjected to Congressional approval which Congress must allocate money for the purchases of the entire batch of the KC-46A's."

leehamnews.com/2015/08/18/air-force-shouldnt-production-rate-decision-gao-says/

Quote:

“Boeing is at risk of not meeting the entrance criteria needed to support the projected October 2015 low-rate production decision,” and

"A total of 2,400 hours of flight testing was originally planned by the time the low-rate production decision was due, originally this month."

"The GAO wrote that Boeing originally would have completed 36 months of flight testing using four developmental aircraft before the low-rate production decision. Only the 767-2C has flown to date."


I would say first flight of the KC-46 has clearly been delayed and it has been delayed past defined decision points.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 1): I would say first flight of the KC-46 has clearly been delayed and it has been delayed past defined decision points.

Yes. You'll notice the decision points are just getting pushed out, too. From "this month" to "October." They'll just delay that, too.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 1): "A total of 2,400 hours of flight testing was originally planned by the time the low-rate production decision was due, originally this month."

It's going to be a long time till they get there. Lately BOE1 has been a 762, but it's not racking up any huge hours in a hurry if the Flightaware record is accurate.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 1):

Being selective are you? There's one operating -46 (which is still a 767-2C due to the lack of fueling equipment obviously ). I know people like yourself insists its a 767-2C but It is fulfilling flight hours as a KC-46 and performing flight maneuvers as a KC-46. Eventually it'll have incorporation to get the equipment to do fuel offloading but it's not necessary now. What you left out is that the original plan called for 4 planes to be meet 66% of the benchmarks which Boeing will be meeting 22% of the benchmark with just the one for now. Now this report was formulated in April so the benchmarks are going to be higher than that today. Leeham does a bit of putting two together to try and give the impression they're way behind. By August 2016, there are 10 KC-46 on the firing order. Remember the contract require that Boeing delivers 7 to the Air Force first by April 2016 which is doable now with the additional money that Boeing is paying to get the programme back ahead. Then the remaining up to 11 has to be with the Air Force by late 2017. Again doable. I know. You prefer they cancel the contract right now so you can see more A330s.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 3):

It's not. It's racked up way more than that. There are some days it flew that it's missing out on for some reason.

[Edited 2015-08-19 14:44:43]

Quoting Karadion (Reply 4):

I am not selective and the quotes are via Leeham out of GAO.

What ever you say the full prototype of the K46 is not flying jet and even according to the revised time plan it should be.
And the 767-2C is not a K46 so the flight hours have still to be done on the K46.
Yes the time plan was revised in April, because Boeing did not meet the original time plan. I am sure it will be revised again because Boeing is not hitting the agreed upon dates again.
And you can babble all you want about Boeing putting up extra money, according to the agreement that is a Boeing problem. It does not matter if the design is more expensive than anticipated, or if Boeing needs the money to accelerate the program because it is already 8 month behind the original schedule.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 5):

And where did I say Boeing is charging the Air Force for cost overruns? The charges that Boeing is taking a charge on is their own money which they're paying for overtime, additional flights, expediting parts TTD schedules, and the list goes on. Again you have consistently showed that you do not follow the programme that closely.

The plane is a KC-46A without the fueling equipment which again they are conducting flights no differently than a completed KC-46A. That means if it does a Dutch roll, it is the same metrics as a completed KC-46A Dutch roll and knocks down that testing requirement. The exception to this is in flight refueling which won't be done for months after October when EMD-2 is completed. EMD-4 will also be factory complete soon and will start contributing to getting flight hours. All while they need to fix EMD-2, EMD-3 is also being worked on in the factory.

I get it mjoelnir, the Air Force should have gone with the plane that has a $100 billion MILCON cost over this $40 billion MILCON cost.

[Edited 2015-08-19 16:34:02]

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 5):

by your logic if two test airplanes had different end customers, they would have to duplicate all tests on each plane. Please understand that in a test fleet plan, the tests are divided up between the planes, the first off the ground does a whole bunch to flight control and engine control tests that don't change with hanging additional hardware later.. Yes there will be some unique tests with pods and boom later, but they will not be duplicating the common fuselage handling.

To be more specific, the gear retract and extension tests are the same.. the RAT activation, the flight management and engine management computer tests, and the wiggle of the wing and tail feathers.. The second plane will test only those items unique to the fueling systems, then go on to additional common tests.. like flying fish cargo from some little island in the North Atlantic.      

Boeing also has to complete certification of the ATC for the 767-2C before they move on to the STC for the full KC-46A configuration.

So even if the program was tracking perfectly, Boeing would still start flight testing with a 767-2C airframe before they did a KC-46A airframe.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 6): And where did I say Boeing is charging the Air Force for cost overruns? The charges that Boeing is taking a charge on is their own money which they're paying for overtime, additional flights, expediting parts TTD schedules, and the list goes on. Again you have consistently showed that you do not follow the programme that closely.

You are talking about it being like a gift from Boeing and not a necessary expense to try to meet the conditions of the contract.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 6): The plane is a KC-46A without the fueling equipment which again they are conducting flights no differently than a completed KC-46A. That means if it does a Dutch roll, it is the same metrics as a completed KC-46A Dutch roll and knocks down that testing requirement. The exception to this is in flight refueling which won't be done for months after October when EMD-2 is completed. EMD-4 will also be factory complete soon and will start contributing to getting flight hours. All while they need to fix EMD-2, EMD-3 is also being worked on in the factory.

So it seems to be very strange that the contract insist on test flights with the real K46 not only including demonstration of the refuelling capabilities.
Yes they are working at the birds, but they should be flying ,now according to the time plan. That is why somebody like the GAO is talking about delays.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8): Boeing also has to complete certification of the ATC for the 767-2C before they move on to the STC for the full KC-46A configuration. So even if the program was tracking perfectly, Boeing would still start flight testing with a 767-2C airframe before they did a KC-46A airframe.

Are you also of the opinion that Boeing keeps to the time frame and there are not any delays in the program?

That declaration from Karadion we are discussing in the moment.

[Edited 2015-08-19 19:12:46]

Quoting kanban (Reply 7): by your logic if two test airplanes had different end customers, they would have to duplicate all tests on each plane. Please understand that in a test fleet plan, the tests are divided up between the planes, the first off the ground does a whole bunch to flight control and engine control tests that don't change with hanging additional hardware later.. Yes there will be some unique tests with pods and boom later, but they will not be duplicating the common fuselage handling.

By my logic if the plan says this test frame starts testing at this data and that test frame starts testing at that date and that is delayed, I call it being delayed.

Karadion and now also you seem to think that the testing intended to do with the K46 is possible to do with the 767-2C.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 4): Being selective are you? There's one operating -46 (which is still a 767-2C due to the lack of fueling equipment obviously ). I know people like yourself insists its a 767-2C but It is fulfilling flight hours as a KC-46 and performing flight maneuvers as a KC-46. Eventually it'll have incorporation to get the equipment to do fuel offloading but it's not necessary now. What you left out is that the original plan called for 4 planes to be meet 66% of the benchmarks which Boeing will be meeting 22% of the benchmark with just the one for now. Now this report was formulated in April so the benchmarks are going to be higher than that today. Leeham does a bit of putting two together to try and give the impression they're way behind. By August 2016, there are 10 KC-46 on the firing order. Remember the contract require that Boeing delivers 7 to the Air Force first by April 2016 which is doable now with the additional money that Boeing is paying to get the programme back ahead. Then the remaining up to 11 has to be with the Air Force by late 2017. Again doable. I know. You prefer they cancel the contract right now so you can see more A330s.

I think you are dreaming and twisting a bad situation into something positive: based on current progress there is no way that the first 7 will be delivered on time or even that the first delivery is by April 2016. Testing is just too far behind schedule and once the frames are up in the air, you will still see a slower than planned ramp up of test hours. Once a project is in trouble it is a cascade of issues and very painful to get out of the situation.

Same way, the whole "mislabeled cleaner" story sounds too much like a "the dog ate my homework" excuse.

On the other hand, there is no way that the KC-46 will be cancelled - I just expect delays, cost overruns and the final tally to be far less than 179 frames.
And who knows how much delays the A330MRTT would have had with all USAF specific requirements...

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 10):

it's a test program that uses up to 4 aircraft.. some with and some without fueling systems.. the planes are assigned specific tests and those that don't need the boom go to the -2C .. recall that the 787 used different fuselages to certify the different engine types.

in this case the basic cargo (-2C) is being tested first so that the STC's (supplemental type certificate ) items can be tested on the second airframe. however maybe only those of us who have worked in aircraft test scenarios would understand

your quote "So it seems to be very strange that the contract insist on test flights with the real K46 not only including demonstration of the refuelling capabilities." shows a total lack of comprehension of the process.. and a whole bunch of assumptions based processes relevant to making simple widgets, which these planes are not

I am bothered by the repeated cock-ups and I know Boeing could have and should have done better.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 9): You are talking about it being like a gift from Boeing and not a necessary expense to try to meet the conditions of the contract.

Where? The charges are being incurred by Boeing at their expenses. The money does not go to the Air Force, the money is not requested by the Air Force, it is money that they are setting aside to get the program back on track. That's all there is to it. For some reason, you don't seem to be understanding this.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 9): So it seems to be very strange that the contract insist on test flights with the real K46 not only including demonstration of the refuelling capabilities. Yes they are working at the birds, but they should be flying ,now according to the time plan. That is why somebody like the GAO is talking about delays.

Where? Show me the contract wording insisting on this. The block tabulation is VH001 to VH004 which are listed as KC-46A / 767-2C. Not even the April GAO report states that it must be done on the KC-46A. It doesn't matter what test flights they do, they still count towards certification for either "variant" although they are one the same. The flutter tests for example are mostly being done with VH001 / EMD-1 which are not going to be repeated with VH002 / EMD-2 and etc etc. It's not necessary at all. EMD-3 will not be equipped with the refueling equipment as well which is still going to be treated as a KC-46A for certification purposes.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 9): That is why somebody like the GAO is talking about delays.

And the GAO is also the one that pointed out the cost of the KC-45, your baby, would have cost the Department of Defense over $100 billion (2.5 a pop) in MILCON alone vs the cost of $40 billion (1 a pop). I'm quite aware of what the delays are which are pretty prominent. It's nothing to cry about which Boeing is incurring the cost which apparently you are disappointed about even though you're not a taxpayer? The GAO simply says that the AF should not go ahead with LRIP 1 until EMD-2 offloads fuel which isn't going to happen since Boeing already has committed the firing order which were sanctioned by the Air Force. Boeing does not add planes to the firing order until they are given confirmation by any customer regardless if it's military or civilian. Contract agreement w/ dates is not the same as the firing order.

Also in another GAO report from back in March of this year, it stated at the time of the report that more than 57% of the development work was completed and that Boeing met or exceeded all contractual requirements.

Now in that April report (that Leeham mostly skips over), which is omitted, in today's dollars the cost of the KC-46A acquisition on the Air Force's part, the cost went down from $51.7 billion (Feb 2011 dollars) to $48.9 billion (Dec 2014 dollars). The GAO stated that the program is ON TRACK to meet performance goals. With the flight hours, Leeham makes it sound like because there's no true KC-46A, flight hours will not be accumulated which is wrong. The contract agreement with the Air Force allows Boeing to use the two "baseline" 767-2C/KC-46A (EMD-1/EMD-3) and KC-46A (EMD-2) to fulfill all the 2400 flight hours necessary. EMD-1 has been flying for about 5 out of 7 days for the last 4 weeks with an average of about 2.5-3.5 hours which has been steadily growing upwards. Between now and end of 2015, that's easily 500 flight hours. Now back to the GAO report! What did Boeing and the Air Force plan to have at least how many flight hours? 400 which they want the total of 2400 flight hours. As EMD-2/EMD-3/EMD-4, it will start to tack up really fast. Now the reason why there's the 767-2C and KC-46A disparity is what Stitch pointed out, they need both the Amended Type Certificate (FAA) and military certificate (with all the refueling/avionics). Oh that 3.5 hours that Leeham was talking about? You know when that flight was? December 2014. Hi, we're in 2015, there's been many flight hours since then.

Now the GAO can only recommend to have the DoD make changes but ultimately the DoD has been making the final call which for the last 4 years, they've been mostly ignoring the GAO and going ahead with the KC-46A. In the same GAO report, it stated that they assume 18 will be delivered by August 2017 but the DoD expects 13 at least.

At the middle of the report, the GAO states this that Leeham left out!: The program office projects that the KC-46 aircraft will meet all of its key performance goals,4 including receiving fuel from other tankers; providing fuel to about 36 receiver aircraft, according to an Air Force official’s projection; and having a certain amount of fuel to offload at various distances. According to program officials, the current assessment is based on their engineering expertise and the level of effort necessary to meet the requirements.

Now why did Leeham leave that out? Who knows! Maybe it sells page hits perhaps?

There's 7 categories that the GAO assessed Boeing on. They are:
Operational empty weight - Maximum weight of the aircraft without usable fuel.
Fuel usage rate assessment - Gallons of fuel per hour used by the aircraft during a mission.
Mission capable rate - Measure of how long the aircraft can perform one of its assigned missions.
Fix rate - The 12 hour fix rate for aircraft per 50,000 fleet hours.
Break rate - Number of breaks per sorties per 50,000 fleet hours.
Mission completion success probability - Probability of completing the aerial refueling mission and landing safely.
Operational availability - Probability an aircraft will be ready for operational use when required.

You know what the GAO rated them on in terms of "Projected to meet measure?" All 100% YES.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 11): based on current progress there is no way that the first 7 will be delivered on time or even that the first delivery is by April 2016.

Incorrect! There are already 4 right now as part of the first batch (the EMD). LRIP 1 will not start until the first quarter as planned which Boeing will be starting the next 3. So the timeline that they gave to the Air Force does work which it is entirely possible to get all 7 done.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 11): Testing is just too far behind schedule and once the frames are up in the air, you will still see a slower than planned ramp up of test hours.

Again incorrect. The charges are for the ramping up of flight hours. EMD-3 and EMD-4 will be going up soon to get the rate up faster. Historically and according to the GAO as well as the Department of Defense, the rate of flight tests is far more aggressive compared to other defense programs. The P-8, C-17, C-130J, C-27, C-5's have had far less than 30 flight hours per month vs the rate of 115 flight hours per month.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 11): I just expect delays, cost overruns and the final tally to be far less than 179 frames.

Do you understand when the contract is to be fulfilled by? 2028. The total cost of procurement is to be $31.6 billion for the remaining 175. They need to replace their KC-135's period which the Air Force wants to eliminate. KC-Y is going to be another round of the KC-46A and KC-Z is going to be a between the 787/777 (if Boeing puts that forward) and the A350/A330. So I seriously doubt the Air Force is going to kill the program to get less than 179 delivered. It seems to me that you are under the impression that Boeing must produce all 179 by end of decade or something?

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 11): And who knows how much delays the A330MRTT would have had with all USAF specific requirements...

It wasn't going to be the A330MRTT. It was going to be built according to the USAF specification which is why the KC-45A was going to be an entirely different airplane (Airbus was supposed to deliver shell's to NG to work on) that the A330MRTT and why Northrop Grumman was the Prime Contractor until they withdrew from the bid. The Air Force begged NG to stay on but they knew they weren't going to win with the requirements as it is and they were caught by surprise when they "won" the first round.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 10): Karadion and now also you seem to think that the testing intended to do with the K46 is possible to do with the 767-2C.

Because the plane is almost exactly the same on paper! After all it is the baseline for the KC-46A. There's very little difference between VH001 and VH002 other than the fact that Boeing left off the fueling and avionics equipment of VH001. They can simply add weight to make sure that the MEW matches close enough to that of a completed KC-46A. So the flight test are being certified as a KC-46A flight test with EMD-1 no matter how much you throw a fit about it.

[Edited 2015-08-19 21:24:32]

Quoting Karadion (Reply 13): Where? The charges are being incurred by Boeing at their expenses.

You cannot seriously be suggesting that they wont at some point, in some manner, be passed on to the customer(s).

Cheers
A

Quoting angad84 (Reply 14):

Ahh yes they're going to pass the cost onto who? The KC-46 has a fixed cost. FedEx is primarily the only customer ordering the 767 in large amounts which Boeing aggressively priced their planes to get the order. So where is the cost going to be passed onto and it isn't any time soon either. Even if no customers ordered the 767, the KC-46 program has a guaranteed rate per batch. So Boeing hopes to recoup their cost through service contracts when the KC-46 is IOC and that is very well likely they will be the winner of such contracts since they're the prime contractor. We're taking about two billion above so assume they're going to add another 11 million to the next 175 767s? Unlikely. They've already ate the cost in the 10Q filings so no they're not passing the cost.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 14):

unlike another military supplier, Boeing will not threaten to shut the program down unless the customers pony up more money.. AlsoBoeing knew the financial risks going in and is prepared to eat the cost overruns to the contract.. granted they won't enjoy it. As far as the stockholders are concerned, there is more than enough profit in commercial sales to ensure their stock remains valuable.

Anyway, the loss is just for the first batch, I'm sure Boeing know from the beginning that there would be extra costs on the first batch, they will all recover with next batches.