The Air Force works with Boeing to determine the initial spares package just like the commercial airllines, however the military is bound by some rules from WWII and a failure to understand parts life expectancy. Simply they over buy on historic items and under buy new technology. The spares lists are made by desk sitters of questionable knowledge that like all good bureaucrats are tone deaf to change or input.

In the Nav light example above, consider that the old style was cheap, readily available and common to a larger fleet, where as the LED version has a long service life so the spares sales potential is much lower so the vendor must amortize development and tooling costs against fewer sales so the price goes up and up..

The other thing is Boeing traditionally sells spares at 200% of cost to cover all kinds of services, warehousing inventory management and manuals (and that is the short list).

Years ago my brother-in-law was involved in inventorying an air force base that was potentially being closed. He went into a warehouse on the perimeter and found 15 complete unused fully preserved KC-135 fueling booms among tons of other KC-135 spares, the funny the the base had never hosted the plane.

Another thing that drives up military spares costs are the military specs they attach that are not used on commercial parts. it maybe finish, fasteners, fluids, testing criteria or bloody documentation etc. I recall a military spares requirement for 3 fuse bolts, the military test requirement was for 3 bolts to go through a heated saltwater test for 72 hour and sliced up for analysis, another 3 were to be stressed tested until failure, another 3 had some other test that rendered the unusable. so we had to buy a special run of 12, but the government would only pay for 3.. so the added costs were spread across 3 bots, the mark up of 200% applied and off they went. the same bolt sold to commercial operators was significantly cheaper becaus eit was bought in lots of 250 and the spreading of the test and documentation costs was a minuscule increase per unit.

JayinKitsap wrote:

So it should be losing another $ 500M on its $ 25B contract. Still not good but gets the perspective right.

Yes, the KC-46 is a fiasco financially for Boeing, it should have been a good program, but it seems there is always an eternal screw up.

Total cost overruns are now in excess of $5 billion.

scbriml wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

So it should be losing another $ 500M on its $ 25B contract. Still not good but gets the perspective right.

Yes, the KC-46 is a fiasco financially for Boeing, it should have been a good program, but it seems there is always an eternal screw up.

Total cost overruns are now in excess of $5 billion.

Quite true, but the total contract amount is more than $25B, quite a nasty loss but so often in the press it is indicated a $5B loss on the original $ 5B contract, it is brutal country to spend $10B getting 5 in return.

Just so that I'm on the same page.

We are talking about mil spec nav lights here, right?

889091 wrote:

Just so that I'm on the same page.

We are talking about mil spec nav lights here, right?

Don't think so. These would probably be the standard nav lights on any newer 767.

bt

scbriml wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

So it should be losing another $ 500M on its $ 25B contract. Still not good but gets the perspective right.

Yes, the KC-46 is a fiasco financially for Boeing, it should have been a good program, but it seems there is always an eternal screw up.

Total cost overruns are now in excess of $5 billion.

Unfortunately, we will never know how Airbus would have delivered on the 330. Perhaps better. But I have always maintained that it was too big. Imho, the USAF needed a relatively larger number of smaller airframes due to the tanking requirements of tactical aircraft not being huge in terms of volume.

WRT comments about spare parts, one would expect that the 46 will be in service far longer than the commercial 767s, and that the installed base will dry up considerably. The freighters may help, since they tend to run longer.

SteelChair wrote:

scbriml wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

So it should be losing another $ 500M on its $ 25B contract. Still not good but gets the perspective right.

Yes, the KC-46 is a fiasco financially for Boeing, it should have been a good program, but it seems there is always an eternal screw up.

Total cost overruns are now in excess of $5 billion.

Unfortunately, we will never know how Airbus would have delivered on the 330. Perhaps better. But I have always maintained that it was too big. Imho, the USAF needed a relatively larger number of smaller airframes due to the tanking requirements of tactical aircraft not being huge in terms of volume.

WRT comments about spare parts, one would expect that the 46 will be in service far longer than the commercial 767s, and that the installed base will dry up considerably. The freighters may help, since they tend to run longer.

As there are quite a few A330MRTT in various air forces in operation, I assume that the A330MRTT would also have done well for the USA Air Force.

mjoelnir wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Total cost overruns are now in excess of $5 billion.

Unfortunately, we will never know how Airbus would have delivered on the 330. Perhaps better. But I have always maintained that it was too big. Imho, the USAF needed a relatively larger number of smaller airframes due to the tanking requirements of tactical aircraft not being huge in terms of volume.

WRT comments about spare parts, one would expect that the 46 will be in service far longer than the commercial 767s, and that the installed base will dry up considerably. The freighters may help, since they tend to run longer.

As there are quite a few A330MRTT in various air forces in operation, I assume that the A330MRTT would also have done well for the USA Air Force.

That's true, but there no way USAF would have taken an off the shelf product. They would have added all kinds of additional requirements, necessitating modifications. Voila, the system is now behind schedule and over budget. It's what they do.

mjoelnir wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Total cost overruns are now in excess of $5 billion.

Unfortunately, we will never know how Airbus would have delivered on the 330. Perhaps better. But I have always maintained that it was too big. Imho, the USAF needed a relatively larger number of smaller airframes due to the tanking requirements of tactical aircraft not being huge in terms of volume.

WRT comments about spare parts, one would expect that the 46 will be in service far longer than the commercial 767s, and that the installed base will dry up considerably. The freighters may help, since they tend to run longer.

As there are quite a few A330MRTT in various air forces in operation, I assume that the A330MRTT would also have done well for the USA Air Force.

Oh, revisiting the Tanker procurement wars, that went by long, long ago. The 3rd round (1st Lease fiasco, 2nd where A330 team won then contract cancelled during protest, and 3rd where procurement cost as well as life cycle cost was better evaluated, which Boeing won) found that going with the A330 required a whole lot of new hangers, because the KC-46 fits in the existing hangers. The KC-10 is 155.3' x 182.3' x 57.5', the KC-46 is 157.8' x 165' x 52', KC-135 130.9' x 136.3' x 41.7', and the A-330 is 197.8' x 208.9' x 55.1'. The C-17 is 170' x 174', B-52 is 185 x 159, C-5A is 223' x 247'. Except for the C-5A the A-330 would be the largest footprint in the fleet. There were huge issues with new hangers, wider aprons, runway length was another issue - the A330 fully loaded requires 7,300 ft runway, the KC-46 is 6,300 feet. Like with the KC-10's the A330MRTT carries a lot more fuel but most missions do not even utilize the capacity of the KC-46. Also, support of the KC-135 is currently by Boeing so it should be easier support during the transition from KC-135 to KC-46. Those were the factors at the time of the decision for the KC-46. Yes, Boeing has screwed the pooch in the KC-46 execution, but for the issues of spare parts, probably little difference in markups between Boeing, NG, or LM.

So how does this compare to the P8 spares pool? They´re both of the same lineage - civilian airframe converted to military.

Although this might be worthy of its own thread, the article sounds the possibility of further KC-46 buys in order to meet capability. This article also borders on sounding like a tabloid IMHO. The author’s words at the end, insinuate another airbus vs. Boeing completion. I, personally don’t think there will ever be a shortage of tankers for the USAF. There’s still HUNDREDS of 135s out there just sitting around, with a majority of their usage going towards pilot proficiency flights.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... 9fG1WEjqrQ

When all other possibilities are eliminated. What is left must me the truth.

Question. Of all the numbers that were wrong, did they repainted any of them?

bt

IMO both Boeing and the USAF are overwhelmed by all the other KC-46A deficiencies (cat 1,2,3, etc) upon acceptance, conseq. this minor dificiency is not even noted.
However one of the later builts : 19-46065 has been spotted, now again with a correct sequential tail number 96065
See : http://www.paineairport.com/kpae19377c.htm

Note : Aircraft built in BDS USAF LOT #6 ordered January 2021 (12X) and BDS USAF LOT #7 ordered January 2021 (15X) are ordered in FY* 2021 and aircraft built from these two lots will carry a tail number that starts with "1"

The first of lot 6 : B767-2C 21-46072 USAF KC-46A (VH072) Lot 6, #01/12, tail 16072

* FY 2021 starts at Oct 1st 2020 and ending at Sept 30th 2021.

Maybe they don't have the right masks available (for whatever reason) so they are painting it as close as possible to the correct number with the masks they have and then are "fixing it in post" later on as the correct masks become available?

As bikerthai, there seems to be too many check-points for this to slip past due to poor QA, which makes me inclined to believe it is intentional and the most obvious reason to me for it being intentional is because something is preventing them from applying the correct number at the start and requiring it to be fixed later.

747classic wrote:

IMO both Boeing and the USAF are overwhelmed by all the other KC-46A deficiencies (cat 1,2,3, etc) upon acceptance, conseq. this minor dificiency is not even noted.
However one of the later builts : 19-46065 has been spotted, now again with a correct sequential tail number 96065
See : http://www.paineairport.com/kpae19377c.htm

Note : Aircraft built in BDS USAF LOT #6 ordered January 2021 (12X) and BDS USAF LOT #7 ordered January 2021 (15X) are ordered in FY* 2021 and aircraft built from these two lots will carry a tail number that starts with "1"

The first of lot 6 : B767-2C 21-46072 USAF KC-46A (VH072) Lot 6, #01/12, tail 16072

* FY 2021 starts at Oct 1st 2020 and ending at Sept 30th 2021.

That doesn't agree with the info Boeing has. They have 20-46072 as the first FY20.

Looking at the Boeing order report on their website for the 767-2C , the last order (lots 6 &7) for 27 aircraft has been recorded at February 2021, that's FY 2021.
Perhaps lot 6 has been approved earlier in FY2020 (before Oct 01th 2020) by the USAF ?

Peter these seem to be in such a mess. I was talking with a friend of mine who is very clued up on mil matters, budget changes and such like and mentioned these apparent "wrong" numbers to him and he is of the opinion that they are not painted wrong and are actually FY21 frames (46057/8/9/60) which have moved budgets. He's been looking online through government documents to try to confirm it or at least find some evidence but no luck thus far. He showed me an example of some C130s back in 2010 which all rolled off the line in quick succession but ended up with FYs 07, 09, 06 and 08 from late budgetry changes.

I can say for certain that as of the first week in April, Boeing had them as 19s to 46071 and 20s from 46072. I don't have more recent info than that, currently.

From an expediency stand point, if the number's were wrong and they knew about they would have fix it. The numbers are either a decal that should be easily printed or a masking template that could also easily be printed.

Delivering an airplane that would need to be re-painted later would involve more paperwork than it is worth. DCMA would not agree to it.

Anyone know if these frames are in sequence. At the earlier stage of the program, they delivered airplanes out of sequence due to rework.

bt

One more question to answer. When assigning the number, do they use the FY of budget approval? Or FY of actual contract signed?

Where there any political shenanigans going on at that time that may have delayed the budget?

bt

Boeing will have to pay to fix two new technical problems affecting the KC-46A, which the USAF has designated as “category 1” deficiencies :

- The Air Force has discovered that drain tubes in the KC-46′s air refueling receptacle — which are used to remove water from the aircraft — can become cracked when the tanker operates in cold temperatures, this issue has occurred approximately three times, when water in the tubes froze and expanded, forming cracks.

- The second problem involves a software bug in the KC-46′s Flight Management System, which has triggered “navigation anomalies,” according to Boeing. The Air Force said this issue has been limited to “isolated incidents,” most recently during a March 3 flight over the Pacific Ocean. Then, the crew “deferred to other navigation methods and did not declare an in-flight emergency” before landing safely in Honolulu.

See : https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/06 ... iciencies/

bikerthai wrote:

One more question to answer. When assigning the number, do they use the FY of budget approval? Or FY of actual contract signed?

Where there any political shenanigans going on at that time that may have delayed the budget?

bt

As far as I know it goes off of the FY that funding was approved.

Ex, the first operational B-1 to Dyess arrived in 1986, however carried an 83 tail number.

Also, check out the JSTARS tail numbers. Those are all used (older) 707's that carry numbers in the 90s because of the funding for the aircraft.

And, the way the number is displayed is different across some commands... ACC and AMC do not paint the numbers the same way on the aircraft.

mjoelnir wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Total cost overruns are now in excess of $5 billion.

Unfortunately, we will never know how Airbus would have delivered on the 330. Perhaps better. But I have always maintained that it was too big. Imho, the USAF needed a relatively larger number of smaller airframes due to the tanking requirements of tactical aircraft not being huge in terms of volume.

WRT comments about spare parts, one would expect that the 46 will be in service far longer than the commercial 767s, and that the installed base will dry up considerably. The freighters may help, since they tend to run longer.

As there are quite a few A330MRTT in various air forces in operation, I assume that the A330MRTT would also have done well for the USA Air Force.

The A-330MRTT/KC-30 went through years of suffering growing pains too. These included two Booms falling from test tankers and the RAAF would not use the Boom for years. The KC-45 would have had growing pains in USAF service, too.

I believe there are about 55-60 A-330MRTTs in service, not far behind is the KC-46 with about 45-48 in service at the squadron level.

Continuing with the apparent "mispaint" saga, 19-46067 was towed from the EMC yesterday painted as 56067... (photo proof).

Really fishy. The last 4 digits 6067 are the same. Wonder if there are any re-alocation involved. I noticed that the Japanese KC-46 is at the MDC.

bt

I just saw on planespotters.net that LN 1223, 19-46061, is not built. It's very rare for both Boeing and the USAF to skip a frame and number. Does anyone know why, or know it's a mistake?
Other question, are all the early frames like 1065, 1066, 1067, 1069, 1091, 1092 still earmarked for delivery to USAF and operation, and will 1098, 1100 and 1104 still be completed?

MEA-707 wrote:

I just saw on planespotters.net that LN 1223, 19-46061, is not built. It's very rare for both Boeing and the USAF to skip a frame and number. Does anyone know why, or know it's a mistake?

L/N 1223 has been built, Matt Cawby posted a picture of 19-46061 at the EMC at his Paine Field blog of May 12th, see : http://www.paineairport.com/kpae19276a.htm

MEA-707 wrote:

Other question, are all the early frames like 1065, 1066, 1067, 1069, 1091, 1092 still earmarked for delivery to USAF and operation, and will 1098, 1100 and 1104 still be completed?

All mentioned aircraft are scheduled to be reworked to production standard and are still earmarked for delivery to the USAF.

SteelChair wrote:

That's true, but there no way USAF would have taken an off the shelf product. They would have added all kinds of additional requirements, necessitating modifications. Voila, the system is now behind schedule and over budget. It's what they do.

The needless "automated" refueling boom being the biggest reason for the delays, not to mention the usual QC issues Boeing seems to have these days.

Cdydatzigs wrote:

The needless "automated" refueling boom being the biggest reason for the delays

It's not "automated". It is manual with a remote vision system (3D cameras).

With the all the troubles with the KC-46 program, the Israilies still wants theirs and is requesting to accelerate the delivery schedule. Makes you want to think they see the light at the end of the tunnel.

bt

MEA-707 wrote:

I just saw on planespotters.net that LN 1223, 19-46061, is not built. It's very rare for both Boeing and the USAF to skip a frame and number. Does anyone know why, or know it's a mistake?
Other question, are all the early frames like 1065, 1066, 1067, 1069, 1091, 1092 still earmarked for delivery to USAF and operation, and will 1098, 1100 and 1104 still be completed?

1104 is in the pipeline to be delivered soon. 1223 still hasn't had its first flight yet but is built. You can get up to date stats on KC-46 production here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 2121076296

Spacepope wrote:

MEA-707 wrote:

I just saw on planespotters.net that LN 1223, 19-46061, is not built. It's very rare for both Boeing and the USAF to skip a frame and number. Does anyone know why, or know it's a mistake?
Other question, are all the early frames like 1065, 1066, 1067, 1069, 1091, 1092 still earmarked for delivery to USAF and operation, and will 1098, 1100 and 1104 still be completed?

1104 is in the pipeline to be delivered soon. 1223 still hasn't had its first flight yet but is built. You can get up to date stats on KC-46 production here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 2121076296

A question on the spreadsheet, it shows a pinkish brown with the term "REWORK", but there are no frames indicated in production or the like. Does the REWORK status indicate also in production?

Has the build quality improved? I would hope the newest frames are coming together much better than before, it should be getting easier.

bikerthai wrote:

Cdydatzigs wrote:

The needless "automated" refueling boom being the biggest reason for the delays

It's not "automated". It is manual with a remote vision system (3D cameras).

With the all the troubles with the KC-46 program, the Israilies still wants theirs and is requesting to accelerate the delivery schedule. Makes you want to think they see the light at the end of the tunnel.

bt

Due to a number of factors FMS cases to Israel have to be analyzed on a variety of financial levels, though the general success with US aircraft in Israeli service speaks for itself.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

MEA-707 wrote:

I just saw on planespotters.net that LN 1223, 19-46061, is not built. It's very rare for both Boeing and the USAF to skip a frame and number. Does anyone know why, or know it's a mistake?
Other question, are all the early frames like 1065, 1066, 1067, 1069, 1091, 1092 still earmarked for delivery to USAF and operation, and will 1098, 1100 and 1104 still be completed?

1104 is in the pipeline to be delivered soon. 1223 still hasn't had its first flight yet but is built. You can get up to date stats on KC-46 production here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 2121076296

A question on the spreadsheet, it shows a pinkish brown with the term "REWORK", but there are no frames indicated in production or the like. Does the REWORK status indicate also in production?

The site is outdated. It hasn't been updated for years. What is there looks to be guesswork.

RobK wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

1104 is in the pipeline to be delivered soon. 1223 still hasn't had its first flight yet but is built. You can get up to date stats on KC-46 production here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 2121076296

A question on the spreadsheet, it shows a pinkish brown with the term "REWORK", but there are no frames indicated in production or the like. Does the REWORK status indicate also in production?

The site is outdated. It hasn't been updated for years. What is there looks to be guesswork.

Are you referring to the Google spreadsheet? It has clearly been updated with first flights (of 064 and 065) and delivery (012) in the past week.

Spacepope wrote:

Are you referring to the Google spreadsheet? It has clearly been updated with first flights (of 064 and 065) and delivery (012) in the past week.

OK maybe a few isolated cases but the bulk of it is very outdated.

RobK wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

Are you referring to the Google spreadsheet? It has clearly been updated with first flights (of 064 and 065) and delivery (012) in the past week.

OK maybe a few isolated cases but the bulk of it is very outdated.

Correct, the last three (L/N 1254, 1257 and 1259) are also not correctly indicated, all three are AFAIK FY 2020 aircraft, the first three from Lot 6 : 20-46072 , 20-46073 and 20-46074

A friend sighted '067 as 56067 a few days ago. Not sure what's going on here. Still have my suspicions that these have been shuffled around to different FY budgets and the ones with the 1 prefix are actually FY21. It does happen from time to time with other US mil assets.

Spacepope wrote:

RobK wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

A question on the spreadsheet, it shows a pinkish brown with the term "REWORK", but there are no frames indicated in production or the like. Does the REWORK status indicate also in production?

The site is outdated. It hasn't been updated for years. What is there looks to be guesswork.

Are you referring to the Google spreadsheet? It has clearly been updated with first flights (of 064 and 065) and delivery (012) in the past week.

Yes there are 4 October 21 dates in the spreadsheet, yes not perfect but it has evolved. Seems odd how there have been so many stragglers, efficient production would have say 6 in production with a few in testing and all the older frames delivered. It seems nothing has been done yet with the flight test frames, are they still being used for testing? All 6 though.

bikerthai wrote:

It's not "automated". It is manual with a remote vision system (3D cameras).

Poor wording on my part. Either way, it was the decision to remove the person looking out of a window that caused the problem by making the system needlessly more complex then it had to be.

Cdydatzigs wrote:

looking out of a window that caused the problem by making the system needlessly more complex then it had to be.

Airbus got it to work, so the concept is not too complex. How Boeing executed the vision system was the issue.

Besides, as you alluded, automation IS the future, so the vision system has to be developed sooner or later as a prelude to automation. They just have to solve all these nagging problems along the way.

bt

F-15 &F-16s now able to receive fuel from the KC-46. I’m curious as to how well progress is being made on it refueling stealth aircraft.

https://www.airforcemag.com/amc-green-l ... w-cleared/

The article states the USAF are still gauging whether or not it is safe to refuel the stealth frames using the boom so I am guessing they will likely want additional test hook-ups.

I'm curious if this could be ONE of the reasons we have been seeing the F-117s active lately...

USTraveler wrote:

I'm curious if this could be ONE of the reasons we have been seeing the F-117s active lately...

That is a pretty good guess, as scratches/damage to the F-117’s might not be repaired, but cost a fortune on the B-2/F-22 to fix up for operational standards. The tiny F-117 though probably behaves a bit differently in the wake/turbulence vs. a B-2.

The F-22’s receptacle is comparatively toward the rear of the aircraft, but I think part of the issue (as with the F-16) is a worry about hitting the canopy (probably not an issue with it being stealthy). I doubt they really work on that one until RVS 2.0.

Nope, not at all. Canopy strikes suck regardless of platform. The issue is with the 46 you can often be in the perfect scene selection but still have the last foot or two of boom be unfocused or otherwise unclear. Combined with a stealth airframe, you just cannot see that you’ve hit outside their receptacle, which of course defeats their entire stealth profile. Legacy tankers have protocols for contacts outside the receptacle, but they’re all contingent on the boomer recognizing that those contacts have taken place; with the 46, the boomer doesn’t even know they happened. Big problem.

The F-117’s reemergence has precisely zero to do with this. Frankly, it’s nice to see them officially again, without the ungentlemanly hours of their black-ish program.

LyleLanley wrote:

The F-117’s reemergence has precisely zero to do with this. Frankly, it’s nice to see them officially again, without the ungentlemanly hours of their black-ish program.

Are the F-117's officially back? I thought they were just doing 'aggressor' squadrons via a contractor.

Boeing was quite stubborn to the point of stupidity with the Remote Vision. I think their stance was that the RFP specified X not Z, but X doesn't really work and they wouldn't come off their position to give the Air Force the RVS they really wanted, not what was specified. This is likely made worse as there was a sub, that had subs, that had subs being compensated for the RFP system, not something better. Between the RFP written a decade ago to now there has been a huge leap in sensor, camera, and display technology. Had Boeing decided to do the RVS right 2 years before they did, the whole program would be far better off and the new RVS would be in service.

Cobham caused significant problems and delays on the program, and they paid handily per this report back in 2019. Anyone know what the status is of the WARP pods for the 767, I don't believe they are in use yet, only the centerline drogue .
https://www.defensedaily.com/cobham-acc ... air-force/

JayinKitsap wrote:

Are the F-117's officially back? I thought they were just doing 'aggressor' squadrons via a contractor.

Rumour is they are now flying unmanned. The F-117 has the most simple mission profile and it would be the easiest to fully automate. It would work great for highly defended targets that needed a 2,000lb class bomb. A glorified cruise missile.

RJMAZ wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Are the F-117's officially back? I thought they were just doing 'aggressor' squadrons via a contractor.

Rumour is they are now flying unmanned. The F-117 has the most simple mission profile and it would be the easiest to fully automate. It would work great for highly defended targets that needed a 2,000lb class bomb. A glorified cruise missile.

Maybe, but that's exactly what a AGM-158C is.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Cobham caused significant problems and delays on the program, and they paid handily per this report back in 2019. Anyone know what the status is of the WARP pods for the 767, I don't believe they are in use yet, only the centerline drogue .
https://www.defensedaily.com/cobham-acc ... air-force/

They are not approved for use, even the centreline hose has a number is restrictions placed upon it.

Three articles on the KC-46

Tested a new capability of ground transfer for austere bases. They found a significant conflict of procedures, went thru the review, and settled in on the revisions needed. I would think this is one of the easier capabilities to meet, but every one needs testing.
https://www.mcchord.af.mil/News/Article ... -you-need/

Refuel authority granted for the F-15 and F-16, along with the previous heavies. Still no go with stealth coated planes as the nozzle miss scratches the coating.
https://www.airforcemag.com/amc-green-l ... w-cleared/

Israel now wants 4 KC-46 deliveries bumped up, prior was for 2. This is in their total of 8.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/israe ... two-681730