Boeing KC-46 News, Production and Delivery Thread

par13del · Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:35 pm

Revelation wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
I've said this many times, but I think it's still difficult for some to accept that the MRTT could be the optimal solution for most smaller militaries, but not for the US with a large distributed air force, requiring hundreds of tankers. It's just a different logistics problem. But it seems counterintuitive that the large tanker best fits the small force, while the small tanker (in numbers) best fits the larger force.

This is what we used to refer to as the "booms in the air" issue when this topic was being discussed here in the early 2000s. To many of us, it seemed obvious that KC-46 was the fastest/cheapest path to the most booms in the air. What we didn't see was Boeing stepping all over its dingus.

....with lots of assistance from the US Air Force, those hands are not clean.
As OEM want as much profit with least development cost, its hard to just take the situation that Boeing took an a/c that was already a functioning tanker and screw it up big time, I guess since Boeing wants to continue to do business with the Air Force, they will keep mum, grin and bear it...

Avatar2go · Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:49 pm

par13del wrote:
As OEM want as much profit with least development cost, its hard to just take the situation that Boeing took an a/c that was already a functioning tanker and screw it up big time, I guess since Boeing wants to continue to do business with the Air Force, they will keep mum, grin and bear it...

Actually many of the KC-767 features were not accepted by the USAF, who wanted a vastly improved aircraft. Much of the conflict revolved around the scope of development activities that the USAF demanded.

There is a myth that Boeing only had to take the KC-767, tweak it a bit, and voila, KC-46. But in fact they have entirely different design bases and standards, including certification bases.

The USAF has acknowledged this, by saying the fixed cost development was a mistake, that they would not repeat again. I'm sure Boeing feels the same way.

This is also why it's been pointed out that, even if USAF had chosen the MRTT, it would have had to undergo that same development process, likely with some of the same issues arising, as they pertain to the certification basis.

par13del · Fri Mar 10, 2023 12:04 am

Avatar2go wrote:
par13del wrote:
As OEM want as much profit with least development cost, its hard to just take the situation that Boeing took an a/c that was already a functioning tanker and screw it up big time, I guess since Boeing wants to continue to do business with the Air Force, they will keep mum, grin and bear it...

Actually many of the KC-767 features were not accepted by the USAF, who wanted a vastly improved aircraft. Much of the conflict revolved around the scope of development activities that the USAF demanded.

There is a myth that Boeing only had to take the KC-767, tweak it a bit, and voila, KC-46. But in fact they have entirely different design bases and standards, including certification bases.

The USAF has acknowledged this, by saying the fixed cost development was a mistake, that they would not repeat again. I'm sure Boeing feels the same way.

This is also why it's been pointed out that, even if USAF had chosen the MRTT, it would have had to undergo that same development process, likely with some of the same issues arising, as they pertain to the certification basis.

The same US Air Force who after the first tanker bid resulted in criminal prosecutions decided to change 180 degrees, configure the RFP to suit Airbus then doubled down and ensured that they secretly gave points for items they included in the RFP that they publicly stated were not mandatory. The outcome as with the first was a cancellation and a another rebid.
One would think that after 2 failed attempts the congress and the DOD would have taken a more active role and ensured that the Air Force had some principles concerning providing the warfighter with the best possible equipment for their needs versus what was in the best interest of the influencers who were already looking at their lives after their military career was over.
Nope, I do not have as much faith in the US Air Force being altruistic in their job, imagine stating that you want an off the shelf product to minimize development cost then reject a lot of the functionality on said off the shelf product, who exactly were the US Air Force experts who reviewed the two off the shelf items available and decided they were eligible versus a new build to save money? As for the fixed cost, I thought all were happy in the initial year as the Air Force was sticking it to Boeing for low balling, or screwing up, or paying penance for protesting their award, now they are saying its a mistake because the tanker is not a tax payer black hole but a Boeing black hole??? Say it ain't so, anyone really think that if the tax payer was paying the product would have been done faster, perhaps we should look at all other Air Force projects past and current.
The Red Hawk was doing pretty well until the US Airforce decided overnight that ejection seats should allow for all sizes, being sarcastic on the overnight point, certain they knew long time before, and in-fighting in the Air Force resulted in a delay deciding that was the way forward then notifying the OEM, now how much is that internal squabble going to cost the tax payer?

Grizzly410 · Fri Mar 10, 2023 10:59 am

Revelation wrote:
My real question is, was this ever a chance for A330MRTT to get back into the game, as so many seemed to hope it was? You can make a good case that it should be after Boeing's ongoing foobars on KC-46. OTOH, Airbus itself said it was out after the KC-46 award. OTOH, LM came back in later. You can IMO make a good case that having two suppliers rather than one is a good idea.

MRTT never had any hope for the simple reason you mention yourself, Airbus DS itself said it was out.
LMXT probably had some, very few, chances though.

Stitch wrote:
Revelation wrote:
(One) can make a good case that it should be after Boeing's ongoing foobars on KC-46.

Boeing and its suppliers stuffing up KC-46 so much might be giving the USAF concerns that LM could potentially do the same with LMXT since it will likely source much of its mission-specific content from those same suppliers. I would expect it to use the same RVS 2.0 system, boom and drogues and the Cobham WASPs that have been giving KC-46 headaches. And LM's project management has not exactly been stellar, either.

Well, if LMXT platform had to integrate the same refuel systems as KC-46 I can’t see what the point of the offer is/was.
Contrary to KC-46 who currently struggles to simply have an operable RVS the MRTT already offers package with advanced capability like Automatic Air to Air Refuelling (boom automatic flying from contact to release) and is further developing it with ultimate objective of an “auto mate” where the tanker would take control of the receiver and conduct the refuelling automatically. It would be a bit stupid not to use this on the platform with which there’s already solutions to integrate it.

Stitch wrote:

Revelation wrote:
My cynical side feels the fix was in right from the start and the only outcome was going to be Boeing getting all the business, and events are tracking right along that path so it's hard to shake that feeling.

In terms of the KC-Y RFP, yeah, I could see it, but more due to just "going with the devil you know" than worrying about both "the devil you know" AND "the devil you do not know".

A kind of escalation of commitment leading the USAF to be stack committed to the KC-46 too. And at the point they are now it’s quite logical to continue with this single fleet of conventional tanker if the next one is to be a completely different type of platform.

bikerthai · Fri Mar 10, 2023 12:49 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
This is also why it's been pointed out that, even if USAF had chosen the MRTT, it would have had to undergo that same development process, likely with some of the same issues arising, as they pertain to the certification basis.

I would like to have seen a competition just for the sake of seeing the final numbers.

If it is true that if the OEM has to open up its commercial books if they were to incorporate the tanker mod in line, then Airbus would probably would not do that either and would not build a FA in the US.

So then LM would have to buy a green A330 and hack and patch the system on as a retrofit/rework. If you buy a comerical A330 and remove the components not needed for the KC, even if you can resale those components, it would be more costly than if you did not have to build/buy it in the first place

This would make the MRRT a lot more expensive than the grandfathered KC-46 where the provisions for the tanker function is efficiently incorporated in line and the un-needed components were not bought.

If this is the case, then people in the know can see writing on the wall. Thus no use going through the motion of a competiton.

bt

747classic · Fri Mar 10, 2023 1:15 pm

To avoid the present long range tanker capacity shortfall in the Far East.
A far cheaper option would be : retaining the KC10A fleet for the asian theater, until finally a new (unmanned ?) tanker is introduced.

Note : the KC-10A (DC10-30CF) is one of the aircraft with the lowest aging aircraft maintenance costs (wide spread fatigue damage) and a lot of hours/cycles are remaining at all airframes.
The whole KC-10A infrastucture and maintenance organisation is at the moment still in place..

par13del · Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:16 pm

747classic wrote:
To avoid the present long range tanker capacity shortfall in the Far East.
A far cheaper option would be : retaining the KC10A fleet for the asian theater, until finally a new (unmanned ?) tanker is introduced.

Note : the KC-10A (DC10-30CF) is one of the aircraft with the lowest aging aircraft maintenance costs (wide spread fatigue damage) and a lot of hours/cycles are remaining at all airframes.
The whole KC-10A infrastucture and maintenance organisation is at the moment still in place..

If you are looking at it from a capability point of view, this makes sense. If you are looking at it from a money point of view where as much funds as can be found is needed to continue funding F-35's and other "desired" US Airforce programs, it makes no sense. Recall that a couple years ago, the desire to retire the A-10 on a faster schedule was to get additional mechanics to service the new high tech a/c with their predictive maintenance functions.

ReverseFlow · Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:18 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
This is also why it's been pointed out that, even if USAF had chosen the MRTT, it would have had to undergo that same development process, likely with some of the same issues arising, as they pertain to the certification basis.

I would like to have seen a competition just for the sake of seeing the final numbers.

If it is true that if the OEM has to open up its commercial books if they were to incorporate the tanker mod in line, then Airbus would probably would not do that either and would not build a FA in the US.

So then LM would have to buy a green A330 and hack and patch the system on as a retrofit/rework. If you buy a comerical A330 and remove the components not needed for the KC, even if you can resale those components, it would be more costly than if you did not have to build/buy it in the first place

This would make the MRRT a lot more expensive than the grandfathered KC-46 where the provisions for the tanker function is efficiently incorporated in line and the un-needed components were not bought.

If this is the case, then people in the know can see writing on the wall. Thus no use going through the motion of a competiton.

bt

To my understanding that is what happens with the MRTTs.

They are flown green to Spain and then all the military stuff is installed there.
Probably Airbus Commercial selling to Airbus DS.

Also that is what is being done with the Brazilian & Spanish (?) MRTTs. They are using used airliners as the basis of the plane.

So nothing that couldn't be overcome with the LMXT.

In theory most of the work is the design, certification etc before anything is installed.
Until pipes don't fit, computers spit out unexpected messages etc

Revelation · Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:33 pm

ReverseFlow wrote:
To my understanding that is what happens with the MRTTs.

They are flown green to Spain and then all the military stuff is installed there.
Probably Airbus Commercial selling to Airbus DS.

Also that is what is being done with the Brazilian & Spanish (?) MRTTs. They are using used airliners as the basis of the plane.

So nothing that couldn't be overcome with the LMXT.

In theory most of the work is the design, certification etc before anything is installed.
Until pipes don't fit, computers spit out unexpected messages etc

It's hard for me to envision the MRTT hitting all the required USAF regs right out of the box.

For instance, here's a blurb about the KC-46 wiring snafu:

Shortly after January, Boeing notified the government it had found some issues during a Federal Aviation Administration required engineering process. The FAA process discovered anomalies in some of the wire modules, which in a civilian aircraft would be fine, but in military aircraft would not meet requirements, he said.

“Those anomalies were essentially for redundant aircraft systems where you want to have a redundancy in an electrical system,” Thompson said. In military aircraft, “Wires that represent redundancies cannot be put next to each other in the same bundle,” he added.

“The Boeing folks identified some anomalies so they went and got the wire audit where they went and reviewed 98,000 different wire segments.” There were redundancies in less than five percent of the wiring bundles. “In terms of translating bundles, as the spring and summer have progressed, the Boeing folks have been, in essence, redesigning those bundles,” Thompson said.

Maybe the MRTT has been examined for compliance under the same regs, but then I wonder why LM quoted the USAF the 2034 date for delivery of new MRTTs? That suggests to me they thought there would be a lot of work (be it paperwork and/or other work) to get the MRTT accepted by the USAF.

Ref: https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... atch-early

ReverseFlow · Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:47 pm

Revelation wrote:
ReverseFlow wrote:
To my understanding that is what happens with the MRTTs.

They are flown green to Spain and then all the military stuff is installed there.
Probably Airbus Commercial selling to Airbus DS.

Also that is what is being done with the Brazilian & Spanish (?) MRTTs. They are using used airliners as the basis of the plane.

So nothing that couldn't be overcome with the LMXT.

In theory most of the work is the design, certification etc before anything is installed.
Until pipes don't fit, computers spit out unexpected messages etc

It's hard for me to envision the MRTT hitting all the required USAF regs right out of the box.

For instance, here's a blurb about the KC-46 wiring snafu:

Shortly after January, Boeing notified the government it had found some issues during a Federal Aviation Administration required engineering process. The FAA process discovered anomalies in some of the wire modules, which in a civilian aircraft would be fine, but in military aircraft would not meet requirements, he said.

“Those anomalies were essentially for redundant aircraft systems where you want to have a redundancy in an electrical system,” Thompson said. In military aircraft, “Wires that represent redundancies cannot be put next to each other in the same bundle,” he added.

“The Boeing folks identified some anomalies so they went and got the wire audit where they went and reviewed 98,000 different wire segments.” There were redundancies in less than five percent of the wiring bundles. “In terms of translating bundles, as the spring and summer have progressed, the Boeing folks have been, in essence, redesigning those bundles,” Thompson said.

Maybe the MRTT has been examined for compliance under the same regs, but then I wonder why LM quoted the USAF the 2034 date for delivery of new MRTTs? That suggests to me they thought there would be a lot of work (be it paperwork and/or other work) to get the MRTT accepted by the USAF.

Ref: https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... atch-early

You're probably right there.
That's why the initial design work would be the complex bit to see what wires are where.

Sounds sinilar to EWIS rules to me. Which I have heard can be some work.

P.S.
Sounds a lot like the segregation work you would have to do for redundancies accounting for rotor burst etc.

bikerthai · Fri Mar 10, 2023 4:49 pm

Revelation wrote:
It's hard for me to envision the MRTT hitting all the required USAF regs right out of the box.

Even if it did, because the US government have not bought it before, I don't think the program can be grandfathered in.

Same thing with the E-7. That program started out as a retrofit as opposed to in-line work. It will remain as retrofit even if incorporating it in line would save lots of money for all sides.

The biggest draw back for the KC-Y and E-7 is that incorporating in line require a very long lead, to which neither program can afford.

bt

Avatar2go · Fri Mar 10, 2023 4:54 pm

There were EWIS issues associated with the FAA certification, but then also mil spec requirements for locations of critical equipment. If a backup exists, it can't be in the same bay, and then the wiring for it also can't run in the same bundles, and if they have redundant power sources, then those also must be similarly differentiated.

In the end, Boeing had to move a lot things around within the airframe, not just separate wiring bundles. And when they did that, especially in the wings to support the WARP pods, the existing 767 civilian certification essentially went out the window, and had to be completely redone.

Perhaps Airbus would have handled this better, we will never know. But seems likely they would have faced the same issues.

Stitch · Fri Mar 10, 2023 5:11 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
Well, if LMXT platform had to integrate the same refuel systems as KC-46 I can’t see what the point of the offer is/was.

Perhaps the USAF felt the same considering that the only real benefit of LMXT was the higher offload fuel capacity for trans-Pacific drags.

Grizzly410 wrote:
Contrary to KC-46 who currently struggles to simply have an operable RVS the MRTT already offers package with advanced capability like Automatic Air to Air Refueling (boom automatic flying from contact to release) and is further developing it with ultimate objective of an “auto mate” where the tanker would take control of the receiver and conduct the refueling automatically. It would be a bit stupid not to use this on the platform with which there’s already solutions to integrate it.

My belief is that the USAF would prefer a common system across both airframes for crew training, maintenance and supplier reasons. It would also help explain why LMXT development would take so many years (be it the original five or current ten) because if they were going with an off-the-shelf A330MRTT, it should be ready much sooner.

scbriml · Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:17 pm

Aviation Week is reporting that Boeing will take another charge on the KC-46 this quarter. While the amount is not yet clear and is likely to be "less than $500 million", it will push the total charges for the program to close to $7 billion.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... c5bbc3520e

CFO Brian West told Bank of America analyst Ron Epstein that the charge for the ongoing first quarter will be less than $500 million, but he did not offer more details. Any charge will add to the more than $6.5 billion in pretax charges that Boeing has recognized on the program since 2014, including a $1.1 billion whopper it announced for the third quarter of 2022.

West did not discuss whether future charges are expected, but he did say it will take until the second half of this year for the 767 line—on which the Air Force tanker is based—to recover from its latest challenge.

Max Q · Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:53 am

scbriml wrote:
Aviation Week is reporting that Boeing will take another charge on the KC-46 this quarter. While the amount is not yet clear and is likely to be "less than $500 million", it will push the total charges for the program to close to $7 billion.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... c5bbc3520e
CFO Brian West told Bank of America analyst Ron Epstein that the charge for the ongoing first quarter will be less than $500 million, but he did not offer more details. Any charge will add to the more than $6.5 billion in pretax charges that Boeing has recognized on the program since 2014, including a $1.1 billion whopper it announced for the third quarter of 2022.

West did not discuss whether future charges are expected, but he did say it will take until the second half of this year for the 767 line—on which the Air Force tanker is based—to recover from its latest challenge.

Seems impossible they could make a profit on this program now, even with the follow on order

kitplane01 · Fri Mar 24, 2023 4:54 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
USAF has awarded Production lot 8 as of 21 AUG 22 bringing the number on order to 109 for the USAF. Other contracts to date have awarded 4 for Israel and 5 for Japan. So 70 remain for future lots from the 179 plane program of record. Lot 8 roughly prices out at $147.6M each, the Israel contract priced at $ 231.9M. Reporters always look at the original contract for about $5B and note that Boeing has written off around $ 5B along with it - what a huge loss - well yes a lot of money. But the production lots are on the order of $ 16B beyond this original order. Lot 8 was change P00215, what juicy amounts are in the prior 214 changes. The 70 remaining planes is 5.8 years at 12 per year.

The Jan 22 GAO report to Congress on the KC-46, lots of good stuff inside.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104530.pdf

If the need is to order about 12 aircraft a year thru the KC-Y program for the next 15 years the KC-Y plane needs to be certified within 5 years. If there is little difference between the KC-46 and KC-Y Boeing could have the KC-Y certified in that time (Boeing has been known to have a lot of own goals so who knows). Even if awarded now, Lockmart would be hard pressed to have a FAA certified aircraft in 5 years, it took Boeing almost a century <LOL>.

Let's leave aside the capabilities argument for now, lets look at the AF's hand in this game of poker.

1. Is the AF trying to get all of the deficiencies resolved and the Full Rate Production milestone so they have a better handle of the risks and the actual capabilities before extending the program of record past 179.

2. Can the AF extend on a sole source buy a program of record if not in Full Rate Production? I think the F-35 is caught in a similar wicket but their program of record is far, far off. What are the rules on allowing extensions, I know it is done the F-15EX is a great example, it worked for Boeing but the GE engine award was protested, GE won the subsequent competition because PW needed to cover certification costs for its engines, while GE was already on the Qatar order.

3. In the FARs around Construction, there are very specific rules on a sole source negotiation. Additional units will be priced at the prior unit cost x defined multipliers. For example if Boeing's unit price is $150M each in 2015 dollars the next soul source contract might only allow $ 159M + 10% + contract inflation factors. But that is locking in for Boeing its 10% underbid (my speculation) into the next program, a big savings for the Government. In this soul source case Boeing would have lower margins locked in - had they not underbid they would have normal margins in the next round.

4. If the AF competes Boeing knows all of their costs up front, pretty easy to price. The LMXT is not a full fledged design, yes there are a lot of A330 tanker craft produced, but what about the AF communications, the FAA certification, EMI shielding, etc that was known at KC-X bid time, but Boeing got these pieces now designed, but LM & Airbus didn't. Plus LMXT has a barn full of certification costs with only the Cobham wing pods being FAA certified (well it will be some day!). Boeing has little to certify if the current KC-46 meets specs. With the R&D cost hurdle for LM, this competition is Boeing's to lose, that is if the AF doesn't really want to change horses. Boeing could easily recover the $5B excess cert costs.

5. If there are big spec changes, say for modern engines - Boeing has the GEnX from the 748 for the neo engine, Airbus would go with the T7000 of the A339, but has that one run the gauntlet yet in terms of entry into AF service? New coms, drone tankering, added weapons, new roles Boeing has at least equal footing with LM.

6. Both the B767 and the A330 are in their twilight of their production. Boeing knows these factors, it can make 15/yr work for production. Would Airbus want A330 production, except for the FAL being in the US, to run for 20 more years at 15 per year. Ten years out it us unlikely there would be further civilian orders.

Thansk for the summary. Love it.
Sorry to join the conversation so late.

Is there any advantage to having a multi-year, long term buy as seen by the USAF? Unless it saves money, why make the comittment? And it does not seem like it would save money .. the needed design and equipment and processes already exist to build the aircraft.

kitplane01 · Fri Mar 24, 2023 4:56 am

Avatar2go wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The structure of the fixed cost contract, which ensures production economy of scale savings go to the USAF, and not Boeing.

I was really sure that in a fixed cost contract, all cost savings go the vendor. That's the point of a fixed cost contract .. to encourage the vendor to perform as economically as possible. Am I missing something here?

Avatar2go · Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:42 am

kitplane01 wrote:

I was really sure that in a fixed cost contract, all cost savings go the vendor. That's the point of a fixed cost contract .. to encourage the vendor to perform as economically as possible. Am I missing something here?

The fixed cost development contract was based on the USAF building in a 20% buffer, against which they had the right to request changes. Beyond that 20%, Boeing would absorb the costs. So in that case, Boeing would be the beneficiary of any savings, but also the bearer of costs related to requests.

The fixed cost production contract is done in lots, with the pricing set by formula in the contract based on production costs. This is to protect the vendor against inflation and materials costs. Boeing has steadily reduced the lot cost since production began, and the USAF is the beneficiary of that savings.

In other words, Boeing cannot keep the reduction in production cost, to offset the increase in development costs. Those savings go to the USAF.

Further assuming minimal development for the KC-Y round of procurement, the KC-Y contract would likely be an extension of the production formula set forth for KC-X. In fact it might just be an extension of the existing contract. In which case the USAF continues to benefit from production cost reduction achieved under KC-X.

bikerthai · Fri Mar 24, 2023 10:01 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Is there any advantage to having a multi-year, long term buy as seen by the USAF? Unless it saves money, why make the comittment? And it does not seem like it would save money .. the needed design and equipment and processes already exist to build the aircraft.

Savings from a multi-year buy has little to do with the Engineering design. It has much to do with lead time and how a supplier can most efficiently manage a factory work flow to produce the hardware.

For example, a small sub-contractor may be able to get a guaranteed low interest loan to upgrade to more efficient NC-machines that can reduce the cost of fabrication across their whole product line if they know they will have suffience work over the span it takes to pay off the machine.

Suppliers can also offer lower per unit cost when considering the additional quantity of a multi-year buy vs. a single year buy.

For very long lead items, multi-year allow purchasing of harware at non-expedited pricing. If an item with a 2 year lead time is required when a contract is signed 1 year out, both the price and sub-contractor will be force to put extra effort to get parts on time, thus driving up the cost which is passed on to the customer.

bt

Stitch · Sat Mar 25, 2023 4:40 am

Max Q wrote:
Seems impossible they could make a profit on this program now, even with the follow on order

Boeing has secured roughly half of the planned initial purchase of 179 frames and those purchases are worth around $16 billion. The two most-recent acquisitions average $140 million a frame so that is another $12 billion-plus. And Boeing will likely win KC-Y, which could be another 75 frames worth another $11 billion-plus. And then add on the spares deals and eventual block upgrade programs.

With such a large revenue potential, the KC-46A program should be a decent profit generator for Boeing Defense, Space & Security when the entire lifecycle of the program is taken into account, even as it has been a definite drag on that division for the near-term.

JayinKitsap · Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:41 am

Stitch wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Seems impossible they could make a profit on this program now, even with the follow on order

Boeing has secured roughly half of the planned initial purchase of 179 frames and those purchases are worth around $16 billion. The two most-recent acquisitions average $140 million a frame so that is another $12 billion-plus. And Boeing will likely win KC-Y, which could be another 75 frames worth another $11 billion-plus. And then add on the spares deals and eventual block upgrade programs.

With such a large revenue potential, the KC-46A program should be a decent profit generator for Boeing Defense, Space & Security when the entire lifecycle of the program is taken into account, even as it has been a definite drag on that division for the near-term.

It may be even more Stitch, the main contract is now to change 294 (P00294) with a 19.6B current value and $22.5B obligated. Amazing how not transparent these things are. They only publish the Lot awards, the rest seems tucked away. Note there are other contracts for support etc that get into tidy sums.

https://govtribe.com/award/federal-cont ... 62511c6600
https://www.defensedaily.com/contract-a ... 255625408/
https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_ ... NE-_-NONE-

The Wright Patterson Contracts office that handles this contracts issues lots of goodies. Look at the chart in this link, Aircraft Manufacturing is for only about 1/4 of their contract awards. The gravy is off in all of those other boxes, technically for support.

https://govtribe.com/agency/federal-age ... rce-base-4

Boeing still has not been given full rate production. I believe the 'rules' change some when that is obtained.

747classic · Sat Mar 25, 2023 12:45 pm

One of the early built ( LRIP #1) KC-46A's has been finally delivered.

19-46007 delivery flight KPAE- KWRI (McGuire AFB) at March 24th with callsign PUDGY13 to join the 305th Air Mobility Wing, see : https://www.radarbox.com/data/flights/PUDGY13

See for departure video : https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/statu ... 0734478344

Aircraft data : L/N 1098 C/N 41855 B767-2LKC 19-46007 USAF KC46A (VH007) LRIP 1, #3/7, N2015U, tail 96007

Buckeyetech · Sat Mar 25, 2023 2:21 pm

Will the tail that was used for initial testing be retired early like T-1 was for the C-17s?

747classic wrote:
One of the early built ( LRIP #1) KC-46A's has been finally delivered.

19-46007 delivery flight KPAE- KWRI (McGuire AFB) at March 24th with callsign PUDGY13 to join the 305th Air Mobility Wing, see : https://www.radarbox.com/data/flights/PUDGY13

See for departure video : https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/statu ... 0734478344

Aircraft data : L/N 1098 C/N 41855 B767-2LKC 19-46007 USAF KC46A (VH007) LRIP 1, #3/7, N2015U, tail 96007

747classic · Sat Mar 25, 2023 3:14 pm

747classic wrote:
One of the early built ( LRIP #1) KC-46A's has been finally delivered.

19-46007 delivery flight KPAE- KWRI (McGuire AFB) at March 24th with callsign PUDGY13 to join the 305th Air Mobility Wing, see : https://www.radarbox.com/data/flights/PUDGY13

See for departure video : https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/statu ... 0734478344

Aircraft data : L/N 1098 C/N 41855 B767-2LKC 19-46007 USAF KC46A (VH007) LRIP 1, #3/7, N2015U, tail 96007

Correction , : 15-46007 was delivered out of KBFI, not KPAE

Galaxy5007 · Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:26 am

747classic wrote:
747classic wrote:
One of the early built ( LRIP #1) KC-46A's has been finally delivered.

19-46007 delivery flight KPAE- KWRI (McGuire AFB) at March 24th with callsign PUDGY13 to join the 305th Air Mobility Wing, see : https://www.radarbox.com/data/flights/PUDGY13

See for departure video : https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/statu ... 0734478344

Aircraft data : L/N 1098 C/N 41855 B767-2LKC 19-46007 USAF KC46A (VH007) LRIP 1, #3/7, N2015U, tail 96007

Correction , : 15-46007 was delivered out of KBFI, not KPAE

Correction to your correction, the tail number is in fact 19-46007. My post about the reserials kinda got hidden by another discussion on here, but 007 was reserialed as a 2019 tail.

747classic · Thu Mar 30, 2023 12:09 pm

Galaxy5007 wrote:

Correction to your correction, the tail number is in fact 19-46007. My post about the reserials kinda got hidden by another discussion on here, but 007 was reserialed as a 2019 tail.

You are correct :checkmark:

, my typo.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17-46034, BTS, March 26 2023, special "New Hampshire" livery

Aircraft data : L/N 1149 C/N 34114 B767-2LKC 17-46034 USAF KC-46A (VH034) LRIP3, #11/15, tail 76034, delivered 8/8/2019

JayinKitsap · Wed Apr 05, 2023 2:41 am

Boeing awarded a $ 184M contract for a Block 1 communications upgrade for the KC-46. A little bird tweeted that their margin on this change is probably quite good.

http://www.derbyinformer.com/news/busin ... 3c359.html

Avatar2go · Sat May 06, 2023 10:24 am

Here is an interesting video series from the Edwards Air Force Base Flight Test Squadron, who are evaluating the KC-46 RVS 2.0. They construct and carry out the test missions that are designed to explore corner cases and stress the system.

Part 1:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X3BWV3kjmZg

Part 2:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FyjtbfOArK8

Grizzly410 · Sat May 06, 2023 11:10 am

Avatar2go wrote:
Here is an interesting video series from the Edwards Air Force Base Flight Test Squadron, who are evaluating the KC-46 RVS 2.0. They construct and carry out the test missions that are designed to explore corner cases and stress the system.

Part 1:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X3BWV3kjmZg

Part 2:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FyjtbfOArK8

Sorry A2G, me again not getting right what you say (sorry). I've watched the videos twice but have to admit my understanding of english is not enough to catch everything from it ! :oops:

Is the system on board already the 2.0 ? And if so, Boeing doesn't have to certify it (at least heavily test it) before releasing a copy to the AirForce to make their own testing of it ?

Avatar2go · Sat May 06, 2023 11:22 am

Grizzly410 wrote:
Sorry A2G, me again not getting right what you say (sorry). I've watched the videos twice but have to admit my understanding of english is not enough to catch everything from it !
Is the system on board already the 2.0 ? And if so, Boeing doesn't have to certify it (at least heavily test it) before releasing a copy to the AirForce to make their own testing of it ?

RVS 2.0 is currently only installed on a few aircraft for evaluation. It's basically a prototype. Those prototypes are undergoing USAF testing at Edwards.

It will need to be approved by the USAF before acceptance, and will also need to be certified by the FAA for a transport aircraft.

Boeing has tried to use pre-certified components to build RVS 2.0, to minimize the certification burden. However the USAF selected the panoramic vision cameras, which they use on other military aircraft, but they are not certified by the FAA. So the manufacturer will have to seek certification.

All in all, the requirement for full civilian certification on a military tanker, has been a challenge.

bikerthai · Sat May 06, 2023 1:51 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
And if so, Boeing doesn't have to certify it (at least heavily test it) before releasing a copy to the AirForce to make their own testing of it ?

Boeing would have done bench testing. However, the AirForce owns the dedicated frames reserved for testing. So all flight test of the new system would have to be done by the AF.

bt

TangoandCash · Sat May 06, 2023 3:29 pm

Avatar2go wrote:

All in all, the requirement for full civilian certification on a military tanker, has been a challenge.

Can someone please remind me why the Air Force is insisting on full civilian certification for a military tanker? I seem to have forgotten in the years of following KC-46 debate and development. Seems like a lot of heartburn, expense, and delay for what benefit?

I'm assuming that, like the KC-135 fleet, the Air Force will fly the KC-46 to a point shortly before the wings fall off and retire them to the boneyard. So why mess with the FAA certification?

Avatar2go · Sat May 06, 2023 3:42 pm

TangoandCash wrote:
Can someone please remind me why the Air Force is insisting on full civilian certification for a military tanker? I seem to have forgotten in the years of following KC-46 debate and development. Seems like a lot of heartburn, expense, and delay for what benefit?

I'm assuming that, like the KC-135 fleet, the Air Force will fly the KC-46 to a point shortly before the wings fall off and retire them to the boneyard. So why mess with the FAA certification?

It was done as a safety and cost-saving measure. The USAF was having to invest similar resources to the FAA, in order to assure the safety of military personnel transports. Also their safety record was not improving as the airline industry's was, and they realized the reason for that was the statistical risk reduction measures being carried out by the FAA.

So they decided to just accept FAA certification for all
new personnel transport aircraft, since they were derived from civilian models anyway.

The KC-46 posed a problem because it was multi-use, transport & medevac & tanker. But they decided to maintain the rule anyway. Which left Boeing to work with the FAA to certify the modifications for a tanker aircraft, as civilian certified.

It makes some sense, but it definitely raised the cost as well. And it forced the FAA to expand their field of knowledge and authority.

Revelation · Sat May 06, 2023 3:53 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
It was done as a safety and cost-saving measure. The USAF was having to invest similar resources to the FAA, in order to assure the safety of military personnel transports. Also their safety record was not improving as the airline industry's was, and they realized the reason for that was the statistical risk reduction measures being carried out by the FAA.

So they decided to just accept FAA certification for all
new personnel transport aircraft, since they were derived from civilian models anyway.

The KC-46 posed a problem because it was multi-use, transport & medevac & tanker. But they decided to maintain the rule anyway. Which left Boeing to work with the FAA to certify the modifications for a tanker aircraft, as civilian certified.

It makes some sense, but it definitely raised the cost as well. And it forced the FAA to expand their field of knowledge and authority.

Thanks! That's a better explanation than any I've read before. Note also A400M is civilian-certified, for similar reasons I imagine.

Avatar2go · Sat May 06, 2023 4:26 pm

Revelation wrote:
Thanks! That's a better explanation than any I've read before. Note also A400M is civilian-certified, for similar reasons I imagine.

Yes, my guess is this will be true for all Airbus and Boeing personnel transport aircraft, going forward. The tankers are probably the worst case, and the most difficult. I know that the UK Voyagers are also civilian certified, by the CAA.

bikerthai · Sat May 06, 2023 10:53 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
Boeing personnel transport aircraft, going forward.

I heard the USAF E-7 will FAA certified as well.

bt

par13del · Sun May 07, 2023 12:32 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
Boeing personnel transport aircraft, going forward.

I heard the USAF E-7 will FAA certified as well.

bt

That should delay IOC until well after Australia has replaced their version.
https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2023/ ... ne/385903/
Funny thing, the USAF version will be very different than the Australian version but not so different that they cannot afford to send personnel to Australia to be trained...hhhmmm...
Last point, why does the USAF have to fund the contractor hiring of personnel for a system that is already in use and being maintained, unless for budget reasons, the USAF is going with a different contractor along with all new radar, avionics, etc etc etc all things designed to increase cost and capability.

Revelation · Sun May 07, 2023 1:02 pm

par13del wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
Boeing personnel transport aircraft, going forward.

I heard the USAF E-7 will FAA certified as well.

bt

That should delay IOC until well after Australia has replaced their version.
https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2023/ ... ne/385903/
Funny thing, the USAF version will be very different than the Australian version but not so different that they cannot afford to send personnel to Australia to be trained...hhhmmm...
Last point, why does the USAF have to fund the contractor hiring of personnel for a system that is already in use and being maintained, unless for budget reasons, the USAF is going with a different contractor along with all new radar, avionics, etc etc etc all things designed to increase cost and capability.

Sounds like great questions for a USAF E-7 thread...

TangoandCash · Sun May 07, 2023 9:46 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
TangoandCash wrote:
Can someone please remind me why the Air Force is insisting on full civilian certification for a military tanker? I seem to have forgotten in the years of following KC-46 debate and development. Seems like a lot of heartburn, expense, and delay for what benefit?

I'm assuming that, like the KC-135 fleet, the Air Force will fly the KC-46 to a point shortly before the wings fall off and retire them to the boneyard. So why mess with the FAA certification?

It was done as a safety and cost-saving measure. The USAF was having to invest similar resources to the FAA, in order to assure the safety of military personnel transports. Also their safety record was not improving as the airline industry's was, and they realized the reason for that was the statistical risk reduction measures being carried out by the FAA.

So they decided to just accept FAA certification for all
new personnel transport aircraft, since they were derived from civilian models anyway.

The KC-46 posed a problem because it was multi-use, transport & medevac & tanker. But they decided to maintain the rule anyway. Which left Boeing to work with the FAA to certify the modifications for a tanker aircraft, as civilian certified.

It makes some sense, but it definitely raised the cost as well. And it forced the FAA to expand their field of knowledge and authority.

Thanks! Yes, it definitely makes sense on a lot of levels. Maybe not all, but we'll get there eventually.

bmibaby737 · Wed May 24, 2023 9:12 am

747classic wrote:
One of the early builts (15-46010 ), from the LRIP #1 batch, made her first (B1) flight at 01 March 2023 with callsign BOE10, see : https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE ... /KPAE/KPAE
The B1 flight was cut short due flight control issues (flaps ?) and a high speed landing was made.

N2007L, KPAE, March 01th 2013

Original uploaded by Matt Cawby at twitter, see : https://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/16 ... 6457680896

Aircraft data : L/N 1104 C/N 41859 B767-2LKC 15-46010 USAF KC-46A (VH010) LRIP 1, #6/7, N2007L, tail 56010

This aircraft has been pinging with the callsign "MC96010", has this one been re-allocated its FY and now 19-4610?

747classic · Wed May 24, 2023 11:04 am

bmibaby737 wrote:
747classic wrote:
One of the early builts (15-46010 ), from the LRIP #1 batch, made her first (B1) flight at 01 March 2023 with callsign BOE10, see : https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE ... /KPAE/KPAE
The B1 flight was cut short due flight control issues (flaps ?) and a high speed landing was made.

N2007L, KPAE, March 01th 2013

Original uploaded by Matt Cawby at twitter, see : https://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/16 ... 6457680896

Aircraft data : L/N 1104 C/N 41859 B767-2LKC 15-46010 USAF KC-46A (VH010) LRIP 1, #6/7, N2007L, tail 56010

This aircraft has been pinging with the callsign "MC96010", has this one been re-allocated its FY and now 19-4610?

L/N 1104 could also be re-allocated from FY15 to FY19, like 15-46007 changed to 19-16007, Both are early built, but very late (2023) to be delivered aircraft . (19-46007 delivered at 3/24/2023)
It's presently difficult to notice because Boeing (and the USAF) decided not to paint the military registrations at the KC-46A aircraft during (flight) testing anymore.

ReverseFlow · Wed May 24, 2023 6:21 pm

Oddly I saw a KC-46 on flightradar today flying to and from Cardiff airport.
Is the USAF seeing how they perform at non-military airports?
As I also saw one fly from Copenhagen and another from Oslo recently.

Max Q · Thu May 25, 2023 4:18 am

With all the issues surrounding the RVS is there a long term plan to automate the entire boom refueling system as has been successfully tested in the A330 tanker?

Avatar2go · Thu May 25, 2023 8:14 pm

Max Q wrote:
With all the issues surrounding the RVS is there a long term plan to automate the entire boom refueling system as has been successfully tested in the A330 tanker?

Yes, the RVS 2.0 is specifically designed for automation. That is one of the gains the USAF has made in the upgrade, since it was not part of the original specifications. Normally this would have been a separate program.

The follow-on part is the operator automation code. Boeing has done trials of this technology in test flights, but is not as far along as Airbus.

Also although Airbus has certified their automation, for now at least, it still is supervised by boomers.

Max Q · Fri May 26, 2023 2:14 am

Interesting, I think that may be the way forward

Grizzly410 · Fri May 26, 2023 8:37 am

Avatar2go wrote:
Max Q wrote:
With all the issues surrounding the RVS is there a long term plan to automate the entire boom refueling system as has been successfully tested in the A330 tanker?

Yes, the RVS 2.0 is specifically designed for automation. That is one of the gains the USAF has made in the upgrade, since it was not part of the original specifications. Normally this would have been a separate program.

The follow-on part is the operator automation code. Boeing has done trials of this technology in test flights, but is not as far along as Airbus.

Also although Airbus has certified their automation, for now at least, it still is supervised by boomers.

I didn't know RVS2.0 design had the focus on automation, in my mind it was all about improving boomer vision through screens.
I have no doubt it is or will be in the cards but are you sure it's a spec of RVS 2.0 ?

Note that the Airbus A3R as it is today requires boomer for more than just supervision, the automation is only for the contact phase, it kicks in only once receiver is aligned, ready and identified by the system.

Avatar2go · Fri May 26, 2023 11:28 am

Grizzly410 wrote:
I didn't know RVS2.0 design had the focus on automation, in my mind it was all about improving boomer vision through screens.
I have no doubt it is or will be in the cards but are you sure it's a spec of RVS 2.0 ?

Yes, quite sure. When Calhoun convened the independent expert panel to define RVS 2.0, that was one of the features that emerged, that it had to incorporate the ability to enable automation (automation-ready). One example of that was the addition of LIDAR.

Which makes sense, as if you are going to redesign it, there'd be no point in redesigning it again within a few years for automation.

Thanks to that panel, RVS went from trying to fix RVS 1.0, to the complete state of the art upgrade that is RVS 2.0. Although it's a lot more expensive, Boeing realized it was both necessary and beneficial. And the USAF was enthusiastic about that shift. It ended the conflict.

The standoff that had emerged between Collins and the USAF, was over RVS 1.0 failing to hit the contact stats in the specifications, for about 15% of cases. Collins insisted they could improve enough with software image enhancement, but there is only so much you can do to compensate for lack of capability in hardware. Those changes eventually became RVS 1.5, which the USAF accepted as an interim solution, but they would not accept as a permanent solution.

With that hurdle cleared, the USAF proceeded with the Interim Capability Readiness (ICR) evaluations, which allowed the KC-46 to enter dispatch service under RVS 1.0/1.5, with some restrictions.

Note that the Airbus A3R as it is today requires boomer for more than just supervision, the automation is only for the contact phase, it kicks in only once receiver is aligned, ready and identified by the system.

Thanks for the information, I wasn't aware of that. There is little published information on exactly how it works. My guess is the eventual Boeing solution will be similar. I don't think the boomer is going away, rather automation makes their work more precise and repeatable.

Moose135 · Fri May 26, 2023 7:42 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
I don't think the boomer is going away,

Someone has to get coffee for the pilots...

aumaverick · Tue May 30, 2023 3:25 pm

Moose135 wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
I don't think the boomer is going away,

Someone has to get coffee for the pilots...

I thought part of the study of the reduced crew member program was to have a pilot and boom operator fly a tanker to see if the feasibility of the idea would work in a war-time situation.

Avatar2go · Tue May 30, 2023 5:39 pm

aumaverick wrote:
Moose135 wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
I don't think the boomer is going away,

Someone has to get coffee for the pilots...

I thought part of the study of the reduced crew member program was to have a pilot and boom operator fly a tanker to see if the feasibility of the idea would work in a war-time situation.

Yes, the idea was that in a pinch, the boomer could fulfill the pilot monitoring (PM) duties, when not actively engaged in refueling. My guess is it's meant to see whether it would be worthwhile for boomers to have that training.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net