Recently in KC-X Category

Don't expect a tanker version of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner anytime soon, says Jim Albaugh--the company's commercial aircraft division chief. But, of course, we knew that since the 767-derived KC-46 is going to be in production until at least 2028 with 179 examples built.

But, as the US Air Force admits, the KC-46 design will be pretty long in the tooth by then--which is why the service is keeping its options open for the subsequent KC-Y and KC-Z tanker programs. And 179 aircraft only covers the replacement of one third of the antique Boeing 707-derived KC-135 fleet.  (Read my KC-46 special here)

But there might never be a tanker or any other military derivative of the 787 period. Unlike the 707 and 767, which were purposely overdesigned with extremely rugged airframes, the 787 has little in the way of excess structure.

"We're pretty full-up over the next nine years building airplanes to deliver to domestic customers and international customers," Albaugh says. "I'm not certain this airplane lends itself to being a derivative because this is an airplane that we took a lot of weight out of. We didn't overdesign this airplane, like the 707 is over-designed or the 767. I'm not ruling it out, but right now our focus is on commercial airplanes."

But moreover, the 787 has a composite fuselage. While industry has a very solid understanding of what happens when one cuts metal out of an aluminum fuselage, the same can't be said of carbon-fiber composites. That's probably another factor playing into this.

Here is a link to our 787 special--mostly written by our dearly departed (to the Wall Street Journal that is...) colleague Jon Ostrower.

Looks like the Schwartz is strong with the KC-46 program...

 The US Air Force has negotiated an exceptionally good deal for itself on the new Boeing KC-46 tanker from all appearances. If everything goes according to plan, this could work out very well for the USAF.

 Though the program is costing more than the negotiated contract price of $4.4 billion, the USAF and the Department of Defense leadership have taken steps to strictly limit the US tax-payer's liability for cost overruns and delays.

 The USAF is only liable for $500 million above the negotiated price tag--there is a firm contract ceiling of $4.9 billion.  So even though current cost estimates peg the development cost of the new tanker at $5.3 billion, anything over the ceiling price is Boeing's problem.

 The contract also mandates that Boeing is responsible for not only fixing future production aircraft if there are problems discovered in testing, but it also has to retrofit planes it has already built free of charge. And the USAF has the option of varying production rates at almost no cost penalty.

 Thus, unlike in other previous programs, the risk is borne largely by the contractor.

 Maj Gen Christopher Bogdan, the US Air Force KC-46 program manager, is saying that Boeing has to deliver--or the service will walk away. Only time will tell how this will all play out.

 Read my new KC-46 feature here.

• 'Boeing KC-767A'
• 'Flirty Thirty'
• 'Mobile home' [...re the Alabama assembly line]
• 'Fortress Europe'
• 'Fruit of the boom'
• 'Just desserts'

You could view this as a reflection of our increasingly globalized defense trade. Perhaps it's even a clue about the next move for the Northrop/EADS partnership.

It's a Spanish-language copy of the infamous Northrop Grumman/EADS "spider chart" that apparently proved so persuasive to the US Air Force.

The photo below was snapped in the exhibit hall of Chile's FIDAE air show last week. The anonymous photographer kindly uploaded the shot on his Flickr page.

The Spanish-language chart also adds to the original by inserting the A310 MRTT into the comaprison. It surprises me by comparing fairly well against the KC-767, at least in terms of overall performance.

Chile's air force has a need to replace its aging Boeing 707-based tanker fleet. Either the Northrop/EADS team or EADS alone is already hoping to transfer their KC-X win into a new contract in South America.

Here is the original spider chart, in English:

Freelance photographer Matt Cawby has posted great photos of the first flight of N526BA, a 767-400ER once destined for service as a US Air Force testbed for the aborted E-10A program. Two more good shots on the ground here and here.

The USAF cancelled the contract for the N526BA in October 2007 after deciding not to make the third and final progress payment.

So Boeing now has a 767-400ER and -- so far, I think -- no customer. The USAF has paid about $90 million, or two-thirds of the total price tag, but has no airframe.

It is now the "lost 767-400ER".

Regular updates will return on March 12.

Until then, I invite you to view the growing list of comments about Northrop Grumman's shocking victory for the KC-X contract.

Also, I'll invite you to revisit some highly speculative thoughts I wrote a few months ago about the potential industrial base implications of a KC-30 victory.

Here's a quick excerpt:

But it is because: The implications of the USAF decision, especially in the event of a victory for the Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-30, are enormous for the US industrial base.

We’re talking about nothing less than the revitalization of a competitive domestic civil aircraft industry for the first time since Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas in 1997.

We may never know how Northrop Grumman's price compared to Boeing's offer because the loser never has to say.

Neither may we ever learn exactly how price factored into the US Air Force's surprise selection of the KC-30, which is based on a modified Airbus A330-200 passenger airliner. USAF officials merely said that price was among the lesser of five evaluation categories.

But -- thanks to the commercial background of the KC-X competition -- we can be certain that Northrop's bid gave the USAF a great bargain on price.

Airbus doesn't regularly publish list prices for A330s, but some of their customers do. In June, for example, aircraft lessor Aircastle quoted an average list price for a new A330-200F, which is a pure freighter. That figure was $173.3 million per aircraft.

Of course, Northrop is not offering the A330-200F precisely. Instead, the USAF is buying a passenger A330-200, which is then coverted to a freighter. The difference is subtle, but it means the list price for the KC-X (er, now KC-45A) type should be roughly equivalent to the A330-200F.

That figure -- $173 million per aircraft -- does not include any tanker-unique equipment or systems, such as the refuelling boom, refuelling pods, remote operating controls, etc., etc.

So what was Northrop's price?

The USAF revealed that Northrop is promising a $10.6 billion price to deliver 64 new tankers during the production phase. My calculator says that amounts to average price of about $166 million per aircraft.

If you wish, throw in Northrop's $1.5 billion price tag to deliver four additional test aircraft and the average price rises to $178 million.

Of course, no airline customer pays list price for a new aircraft, but by any measure the USAF is still getting a good bargain.

Some may fairly ask whether Northrop low-balled the government. The history of military acquisition is filled with examples of balloning costs based on unrealistic price offers. It will be Northrop's responsibility to prove the critics wrong.

As reported yesterday by the Malaysia Sun:

I attended the US Air Force's media roundtable on KC-X held on 15 February in the Pentagon. You can download my audio recording of the event here. The first four minutes are missing because I arrived a little late (darn that security line!). But I still got a seat at the head of the conference table -- the best spot for capturing audio on my humble recorder!

The speaker is Lt. Gen. Donald J. Hoffman, military deputy to Sue C. Payton, assistant secretary of the air force for acquisition.

Download file here.