FDX 767 and KC-46A info
04-13-2012, 02:16 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,433
FDX 767 and KC-46A info
Somewhat interesting:
The KC-46A contract also contains a deficiency clause that is “the most airtight I have ever seen,” Bogdan says. The language was drawn in part from lessons gleaned from the F-35 experience. Lockheed Martin’s F-35 development program is fraught with concurrency anomalies, exposing the government to hundreds of millions—and potentially billions—of dollars of liability in the form of retrofits. The KC-46A contract stipulates that if any deficiencies are found in the six years of development, Boeing is required to design a fix, gain Air Force approval for it, retrofit it into delivered aircraft and insert it into the production line at no cost to the government.
Bogdan says Boeing has set aside three system-integration laboratories specifically for KC-46A work. Additionally, Fedex has ordered 27 767 freighters that Bogdan suggests will provide some risk-reduction work leading into the build of the first 767-2C (the baseline for the tanker). The freighter will have a cargo door and structurally enhanced floors, tail, wings and empennage—as will the 767-2C. The 2C, however, will include such tanker-specific equipment as specialized wiring and plumbing, a refueling receptacle and boom equipment.
The GAO auditors note that the “aircraft weight forecast is near the aircraft’s weight limit,” a potential concern. The design now has about 2,000 lb. of margin after having grown 600 lb., Bogdan says. However, if Boeing exceeds the 2,000-lb. limit, the aircraft still has margin to meet the performance requirement for range and offload. The risk, he says, would largely be to Boeing’s ability to meet a contractual requirement, not its ability to meet the performance standards.
During a requirements review, the Air Force and Boeing had an “absolute meeting of the minds” on what the “secondary requirements,” which are design elements derived from the key performance parameters, would be for the KC-46A design, says David Van Buren, the outgoing Air Force senior acquisition executive. In the past, a misunderstanding on these “derived” requirements has driven the cost of programs up. In the case of the KC-46A, however, USAF is working aggressively to control requirements in order to avoid reopening the contract for negotiation.
A KC-46A preliminary design review is expected to be completed at the end of the month.
Whole AvWeek Article
The KC-46A contract also contains a deficiency clause that is “the most airtight I have ever seen,” Bogdan says. The language was drawn in part from lessons gleaned from the F-35 experience. Lockheed Martin’s F-35 development program is fraught with concurrency anomalies, exposing the government to hundreds of millions—and potentially billions—of dollars of liability in the form of retrofits. The KC-46A contract stipulates that if any deficiencies are found in the six years of development, Boeing is required to design a fix, gain Air Force approval for it, retrofit it into delivered aircraft and insert it into the production line at no cost to the government.
Bogdan says Boeing has set aside three system-integration laboratories specifically for KC-46A work. Additionally, Fedex has ordered 27 767 freighters that Bogdan suggests will provide some risk-reduction work leading into the build of the first 767-2C (the baseline for the tanker). The freighter will have a cargo door and structurally enhanced floors, tail, wings and empennage—as will the 767-2C. The 2C, however, will include such tanker-specific equipment as specialized wiring and plumbing, a refueling receptacle and boom equipment.
The GAO auditors note that the “aircraft weight forecast is near the aircraft’s weight limit,” a potential concern. The design now has about 2,000 lb. of margin after having grown 600 lb., Bogdan says. However, if Boeing exceeds the 2,000-lb. limit, the aircraft still has margin to meet the performance requirement for range and offload. The risk, he says, would largely be to Boeing’s ability to meet a contractual requirement, not its ability to meet the performance standards.
During a requirements review, the Air Force and Boeing had an “absolute meeting of the minds” on what the “secondary requirements,” which are design elements derived from the key performance parameters, would be for the KC-46A design, says David Van Buren, the outgoing Air Force senior acquisition executive. In the past, a misunderstanding on these “derived” requirements has driven the cost of programs up. In the case of the KC-46A, however, USAF is working aggressively to control requirements in order to avoid reopening the contract for negotiation.
A KC-46A preliminary design review is expected to be completed at the end of the month.
Whole AvWeek Article
04-13-2012, 05:21 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by threeighteen
The FDX version will likely share a common cockpit with our 757s.
04-13-2012, 05:39 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,049
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
Nope it has the Rockwell displays that are going into the Tanker. You can see pictures of it in training.
04-13-2012, 05:49 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 983
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
Nope it has the Rockwell displays that are going into the Tanker. You can see pictures of it in training.
04-13-2012, 05:57 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,090
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
Nope it has the Rockwell displays that are going into the Tanker. You can see pictures of it in training.
