irtuskHitting Chinese airfields is an obvious step, right up there with “If they they try to invade, we should try to oppose them.”
irtusknot just any used airframe, C-5A’s, the most notoriously unreliable planes in the fleet
The M program should help some, but there’s still a ton ‘wrong’ with those frames and they’ll never be commercially viable
and really, how can anyone compete with volga-dnepr and the like anyways?
irtuskThe taxpayers will be delighted!
We will, getting tankers for below cost, amazing!
Of course if they’re already $300 million over and the program has barely gotten started, that overrun can only grow (and likely significantly)
I hope keeping Airbus out of the US was worth it to you Boeing, because, ouch
irtuskYes I am being totally serious! A400 is a TOTALLY new aircraft, the Italian and Japanese tankers were based on an off the shelf airframe.
Agreed . . .
A400 development is progressing nicely now and is ahead of schedule.
But now you wander off into absurdity.
The only ‘schedule’ it can be ahead of is one made after it was massively delayed.
Which we all know is a load of ********
By that standard ANY program can ALWAYS describe itself as ‘ahead of schedule’ by the simple expedient of altering the schedule to make items already completed due in the future
voila! ahead of schedule!
irtuskTell the Italians and Japanese that!:rolleyes: All Boeing had to do was take a standard model 767 and convert it into a tanker…what happened? Years of problems and technical delays! So don’t tell me that the KC46 which is based on an airframe built up of parts from many different models is low risk…
Well, it is low risk NOW . . . thanks to the Japanese and (especially) the Italians :diablo:
And afaik it’s not going to use parts from many different models. Just the straight -200 with an extension and a newer flightdeck
irtuskWhen they say ‘flush mounted’, does this mean the whole thing will be flush with the aircraft when stowed, or is that pretty standard terminology for what is done now?
I can only guess they mean ‘not a ginormous probe sticking out in front like the C-130’
irtuskBoeing beginning to trickle out some info
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1808
The Boeing Company today announced the supplier team that will provide key components for the U.S. Air Force’s KC-46 Tanker. The Air Force selected Boeing on Feb. 24 to replace 179 Eisenhower-era KC-135 aerial refueling aircraft.
“Delivering 18 combat-ready tankers to the U.S. Air Force in 78 months is our priority as a company, and it will take a talented, committed supplier team to help get that done,” said Maureen Dougherty, Boeing KC-46 vice president and program manager. “We’re fortunate to have a strong defense industry team of domain experts working side-by-side to provide a new generation of aerial refueling.”
The KC-46 Tanker team will include more than 800 suppliers in more than 40 states and support approximately 50,000 total U.S. jobs. Major suppliers include:
* Cobham (Davenport, Iowa): Refueling systems, including wing aerial refueling pods and centerline drogue system
* DRS Laurel Technologies Inc. (Johnstown, Pa.): Aerial Refueling Operator Station (AROS)
* Eaton Aerospace: Electromechanical and cargo door actuation systems (Grand Rapids, Mich.); hydraulic and fuel distribution subcomponents (Jackson, Mich.)
* GE Aviation Systems (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Clearwater, Fla.): Mission control system
* Goodrich: Interiors (Colorado); landing gear (Ontario, Canada)
* Honeywell: Auxiliary power unit (Phoenix); cabin pressure control system (Tucson, Ariz.), air data inertial navigation (Coon Rapids, Minn.); lighting (Urbana, Ohio)
* Moog Inc.: Electro-hydraulic servo valves, actuators, stabilize trim controls, leading edge slat actuator, inboard/outboard leading edge rotary actuators, autopilot actuators, elevator feel system (East Aurora, N.Y.; Wolverhampton, UK); refueling boom actuators (Torrance, Calif.)
* Northrop Grumman (Rolling Meadows, Ill.): Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM)
* Parker Aerospace (Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Utah): Refueling components including the receptacle door actuator, aerial refueling interface control system, and wing refueling pod hydraulic power packs; primary flight controls and fuel equipment; pneumatic, fluid conveyance, and hydraulic equipment
* Pratt & Whitney (Middletown, Conn.): Engines
* Raytheon Company (El Segundo, Calif.): Digital radar warning receiver and digital anti-jam receiver GPS
* Rockwell Collins (Cedar Rapids, Iowa): Integrated display system featuring 15.1-inch diagonal crystal displays built on proven technology from the commercial 787; tactical situational awareness system; remote vision system 3-D and 2-D technology for the boom operator; communications, navigation, surveillance, networking and flight control systems
* Spirit: Forward fuselage section; strut; nacelle components to include inlet, fan cowl and core cowl; fixed fan duct (Wichita, Kan.); fixed leading edge (Prestwick, Scotland)
* Triumph Group Inc.: Horizontal stabilizer and aft body section, including pressure bulkhead; wing center section, doors, nacelles and other components including cowl doors, seal depressor panels, acoustic panels and aft wheel well bulkhead
* Woodward Inc. (Skokie, Ill.): Several elements of the aerial refueling boom, including the sensor system, control unit, and telescopic and flight control sticks.Based on the proven Boeing 767-200ER commercial aircraft, the KC-46 is powered by two Pratt & Whitney PW4062 engines and will be flown by three aircrew members (pilot, co-pilot, boom operator) with additional permanent seating for 12 aircrew.
The KC-46 has a maximum fuel capacity of 212,000 pounds and is equipped with a flush-mounted, air-to-air refueling receptacle that is capable of onloading fuel at 1,200 gallons per minute.
Boom operators will control the refueling systems from the crew compartment via the AROS and a series of cameras mounted on the tanker’s fuselage that provide a 185-degree field of view, as well as a camera on the boom that captures 3-D video. This advanced system allows the boom operator to refuel all fixed-wing receiver aircraft, anytime, on every mission, to include simultaneous multi-point refueling from the wing air refueling pods. The KC-46 refueling systems include a digital fly-by-wire boom capable of offloading 1,200 gallons of fuel per minute, as well as a permanent centerline drogue system and removable wing air refueling pods that can each offload 400 gallons of fuel per minute.
Featuring a maximum takeoff weight of 415,000 pounds, the tanker will carry 18 463L cargo pallets (the same number of pallets as the Air Force’s Boeing C-17 airlifter) and is capable of transporting 58 passengers normally and up to 114 passengers during contingency operations. This multi-mission tanker aircraft also will provide urgent aeromedical evacuation by transporting 58 medical patients (24 litters/34 ambulatory).
Boeing will build the KC-46 Tanker using a low-risk approach to manufacturing by a trained and experienced workforce at existing facilities in Everett, Wash., and Wichita.
irtuskOr they could just put a block of lead in the nose, even simpler and cheaper
irtuskPossibly due to the additional fuel?
you don’t need added length to fit more fuel tanks
at least i sure hope you wouldn’t . . .
irtuskBoeing and Airbus own so many patents that the other infringe that neither will dare use them against each other.
They are mainly defensive to keep patent trolls from extorting them
irtuskUSAF to Tightly Control Tanker Requirements Changes
To protect the aerial refueling plane from ever-expanding requirements, changes will not be allowed except at the “highest level,”
. . .
the KC-46 program would be scrutinized “microscopically” to make certain the “offeror delivers what he promised.
. . .
“It used to be a common practice in the industry that people would bid low and then try to use engineering changes to restore [profit] margins on the program,” he said.
With the new approach, the Air Force cuts off that loophole for any potential contractor, Thompson said.
Readers suggest names for KC-46A tanker
Advanced Tanker
Stratofueler
Freedom Express
Dream Tanker
Airbridge
Tern-Tanker
Galahad
Atlas
Behemoth
Provider
Exotanker
Dumbo
irtuskBoeing wouldn’t have bid if it was going to lose money on the deal. Unlike a certain European maker, Boeing is not propped up by governments and state-run banks.
Not quite true on either count.
Boeing might have been perfectly willing to take a slight loss on the bid to
1. ensure ongoing maintenance revenue long into the future (which might cover the loss and more)
2. keep EADS from establishing a beachhead on US soil. This keeps Airbus’ prices higher, which certainly has value to Boeing
As for your other point, you actually think the government will EVER let Boeing go under? hahahaha
as long as there is no viable domestic alternative, it. will. never. happen.
Even forgetting stuff like the Export-Import Bank, local state subsidies and government contracts it receives, Boeing is too much of a strategic resource to be allowed to falter. The government will do what it has to do to keep it alive, and if you believe otherwise you are hopelessly naive.
irtuskhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2014401141_tanker05.html
Interesting claims by EADS
According to EADS, Boeing’s bid of about $31.5 billion, paid over 17 years of production, was $3.6 billion less than the EADS bid. And it was fully $7 billion lower than the figure that won the previous 2008 round of the competition for EADS.
So EADS lowered their bid by $3.4 billion from last time but Boeing lowered their bid by OVER $7 billion.
EADS estimated that the original 2001 tanker-lease deal awarded to Boeing, adjusted for inflation and for the larger number of tankers now ordered, was approximately $16 billion more expensive than the one now finalized.
For all those moaning about how evil McCain was to scuttle that ‘wonderful’ lease deal 😀
(and don’t forget that was a less capable tanker too)
irtuskEADS KC-X Price Exceeded Boeing By 10 Percent
According to Crosby, EADS has derived some estimates of the Boeing offer, which have not yet been confirmed by the Air Force or Boeing. They include a $500 million adjustment on the part of the Air Force in favor of Boeing for a fuel usage advantage of the 767-based design. The Air Force also calculated a $300 million advantage to Boeing for military construction costs, Crosby says.
The service estimated an advantage for EADS worth $800 million for the A330-based tanker’s performance in various warfighting scenarios included in the Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment modeling tool.
wow that is surprising, IFARA balanced out fuel and milcon, but Boeing’s bid price was just $2 billion lower.
considering:
1. Boeing’s bid last time was higher than NG/EADS
2. EADS substantially reduced their price from last time thanks to dropping NG
it just shows how bloated their bid was last time
(it’s also slightly amusing that after all of Dicks’ crowing about pushing the life evaluation to 40 years, it was irrelevant)
irtuskof course if you’re going to carry SM-2 and Patriot missiles, they don’t have to be used just for offense
they could be used for their original purpose: shooting down enemy missiles aimed at you
the answer to the chinese ‘awacs killer’ missile 😉
Sign In
