Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
kc135topboom wrote:When will the first KC-46 be delivered to PSM for the NHANG? Will it be a new delivery directly from Boeing, or will it be a transferred airplane from IAB or LTS?
747classic wrote:Three more deliveries :
May 17th 2019, LN# 1154, Variable # VH036, MSN# 34091, BuNo. 17-46036, Hex Code AE5E11, Tail# 76036, CallSign: KANZA01, BFI-IAB
May 18th 2019, LN# 1131, Variable # VH025, MSN# 41863, BuNo. 17-46025, Hex Code AE5E06, Tail# 76025, CallSign: EXXON04, BFI-LTS
May 18th 2019, LN# 1145, Variable # VH032, MSN# 34111, BuNo. 17-46032, Hex Code AE5E0D, Tail# 76032, CallSign: EXXON05, BFI-LTS
See also : https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/statu ... 3228793858
Spacepope wrote:747classic wrote:Three more deliveries :
May 17th 2019, LN# 1154, Variable # VH036, MSN# 34091, BuNo. 17-46036, Hex Code AE5E11, Tail# 76036, CallSign: KANZA01, BFI-IAB
May 18th 2019, LN# 1131, Variable # VH025, MSN# 41863, BuNo. 17-46025, Hex Code AE5E06, Tail# 76025, CallSign: EXXON04, BFI-LTS
May 18th 2019, LN# 1145, Variable # VH032, MSN# 34111, BuNo. 17-46032, Hex Code AE5E0D, Tail# 76032, CallSign: EXXON05, BFI-LTS
See also : https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/statu ... 3228793858
And about a month later, still no more deliveries...
The US Air Force (USAF) continues to find foreign object debris (FOD) inside the Boeing KC-46A Pegasus in-flight refuelling tanker, including loose material found this week, and it expects to discover objects for the foreseeable future.
FOD found inside new KC-46As delivered to the USAF is a result of cultural problems, said Will Roper, USAF assistant secretary of the air force for acquisition, technology and logistics, at the show. The service is finding tools, rubbish and left-over parts such as loose nuts during inspections, he said.
...
kc135topboom wrote:Boeing, get your act together
Moose135 wrote:They didn't have the inside open to the public, but I did get a good look around the outside and spent about 10 minutes talking with one of the pilots who flew it in. He came out of R-model -135s, and loves the -46.
Max Q wrote:After looking at your pictures more closely I’m surprised at how large the fairing with the cameras for the remote boomer is
Spacepope wrote:Didn't see it reported here, but it looks like Boeing actually managed to squeeze one out the door in June. According to the spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 2121076296
#23 delivered was at June 29. Based on the color scheme on the sheet, 29 might be next.
747classic wrote:Spacepope wrote:Didn't see it reported here, but it looks like Boeing actually managed to squeeze one out the door in June. According to the spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 2121076296
#23 delivered was at June 29. Based on the color scheme on the sheet, 29 might be next.
The next delivery at July 19th : #37, see : https://tykesaeroblog.blogspot.com/
Delivery flight BFI-IAB with callsign MDUSA08, see : https://flightaware.com/live/flight/MDU ... /KBFI/KIAB
Aircraft data : L/N 1156 C/N 41984 B767-2LKC (N5511Y) 17-46037 USAF KC-46A (VH037) LRIP3, #14/15, tail 76037, F/F 02/24/2019.
Max Q wrote:Seems like deleting a boom operator station with a window was a bad idea
Max Q wrote:Seems like deleting a boom operator station with a window was a bad idea
trex8 wrote:
747classic wrote:Max Q wrote:Seems like deleting a boom operator station with a window was a bad idea
Several earlier built tankers use the remote boom operator station : KDC10, A330MRT, KC767, KC767J, IAI 767 converted tanker.
Only Boeing + USAF tried to invent the wheel again.
par13del wrote:really hard to believe that the OEM's who made the original product do not know how to make the product.
JayinKitsap wrote:The vision system is Boeing's to fix, the boom not able to handle A-10's and some others is the Air Force's problem. It specified in the RFP the minimum force for the connection to the plane, it was like 1.5 x what the A-10 can push. All of the planes that have been certified to date for transfer have a minimum force to connect above the RFP.
Cobham decided that their refueling pods did not need to be FAA certified, but the whole plane including the pods was required by the RFP to be FAA certified. I saw in the recent news Cobham has been bought by a private equity firm, that article noted Cobham paid something like $63M to Boeing for the delays. That is the longest lead item for acceptance.
par13del wrote:I'm betting something to do with an Air Force requirement, would not be shocked if it was related to trying to have a US equivalent to whatever the Europeans have on their A330, after all, that is the tanker they wanted right?
ThePointblank wrote:par13del wrote:I'm betting something to do with an Air Force requirement, would not be shocked if it was related to trying to have a US equivalent to whatever the Europeans have on their A330, after all, that is the tanker they wanted right?
I'm suspecting that as Smith Aerospace was bought by GE, the pods are discontinued now by GE.
ThePointblank wrote:Ozair wrote:Navman101 wrote:The KC-10s do not need to be replaced "basically now". Almost all of the Extenders have less than 30,000 airframe hours on them presently, and it's a fact that companies such as FedEx have flown DC/MD-10s to beyond 75,000 hrs. So they have plenty of airframe life left on them. It is also nonsense to suggest that a single KC-10, which were built in the 1980s should be replaced before all the KC-135s, which were built in the late 1950s and early-mid 1960s is replaced. It is also true that the KC-10 is the most sought after tanker in any contingency situation due to its massive fuel load and ability to stay on station for hours refueling multiple heavy aircraft.
I agree there is no imperative to replace the KC-10s due to fatigue reasons.
The USAF though has previously, and will almost certainly do so again, indicate they want to retire the KC-10 fleet for budgetary reasons. It is quite possible that the KC-135s will outlast the KC-10s only for the fact the fleets sizes are so dissimilar that to remove the whole KC-10 fleet will provide a more significant budget improvement to O&M. Nothing against the aircraft itself but everything to do with operating small fleets of aircraft (comparatively) and efficient use of USAF funds.
There is an impetus to replace the KC-10's because it's getting increasingly difficult to support the KC-10's systems as times goes on. The DC-10 is becoming increasingly scarce in civilian operations as the fleet size shrinks (the USAF operates more KC-10's than there are DC/MD-10's in civilian hands), which has a very negative effect on parts availability.
strfyr51 wrote:ThePointblank wrote:Ozair wrote:I agree there is no imperative to replace the KC-10s due to fatigue reasons.
The USAF though has previously, and will almost certainly do so again, indicate they want to retire the KC-10 fleet for budgetary reasons. It is quite possible that the KC-135s will outlast the KC-10s only for the fact the fleets sizes are so dissimilar that to remove the whole KC-10 fleet will provide a more significant budget improvement to O&M. Nothing against the aircraft itself but everything to do with operating small fleets of aircraft (comparatively) and efficient use of USAF funds.
There is an impetus to replace the KC-10's because it's getting increasingly difficult to support the KC-10's systems as times goes on. The DC-10 is becoming increasingly scarce in civilian operations as the fleet size shrinks (the USAF operates more KC-10's than there are DC/MD-10's in civilian hands), which has a very negative effect on parts availability.
doesn't Boeing still supply parts and Drawings for the KC10? and if they don't ? I know good and well where they can get them. United's Tech Library @ SFO
Ozair wrote:strfyr51 wrote:ThePointblank wrote:There is an impetus to replace the KC-10's because it's getting increasingly difficult to support the KC-10's systems as times goes on. The DC-10 is becoming increasingly scarce in civilian operations as the fleet size shrinks (the USAF operates more KC-10's than there are DC/MD-10's in civilian hands), which has a very negative effect on parts availability.
doesn't Boeing still supply parts and Drawings for the KC10? and if they don't ? I know good and well where they can get them. United's Tech Library @ SFO
The issue is not the technical knowledge or lack of for the airframe. The USAF, based on the aged platforms it flies across its fleet of aircraft, does a very good job of keeping these aircraft in the sky. The issue with the KC-10 is budget O&M, being able to remove a whole airframe makes more of a difference to the budget bottom line than reducing the same number of KC-135s which means the USAF would still have to pay for both fleets. Remove the KC-10 and you eliminate a whole back end maintenance stream, conversion schools and pilot stream etc. Yes the capabilities are different but that isn’t the issue, saving money in O&M is.
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:It's literally the same reason airlines like to standardise on as few families as they can get away with. One family for long haul and one for short haul or even just one for everything is more efficient than the perfect sized plane for each route.
747classic wrote:Spacepope wrote:Didn't see it reported here, but it looks like Boeing actually managed to squeeze one out the door in June. According to the spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 2121076296
#23 delivered was at June 29. Based on the color scheme on the sheet, 29 might be next.
The next delivery at July 19th : #37, see : https://tykesaeroblog.blogspot.com/
Delivery flight BFI-IAB with callsign MDUSA08, see : https://flightaware.com/live/flight/MDU ... /KBFI/KIAB
Aircraft data : L/N 1156 C/N 41984 B767-2LKC (N5511Y) 17-46037 USAF KC-46A (VH037) LRIP3, #14/15, tail 76037, F/F 02/24/2019.
Revelation wrote:747classic wrote:Spacepope wrote:Didn't see it reported here, but it looks like Boeing actually managed to squeeze one out the door in June. According to the spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 2121076296
#23 delivered was at June 29. Based on the color scheme on the sheet, 29 might be next.
The next delivery at July 19th : #37, see : https://tykesaeroblog.blogspot.com/
Delivery flight BFI-IAB with callsign MDUSA08, see : https://flightaware.com/live/flight/MDU ... /KBFI/KIAB
Aircraft data : L/N 1156 C/N 41984 B767-2LKC (N5511Y) 17-46037 USAF KC-46A (VH037) LRIP3, #14/15, tail 76037, F/F 02/24/2019.
Your post viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1411951&p=21553151#p21525721 says #51 is about to enter the FAL.
Are there any gaps in the sequence, or does this mean 50 KC-46A are already built?
Spacepope wrote:Checking that google link I posted above, it looks like no gaps in sequence, so yes, 50 already built and there should have been around 30 delivered by now but, well, you know, Boeing.
Revelation wrote:Spacepope wrote:Checking that google link I posted above, it looks like no gaps in sequence, so yes, 50 already built and there should have been around 30 delivered by now but, well, you know, Boeing.
Yes, it seems Boeing is its own worst enemy these days.
On the good news front, they can at least say they've built more tankers than any other tanker currently in production.
On the bad news front, they still haven't delivered as many as the competition, but should do so in a year's time, inshallah.
JayinKitsap wrote:None delivered in July.
Revelation wrote:with Boeing still working on a software synthesis approach while the USAF seems dubious about that approach.
747classic wrote:Boeing received the $55.5 million contract on Aug. 2 to complete the critical design review of system-level hardware and software for the telescope actuator redesign.
bikerthai wrote:Revelation wrote:with Boeing still working on a software synthesis approach while the USAF seems dubious about that approach.747classic wrote:Boeing received the $55.5 million contract on Aug. 2 to complete the critical design review of system-level hardware and software for the telescope actuator redesign.
When we talk about "Critical Design Review" we are typically looking at the end of the design process. So to me it seems like the solution is selected, and the August 2 contract will allow Boeing to complete that phase before engineering is released for the final software fix.
Lookin forward to the result of the flight test.
bt
KC-46 deliveries have been plagued by a number of issues, the most critical of which are problems with the remote vision system (RVS), which is used by the crew during the refueling process, and issues with maximum loads being placed on the refueling boom. This contract award addresses the issues with the boom.
The Air Force agreed to pay for the boom fixes, but Boeing is responsible for covering the cost of rectifying the RVS.
Another major hurtle concerns the refueling pods, being made by Cobham, which the Defense Contract Management Agency has said will not be ready until the third quarter of 2020. The delays stem from the process of certifying the pods with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), rather than any technical production problems.
JayinKitsap wrote:One of the reasons the deliveries have been 1 or 2 per month, all made possible because Boeing cannot properly clean a plane.
JayinKitsap wrote:Any further news about Cobham, it looks to be on the critical path.KC-46 deliveries have been plagued by a number of issues, the most critical of which are problems with the remote vision system (RVS), which is used by the crew during the refueling process, and issues with maximum loads being placed on the refueling boom. This contract award addresses the issues with the boom.
The Air Force agreed to pay for the boom fixes, but Boeing is responsible for covering the cost of rectifying the RVS.
Another major hurtle concerns the refueling pods, being made by Cobham, which the Defense Contract Management Agency has said will not be ready until the third quarter of 2020. The delays stem from the process of certifying the pods with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), rather than any technical production problems.
https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/w ... c-46-boom/
I personally feel the Air Force would prefer the most deliveries to be the aircraft with these 3 big items fixed. One of the reasons the deliveries have been 1 or 2 per month, all made possible because Boeing cannot properly clean a plane.