KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

kanban · Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:21 pm

the offset will begin small and increase as the production line stabilizes with production and coast improvements

karadion · Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:35 pm

No, they won't. This is a fixed-priced contract which Boeing has listed all 179 KC-46A in writing with the Air Force and they've already agreed on the unit-price. So Boeing CANNOT tack on additional cost on top of the unit price. That is to say if a supplier goes bankrupt and the next best part eats into their margins that puts them in the red, Boeing cannot pass the loss onto the Air Force and must deliver the unit at a loss. So the government has no obligation to reimburse any losses that Boeing incurs in fulfilling the contract as long Boeing exists.

One of the way Boeing can recoup that money is by driving down cost on their end especially with their suppliers which they can try to find cost savings as they go along. The learning curve for now is high but it will decline over time which gives Boeing the capability to ensure that they do come out in the end.

[Edited 2015-08-20 09:38:12]

angad84 · Thu Aug 20, 2015 8:19 pm

Quoting Karadion (Reply 19):

Fair enough. I usually stay out of these threads because I'm not as hands on with the US aviation industry.

I guess I hadn't really considered that Boeing may simply have left themselves wiggle room in their risk assessments for the whole programme, allowing them to take hits now and still come out ok after all the aircraft are built. Makes as much sense as pricing per batch and passing on early batch costs to the customer on later lots, except with a lot less certainty regarding the cash involved.

Cheers
A

Ozair · Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:11 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 16):
unlike another military supplier, Boeing will not threaten to shut the program down unless the customers pony up more money..

Sorry but that is not true.

The perfect example being the Australian Wedgetail project. Boeing oversold the capability of the jet and then couldn't deliver. The contract Boeing had signed, which incidentally was about the most iron clad contract DMO ever constructed and probably too iron clad in the end, had Boeing paying significant damages payments every week for a year and a half. At the end Boeing stated quite clearly to the Australian MoD that they must accept the capability as it was, below that contractually promised, or Boeing would take the loss and walk away... At which point a settlement was reached.

BOEING will pay the Australian government tens of millions of dollars in compensation in a final commercial settlement over the late delivery of the RAAF's $4 billion airborne early warning aircraft.
After months of bruising negotiations, the two parties agreed last week on a deal that will see Boeing pay the commonwealth both a cash settlement and provide further technical help at no cost to the troubled Wedgetail project.

A spokesman for Defence Minister John Faulkner yesterday declined to reveal the exact sum paid by Boeing in liquidated damages to the commonwealth for failing to meet the delivery timetable and the agreed performance specification for the Wedgetail's complex systems, including its highly advanced phased array radar.

But it is understood the payment is about $100 million, making it one of the largest liquidated damages payouts involving a Defence Department contract.

Boeing has also spent an estimated $US1.7 billion ($1.9bn) of its own funds trying to fix the glitches in Wedgetail over and above its fixed-price $4bn contract with Defence, but they are already running four years late following a string of developmental problems.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...elays/story-e6frg6nf-1225811145006

There are some interesting parallels between the two projects.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 15):
Ahh yes they're going to pass the cost onto who? The KC-46 has a fixed cost.

Sure, but as we commonly see in commercial aviation, Boeing probably expects to make up for some of the initial development loss in support and maintenance contracts for the next 30 years. The only hitch with this is that, even though Boeing would be in a prime position to win, these contracts are open bid so the revenue stream is not guaranteed.

PC12Fan · Fri Aug 21, 2015 12:38 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 1):

Quoting Karadion (Reply 4):

Quoting kanban (Reply 7):

Umm, when you guys are done with your little pissing match, would you let us know? Some of us here check this thread to read up on the aircraft itself. Not the drama.

Thank you.

Revelation · Fri Aug 21, 2015 4:23 am

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 22):
Umm, when you guys are done with your little pissing match, would you let us know? Some of us here check this thread to read up on the aircraft itself. Not the drama.

Some times a good long piss is exactly what's needed...

KarelXWB · Fri Aug 21, 2015 8:47 am

EMD-1 on August 20:

N461FT Aug 20 2015 by Peter, on Flickr

KC-46 N461FT Aug 20 2015 by Peter, on Flickr

PC12Fan · Sat Aug 22, 2015 1:21 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 23):

True - just not in the open where everyone can see it.

LMP737 · Sat Aug 22, 2015 4:54 pm

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 11):
Same way, the whole "mislabeled cleaner" story sounds too much like a "the dog ate my homework" excuse.

And yet it still happened.

KarelXWB · Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:21 am

LN 1069 / VH004 at the fuel dock with registration N462KC:

N462KC Boeing KC-46A (767-200) - C/N 41275 / LN 1069 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

LMP737 · Sat Sep 05, 2015 5:53 am

Should be flying at the end of the month.

KarelXWB · Thu Sep 10, 2015 8:32 am

LN 1069 / VH004 on the move last night:

N462KC Boeing KC-46A (767-200) - C/N 41275 / LN 1069 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

Max Q · Thu Sep 10, 2015 12:09 pm

Good looking aircraft.

Boeing will more than make up for their losses when the second order for another 179+ tankers comes in.
There are a lot of KC135's to replace.

ThePointblank · Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:40 am

All is not well at the Pentagon, with General Mark Welsh signalling growing frustration with the KC-46A program, and demanding increased oversight of Boeing:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...ustration-tanker-program/71925912/

Quote:
The US Air Force's chief of staff has called for increased oversight of Boeing's KC-46 tanker schedule, signaling the Pentagon's rising frustration with the program's repeated delays and cost overruns.

During an exclusive interview with Defense News, Gen. Mark Welsh called on Boeing to provide a "predictable" timetable the Air Force can track from now until August 2017 — the company's deadline to deliver 18 operational tankers to the fleet.

"We're at a point now where we really need to see the first flight of this tanker, the actual tanker variant," Welsh said. "Then, we need to have a predictable milestone chart between now and the required-assets-available date in August of '17 that we can track down with some definitive consistency from this point forward."

Welsh's remarks reflect the Air Force's growing concern that Boeing may not meet the critical deadline. Earlier this summer, Boeing was forced to postpone first flight, a key milestone, after a mislabeled chemical was mistakenly loaded into the aircraft's refueling line during testing. Boeing now anticipates the event will occur about a month later than planned, in late August or early September.

INFINITI329 · Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:42 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
"We're at a point now where we really need to see the first flight of this tanker, the actual tanker variant,"

Crucial statement here,

What is the timetable for USAF to finish its KC-46 training program?

kanban · Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:36 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 32):

the plane will fly sept 25th.. per
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-kc-46a-tanker-1st-192626885.html

ssteve · Mon Sep 21, 2015 5:26 pm

Lots of information in AW&ST:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/kc-46-what-was-wrong-fuel-system

bikerthai · Tue Sep 22, 2015 3:41 pm

From Popular Mechanics
" The KC-135R can also carry more cargo (83,000 pounds) than the KC-46 (65,000 pounds) according to the Air Force.".

Can someone break this down? Is it because the airframe is lighter and it carries 4 turbo-fans?

bt

747classic · Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:22 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 33):
the plane will fly sept 25th..

Taxi tests of the first fully equipped KC-46A, PAE, 24 September 2015

Original uploaded by Moonm, see : http://www.flickr.com/photos/moonm/21663712126/

Aircraft data : L/N 1069 C/N 41275 B767-2LKC N462KC 11-46002 USAF KC-46A (VH004) EMD

[Edited 2015-09-25 01:36:54]

747classic · Fri Sep 25, 2015 3:46 pm

N462KC, a flightplan has been filed for the first(B1) flight towards Moses Lake (KMWH) with callsign BOE4.

See : http://flightaware.com/live/flight/B...4/history/20150925/1700Z/KPAE/KMWH

INFINITI329 · Fri Sep 25, 2015 5:26 pm

Quoting 747classic (Reply 36):

Why are the USAF titles so small?

2T2X1 · Fri Sep 25, 2015 7:29 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 38):
Why are the USAF titles so small?

To me, they look comparable in size to the markings on the KC-10.

747classic · Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:59 pm

After some delays due weather (low ceiling) N462KC is finally airborn at 13:24 PDT and joined by N38FT, a T38 chase plane

Max Q · Sat Sep 26, 2015 3:56 am

It looks like there is a sort of silver strip on the side of the refueling boom ?

Ozair · Sat Sep 26, 2015 4:44 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 41):
It looks like there is a sort of silver strip on the side of the refueling boom ?

That is the daylight between the boom and the fuselage.

747classic · Sat Sep 26, 2015 6:28 am

N462KC, PAE, September 25 2015

Copyright USAF, see : http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDispla...letes-successful-first-flight.aspx

With thanks to Matt Cawby’s Twitter :

N462KC (BOE004), Take off audio : http://t.co/NR9OnNSANZ

A USAF F16 aircraft, callsign Zoom02, maneuvered to the boom providing comments to the boomer., followed by an practice emergency separation with the F-16.
KC-135 EARL52 was expected during the flight but was a no show .

Audio conversation between ATC, Zoom02 and N462KC (BOE004) : http://t.co/NBPzgq0fna

[Edited 2015-09-25 23:53:18]

BoeingGuy · Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:45 pm

Quoting 747classic (Reply 43):
Audio conversation between ATC, Zoom02 and N462KC (BOE004) : http://t.co/NBPzgq0fna

Great audio. You can also hear Kelly flying the Boeing chase plane. She's also one of the KC-46 test pilots.

[Edited 2015-09-26 13:46:18]

Max Q · Sat Sep 26, 2015 9:37 pm

Great looking aircraft, good to see it in the air.

The 767-200 with the big engines in this version is a superb choice for a tanker.

It is fast, very responsive and maneuverable for a Civilian aircraft yet very stable, carries a lot of gas yet doesn't take up much ramp space.

Conventional (no hard limit) flight controls make this a much better choice for a tanker than the Airbus alternative. The 787 type displays, ability to refuel with the boom or drogueS, a big cargo door and good cargo capacity make for an all around
superb tanker transport.

col · Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:22 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 45):
Conventional (no hard limit) flight controls make this a much better choice for a tanker than the Airbus alternative. The 787 type displays, ability to refuel with the boom or drogueS, a big cargo door and good cargo capacity make for an all around
superb tanker transport.

Totally, what are the Rest of the World thinking by buying the 330 based unit, when they could have the KC-46. They have obviously not done their homework properly. Or maybe they have?

Revelation · Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:03 pm

Quoting col (Reply 46):
what are the Rest of the World thinking by buying the 330 based unit, when they could have the KC-46

They really are two different scenarios.

The USAF has dedicated cargo a/c and has its Cold War legacy bases and infrastructure to deal with. KC-X is for 179 frames with a high chance of winning follow-on programs to replace the KC-135 fleet,

Most A330MRTT customers are buying 3-4 frames with UK and FR at the peak of 14 frames. Given the much smaller fleet and in most cases a lack of dedicated cargo capacity, it makes sense that the A330MRTT customers want a bigger frame with more lifting capacity.

Both KC-46 and A330MRTT are excellent products, but it shouldn't be difficult to see why some nations prefer one over the other.

KarelXWB · Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:05 am

Some additional photos with close-up of the boom etc:

N462KC Boeing KC-46A (767-200) - C/N 41275 / LN 1069 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

Boeing KC-46 Tanker N462KC by moonm, on Flickr

Stitch · Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:54 pm

Boeing posted a short video of the flight on their YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySEhuasw0Rs

KarelXWB · Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:29 am

I suggest we leave the A vs B nonsense behind.

N14AZ · Tue Sep 29, 2015 11:00 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 49):
N462KC Boeing KC-46A (767-200) - C/N 41275 / LN 1069 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

What's the purpose of this box-like structure near the APU?

Stitch · Tue Sep 29, 2015 1:20 pm

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 53):
What's the purpose of this box-like structure near the APU?

That is actually the airfoils of the boom, which tuck up around the tailcone when the boom is stowed.

There is a small shield on the underside of the APU exhaust. See Reply #189 in KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2 (by Wingtip1005 Aug 29 2014 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

[Edited 2015-09-29 06:23:09]

Max Q · Tue Sep 29, 2015 10:50 pm

Doesn't the KC46 also have a drogue on the centreline ?

Can't see where this is on any of the pics, I believe the KC10 has the same feature ?

XT6Wagon · Wed Sep 30, 2015 2:36 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 55):
Doesn't the KC46 also have a drogue on the centreline ?

I believe its the bump just behind the wing box on the underside of the fuselage.

INFINITI329 · Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:59 am

No reverse thrust on on the KC-46?? Can someone explain Boeing's logic?

Max Q · Thu Oct 01, 2015 7:21 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 55):
No reverse thrust on on the KC-46?? Can someone explain Boeing's logic?

Where did you get that ?

scbriml · Thu Oct 01, 2015 9:45 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 55):
Can someone explain Boeing's logic?

They were not part of the USAF's requirements, so Boeing omitted them to save weight and reduce complexity and maintenance costs.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 56):
Where did you get that ?

It's true. Hilarious, but true.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business...s-presence-in-washington-possible/

Quote:
A source familiar with the tanker proposal who asked not to be named confirmed that the Boeing KC-46A tanker has no thrust reversers but added that they were not part of the Air Force requirement.

Of course, Boeing will win the hugely profitable contract to retrofit TRs after a couple have been written off in runway over-runs.

[Edited 2015-10-01 02:50:18]

Ozair · Thu Oct 01, 2015 10:27 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 57):
It's true. Hilarious, but true.

I'm not sure what is funny about it? The KC-135R fleet do not have thrust reversers either, they were seen as unnecessary weight and complexity/maintenance burden. The KC-135 fleet operate out of long runways, the same runways the KC-46 will operate from...

Was most recently commented on in this thread. KC-135 Fleet Current Status (by dkramer7 Aug 12 2015 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

bikerthai · Thu Oct 01, 2015 1:31 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 57):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 56):
Where did you get that ?

It's true. Hilarious, but true.

You just end up replacing the brake pads more often. Remember that these planes do not get the same number of flights per day as a regular commercial aircraft. So elimination the complete actuating system, the translating cowls, the cascades etc . . . makes perfectly sense from a cost and maintenance standpoint.

bt

par13del · Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:02 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 59):
You just end up replacing the brake pads more often. Remember that these planes do not get the same number of flights per day as a regular commercial aircraft.

Granted, so my question, as these are now twin engine a/c an engine out situation may require diversions to civilian airports, I assume the lack of reverses will limit the a/c to runways with a specific minimum length.
One also has to plan for operations that do not go according to plan.

Stitch · Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:48 pm

I was under the impression that thrust reverse is there just to reduce wear on the brakes and not because they were critical to bringing an aircraft to a safe stop.

For example, Airbus did not see them as necessary for the A380, and she is the heaviest commercial airframe around in terms of landing weights.

And I believe many MELs (Minimum Equipment Lists) allow for one or even both reverse systems to be inoperable (provided they are securely stowed) with some operating limits.

scbriml · Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:40 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 61):
For example, Airbus did not see them as necessary for the A380, and she is the heaviest commercial airframe around in terms of landing weights.

On the A380, the two inner engines DO have TRs, but the outers don't.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Stitch · Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:51 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 62):
On the A380, the two inner engines DO have TRs, but the outers don't.

Yes, because the FAA demanded them for certification (which I probably should have indicated in my original post). They waived the outer engines due to FOD-generation concerns.

[Edited 2015-10-01 09:51:57]

bikerthai · Thu Oct 01, 2015 7:11 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 60):
Granted, so my question, as these are now twin engine a/c an engine out situation may require diversions to civilian airports, I assume the lack of reverses will limit the a/c to runways with a specific minimum length.

Couple of things to consider:

1) Braking requirements (no thrust reverses) are for rejected take off at max weight. So, you already lost a lot of run-way.
2) With one engine out, you are already at a considerable yaw when coming in for landing. Having reverse thrust on the one good engine may just put you back more toward the center line

. Not sure if a pilot would use reverse thrust on a one engine condition anyway. (shrug)

bt

Max Q · Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:05 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 63):
Yes, because the FAA demanded them for certification (which I probably should have indicated in my original post). They waived the outer engines due to FOD-generation concerns.

Sort of, AB was also desperate to shed weight on the A380 and deleting the outboard reversers saved a lot.

Its a very bad idea, reverse is not taken into account fro performance planning on dry runways but it certainly is on wet or contaminated runways.

It is a major, sometimes critical aid in stopping when things don't quite work out as planned, Boeing is making a mistake leaving them off the KC46.

Ozair · Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:20 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 65):
Boeing is making a mistake leaving them off the KC46.

If you want to blame anyone for a non-existant problem then in this case you should blame the USAF, who wrote the specifications for the KC-X contest and didn't include thrust reversers as mandatory.

But just to make it clear, there is no problem!

No KC-135Rs ever had thrust reversers and given over 360 KC-135Rs were built there are and will be for the next 20 years more tankers flying without thrust reversers than with. Also, reading through incidents the KC-135 has suffered throughout it's operational life, I can not see one incident that would have been averted had thrust reversers been installed.

bikerthai · Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:36 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 65):
taken into account fro performance

And there is the key to all of this.

For wet or contaminated run-way the performance of the brake should have been taken in to account (minus thrust reversers) for a rejected take off.

For airport diversions, there should be time to unload fuel weight to a point where missing TRs would not make a difference.

If you have to land right away with full take off weight, then you are in a heap more trouble than anything that can be helped by the TR's.

bt

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net