Boeing KC-46 Pegasus

DWG said:
www.flightglobal.com

USAF pauses KC-46 deliveries over structural cracks

The US Air Force, which operates 89 of the 767-derived tankers, has paused delivery of new aircraft after the discovery of structural cracks in two recently assembled jets that Boeing was preparing to turn over.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

Not sure how you end up with cracks in pre-delivery aircraft whose basic design is 46 years old.
Click to expand...
Outsourcing to places with the worst QC discipline on Earth I suppose.
 
Ouch, being installed for flight testing in April (13 months after it was supposed to have entered service) and wont start flight testing for several more months with several lab discovered performance issues themselves expected to take around another 18 months to fix.

21 of the 89 already delivered had the cracks upon inspection in addition to the 2 that failed delivery acceptance.

Its the programme that just keeps giving
 
breakingdefense.com

Air Force again changes course on tankers, plans new ‘production extension’ program - Breaking Defense

The Air Force plans to use the Boeing KC-46 Pegasus’s Capability Production Document “as the most affordable requirements basis” for the new program, potentially giving the embattled aerospace manufacturer a leg up in a competition.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
WASHINGTON — Just two years after unveiling a new tanker strategy that would involve the development of a futuristic stealthy tanker, the Air Force is yet again shifting course for its air refueling fleet, and is now eyeing a novel program to extend tanker production — a move that could favor Boeing’s KC-46 Pegasus.

The refreshed tanker plan, unveiled in fiscal 2026 budget documents recently released by the Defense Department, calls for a “Tanker Production Extension” program, set to launch next year. The Air Force is requesting $23.8 million for the effort, which should finish developing a request for proposals by the third quarter of FY26, according to the documents.

It’s not clear what the Air Force will ultimately decide for the new production extension program. One path would involve a competition that could draw rival bids for the KC-46 from industry players like Airbus and Embraer who have previously expressed interest in providing the service’s tanker needs. Whatever is ultimately picked for this new extension program would start production after Boeing completes deliveries under its current KC-46 contract, which is expected to conclude around the end of this decade.

[snip]
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
"One path would involve a competition that could draw rival bids for the KC-46 from industry players like Airbus and Embraer who have previously expressed interest in providing the service’s tanker needs. "

[cynic]Just what Airbus need, another chance to submit the winning bid and watch the order end up at Boeing.[/cynic]
 
USAF will probably buy more KC-46s in the near-term. We spoke to Boeing, NG and LM at the recent ARSAG event and all three seem to be working some NGAS but the big thrust seems to be larger, unmanned, NGAS-type refueling platforms. Remember, earlier this year Boeing got awarded an $18.5M contract to review and study the potential for a larger, land-based version of the MQ-25.
 
KC-46 suffering from premature failure of its APU so Air Force personnel haven been ordered to use huffer carts to start the aircraft engines until further notice to preserve the APU's life and to try and ensure the APU can perform an aerial restart if required.

www.twz.com

KC-46 Crews Ordered To Drastically Curtail Use Of Jet's Onboard Auxiliary Power Unit

Failures of the KC-46's APU, which is critical for self-starting engines and supplying power on the ground, is the latest of the KC-46's woes.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

Also some pictures of the damaged aircraft and APU after the boom loss.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1943836993177497611
View: https://x.com/zaphod58/status/1943836993177497611
 
BlackBat242 said:
Like the two times the KC-330 MRTT lost a boom in flight?
Click to expand...

Yes in 2011 and 2012; One of them was a fighter colliding with the boom and the other was a validation test flight where they were testing an auxiliary boom motor supplied by the UAE for order localisation (not the standard auxiliary boom motor) which malfunctioned. Both resulted in the boom detaching, one falling in the Atlantic and the other on land where it was recovered.

KC-46 previous boom loss incidents are two in 2022; one where the boom snapped but remained attached to the aircraft so they had to land dragging it and another where it rebounded and struck the APU similar to the recent one during a flight with VIP's onboard to tour the aircraft, while in 2024 where there was a boom failure while attached to an F-15 that caused both the KC-46 and the fighter to suffer hydraulic failures and the fighter had to land using arrestor wires.
 
Last edited:
joshjosh said:
KC-46 program of record is now increased by 75 airframes up to 263, with 154 already ordered.

www.airandspaceforces.com

Air Force to Buy More KC-46 Refuelers, Skip Tanker Competition

The Air Force will buy up to 75 more KC-46 aerial refuelers, deciding against a competition for the next phase of its tanker plans.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...
Just like the 1950s tanker competition that was won by Lockheed - but the USAF had already ordered KC-135As as "an interim tanker" even before the final award to Lockheed - then ordered more "pending production of the Lockheed aircraft"... then finally a larger order near the point in time when the Lockheed contract was formally cancelled.
 
HASC, Strategic Forces Hearing: FY27 Strategic Forces Posture Hearing, Mar 17, 2026

Admiral Correll: The KC-135 is an aging platform, as you know, and the KC-46 is ramping up in terms of delivery and production. The department has analyzed and indicated that we need to sustain the tanker fleet that we have and expand it to more platforms. The minimum number is about 502 tankers.


Rep. Norcross: How many of those are dual-capable, or are you assuming they all will be?


Admiral Correll: Ideally they're all dual-capable, but as you know, the KC-135 is currently nuclear certified and the KC-46 is not yet nuclear certified. We are on a path to be able to use the new tankers to refuel nuclear-capable bombers for conventional missions, and that's where we need to get to — and then fully certify for the nuclear mission. That's the survivability and endurability piece in a trans-attack environment.
In the interim, we accept the risk and use the capability we have to refuel all aircraft, because as we look down the road, those numbers are increasing. Those flying platforms — obviously the nuclear-capable ones, I would say, would take precedence — but we don't know depending on the mission and how it's being executed.


Rep. Norcross: Boeing has had issues, and I think we're past the back end of that. Are we getting the delivery rate, or do we have to look at increasing that through Boeing?


Admiral Correll: I would advocate for continuing to look at options to accelerate delivery of the tanker fleet.
 
According to the FY27 PB, USAF requests funding for 15 KC-46 in FY27. Procurement will increase to 18 per year in FY28 and beyond. 169 airframes have been contracted, and 319 is the new (increased) target for the fleet size, which would be reached in 2035.
 
joshjosh said:
According to the FY27 PB, USAF requests funding for 15 KC-46 in FY27. Procurement will increase to 18 per year in FY28 and beyond. 169 airframes have been contracted, and 319 is the new (increased) target for the fleet size, which would be reached in 2035.
Click to expand...
A trifle optimistic, perhaps.
 
169 KC-46 airframes total? I want it to be that because the KC-135 is getting on in terms of years and is needing replacing.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom