Boeing is paying for one of the two CAT 1 deficiencies, the USAF is paying for the other. Not all bad for Boeing.

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... ing%20News

"However, the Air Force also made key concessions. Namely, it will have to pay for another fix using taxpayer money.

During tests, the Air Force found that certain aircraft — most often, the A-10 Warthog — had trouble generating the necessary thrust to push into the boom for refueling.

Boeing presented a boom design to the government at Milestone C that set the boom resistance to the international standard of about 1,400 pounds, which the government accepted, the Air Force official said. The problem is that to refuel the A-10, the boom must have a much lower threshold of thrust resistance, around 650 pounds.

Because the Air Force is asking for a change in requirements, it has agreed to fund the additional work — though it is still working out how much it will cost for the redesign work and retrofits, the official said. That redesign and manufacturing process will probably take about two years."

ThePointblank wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Ozair wrote:

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... ears-away/

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.

The USAF would have to buy every second hand 767 out there since the 767-2C is a mix of the -200, -300 and has a completely different flight deck from either of those models. The other problem with this is that almost every old 767 has already been bought for conversion to freighters. By the time the USAF can get their hands on them they will be 50 to 60 years old, this opportunity has already passed and is probably not an option for the USAF now.

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.

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.

What ever they decide to do, the corporations will benefit, one way or another. And what's best for the country is not always unanimous, even in a supposed democracy.

bt

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.

We are already in the age of drones, long-range hypersonic missiles and the Chinese have just deployed anti-ship conventional ballistic missiles. Not to mention cyber warfare.

This whole concept of in-flight refueling using nostalgic aircraft (KC-135, B52, A10, C-5, F-15, etc., and yes 767) is really only good for large defense contractors and A.net geeks. Applies to aircraft carriers too, but that is not for discussion here.

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"?

Yup, lets spend another $ billion or more to improve the KC-46 refueling video system..it is so worth it !! /s

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.

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"?

Don't confuse losing the war (which is a political edevor) with losing a battle (which is the military endeavor).

Here is an example of tankers helping win a battle. Recall a few years back when ISIS besiege the city of Kobani? Recall all those B-1 and B-52 sorties that were used to repel ISIS with the help of the Kurdish fighters because the Turks refused to help because they hate the Kurds more than ISIS? If we had KC-46 then, they would have contributed to the victory.

Pivoting to China or Russia and their "high tech" weapons do not preclude the need to fight some other low tech war that may pop up in the future. For these low tech war, there will still need to be loitering aircraft and refueling to keep them up.

bt

What’s this, a delivery? I have to give it to the USAF contract writers in this case, they did a good job protecting the US taxpayer.

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... ears-away/

The DD-250 was signed for A/C 15-46009. The USAF has possession of it, but it hasn't been delivered to McConnell yet. Reports are the first 4 are going to McConnell, followed by 4 to Altus.

10 were delivered to BDS and around that number are in acceptance flights. I recall that McConnell and another base are each getting 4. Could 8 be delivered by the end of Feb?

Anyone know how many of the dozens already parked are basically ready?

The reports that a 20% retention of $28M translates to $140M per frame. Anyway getting 10 delivered is over $1B invoiced, a big help for the program balance sheet.

Driving down East Marginal Way on Friday (just south of the Museum of flight), I saw all the stalls that typically hold P-8A's are filled with KC-46 tankers. First flight to McConnell will probably depend when they can coordinate the receiving ceremony at McConnell.

bt

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.
.

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.

https://www.ksn.com/news/local/kc-46a-p ... 1704753857

Delivery to McConnell scheduled for the 25th of January.

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.

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

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.

There are many issues at play that can help explain why the B-52 can have its life extended (and make no mistake, the re-engine effort is not as simple as just slapping a new engine on them). You have to consider all of the factors at play. What originally sized the aircraft, how they are maintained, what are their missions. I see a KC-135 in the air just about every single day. Training. Doing touch and gos. But they keep them low enough that they don't add pressure cycles (important for fatigue on the fuselage). Consider the performance of the KC-135 vs the KC-46. Among many other factors. It's incredibly egotistical for any one of us sitting in our desk chairs to say we can do a better job than the folks that handle these acquisitions at assessing the cost of staying with the KC135 fleet or introducing the KC46s. And don't forget. These KC135s aren't going anywhere, they'll eventually find their way into the hands of the national guard units etc.

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.

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

Not to mention refueling of support aircraft like the C-5 so they can take off with more payload than normal.

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

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.

The other problem is if you can get your hands on the odd 200+ used 767 frames, they will be of dozens of different configurations (structures and others) as they would have been built at different time for different customer. Preparing retrofit kits and keeping track the paperwork of these different configurations would be a nightmare. Heck, you'll end up paying Boeing a heck of a lot more upfront money to prepare the various kits than having them do just one design for the base 767-2C.

bt

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.

The USAF originally wanted it. Then they changed their mind and want to put money in some net-centric system, drones/satellite based system which they think is less vulnerable. Congress just want the USAF to think carefully and not go down a rabbit hole and find out some years later that their net-centric system is not workable, and they have no alternative in place.

Imagine, the USAF spend $$$ in a net base system (the same "corporate welfare", just with another company) and find out it is just a vulnerable and doesn't work. Then they are left without the capability and have to rely on the USN and their fleet of P-8A's with AAS capabilities

bt

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

I'll definitely defer to you on the refueling of C5s It was more of a "that's another potential mission" type of statement.

Was not aware that the guard and reserves would be getting KC-46s.

Post-departure AR was used for really heavy loads (USN often, SOF assault boats and DSRV out of North Island) but most operational AR was done to overcome poor departure reliability of the A models. The M can go a long ways (overfly Europe enroute to ME with pallet loads, for instance) and, so far, has improved reliability. Among the sillier lifts was double AR Andrews to Guam for Clinton’s 1996 Australia trip, guaranteed delivery at HUGE cost. Cost is a factor, too. AR is expensive and the lift user (White House Military Office here) pays for the reliability. Tanks to Mog was a quadruple AR. Les Aspin’s military incompetence and being cheap cost lots.

GF

"Boeing's $44 billion KC-46 tanker may miss a milestone by three years"

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business ... story.html

Not sure if this is a new development, I haven't been able to keep up with what's going on. But it seems like there is a holdup with getting FAA certification for the wing pods.

Yes, Boeing and Cobham have been at odds over how long it has taken Cobham to get the necessary certifications done for the WARPs to the point Boeing has been withholding some supplier payments. As I understand it, there is no (longer) a functionality issue with the WARPs (that was addressed years ago). Of course, the FAA certification offices being closed during the current government shutdown is not helping.

The delivery of the first two KC-46A aircraft seems to be imminent.
KC-46As 15-46009 and 17-46031 were ferried from Boeing Field to the Everett Delivery Center.

L/N 1102, tail 56009 and L/N 1143, tail 76031, KPAE, Januari 23th 2019




Original uploaded by Matt Cawby at twitter, see : https://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/10 ... 4246317056

Interesting photo


Don’t think the KC46 will spend much of it’s operating life connected to a jetway after this delivery

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

Hopefully we'll see some pics from McConnell AFB soon of these new jets adorned with their new
squadron markings

This appears to be the first ever hookup between a KC-46 and an F-35.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BtC0OKpgBzt/

22nd ARW KC-135R 63-8883 arrives in Everett, one day before for the KC-46A delivery ceremony, scheduled for January 25th.

KC135R landing, KPAE, January 24th 2019



Welcome in KC-46A country !



Original uploaded by Matt Cawby at twitter, see :https://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/1088572685968273408


For delivery, see : http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-air- ... ies-boeing

Both KC-46A 15-46009 and 17-46031 will be delivered today to McConnell in the delivery ceremony!

Galaxy5007 wrote:

Both KC-46A 15-46009 and 17-46031 will be delivered today to McConnell in the delivery ceremony!

Seems delivery ceremony was yesterday at KPAE, and it's a done deal.

https://twitter.com/JenSchuld/status/10 ... 2916886528 says:

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

... and has photos of their departure from KPAE.

Delivery is in progress right now; its going to be streaming on the McConnell FB page. There is a difference between the delivery to the USAF (which 6009 was delivered on 10 January), and actual physical delivery to the base.

Galaxy5007 wrote:

Both KC-46A 15-46009 and 17-46031 will be delivered today to McConnell in the delivery ceremony!

The first two aircraft delivered were authorized in two different fiscal years and two years apart. Is that unusual?

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 !

I love how much bigger they are. Even at that distance in this picture. Can't wait to see them flying over my house!

Delivery departure of both aircraft from Paine Field is now in the A-net database.
The first : 15-46009



The second : 17-46031

Compare/contrast to this picture taken 31 August 1956:

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.

Ref: https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/31-august-1955/

Lots of other interesting stuff in that article, check it out!

Wonder if KC-46A will give us 80+ years of service just like KC-135 is planned to?

Revelation wrote:

Wonder if KC-46A will give us 80+ years of service just like KC-135 is planned to?

Very few of us here today will ever know!

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.

I wonder how many PowerPoint slides Pratt has already regarding a future re-engine program using the engine they are bidding for Boeing’s NMA. Perhaps, they’ve even included some business guesses in their internal bid details/calculations!

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.

It is not that hard to "reveal" this info.

KC-767 is based on the 762-200ER, it looks like Japan will have 2 very different tankers that are both based on the 767
FedEx and UPS have ordered the freighters that are built on the 767-300
KC-46 is built on the 767-2C which is a 767-200 with 767-300 wings and a updated flightdeck, this is also being offered as a freighter but has not received any orders yet.

Google is your friend if you chose to use it.

Here is wiki's 767 page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

All of the current freighters use the GE engine, all of the KC's are Pratt's.

Yes there is a lot of DOD hardware on the plane that isn't discussed much. But the -2C was certified as a commercial model prior to the alterations, it delineated what was Boeing's and what was DOD specific stuff.

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.

If you are an airplane buff, you can purchase the cut-away for the KC-767 and KC-46. Now that the KC-46 us officially in production, a cut-away may be available soon.

bt

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

I found the end of http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-air- ... ies-boeing to be interesting:

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.

That's what USAF thinks, let's see if Congress lets them do it or not.

The context was a discussion of what would follow the KC-46, namely the stealthy tanker the USAF planners have been talking up. Yet http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-ma ... chief-says tells us:

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.”

As usual, it's a muddled mess.

You're phasing out a bunch of perfectly usable 70s design tankers because you've just bought a bunch of 80s design tankers yet at the same time you're keeping a much larger number of 50s design tankers.

You got efforts kicked off to build a 10s design tanker but now you shoot that down because you can't decide if it will be useful in the 20s so chances are good you'll end up just buying more 80s design tankers.

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

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

TFA says:

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."

I think the reason the KC-10s will be retired gradually is to avoid the messy squabble in Congress that would surely happen if you flew them all to the desert at once.

Once the KC-10s are gone in 2024, the age of the KC-135s will be even more apparent and that will make it easy for Boeing et al to push to replace them all with KC-46A. Surely that's what they've wanted all along. I'm sure they've been happy to see the current head of the USAF question the need for the stealthy tanker.

In reality, the KC-10 was bought for range, and the CFM engines gave the KC-135R the kind of range that made the KC-10 largely moot. Since you have to keep the KC-135s running anyway, USAF should have gone all in and ramped up the KC-135 supply chain to convert them all to CFMs and keep them all going till you could replace them all with CFRP based aircraft, because the main killer of these aircraft ends up being metal fatigue. Yet KC-46 is a nice big slab of bacon, and once the smell of bacon is in the air, everyone's ready to eat.

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 ?

If they waited until the thing worked 100%, it may take a few more years.

Seems the viewing system issue only relates to certain aspect of flight with the sun hitting the receiver at a specific angle causing glare and a higher chance of scratching a stealth aircraft.

So get the planes now, get your pilots flying them on non stealth missions and work the fixes later. Boeing will get penalized on every frame so there is sufficient incentive for Boeing to get that fix.

As for stealth tankers, there are already to "stealth" tanker in the works. The Navy unmanned tanker and the Air Force new stealth bomber which may be converted to stealth tanker in some distance future. I supposed they would have to figure a way to make a stealthy boom and somehow hide it in the fuselage.

bt