KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Tugger · Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:50 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 212):
The KC10 carries far more fuel than the KC135 or KC46, almost double, 356k vs 203 or 212k respectively. It's also far newer and carries a lot more cargo over a longer range. Even with the capabilities of the new tanker it doesn't approach those numbers.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 215):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 212):
Seems an invaluable strategic asset to me

Me too, but SecAF has woken up to the fact that the best way to clear up a lot of budget space is retire an entire aircraft family from the inventory. It allows you to spin down the entire training and support chain for it.

To carry more fuel, wouldn't it be possible to develop a higher MTOW version of the current frame? Or go to a larger version of the 767 (300?) perhaps upgrading to an Advantage70 version of the PW engine?

Tugg

[Edited 2016-02-19 14:03:05]

ThePointblank · Sat Feb 20, 2016 3:27 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 217):
Exactly, so cut the KC135 and end up with a brand new replacement and a far less ancient, much bigger and more capable
type with the KC10.

Except the KC-135 fleet is significantly larger, thus has more critical mass, and the KC-10 is a comparably much smaller fleet.

There's a total of 414 KC-135R's in the USAF's inventory; there is no way the USAF can replace all of them at once and wind down the supply chain, training and depot requirements in a short period of time without having a significant impact on force levels and sortie generation rates.

Boeing can't produce KC-46's fast enough to do it, neither does the US government have the budget to buy so many aircraft for delivery all in one shot, the USAF doesn't have the ability to effectively absorb hundreds of KC-46's all being delivered in a short time, nor does it have the ability to re-train pilots, mechanics, technicians, and boom operators all at once.

There's only 59 KC-10's in the USAF's inventory. Cutting an entire fleet of 59 aircraft, and their associated training, depot, and supply chains in a short period of time is a much easier proposition than doing it for 414 aircraft. Anyone who works in fleet management will tell you that.

Max Q · Sat Feb 20, 2016 5:20 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 219):
Anyone who works in fleet management will tell you that.

Assuming they don't understand the vastly greater capability they would be cutting.

Getting rid of a unique, much newer, more capable asset in order to hang on longer to an ancient
type that is being replaced is just idiotic.

ssteve · Sat Feb 20, 2016 5:30 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 212):
The KC10 carries far more fuel than the KC135 or KC46, almost double, 356k vs 203 or 212k respectively.

I wonder how often that matters? If it mattered a lot one has to assume the KC46 would have ended up larger.

ThePointblank · Sat Feb 20, 2016 5:39 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 220):
Assuming they don't understand the vastly greater capability they would be cutting.

Anyone who thinks about how difficult it is to quickly retire a large fleet, and replace said fleet with a new type in a very short time would realize how stupid that idea is.

Unless you give the USAF a massive boost in the budget for procurement, training and sustainment, plus a massive increase in authorized strength (pilot, maintainers, etc), you are looking at quickly standing up dozens of new KC-46 squadrons with new personnel and getting them to full operational capability all at once, followed by shutting down the KC-135 squadrons all at once.

This is an extremely messy and costly affair, and it almost never goes right. Introducing a new type and getting the personnel to maximize the capabilities of the platform can take years. In the meantime, you have a massive hole in capabilities for a couple of years until all of the squadrons are fully capable. And if you suddenly need the capabilities, then you are effectively screwed.

A smaller fleet providing a small subset of capabilities is a much easier fleet to quickly get rid of and replace.

That's why introduction in service of an all new fleet type is a slow affair, and its done one unit at a time, slowly over a couple of years.

andydtwnwa7 · Sat Feb 20, 2016 10:17 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 220):
Getting rid of a unique, much newer, more capable asset in order to hang on longer to an ancient
type that is being replaced is just idiotic.

Couldn't be further from the truth actually. Sure the 135 airframes themselves are significantly older than the KC-10, but when it comes to avionics, the KC-10 is the "ancient one". Put simply- the KC-10 flight deck is still entirely analog, and still flies with a Flight Engineer. In contrast, the KC-135 is nearly all glass (the Block 45 upgrade going on right now makes it entirely glass, and also upgrades the autopilot). The KC-135 is far more modernized, with its datalinking and ADS capabilities. The KC-10 won't even be compliant with the next gen ATS requirements unless it gets some major upgrades.

I agree that the KC-10 is a very capable aircraft, and in a perfect world I'd love to see it stay with the Air Force. But the KC-10 is in need of major avionics upgrades. And when you have a fleet of 59 aircraft in need of costly upgrades, compared to a fleet of 414 jets with upgraded engines, modern avionics, etc., from a numbers standpoint it's easier to cut the 59.

[Edited 2016-02-20 02:18:18]

scbriml · Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:54 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 220):
Getting rid of a unique, much newer, more capable asset in order to hang on longer to an ancient
type that is being replaced is just idiotic.

Aside from "military procurement" and "sense" being strange bedfellows, in this case it is far more logical to get rid of the KC-10s before replacing all the KC-135s.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 221):
I wonder how often that matters?

Never, according to those who were so vehemently opposed to the A330 tanker and its greater capacity.

PC12Fan · Sat Feb 20, 2016 1:31 pm

Quoting andydtwnwa7 (Reply 223):

Was the "MD-10" conversion ever considered?

morrisond · Sat Feb 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Wouldn't it be a relatively simple thing to add the KC-46 refuelling systems to the 777F if they needed a KC-10 replacement?

Literally - use all the same refuelling systems and Pumps - the 777 would just have bigger tanks. You would have to do some plumbing and airframe integration work - but probably less than the KC-46 as you wouldn't be doing a new flight deck.

Given the genesis of the 777 kind of from the 767 wouldn't the systems architecture be somewhat similar?

You have to Flight test and do your Aero work, but this really shouldn't be that big a deal.

How much fuel could a 777F carry for offload?

It would never happen in time before Boeing probably ends Metal Wing 777 production - put an order at Commercial prices for end of line 777F's could be a great deal for the government - so of course it won't happen....

Literally build 777F and STC convert them after the fact just like has been done with Tankers before.

The engineering team who just did the KC-46 should be able to adapt there systems quite quickly to the 777F.

Stitch · Sat Feb 20, 2016 3:46 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 220):
Assuming they don't understand the vastly greater capability they would be cutting.

This assumes the USAF still needs the capability. The KC-10 was developed in part to allow direct reinforcement of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Well Israel is unlikely to get into another general war with their Arab neighbors because they have peace treaties with them (Egypt), much better relations (Jordan) or they are incapable of instigating hostile action against them (Lebanon and Syria).

And the worry of a Soviet invasion of the Saudi oil fields no longer is a concern.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 212):
The KC10 carries far more fuel than the KC135 or KC46

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 221):
I wonder how often that matters?

Quoting scbriml (Reply 224):
Never, according to those who were so vehemently opposed to the A330 tanker and its greater capacity.

To be fair, the USAF themselves also said "never", which is why the GAO overturned the decision on the basis that the USAF ignored their own criteria to artificially favor the KC-45.

LMP737 · Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:36 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 224):
Aside from "military procurement" and "sense" being strange bedfellows, in this case it is far more logical to get rid of the KC-10s before replacing all the KC-135s.

Speaking of the KC-10 the KC-46 recently took fuel from a KC-10 during testing.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-kc-46-receives-fuel-from-kc-10-422203/

mjoelnir · Sun Feb 21, 2016 2:01 pm

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 221):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 212):
The KC10 carries far more fuel than the KC135 or KC46, almost double, 356k vs 203 or 212k respectively.

I wonder how often that matters? If it mattered a lot one has to assume the KC46 would have ended up larger.

The requirement was sized to the KC46, to keep out the KC45. Apart from that the KC45 has easier growth potential if that would have been the requirement.

Stitch · Sun Feb 21, 2016 6:13 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 229):
The requirement was sized to the KC46, to keep out the KC45. Apart from that the KC45 has easier growth potential if that would have been the requirement.

A 767-300 freighter is not too dissimilar in overall volumetric capacity to the A330-200 freighter so in theory the KC-46 can grow by moving from the 767-2C platform to the 767-300 platform.

Ozair · Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:08 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 229):
The requirement was sized to the KC46, to keep out the KC45. Apart from that the KC45 has easier growth potential if that would have been the requirement.

No, the requirement was sized around replacing the KC-135 and US experience operating that platform for 50+ years.

747classic · Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:43 am

The second fully military equipped KC-46A is scheduled for a first (B1) flight at February 29.

L/N 1066 C/N 41274 B767-2LKC N464KC 11-46004 USAF KC-46A (VH002) EMD4

Original uploaded by WoodysAeroimages

mjoelnir · Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:38 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 231):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 229):
The requirement was sized to the KC46, to keep out the KC45. Apart from that the KC45 has easier growth potential if that would have been the requirement.

No, the requirement was sized around replacing the KC-135 and US experience operating that platform for 50+ years.

Why was the size than rather open in the first round and reduced to the possible size of the KC46 in the second round?

The transport requirements, non fuel, are far above the KC-135.

scouseflyer · Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:43 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 227):
And the worry of a Soviet invasion of the Saudi oil fields no longer is a concern.

Are you sure - over the last few weeks, this is probably more of a risk that it has been for at least 25 years

bikerthai · Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:25 pm

Quoting morrisond (Reply 226):
Wouldn't it be a relatively simple thing to add the KC-46 refuelling systems to the 777F if they needed a KC-10 replacement?

Cost would be much higher. When Boeing proposed the KC-46, they already had design for the KC-767, so there was less Engineering work to be done. Even then they screwed up on the wiring. Doing the 777 would be more costly as it would require new engineering.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 226):
The engineering team who just did the KC-46 should be able to adapt there systems quite quickly to the 777F.

The engineering team that did the KC-46 would have been cast to the four winds when the initial design was complete. The manpower would have been needed elsewhere. If Boeing did get the contract to do a 777 tanker, they could probably bring back a core group of folks (along with the current KC-46 support group), but the majority would probably not have any KC-46 experience.

Keep in mind, at the pace things are going, Boeing may start a 757 replacement program before the Government submit a KC-Y proposal. And guess where the manpower will be going?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 230):
so in theory the KC-46 can grow by moving from the 767-2C platform to the 767-300 platform.

This would be a much easier endeavor.

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 234):

Are you sure - over the last few weeks, this is probably more of a risk that it has been for at least 25 years

With the oil prices as it is, no need to invade

Besides, if infidels were to invade the holy land (Mecca and Medina), you'll have the whole Muslim population going against you, Shia and Sunni! Perish that though.

bt

ssteve · Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:48 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 233):
Why was the size than rather open in the first round and reduced to the possible size of the KC46 in the second round?

The transport requirements, non fuel, are far above the KC-135.

A lot of the take on my question is in the frame of the 45vs46 battle and the USAF specs for it. And I suppose that's partly my fault because of the "one would think the 46 would've been larger."

I guess I'm more curious whether with the existing tanker fleet, are there many missions only the KC-10 can do because of capacity? ie can only the KC-10 fill a B-52 or whatever? I meant that if there were critical missions that required a bigger tanker, they would have wanted a bigger standard tanker. And they would not be looking to axe the KC-10 without a replacement. So what mission capability is lost?

Ozair · Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:10 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 233):
Why was the size than rather open in the first round and reduced to the possible size of the KC46 in the second round?

Do you know how the requirements differed for the second competition?

For the first competition

Quote:
The U.S. Air Force's main requirements are "fuel offload and range at least as great as the KC-135", airlift capability, ability to take on fuel in flight, and multi-point refueling capability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X#cite_note-48

For the second competition the first requirements remained while reworded life of type operating costs were added. Yes this favoured a smaller aircraft but then given the customer is the one paying for these aircraft for the next 30+ years they are entitled to consider them. Finally it should be noted that protests to the GAO for Defence Contracts are only upheld in approximately 2% of all attempts, down from 4% for other general government contracts.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 236):
I guess I'm more curious whether with the existing tanker fleet, are there many missions only the KC-10 can do because of capacity? ie can only the KC-10 fill a B-52 or whatever? I meant that if there were critical missions that required a bigger tanker, they would have wanted a bigger standard tanker. And they would not be looking to axe the KC-10 without a replacement. So what mission capability is lost?

There are clearly missions that a KC-10 is better suited to but that doesn't mean it should be retained for those missions. There will remain a cost benefit to that and assigning two KC-46 to a mission that a single KC-10 could accomplish is probably cheaper than maintaining a whole additional aging fleet type.

INFINITI329 · Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:59 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 230):
A 767-300 freighter is not too dissimilar in overall volumetric capacity to the A330-200 freighter so in theory the KC-46 can grow by moving from the 767-2C platform to the 767-300 platform.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 235):
This would be a much easier endeavor.

That would be a growth of only 21.1ft. Holding an additional 2 463L pallets. Unsure how much more fuel that would be. In my opinion it would make more sense to go 764 fuselage if the USAF wants more space down the road.

Ozair · Tue Feb 23, 2016 2:27 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 238):
if the USAF wants more space down the road.

They don't. They already have more C-17s than they asked for and, should the global situation require it, have no problem acquiring additional out of war zone air lift from commercial providers. Far better to use commercial providers than maintain a tanker aircraft to fly cargo ops when not being used for its primary role.

mjoelnir · Tue Feb 23, 2016 12:08 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 237):
For the second competition the first requirements remained while reworded life of type operating costs were added.

And it was banned to attach a positive to additional capabilities, with other words, the size cut strictly down to the KC46.

Stitch · Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:28 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 237):
For the second competition the first requirements remained while reworded life of type operating costs were added.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 240):
And it was banned to attach a positive to additional capabilities, with other words, the size cut strictly down to the KC46.

Because it was the USAF breaking their own RFP rules to apply special credits to those additional capabilities that led to the GAO overturning the KC-45 award in the first place.

Ozair · Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:32 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 240):
And it was banned to attach a positive to additional capabilities, with other words, the size cut strictly down to the KC46.

No it wasn't. The following from the Congressional Research Service clearly demonstrates what changes were made and how they were graded.

Quote:
Let’s focus on requirements for a minute. Just to give you a broad overview, the Capabilities Development Document [CDD] is the very high-level overview of the requirements for the KC-X going forward. The CDD as it’s referred to is the same CDD that was reviewed and approved in December of 2006. The Air Force revisited this early this year in January. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council also reviewed it in February. And no changes have been made. Again this is the very high-level, what are our requirements going forward for a KC-X aircraft? The key work that has been done is at the Systems Requirement Document, the SRD, level. And here we undertook significant changes, without changing the requirements but to make a better linkage between the requirements written by the warfighter and the RFP that’s going out tomorrow…

You may recall that in the last solicitation, there were about 808 requirements listed, for the KC-X, of which about 37 were mandatory requirements.
And this provided an extensive amount of trade space in those requirements to determine how a selection and—how an evaluation and then selection might be made.
However, by doing so, the offers indicated last time some confusion, because they did not clearly understand what the warfighter valued most. Another factor was that the way the requirements were written and their distribution throughout the RFP also left some uncertainty and confusion.
We've taken those 808 and we have boiled them down to the 373 mandatory, system-level requirements, which reflect what the warfighter needs on the first day of the war. When this aircraft is delivered, the warfighter will be able to take those capabilities and go to war. That’s the fundamental baseline requirements that Air Mobility Command has put value on and which they need to make this a successful program.

Above that, we have identified 93 trade-space requirements. They are non-mandatory, above-threshold requirements that would provide additional capability to the warfighter, additional value, but not to such an extent that the warfighter would be willing to pay that much more for these capabilities. And Secretary Carter will explain a little bit later how this relationship between the mandatory and the non-mandatory, above-threshold requirements relate to each other. Our task here was to not only take out the duplication, to combine the requirements where we thought they could be combined, but to write them clearly and precisely. And these requirements will be evaluated in an acceptable/non-acceptable basis.

www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA525032

There is no linkage as you claim. In fact another source states that although a House Sub-Committee put forward a bill preventing additional fuel off-load being given additional credit the requirements ignored that and additional fuel offload remained, from the bold section in the quote above, a trade-space requirement.

XT6Wagon · Wed Feb 24, 2016 6:35 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 212):

The KC10 carries far more fuel than the KC135 or KC46, almost double, 356k vs 203 or 212k respectively. It's also
far newer and carries a lot more cargo over a longer range. Even with the capabilities of the new tanker it doesn't approach those numbers.

It also burns a whole lot more fuel, so long duration missions where the offload is started at long range there won't be that big of a difference. But yes, if you are starting the offload right off the runway, yes the KC-10 isn't at all comparable to the KC46. (topping up bombers which took off with a partial fuel load for example..).

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 229):
The requirement was sized to the KC46, to keep out the KC45. Apart from that the KC45 has easier growth potential if that would have been the requirement.

No, The requirements were to replace the KC-135. The KC-45 takes up the space of a 747 to carry the fuel of a KC-135. Its modest extra cargo capacity over the KC-46 isn't of use to the USAF since it hauls little cargo with its tankers. Other nations that need a more flexible platform certainly do see a bonus there.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 241):
Because it was the USAF breaking their own RFP rules to apply special credits to those additional capabilities that led to the GAO overturning the KC-45 award in the first place.

That was only one of the problems with the KC-45 award. Lets not forget it was not legal to award the contract at all to NG as they failed to meet a requirement. Two of them in fact. One was quite intentional, and lead to another point of rejection of the award due to un-equal treatment of the bidders. They failed to submit a plan for USAF maintenance as required and were told by the USAF that they failed to do so. They made no corrections and the communication from the USAF was not legal in the first place.

Oh and they failed to prove it could refuel all current and planned USAF assets as required. Kinda a show stopper.

http://web.archive.org/web/200806252...ntent/northwest/pdf/gao_boeing.pdf

has the whole ugly tale of just how corrupt this procurement was. Well not the whole story. There is a general who got a job just a little later after he was told to take a hike by the USAF.

mjoelnir · Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:14 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 243):
Oh and they failed to prove it could refuel all current and planned USAF assets as required. Kinda a show stopper.

How do you manage to deduct that? What current and planned USAF asset would the KC45 not been able to refuel?

Revelation · Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:16 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 244):
How do you manage to deduct that? What current and planned USAF asset would the KC45 not been able to refuel?

The point is the procedure required the NG KC-45 team to submit such proof but they did not.

Perhaps you should ask the NG KC-45 team why they failed to do so.

Meanwhile, most of the rest of us will go back to discussing the KC-46.

[Edited 2016-02-24 19:18:28]

kanban · Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:00 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 245):
Meanwhile, most of the rest of us will go back to discussing the KC-46.

mjoelnir · Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:09 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 245):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 244):
How do you manage to deduct that? What current and planned USAF asset would the KC45 not been able to refuel?

The point is the procedure required the NG KC-45 team to submit such proof but they did not.

Perhaps you should ask the NG KC-45 team why they failed to do so.

Meanwhile, most of the rest of us will go back to discussing the KC-46.

Neatly around an answer. Has Boeing already proven this point?

Stitch · Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:36 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 247):
Neatly around an answer. Has Boeing already proven this point?

To my knowledge the GAO did not cite Boeing as having failed to meet the requirement, and they would have if Boeing had also failed to do so. Therefore, they must have done so.

If the respective RFPs are in the public realm, you could always search if you wish to be absolutely sure.

[Edited 2016-02-25 11:37:46]

kanban · Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:43 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 247):
Has Boeing already proven this point?

Boeing did sufficient wind tunnel modeling to ensure that all the models could be supported both singularly and in multi aircraft simultaneous hook ups. And now they are in the process of proving it with actual hook ups which is the actual subject of this thread.

Ozair · Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:09 am

Schedule pressures remain for the KC-46. It appears that no matter what the USAF won’t be able to reach IOC on the current timeframe and Boeing is unlikely to be able to deliver the number of aircraft required next year.

Quote:
The $5 billion development programme is about eight months behind its original schedule after facing a number of setbacks, but company officials have committed to achieving the “required assets available” milestone, meaning 18 jets delivered to two air force bases between March and August next year.

But while USAF officials applaud that ambitions goal, they say in an interview with Flightglobal that schedule – not cost or technical difficulties – is the next-generation tanker project’s main challenge. Even if those tankers are in place by August, Air Mobility Command (AMC) won’t have had enough time with the 767-2C-based tankers to declare initial operational capability on time.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...iver-18-kc-46-tankers-by-n-422356/

More info at the link.

mjoelnir · Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:48 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 248):
To my knowledge the GAO did not cite Boeing as having failed to meet the requirement, and they would have if Boeing had also failed to do so. Therefore, they must have done so.

Or it proves what I am saying, Boeing was to get the contract no matter what.

KarelXWB · Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:10 am

Alright guys, as this is a production thread I suggest we stop discussing the KC-45. Feel free to start a new thread on the KC-45 if you like. Any further off-topics posts will be removed.

747classic · Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:46 am

Woodys Aeroimages twitter ( http://twitter.com/woody2190 ) reports (pls. scroll down) :

KC46A testframe, L/N 1067 C/N 34054 B767-2LKC N463FT 11-46003 USAF KC-46A (VH003) EMD3 has entered paint.

The first production frame, L/N 1091 C/N 41852 B767-2LKC N842BA 16-46005 USAF KC46A (VH005) LRIP1 has been moved from building 46-26 to the tanker hangar at the EMC.

[Edited 2016-02-26 03:47:15]

747classic · Sun Feb 28, 2016 6:34 am

Quoting 747classic (Reply 253):
KC46A testframe, L/N 1067 C/N 34054 B767-2LKC N463FT 11-46003 USAF KC-46A (VH003) EMD3 has entered paint

KC-46A N463FT moved out of the Everett paint hangar at February 27, N464KC is doing an engine run in stall 111

Original uploaded by Matt Cawby, see : http://twitter.com/mattcawby

KarelXWB · Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:31 am

Last night N462KC (LN 1066) performed its first flight.

N464KC Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2C) - C/N 41274 / LN 1066 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

747classic · Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:45 am

N462KC (L/N 1069) refuels an AV-8B Harrier, using the hose and drogue system.

Copyright : Boeing Defense at Twitter.

[Edited 2016-03-04 03:50:10]

KarelXWB · Tue Mar 08, 2016 4:11 pm

Pretty neat picture:

http://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/status/707231438530170880

kc135topboom · Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:26 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 3):
KarelXWB

Where is #4, the second test B-767-2C? Both test KC-46As are there.

LMP737 · Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:16 pm

Quoting kc135topboom (Reply 4):
Where is #4, the second test B-767-2C? Both test KC-46As are there.

The second -2C, line 1066, is still up in Everett. Supposed to fly soon.

IMissPiedmont · Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:02 am

Not meant to be Airbus vs Boeing, and I admit I have not read any of the previous posts, but I have a simple question. Is there any reason that the Pentagon chose the 767 over the A330, besides the political. I am really not up in all the capabilities because I am old.

PS: that had better have been an RCAF A310 on the ramp at Tucson this evening since I chose not to go back and check.

Revelation · Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:24 am

Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 6):
Is there any reason that the Pentagon chose the 767 over the A330, besides the political.

The single reason is cost: the 767 tender simply beat the A330 tender on cost.

Stitch · Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:03 am

Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 6):
Is there any reason that the Pentagon chose the 767 over the A330, besides the political.

Well politics was not the reason the USAF chose either airframe.

The KC-45A (A330) won the original RFP because the USAF applied extra credits to it's extra capabilities in violation of the bidding rules to offset the higher cost.

As [b]Revelation[/b[ noted above, the KC-46A (767) won the replacement RFP because the USAF was explicitly instructed to choose the cheapest frame that met the requirements. The KC-46 met the requirements and was offered for a lower price than the KC-45, so it won.

All this being said, we've had this discussion many a time and the moderators have explicitly stated we're not to have it again in these threads. So let's table it at this, please.

mham001 · Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:26 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
The KC-45A (A330) won the original RFP because the USAF applied extra credits to it's extra capabilities in violation of the bidding rules to offset the higher cost.

Actually, didn't Boeing win the original RFP and Airbus the second?

queb · Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:10 pm

Quoting mham001 (Reply 9):
Actually, didn't Boeing win the original RFP and Airbus the second?

and Boeing re-won the third one

kc135topboom · Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:44 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Stitch

As Stitch said, it is what it is no KC-45s for the USAF so let's move on.

The KC-46A has not been approved for LRIP yet. If that doesn't come soon from the USAF, Boeing will not be able to meet the first delivery in September 2017, just 18 months from now.

That will not be Boeing's fault.

As I understand it, the KC-46 flight testing is progressing very well, and has been meeting the new flight test schedule. Boeing should delay the flight testing of the civilian version, the B-767-2C as they have no orders for it, yet. Just meet the USAF contract, including the FAA certification first, then all of the USAF certifications.

LMP737 · Wed Mar 16, 2016 5:47 pm

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 5):
The second -2C, line 1066, is still up in Everett. Supposed to fly soon.

Correction, line 1067.

IMissPiedmont · Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:29 am

Well, it seemed a valid question. Perhaps not. As I stated, I have not read all the previous posts. Please forgive my asking.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net