Been reading things that some people that matter are rethinking the KC-10 retirement. In my little world we still have to produce 73 KC-135's a year from the PDM line at OCALC Tinker. They come in every 5 years and doing simple math 73 X 5= 365 which means no upcoming retirements soon plus the block 45's  upgrades and unscheduled depot level maintenance inputs (UDLM).  I won't be surprised if we start pulling some out of AMARC and take return of the 4 Singapore has stopped flying since they bought and now operational with the KC-47. The KC-135 is old but it works. Most jets get fuselage and upper wing reskin when here , that said a engineer told me it more or less zero times the fuselage. Food for thought.

1 hour ago, Prosuper said:

Been reading things that some people that matter are rethinking the KC-10 retirement. In my little world we still have to produce 73 KC-135's a year from the PDM line at OCALC Tinker. They come in every 5 years and doing simple math 73 X 5= 365 which means no upcoming retirements soon plus the block 45's  upgrades and unscheduled depot level maintenance inputs (UDLM).  I won't be surprised if we start pulling some out of AMARC and take return of the 4 Singapore has stopped flying since they bought and now operational with the KC-47. The KC-135 is old but it works. Most jets get fuselage and upper wing reskin when here , that said a engineer told me it more or less zero times the fuselage. Food for thought.

When is block 50 supposed to come online?

This is a discussion for a SCIF, but AMC has actually funded systems improvements on multiple MAF aircraft now, in addition to what they put on the -46. Happy to discuss on SIPR. 
That said, at the end of the day, all of these aircraft still have the RCS of an aircraft carrier.

And the maneuverability of one also...

KC-46 boom strike:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31724/watch-the-boom-on-boeings-troubled-kc-46-tanker-smack-into-an-f-15e

 

1 hour ago, JimNtexas said:

KC-46 boom strike:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31724/watch-the-boom-on-boeings-troubled-kc-46-tanker-smack-into-an-f-15e

 

Boeing is just killing it these days!

I don't see the impact?

I think it's on the canopy

That wing is a lot farther forward from the jet than it looks.  I don't think it hit it.  Look at the crew's lack of reaction.  

There’s also a little blurb in there that the Air Force has to pay $55m to fix Boeing’s boom latching problem because the contract was poorly written. Oh well, just write another check!

edit: also at least 4 years until IOC. This is fucked up beyond belief.

Edited January 6, 20205 yr by Majestik Møøse

I'm told that particular AR event must have been during development....-46 only just received the waiver to AR with F-15s.

If you look at the frame capture at the top of the article you will see where the probe impacts the canopy just above the WSO’s head.  This is right at the end of the video.

It does not look like it did any damage.

1 hour ago, JimNtexas said:

If you look at the frame capture at the top of the article you will see where the probe impacts the canopy just above the WSO’s head.  This is right at the end of the video.

It does not look like it did any damage.

Stand by that part of the probe surface is too high and forward to impact.  Could be wrong though.  

Just my $0.02, but it looks like the boom is pretty well contracted in this specific video. That might put the wing close enough to the jet. If it was during development as @@Homestar said, might have been testing and different points of boom extension?

 

But idk, I dont really know shit.

Gnarly boom nozzle scrape forward of the receptacle after disconnect, but the flight control surfaces of the boom are well forward and high of the receiver's canopy.

On 1/5/2020 at 3:31 PM, papajuice77 said:

Boeing is just killing it these days!

According to my test friends, that's a early test video. That's why they do test to identify and work those issues out. People have short term memories considering the early -135's had AR pumps that would blow up when they got hot, killing the crew. 

On 1/7/2020 at 5:49 PM, Sua Sponte said:

According to my test friends, that's a early test video. That's why they do test to identify and work those issues out. People have short term memories considering the early -135's had AR pumps that would blow up when they got hot, killing the crew. 

They blew up because they emptied the body tanks and ran those pumps dry and overheated them, plus we were burning highly flammable JP-4 then. MX guys also made the same mistake in Milwaukee.

https://insidedefense.com/insider/state-department-clears-potential-24b-kc-46-sale-israel?fbclid=IwAR0uk3LtfhO8BoE92ZJHatvauBH7YGqHOTY9mYXtiUrY-B3oNi3uVzFZSPo

I wonder if this is way to backdoor Boeing to have the Israelis figure out all the problems and engineer fixes. You don't here them having problems with their F-35's. CSAF seems to have to lost faith in Boeing anymore since job one is bringing max value for shareholders instead of building the worlds best airliners.

https://www.airforcemag.com/goldfein-usaf-wont-use-kc-46-unless-it-has-to/

General Goldfein hates this program, would not want to be the program manager on this.

Edited March 5, 20205 yr by Prosuper
content

On 3/5/2020 at 5:01 PM, Prosuper said:

They blew up because they emptied the body tanks and ran those pumps dry and overheated them, plus we were burning highly flammable JP-4 then. MX guys also made the same mistake in Milwaukee.

https://insidedefense.com/insider/state-department-clears-potential-24b-kc-46-sale-israel?fbclid=IwAR0uk3LtfhO8BoE92ZJHatvauBH7YGqHOTY9mYXtiUrY-B3oNi3uVzFZSPo

I wonder if this is way to backdoor Boeing to have the Israelis figure out all the problems and engineer fixes. You don't here them having problems with their F-35's. CSAF seems to have to lost faith in Boeing anymore since job one is bringing max value for shareholders instead of building the worlds best airliners.

https://www.airforcemag.com/goldfein-usaf-wont-use-kc-46-unless-it-has-to/

General Goldfein hates this program, would not want to be the program manager on this.

One more thing for the Israelis to fix without the blob of DoD and Boeing to get in the way:

The Air Force's Troubled Boeing KC-46 Tankers Leak Fuel Excessively

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/02/coronavirus-boeing-to-get-nearly-900-million-in-withheld-payments-from-air-force.html

A catch-22 I guess. Either pay the balance on a delivered deficient product, or risk Boeing going under and not getting any more KC-46 support/airplanes.  Although the second option doesn’t seem too terrible with all the issues the plane has right now. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/02/coronavirus-boeing-to-get-nearly-900-million-in-withheld-payments-from-air-force.html
A catch-22 I guess. Either pay the balance on a delivered deficient product, or risk Boeing going under and not getting any more KC-46 support/airplanes.  Although the second option doesn’t seem too terrible with all the issues the plane has right now. 

Should have gone with Airbus...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

3 hours ago, Tin Man said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/02/coronavirus-boeing-to-get-nearly-900-million-in-withheld-payments-from-air-force.html

A catch-22 I guess. Either pay the balance on a delivered deficient product, or risk Boeing going under and not getting any more KC-46 support/airplanes.  Although the second option doesn’t seem too terrible with all the issues the plane has right now. 

First option if I were the decision maker.  They are a quasi national institution / symbol of American pride, culture, business, capability, etc... letting them go under would not be acceptable, now taking the entire corporate board out to the woodshed at the same time the US Gov saves them and sending them to the house with as little or ideally no bonus or exit compensation is what I'm thinking.

Fix the 46, don't buy anymore than you've ordered, change & rebuild Boeing leadership.

3 hours ago, Duck said:

Should have gone with Airbus...

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Partially agree.  You can't ignore your own industrial base no matter how stupid, greedy, short sighted and corrupt.  Use the legal / buying power of the Fed Gov to enact changes to fix these critical industries.

Buying some 45s would be fine but the mainstay of our tanker fleet, negative.  

14 hours ago, Tin Man said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/02/coronavirus-boeing-to-get-nearly-900-million-in-withheld-payments-from-air-force.html

A catch-22 I guess. Either pay the balance on a delivered deficient product, or risk Boeing going under and not getting any more KC-46 support/airplanes.  Although the second option doesn’t seem too terrible with all the issues the plane has right now. 

I'm not normally one for government getting into the private sector... but if we're basically admitting our acquisition strategy is "dump money into the giant hole until it's full", maybe we should just buy Boeing Defense and run it ourselves. Could it be worse?

23 minutes ago, Stoker said:

I'm not normally one for government getting into the private sector... but if we're basically admitting our acquisition strategy is "dump money into the giant hole until it's full", maybe we should just buy Boeing Defense and run it ourselves. Could it be worse?

Would you describe AFNET or VPN as unbridled success stories?....

2 hours ago, Stoker said:

maybe we should just buy Boeing Defense

so.....nationalize?

4 hours ago, Stoker said:

I'm not normally one for government getting into the private sector... but if we're basically admitting our acquisition strategy is "dump money into the giant hole until it's full", maybe we should just buy Boeing Defense and run it ourselves. Could it be worse?

Can't we have them declare bankruptcy, wipe out the shareholders and start over.  The Uncle Sam backstop creates one heck of a moral hazard and enables quite a bit of self dealing and shady practices.  The facilities, equipment and patents will still be there regardless of what the company looks after Chapter 11.   

5 hours ago, Stoker said:

I'm not normally one for government getting into the private sector... but if we're basically admitting our acquisition strategy is "dump money into the giant hole until it's full", maybe we should just buy Boeing Defense and run it ourselves. Could it be worse?

And we actually dug that hole too, Northrop won the KC-X program until Boeing contested it and the requirements were then "updated" to favor the KC-46