KC-46A Candidate Bases Announced

[HeloDude]

This piece of satire is timeless, sad, and funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

Talk to an acquisitions guy--this movie is their 'Top Gun'. To be fair, it's definitely worth watching if you haven't seen it.

[Royal]

Talk to an acquisitions guy--this movie is their 'Top Gun'. To be fair, it's definitely worth watching if you haven't seen it.

The book was republished within the last year; should be mandatory reading for every taxpayer.

[Right Seat Driver]

What I have heard is that it's all down to the wiring. Boeing is having issues doing the triple redundant wiring since that wasn't really designed into the 767 but is a requirement for the KC-46. There are only so many holes in the fuselage going into the wing and when you have to run the same wire three times all a specific distance from each-other this is the result you get.

Not giving Boeing a cop-out...since this was a well established requirement but it isn't as easy as slapping a franken 767 together and ending up with the KC-46.

There are going to be significant systems differences between the 767/KC-767 and the KC-46, particularly with the avionics. The Air Force is getting more than a tanker/airlifter with the KC-46.

Still, Boeing should have foreseen some of these issues. Hell, if they can put a cappuccino machine on the jet, why can't they add a few extra wiring bundles?

[Guest]

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/554656/air-force-announces-criteria-for-kc-46a-reserve-basing.aspx

“The KC-46A Pegasus aerial tanker remains one of our top three acquisition priorities,” said Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James. “We will begin to replace our aging tanker fleet in 2016, but even when the program is complete in 2028 we will have replaced less than half of the current tanker fleet.”

Somebody please tell me if any of these assumptions are wrong.

The KC-135 was manufactured in 1955 through 1965. The KC-10 was manufactured in 1981 through 1987. So in 2028, obviously both platforms will still be regularly flying--the newest KC-10 will be 41 years old and the newest KC-135 will be 63 years old.

[Right Seat Driver]

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/554656/air-force-announces-criteria-for-kc-46a-reserve-basing.aspx

Somebody please tell me if any of these assumptions are wrong.

The KC-135 was manufactured in 1955 through 1965. The KC-10 was manufactured in 1981 through 1987. So in 2028, obviously both platforms will still be regularly flying--the newest KC-10 will be 41 years old and the newest KC-135 will be 63 years old.

Assumptions check. The newest BUFF will be at least 77 years old when they are expected to retire in 2040ish.

[TnkrToad]

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/554656/air-force-announces-criteria-for-kc-46a-reserve-basing.aspx

Somebody please tell me if any of these assumptions are wrong.

The KC-135 was manufactured in 1955 through 1965. The KC-10 was manufactured in 1981 through 1987. So in 2028, obviously both platforms will still be regularly flying--the newest KC-10 will be 41 years old and the newest KC-135 will be 63 years old.

To pile on; here's the basic math, as I understand it:

- The current contract is for 179 KC-46s, with the first 18 (optimistically) promised to be on the ramp by August 2017

- With deliveries stretching from 2016-2028, that works out to about 15/year (179 over 12 years)

- We have 414 KC-135s in the total force (according the AF fact sheet I found online). Assuming (as Boeing I'm sure hopes) the Air Force simply decides to keep buying more KC-46s to replace the remaining KC-135s, it would take until 2043 or so until all the KC-135s are replaced--assuming the jets are replaced one-for-one basis

- Bottom line, the last KC-135s will be about 80 years old when they head to the boneyard; this is something akin to flying the original, 1935-era Boeing Model 299 (the first B-17 prototype) today--not the highly-advanced D-Day era B-17s that flew 9 years later

[sky_king]

if its not obvious by now that they are waiting for Lockheeds proposal for a joint service stealth tanker then i dont know what to say. ;)

VSTOL tanker?

[Goblin]

- Bottom line, the last KC-135s will be about 80 years old when they head to the boneyard; this is something akin to flying the original, 1935-era Boeing Model 299 (the first B-17 prototype) today--not the highly-advanced D-Day era B-17s that flew 9 years later

Thats a perspective I didn't consider. Scary

[Guest LumberjackAxe]

So in 2028, obviously both platforms will still be regularly flying--the newest KC-10 will be 41 years old and the newest KC-135 will be 63 years old.

Just to fuel the rumor mill, at my GRACC session earlier this year, I asked the AMC/CC about the timeline for retiring the KC-10. He said they expect to begin in 2018, and the last one will be put to bed in 2021 (due to something about a waiver expiring for flying through European Airspace, something like that).

But, I've missed enough Christmases to know that you should only believe something when it actually happens.

[dvlax40]

VSTOL tanker?

lol ... it burns half the fuel just taking off and needs to be refueled by a kc-10

[ThreeHoler]

Just to fuel the rumor mill, at my GRACC session earlier this year, I asked the AMC/CC about the timeline for retiring the KC-10. He said they expect to begin in 2018, and the last one will be put to bed in 2021 (due to something about a waiver expiring for flying through European Airspace, something like that).

But, I've missed enough Christmases to know that you should only believe something when it actually happens.

Things have changed.

[Clark Griswold]

if its not obvious by now that they are waiting for Lockheeds proposal for a joint service stealth tanker then i dont know what to say. ;)

Just put a boom and hose/basket on this... done...comes with a built in cost multiplier and multi-year delay delivery...

Now back to reality.... to an OPSEC acceptable level, what cape(s) does the 46 have that the 767 lacks that makes it worth the time, money and trouble?

Saw an Italian 767 tanker out on a trip a year ago and it just twisted the knife for how screwed up the acquisition of what should have been a fairly straight forward job.

[dvlax40]

@griswald

where is that picture? looks like a small strip i know near casa grande

[Clark Griswold]

@griswald

where is that picture? looks like a small strip i know near casa grande

Photoshop Air Base in the great state of Fantasyland my friend.

Website that pic is from has a few pics he's linked to from the Speed Agile concept (stealth tac airlift) that I have also seen proposed as a stealth tanker also. Not necessarily a bad idea (maybe) but put a 0.069% chance of happening ever.

[JarheadBoom]

Now back to reality.... to an OPSEC acceptable level, what cape(s) does the 46 have that the 767 lacks that makes it worth the time, money and trouble?

Saw an Italian 767 tanker out on a trip a year ago and it just twisted the knife for how screwed up the acquisition of what should have been a fairly straight forward job.

1. It's not a standard configuration, standard dash number 767 airframe that Boeing's been rolling off the line for decades. -200ER fuselage, -300F wing, gear, cargo door and floor, -400ER digital flight deck and flaps, different engines (hence the "Frankentanker" nickname). Hasn't been done before.

2. The whole triple redundancy thing REALLY complicates the avionics/electrical installation.

3. .mil-specific systems that need to be integrated into the standard flight deck and tested.

I worked the S-92 completion center for some of my time at Sikorsky. While I was there, we built a block of four SAR-configured S-92s that took several months just to run all the wiring for the mission systems. I remember multiple engineering meetings held in the cabin of the first one, with engineers looking at drawings, actual aircraft parts, wiring bundles, etc. and not comprehending that the open spaces that CATIA told them were available to shove another wiring bundle into, did not exist on the actual aircraft.

Another example - at my current employer, we're wrapping up installation of a FLIR Star SAFIRE 380-HDc (replacing a previously-installed FLIR 7500) that is integrated with a previously-installed Aerocomputers mapping system and a Spectrolab SX-5 searchlight, in a Bell 407 helicopter. To date, our avi team has used almost 1600ft of wire, in addition to the prebuilt harnesses from FLIR.

I can't speak to KC-46 capes - out of my lane and above my paygrade.

[Prozac]

Boeing is no longer an aircraft manufacturer. Rather, it is a shareholder support company run by bean counters in Chicago. The engineers in Seattle no longer have a say. The company will continue to be satisfied with mediocrity.

[Blue]

Boeing is no longer an aircraft manufacturer. Rather, it is a shareholder support company run by bean counters in Chicago. The engineers in Seattle no longer have a say. The company will continue to be satisfied with mediocrity.

This.

[Clark Griswold]

1. It's not a standard configuration, standard dash number 767 airframe that Boeing's been rolling off the line for decades. -200ER fuselage, -300F wing, gear, cargo door and floor, -400ER digital flight deck and flaps, different engines (hence the "Frankentanker" nickname). Hasn't been done before.

2. The whole triple redundancy thing REALLY complicates the avionics/electrical installation.

3. .mil-specific systems that need to be integrated into the standard flight deck and tested.

I worked the S-92 completion center for some of my time at Sikorsky. While I was there, we built a block of four SAR-configured S-92s that took several months just to run all the wiring for the mission systems. I remember multiple engineering meetings held in the cabin of the first one, with engineers looking at drawings, actual aircraft parts, wiring bundles, etc. and not comprehending that the open spaces that CATIA told them were available to shove another wiring bundle into, did not exist on the actual aircraft.

Another example - at my current employer, we're wrapping up installation of a FLIR Star SAFIRE 380-HDc (replacing a previously-installed FLIR 7500) that is integrated with a previously-installed Aerocomputers mapping system and a Spectrolab SX-5 searchlight, in a Bell 407 helicopter. To date, our avi team has used almost 1600ft of wire, in addition to the prebuilt harnesses from FLIR.

I can't speak to KC-46 capes - out of my lane and above my paygrade.

Copy all - I had heard of the multiple 767 versions being cobbled together but have never seen an explanation as to why - just seems that buying a straight -200 or -300 would have been fine and lowered the risk

Don't doubt there are integration issues with mode 4, crypto, link 16, etc. but just a guess that these would have been solved by Boeing with the C-17

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Right Seat Driver]

Copy all - I had heard of the multiple 767 versions being cobbled together but have never seen an explanation as to why - just seems that buying a straight -200 or -300 would have been fine and lowered the risk

Don't doubt there are integration issues with mode 4, crypto, link 16, etc. but just a guess that these would have been solved by Boeing with the C-17

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The -46 is a whole different beast. Also, the AF mandated the base airframe had to get FAA cert'd before modifying the jet.

[JarheadBoom]

Copy all - I had heard of the multiple 767 versions being cobbled together but have never seen an explanation as to why - just seems that buying a straight -200 or -300 would have been fine and lowered the risk

Don't doubt there are integration issues with mode 4, crypto, link 16, etc. but just a guess that these would have been solved by Boeing with the C-17

-300F wing and gear allows for higher gross weight; -300F cargo door and floor is self-explanatory. -200ER fuselage is shorter than the -300 and -400 to accommodate the boom (longer fuselage would have caused issues at rotation - possible boom/tail strikes). -400 flight deck has the most up-to-date avionics of the 767 line.

AFAIK, the C-17 avionics are .mil only, and were designed with those capes in mind. The 767 avionics were definitely not. Integrating .mil capabilities into .civ avionics is a challenge on multiple levels, of both hardware and software.

[Clark Griswold]

-300F wing and gear allows for higher gross weight; -300F cargo door and floor is self-explanatory. -200ER fuselage is shorter than the -300 and -400 to accommodate the boom (longer fuselage would have caused issues at rotation - possible boom/tail strikes). -400 flight deck has the most up-to-date avionics of the 767 line.

AFAIK, the C-17 avionics are .mil only, and were designed with those capes in mind. The 767 avionics were definitely not. Integrating .mil capabilities into .civ avionics is a challenge on multiple levels, of both hardware and software.

Copy that

I figured part of the mix and match reason would be for a higher gross weight in a smaller model but had not thought of the boom and tail strike issue on rotation

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited November 22, 2014 by Clark Griswold

[addict]

-300F wing and gear allows for higher gross weight; -300F cargo door and floor is self-explanatory. -200ER fuselage is shorter than the -300 and -400 to accommodate the boom (longer fuselage would have caused issues at rotation - possible boom/tail strikes). -400 flight deck has the most up-to-date avionics of the 767 line.

AFAIK, the C-17 avionics are .mil only, and were designed with those capes in mind. The 767 avionics were definitely not. Integrating .mil capabilities into .civ avionics is a challenge on multiple levels, of both hardware and software.

I'd be more concerned about the crap-tastic passenger configuration on the kc-46 that specifies an AGTL, or the Boeing flight manuals.

Edited November 22, 2014 by addict

[TreeA10]

IIRC, a proper rotation on a 767-300ER put the tail of the jet only 24 inches off the ground.

[Prosuper]

The -46 is a whole different beast. Also, the AF mandated the base airframe had to get FAA cert'd before modifying the jet.

I am guessing the FAA certification will be a way to simplify logistics, we can also buy parts from all the places the airlines do so we can get a break on pricing. Parts certified with a FAA/PMA sticker. I wonder also if the USAF will use contract mx A&P's instead of 18 year old airmen.

[Right Seat Driver]

I am guessing the FAA certification will be a way to simplify logistics, we can also buy parts from all the places the airlines do so we can get a break on pricing. Parts certified with a FAA/PMA sticker. I wonder also if the USAF will use contract mx A&P's instead of 18 year old airmen.

Logistics is a part of it, for sure. I think the USAF is going to avoid contract Mx and stick with blue suiters (RUMINT only).