Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
ThePointblank wrote:Revelation wrote:Ozair wrote:
TFA says:In short, Boeing has agreed to embark on a redesign effort for the Rockwell Collins-designed RVS that will involve both hardware and software changes. The Air Force believes it will take three to four years to develop a fully functioning RVS, and Boeing has agreed to fix it at its own expense
Oy, that's a huge miss.
It looks like Boeing bet it could make the existing system work, but now they see why it cannot / does not.
They took a big bet on a risky proposition and lost.
And if Boeing thinks they can recoup some of the costs in future maintenance contracts, I would not count on it.
For one, the USAF might just buy every available second hand 767 out there and scrap them for spare parts to keep the KC-46's running. They did the same thing to keep the KC-135's running as well; buy out every available Boeing 707 and use them as parts donors.
And for future modernization work, the USAF could award the contracts for modernization to another company; it is not unheard of for the USAF and Pentagon to do this.
ThePointblank wrote:For one, the USAF might just buy every available second hand 767 out there and scrap them for spare parts to keep the KC-46's running. They did the same thing to keep the KC-135's running as well; buy out every available Boeing 707 and use them as parts donors.
Revelation wrote:That would suggest USAF, DoD and Congress are doing what's best for the country as opposed to what's best for corporations, and I have strong doubts about that.
Revelation wrote:...
At the same time, asking for funds for an all new bomber?
IMHO KC-46 is corporate welfare with origins in the post-2001 Congress wanting to do something to help Boeing deal with the post-911 drop in airliner orders.
Up to that point USAF were projecting KC-135 had enough airframe life to last till after 2045, some reports said 2065.
When USAF saw a windfall was there for the taking they all of a sudden needed new tankers.
Yet B-52 is already slated to be in service for eighty years and with new engines it should be over 100 years.
QuarkFly wrote:Right now, the Taliban finally chased us out of Afghanistan, also leaving Syria to Iran and Russia. How much did these hundreds of billions $$ of tactical aircraft with air-refueling help "win"?
ThePointblank wrote:And if Boeing thinks they can recoup some of the costs in future maintenance contracts, I would not count on it.
For one, the USAF might just buy every available second hand 767 out there and scrap them for spare parts to keep the KC-46's running. They did the same thing to keep the KC-135's running as well; buy out every available Boeing 707 and use them as parts donors.
.
Revelation wrote:ThePointblank wrote:For one, the USAF might just buy every available second hand 767 out there and scrap them for spare parts to keep the KC-46's running. They did the same thing to keep the KC-135's running as well; buy out every available Boeing 707 and use them as parts donors.
That would suggest USAF, DoD and Congress are doing what's best for the country as opposed to what's best for corporations, and I have strong doubts about that.
Doesn't anyone else notice the incongruity of DoD saying they would not extend the life of KC-135s while they are now requesting bids for a re-engine of the even older B-52s?
At the same time, asking for funds for an all new bomber?
IMHO KC-46 is corporate welfare with origins in the post-2001 Congress wanting to do something to help Boeing deal with the post-911 drop in airliner orders.
Up to that point USAF were projecting KC-135 had enough airframe life to last till after 2045, some reports said 2065.
When USAF saw a windfall was there for the taking they all of a sudden needed new tankers.
Yet B-52 is already slated to be in service for eighty years and with new engines it should be over 100 years.
QuarkFly wrote:Right now, the Taliban finally chased us out of Afghanistan, also leaving Syria to Iran and Russia. How much did these hundreds of billions $$ of tactical aircraft with air-refueling help "win"?
jagraham wrote:Revelation wrote:ThePointblank wrote:For one, the USAF might just buy every available second hand 767 out there and scrap them for spare parts to keep the KC-46's running. They did the same thing to keep the KC-135's running as well; buy out every available Boeing 707 and use them as parts donors.
That would suggest USAF, DoD and Congress are doing what's best for the country as opposed to what's best for corporations, and I have strong doubts about that.
Doesn't anyone else notice the incongruity of DoD saying they would not extend the life of KC-135s while they are now requesting bids for a re-engine of the even older B-52s?
At the same time, asking for funds for an all new bomber?
IMHO KC-46 is corporate welfare with origins in the post-2001 Congress wanting to do something to help Boeing deal with the post-911 drop in airliner orders.
Up to that point USAF were projecting KC-135 had enough airframe life to last till after 2045, some reports said 2065.
When USAF saw a windfall was there for the taking they all of a sudden needed new tankers.
Yet B-52 is already slated to be in service for eighty years and with new engines it should be over 100 years.
In all fairness (although I hate the idea of an 80+ year old first line warplane) bombers sit around most of the time. Fly maybe once a week if that.
The only reason KC135s don't fly every day is that they are so old they spend 1/3 of the year in maintenance.
There is a real tanker shortage.
With respect to corporate welfare, the Air Force changed the requirements several times. And continue to change the requirements. The boom in particular would have been equally costly for Airbus had they won. No existing boom met the new transfer requirements. I personally don't see where the KC10 and KC135 fail to do the job once the maintenance downtime is factored in. But the existing KC767 and A330MRTT were not adequate in the eyes of the Air Force. This one is on the government.
INFINITI329 wrote:QuarkFly wrote:Right now, the Taliban finally chased us out of Afghanistan, also leaving Syria to Iran and Russia. How much did these hundreds of billions $$ of tactical aircraft with air-refueling help "win"?
Air superiority....if you never been on the ground in war zome you will not understand the value of having air support watching your 6.. ready and willing to rain hell from above if you need it. They, however, need fuel to remain aloft. When lives are to the line going back to base or the carrier to refuel is not an option. This is the value of the tanker
LMP737 wrote:The problem is from an avionics perspective the KC-46 is a very different aircraft from your standard 767. Also as airlines shed their 767 fleets they are quickly scooped up by cargo carriers.
trpmb6 wrote:You want to talk about corporate welfare, talk about JSTARs, the USAF doesn't even want them, and have said so in public hearings. Yet congress insists.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:The Guard and Reserves already have plenty of KC-135s and will be equipped with KC-46s soon, probably by EOY 2019 or H12020 at Pease. C-5Ms don’t normally AAR to maximize cargo loads, heck, the As and Bs rarely did it and the C-17s less so with the center wing tanks.
GF
Max Q wrote:Interesting photo
Don’t think the KC46 will spend much of it’s operating life connected to a jetway after this delivery
Galaxy5007 wrote:Both KC-46A 15-46009 and 17-46031 will be delivered today to McConnell in the delivery ceremony!
KC-46A’s 15-46009 and 17-46031 belong to the US Air Force now, and left the Boeing Everett Delivery Center this morning for the 22nd ARW. #KC46
Galaxy5007 wrote:Both KC-46A 15-46009 and 17-46031 will be delivered today to McConnell in the delivery ceremony!
747classic wrote:22nd ARW KC-135R 63-8883 arrives in Everett, one day before for the KC-46A delivery ceremony, scheduled for January 25th.
Welcome in KC-46A country !
31 August 1956: The first production Boeing KC-135A Stratotanker, 55-3118, named City of Renton, made its first flight with company test pilots Alvin Melvin (“Tex”) Johnston and Richards Llewellyn (“Dix”) Loesch, Jr., on the flight deck.
Built as an aerial refueling tanker to support the U.S. Air Force fleet of B-52 strategic bombers, an initial order for 29 tankers was soon followed by three additional orders, bringing the total to 275 airplanes by the end of Fiscal Year 1958.¹ Eventually 732 KC-135As were built by Boeing, and an additional 81 of other versions.
Revelation wrote:Wonder if KC-46A will give us 80+ years of service just like KC-135 is planned to?
strfyr51 wrote:I know it might never Be revealed. But? I would Love to know the differences between the KC-767's that Japan owns, the B767 freighters New Built for FEDEX and UPS and the KC-46's for the Air Force.
strfyr51 wrote:I know it might never Be revealed. But? I would Love to know the differences between the KC-767's that Japan owns, the B767 freighters New Built for FEDEX and UPS and the KC-46's for the Air Force.
texl1649 wrote:It’s taken about 20 years to get the KC46 to delivery. Let’s not jump to some conclusion any drone/unmanned tanker can be delivered/accepted to USAF service prior to 2050. We have to replace the KC-10’s basically now, and a bunch of the 135’s. The USAF loves nothing more than it’s pilot’s, too. Cutting off pilots for tankers would make something like 1/3 of the ‘top ranked’ pilots of today mid ranked. It’s not just the evil contractors; the DoD is run by the officers.
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.
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.
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.
The last KC-46 is scheduled for delivery in 2027, giving the Air Force only eight years to prepare for a follow-on program. The Air Force plans to divest all 56 McDonnell Douglas KC-10s by 2024 as new KC-46 aircraft arrive. Even once all 179 KC-46s have entered the Air Force inventory by 2027, the service still expects to operate a fleet of KC-135Rs after that year. Replacing all 300 aircraft could take 20 years if the planned rate of 15 KC-46 deliveries a year is maintained for the follow-on program.
The U.S. Air Force may not purchase a next-generation low-observable tanker that would support fifth-generation fighter aircraft like the F-35 and F-22, the service’s chief of staff says.
..
“I actually don’t know if the next version of tanker operates in the air or operates at low Earth orbit,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s manned or unmanned, and I actually don’t care that much as long as it brings the attributes we need to win.”
texl1649 wrote:Yes, the KC-10’s are going to be retired first, and cost essentially the same amount per hour to fly as the KC-135’s. The USAF has been throwing money at upgrading the 135 cockpits.
https://www.military.com/defensetech/20 ... ement.html
Karns said the total current inventory of KC-10 Extenders and KC-135 Stratotankers sits at 455 aircraft.
The Air Force's goal is to get to 479 with a mix of KC-46s and KC-135s. All three tankers are manufactured or have been upgraded by Boeing.
"The KC-10 retirement will occur on a phased process," Karns said in a recent email to Military.com. "This will happen once there are 479 aircraft. It is expected that once the KC-46 is delivered, the numbers of subsequent aircraft delivered will occur rapidly. That is why the KC-10 retirement dates are not expected to be impacted."
He continued, "The tanker fleet will be a mix of KC-46 and KC-135 aircraft. Initially, there will be a residual KC-10 capability. The important point to note is that the KC-10s will be retired gradually to ensure that the transition and support to the joint warfighter is near seamless and meets combatant commander needs."
Max Q wrote:The KC 46 seems like a fine tanker but I’m a bit confused
They are being delivered with deficiencies including the remote viewing system for the boom ?