France orders A-330 based MRTT

[sandiego89]

France orders 12 Airbus MRTTs - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/46021/france-orders-12-airbus-mrtts)

Announced order of 12 MRTT's today. Seems like a good fit.

Is this where we start the debate that this was the "wrong" tanker chosen only for political/jobs reasons....;)

[KenV]

Personally, I think the A330MRTT would be a better fit for France than either the KC-767 or the KC-46 (no, they are not the same.)

Did France order the optional cargo door?

[BBadanov]

This contract had been under discussion for many, many years.
About 5 years ago the French were about to order 15.

[Trackmaster]

Will it be fitted with a boom?

[dmussen]

Have the Ausies been cleared to use the boom yet?

[O-P]

Why would it need a boom?

Will it have RR engines? Why did I even ask!!

[GreenKnight121]

Why would it need a boom?

Will it have RR engines? Why did I even ask!!

Perhaps because they are to replace France's 11 C-135FRs and 3 KC-135Rs (all 14 with both hose and boom).

Starting in 2009 the AdlA began modernizing the avionics in the C-135FRs (all of which had been "redelivered" by 2013) and added the KC-135Rs in June 2013 (the first, redesignated KC-135RG, was redelivered in August 2014).

[vascodegama]

The boom would be to allow refuelling of the E3F (admittedly it has both systems) while still allowing the use of the already produced config . It could even be that the French are thinking about inter-operability with other nations' receivers. You never know they might even refuel our Airseekers!

[melmothtw]

Perhaps because they are to replace France's 11 C-135FRs and 3 KC-135Rs (all 14 with both hose and boom).

The booms on the French KC-135s are fitted with a basket, as they only use hose-and-probe. For the MRTT, a Fuselage Refuelling Unit would be more relevant to their needs than a boom

[Just This Once...]

Mel, you are mistaken. The E-3F uses boom refuelling as its prime method. Come to think of it it has been a long time since I saw an E-3F fitted with a probe.

[melmothtw]

Come to think of it it has been a long time since I saw an E-3F fitted with a probe.

From May, over Mali....

http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag380/garethjennings1/Mirage-2000-refuel_zpsb1e23a76.jpg (http://s1373.photobucket.com/user/garethjennings1/media/Mirage-2000-refuel_zpsb1e23a76.jpg.html)

edited to add: Having re-read your post JTO, I think we may be at cross-purposes. I meant hose-and-probe in relation to tanking rather than receiving...

[Just This Once...]

No, I think you are still mistaken.

French KC vs French E-3F, taken over Iraq in recent days:

http://globalaviationreport.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/2014_aeoa_201_042_011.jpg?w=990

[melmothtw]

Ah, I see JTO - we were at double cross purposes. My understanding was that the USAF now took care of the FAF's boom-receptacle receiving requirements as they no longer have any qualified boom operators. Your pic, however, tells me I may have been fed some duff gen.

[Reinhardt]

and by doing so France is following UK, Australia, UAE, Singapour, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and India.


Quite a good business for Airbus Military !

[Trackmaster]

And Australia is expected to shortly announce an order for an additional two aircraft.
As to my question about a boom...it was a straight forward inquiry. No hidden meaning or snide references.

[melmothtw]

To answer your question Trackmaster, the French MRTTs will be equipped with a boom.

[KenV]

To answer your question Trackmaster, the French MRTTs will be equipped with a boom.


How about a cargo door? Did France excercise the cargo door option?

[melmothtw]

They have exercised the cargo door option, but only on some of them initially. Budget issues and a need to field them quickly means two tranches will be delivered - the first will be the aircraft as is (boom, pods, etc), and the second to be delivered later will have the cargo door and datalinks. The early aircraft will later be retrofitted with all of the mods.

[KenV]

They have exercised the cargo door option, but only on some of them initially. Budget issues and a need to field them quickly means two tranches will be delivered - the first will be the aircraft as is (boom, pods, etc), and the second to be delivered later will have the cargo door and datalinks. The early aircraft will later be retrofitted with all of the mods.


That explains a lot. So the MRTT's cargo door is not a "build to order" option, but a pre-engineered post-build modification option. That approach was a significant handicap in the Northrop Grumman KC-30/45 offer. Airbus still offers the -200F freighter, so I still don't get why they do not offer an MRTT based on the freighter rather than the passenger version. As France's order shows, there's definitely a market for it.

[airsound]

Clarification from the horse's mouth (Airbus Defence and Space press release dated 20 nov 2014.)
In French service the A330 MRTT will be powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines, be equipped with a combination of the Airbus Refuelling Boom System and underwing hose-and-drogue refuelling pods, and can be configured in a variety of layouts carrying up to 271 passengers as well as medevac arrangements including the French MORPHEE intensive care module carrying up to ten patients as well as 88 passengers. Also, the French Minister of Defence announced that it would be called the “Airbus A330 Phoenix".

[NutLoose]

I bet the French didn't or won't strangle their military into a contract with a civilian provider

[Xercules]

KenV,
You make it sound as if Airbus could just make military tankers alongside civil A 330s with no problem. The A330 manufacture and assembly process is completely civil and has been from the start. Some 1354 A330s have been delivered or are on order against, even with the French and others in the pipeline, 54 MRTTs.

Whilst physically it is possible to segregate the military ones, the IT issues are not so easy with custom designed and, now, ageing software. Even with purely European military applications we had to consider the requirements of our national export control regulations. However, once the U.S. Regulations (ITAR) have to be considered it becomes very difficult indeed. With the ITAR complications in mind we never passed any military wing work to Wichita, for instance, and Wichita frequently asked for assurance that new tasking did not involve the MRTTs.


Better minds than mine decided that it was better to segregate the military aircraft entirely from the civil. This meant a green aircraft (ie entirely civil but without customer installations) was produced in Toulouse and flown to Madrid for modification into a MRTT. Once in Madrid, at least, partial disassembly was necessary to get the military modifications in.

When we and NG won the original USAF order for 179 aircraft we put a lot of effort into trying to integrate the lines, as for an order that size it made commercial and operational sense if we could. This would have meant the militarised component assemblies being shipped to Mobile for Airbus final assembly before NG USAF specific modification (to avoid the U.S. Eyes Only problems amongst others). I and my colleagues spent many hours discussing which modifications could be considered civil and which were military and, especially, which were US and, therefore, ITAR controlled. We had a concept of green (entirely civil), blue (European only militarised) and brown (ITAR as well). The last of those (ITAR) meant we needed a duplicate IT system to manage things at the very first stage that ITAR components became involved. Even so, we considered every one of the mods to try to agree what constituted an ITAR and what did not. Part of the problem is how the US considers its ownership of anything it actually uses. That is, no doubt, not apparent as a problem from your perspective but it is from ours.

One example was the freight door. At that time the A330 freighter did not exist and the plan was to retrofit a door into the civil fuselage. The door to be used was the A300 door (civil) but in an A330 for a military requirement was it still civil? North American Airbus and EADS view was that it was military. European view was that it was not. What about the reroute of piping because of the door – same problem even though form and function were entirely unchanged ITAR says must also consider fit. Our engineers took a lot of persuading because it is alien to their civil design philosophy.

I could go on but suffice to say we did try hard to satisfy the requirements in the most sensible way but the contract was pulled before we resolved all the issues. We went round them again for the new competition and, I am sure, could have resolved them but we all know what then happened.

[tdracer]

No question that ITAR is a royal PITA, and I doubt the European equivalents are significantly different.
For the 767-2C/KC-46, much of the military stuff is being installed during production. It rolls out as a 767-2C with military provisions, then the airplane is pushed to a 'mod' center where the tanker specific stuff (e.g. booms/WARPS) are installed.
To do this, the 767 final assembly line became ITAR with controlled access. To gain access, you need to take a special ITAR training. So even commercial 767s are built in an ITAR environment.
For the P-8, they have a specific ITAR 737 line - but then again they're currently building about 42 737s a month.

[Xercules]

And, how many civil 767s is Boeing building each month?

[ORAC]

Outstanding orders for civil 767s total 44 x 767-300 Freighters. No new orders since March 2012.

ANALYSIS: Is the passenger-carrying 767 really dead? (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-is-the-passenger-carrying-767-really-dead-398918/)

[Wander00]

OK, I have to ask, ITAR is ? please

[NutLoose]

International Traffic in Arms Regulations?

[Bevo]

In case you have trouble sleeping here is a link to the ITAR regulations:

https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar.html

[Wander00]

OK, I'll go back to sleep. it is Sunday afternoon after all.........zzzzzzzzzz

[tdracer]

And, how many civil 767s is Boeing building each month?
I think we're currently at ~2/month, roughly evenly split between 767-2C and commercial Freighters (most if not all headed for FedEx). Rumors of a follow on order from FedEx.

[boxmover]

Is the plan to build these on the current or neo airframe?

[Martin the Martian]

Shame they're not calling it Voyageur.

[sandiego89]

Shame they're not calling it Voyageur

Gotta wonder about Phoenix, is naming your tanker afer a flaming bird really the best idea?

[melmothtw]

Is the plan to build these on the current or neo airframe?

All customers from Singapore onwards will get the 'Enhanced MRTT', though from the article below I don't think that the NEO engine has yet been decided upon.

Airbus DS to offer upgraded A330 MRTT Enhanced - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/39042/airbus-ds-to-offer-upgraded-a330-mrtt-enhanced)

[D-IFF_ident]

'Enhance' - Verb - 'To fix stuff that wasn't quite right first time round'.

AKA - Never by the A model of anything.

[cobalt42]

is naming your tanker after a flaming bird really the best idea?

Must be better than naming your rental tanker flaming Voyager:yuk:

[GreenKnight121]

I believe that was a "shout-out" to the Moody Blues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EfA31f19RU

[KenV]

Xercules,

You made several great points, all of which seem to argue FOR using the civil freighter rather than the civil airliner as the baseline for the MRTT. The cargo door, floor, landing gear mods, cargo handling equipment, etc etc would all be fully "civil" certified with little or no export control issues. That's the approach used by Boeing with the KC-46, which is based on the 767 freighter, not the airliner, and thus has far fewer ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) and U.S. "dual use" export control issues. The 767 with all the "group A" military mods (tanker unique wiring, plumbing, structural changes, etc) is completed on the regular assembly line, and then a separate assembly line installs all the "goup B" military unique components (such as the wing pods, refuel boom, RARO station, some avionics, etc). I can't remember if the UARRSI receptacle is installed on the main or the secondary assembly line.

Back when I worked for NG on the KC-30/46 program, these were precisely the kind of issues that became huge stumbling blocks in our proposal. We won the competition, but there were still HUGE issues left unresolved. Some were intended to be resolved by the two "prototype" KC-30s NG paid to have built. But the original tanker contract was killed before those aircraft were completed and then NG pulled out of the subsequent competition. I understand that those two prototypes are still parked in Spain with huge disputes about who actually owns them and USAF even claiming they own a portion of one. This last item was one of the "improprieties" that caused the original tanker contract to be killed in the first place.

[Xercules]

KenV

You are quite right there were huge problem areas which we started to work on (I can only speak for the ITAR/non-ITAR aspects as I was the export controller in the UK at the time).

From our perspective part, if not a lot, of the problem, was the differing philosophies between NG and EADS NA on the one hand and Airbus/EADS Europe on the other.

The European regulations are in general the same as the U.S. - that is until you take in all the US additional bells and whistles which make them very much more restrictive and difficult, if not in reality impossible, to handle under European and UK law.

We had many arguments as to whether a USAF requirement made the resulting solely European design an ITAR item. I am sure we would have achieved a working solution eventually because we had to - not just because of the size of the order but as well because of the grief it caused Boeing (witness the squealing that resulted) but we were never given the time to do it before the plug was pulled.

As to variants - much water has rolled under the bridge since then and now the freighter version is a reality but then it wasn't, although different memories will, I think, have to agree to differ there.

[KenV]

As to variants - much water has rolled under the bridge since then and now the freighter version is a reality but then it wasn't, although different memories will, I think, have to agree to differ there.
Agreed. The freighter was not available for the first USAF compeition. But it was available for the second (which never got off the ground) and for the third and it is available now. Yet Airbus has never offered to base their MRTT on the freighter. This was one of the reasons NG pulled out. There's probably a good busniess decision for that, but I am curious as to what it may be.

[D-IFF_ident]

I'm beginning to understand why the Northrop Grumman / EADS partnership fell apart and why AD&S didn't win the KC-X contract.

[BEagle]

Indeed, D-IFF_ident!

No doubt in the pax role, a windowless A330F-based tanker fuselage would have been fitted with that Rendition Class seating the Spams seem to love....:(

The cost of modifying the A330F to carry pax to a standard acceptable for certification would have been pretty high; no other A330 customer has been daft enough to specify a non-standard design. The French haven't specified a freight door, but are keeping an eye on the possibility as a future option.

All new customers will have an MRTT based on the current A330-200 build standard, which includes the Power8 computers and modified slats etc....and an 'enhanced' MPS :hmm:. Which will have a Win8.1 OS :eek:

I don't know whether the new MRTT standard will include the very clever hose length LED indication system which AD&S has now patented, but it certainly should. I've prodded against 6 different tanker types (Victor, Vulcan, KC-135BDA, KC-10, VC10K and TriStar) and the AD&S system is by far and away the best system I've ever seen. NVG compatible too!

[KenV]

The cost of modifying the A330F to carry pax to a standard acceptable for certification would have been pretty high; no other A330 customer has been daft enough to specify a non-standard design.
I had never considered the difficulties associated with putting passengers in a civil freighter. I had no idea that was even an isuue. My bad.

The European standards must be different in some way, because there is no problem here in the US with putting passengers in KC-135, KC-10, and KC-46 tankers, none of which are based on a passenger version of the airframe. And the USN C-9 Skytrain (DC-9 based) and C-40 Clipper (737 based) are also freighter aircraft that routinely carry passengers. And Douglas built and civily certified a number of DC-10 Convertible Freighters and Combi Freighter/Passenger aircraft. Perhaps those European/US regulatory differences are yet another reason why the NG/EADS partnership collapsed.

[BEagle]

I had never considered the difficulties associated with putting passengers in a civil freighter. I had no idea that was even an isuue. My bad.

And yet you worked for a KC-X consortium?

Rendition Class passenger accommodation in a large civil freight aircraft simply won't meet 21st Century certification in terms of g restraint, oxygen or emergency egress requirements, not to mention other requirements.

It'd be interesting to see the Frankentanker attempt to meet such present day standards. But I guess the US doesn't view this as a criterion...:rolleyes:

[GreenKnight121]

BEagle - the key words are "civil" and "military".

The KC-30 & KC-46 were/are for US military certification - no civil certification authority will have a single word they can enforce about how they were/are to be outfitted.

And yes, US military certification for passengers is quite different from anyone's civil certification.

[tdracer]

To elaborate a bit on what GreenKnight wrote:

The KC-46 will have three distinct certifications:
The 767-2C will have an FAA "Amended Type Cert" (ATC). It won't allow 'passengers'.
There will then be an FAA "Supplementary Type Cert" (STC) for the KC-46 as delivered to the USAF. Again, it won't allow 'passengers'.
There will then be a non-FAA "Military Type Cert" (MTC) that will cover how the USAF plans to operate the aircraft. I don't know much about the MTC, but it will cover details of such things as air-to-air refueling and passenger carrying capability (I'm unaware of any FAA regulations that would apply to, or even allow, air-to-air refueling).

If you're thinking three distinct certs isn't particularly cost effective way of doing things, I'm inclined to agree. But little of how the USAF has managed the KC-46 program would be considered to be 'cost effective':rolleyes:

During a design review of the 767-2C/KC-46 with the USAF and FAA, the FAA asked how I intended to address the affect of an uncommanded thrust change on aircraft handling during an aerial refueling. I responded to the effect that I was unaware of any FARs that address two aircraft flying ~20 feet apart. I basically got a dirty look from the FAA, but the USAF gave me an action item :eek:

[D-IFF_ident]

According to the Boeing factsheet:

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/military/kc46a/pdf/kc46a_tanker_backgrounder.pdf

The KC46 will either have a "crew Compartment" for up to 15 crew members, or, in pax config, will have FAA certification for 58 passengers (1 more than a KC135).

Would be nice if the details coming from the OEM and the customer were aligned.

[BEagle]

D-IFF_ident, perhaps that's because the Frankentanker has so few emergency exits?

Do those Rendition Class 'palletised C-17 seats' include passenger oxygen systems?

All Airbus military aircraft, including the A400M, meet normal EASA certification standards. Why does the US consider that their aircraft don't need to meet an equivalent level of certification? This is 2014, not 1954!

[BBadanov]

1954 !


What happened then, did I miss something ?

[BEagle]

1954 was the year the USAF placed its first order for the KC-135.

[SWBKCB]

capability (I'm unaware of any FAA regulations that would apply to, or even allow, air-to-air refueling).


Must be something as Omega Air Tanker operate B707/DC-10's in the tanker role on the American civilian register

[ftrplt]

Omega acft are on the Experimental register because of the air refueling fit.

[D-IFF_ident]

5 May 1954 - USAF invites Boeing, Convair, Douglas, Fairchild and Lockheed Martin to submit proposals for a new jet tanker.

3 August 1954 - USAF orders 29 tankers from Boeing.

2 weeks later - USAF orders 88 more tankers from Boeing.

February 1955 - USAF announces that Lockheed has won the new jet tanker competition.

Soon after - USAF orders 169 more tankers from Boeing.

Soon after that - contract with Lockheed cancelled.

:cool:

[busdriver02]

Yes there is emergency oxygen available for those crappy pallet seats, each seat has an emergency portable oxygen system.

[BEagle]

No doubt you'll need that oxygen after a long flight where the only passenger 'restroom' facilities are a palletised chemical toilet....:eek:

Truly primitive....:( Surely your 'warfighters' (:yuk:) deserve something better than that?

[GreenKnight121]

BEagle - those seats would have been luxury for my flights from MCAS Iwakuni, Japan to NAS Cubi Point, Philippines in May 1984 and back in June 1984.

We flew down in C-141s - the center of the floor was filled with our equipment, and we sat on the fold-down tube aluminium & canvas "jump seats" along both sides - the only toilet facilities were the single aircrew lavatory at the front.

While the jump seats on the C-17s are better, they are still much worse than those palletized seats - and the many of C-130s still have the old-style seats.


Your "rendition-class" label just makes me laugh - both at your pathetic biased attempt to spit on anything American and your total disconnect from current reality.

It would be funny to see your reaction to a 8-hour flight on C-141 seats.

[BEagle]

GreenKnight121 wrote: your pathetic biased attempt to spit on anything American....

Not so. I was glued to the NASA webstream during last week's excellent Orion mission - good to see the US back in the space business. Something the UK could never afford.

As for those old seats, I've suffered those when travelling in the bowels of a C-130. But that was 30+ years ago and at least the RAF now treats its passengers to a more civilised way of travelling.

[KenV]

... at least the RAF now treats its passengers to a more civilised way of travelling.
Hmmmmm. RAF C-130s and C-17s have "more civilized" passenger seats? Really?!! That's an interesting bit of news I sat in UK3 (third C-17 delivered to UK) 10 minutes ago and it had the same "uncivilized" seats as the USAF C-17. I hafta wonder if the A400 sidewall seats are really that much better than C-17's?

Here's a picture of the "uncivilized" palletized passenger seats in a USAF C-17. These are the same palletized seats that would go in a KC-46.
http://www.tinker.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/070819-F-2034C-023.JPG

They are certainly not business class seats, but they don't appear too "uncivilized" to my troglodite American eyes. Perhaps BEagle with his much more refined eyes can explain what is "uncivilized" about them.

[KenV]

And yet you worked for a KC-X consortium?


Indeed, doing the engineering on the AR boom and RARO station. I was not privy to the arcane details of European civil certification issues that make it difficult to put passengers in civil freighters. Boeing had no problem putting passengers in their 767F based KC-46. Or their frieghter based C-9, KC-10 and C-40 aircraft.

Rendition Class passenger accommodation in a large civil freight aircraft simply won't meet 21st Century certification in terms of g restraint, oxygen or emergency egress requirements, not to mention other requirements.
I don't know where you get this "Rendition Class" nonsense from, but the palletized seats used by USAF "meet 21st Century certification in terms of g restraint, oxygen or emergency egress requirements".

It'd be interesting to see the Frankentanker attempt to meet such present day standards. Attempt? Where've you been? We're in the 21st century now and the palletized seats to be fitted into the KC-46 do indeed meet all "present day standards." And this was exactly one of the big issues with the EADS' MRTT proposal NG had to work with. It could only be converted from a freighter configuration to a passenger configuratioin with great difficulty and lots of resources.

[melmothtw]

I hafta wonder if the A400 sidewall seats are really that much better than C-17's?

Having experienced both KenV, I'm happy to report that they most surely are. The A400M's seat is more of a hammock that envelops and supports its occupant, which when set against the C-17's offering is the lap of luxury.

I really don't know what they were thinking when they designed the C-17 seating, but the heavy-bar frame was murder on the underside of my thighs the last time I had the pleasure.

Although I was on a relatively empty aircraft, I couldn't even fold down a number of seats to use as a bed as the same heavy bar-frame made it feel like the equivalent of trying to catch some Zzzzs on a park bench that's been subdivided to stop tramps sleeping out under the stars (not speaking from experience, mind). Ending up kipping on the floor.

Horrible things.

[KenV]

Having experienced both KenV, I'm happy to report that they most surely are. The A400M's seat is more of a hammock that envelops and supports its occupant, which when set against the C-17's offering is the lap of luxury.


Interesting. The "enveloping hammock" design would not have met C-17 requirements. Such an "envelope" would stretch too much to meet requirements when under a crash load with a 400 lb trooper (400 lbs would include all the equipment strapped to the trooper's body). And at 1G such a design would also make it near impossible for a 400lb trooper to get up out of the seat unassisted to hook up and shuffle out the troop door. Clearly, there are big differences in the C-17's troop seat design requirements vs the A400, as well as big differences in their cargo transport requirements.

I really don't know what they were thinking when they designed the C-17 seating, but the heavy-bar frame was murder on the underside of my thighs the last time I had the pleasure.
The C-17 sidewall (and centerline) seats are designed for a 400 lb paratrooper and the crash load G requirement (Can't remember if that was 6G or 9G). The C-17 seat bottom also adjusts in and out ward from the sidewall to accomodate a trooper without a parachute on his back or a trooper with a parachute.

[melmothtw]

The C-17 seat bottom also adjusts in and out ward from the sidewall to accomodate a trooper without a parachute on his back or a trooper with a parachute.

Now you tell me...!

[KenV]

Now you tell me...!


The loadmaster nor anyone else on board told you? Shame on them.

[melmothtw]

The loadmaster nor anyone else on board told you? Shame on them.

I rather suspect that the US loadmaster enjoyed watching the Limey journalist suffer ;-)

[KenV]

Well, if you ever get another ride on a C-17, here's the adjustment procedure:

Lower the seat to the horizontal position. Then lift it up half way to about a 45 degree angle. Pull out (or push in depending on which way you want the seat) on the seat bottom and then lower the seat to the horizontal position. It's simple, but you have to know about it to adjust it.

[Lyneham Lad]

So is everybody happy now?

From Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-fixes-kc-46-wiring-issues-sets-first-flight-for-spring-406731/?cmpid=NLC|FGFG|FGFDN-2014-1217-GLOBnews&sfid=70120000000taAm):-

The first prototype of Boeing’s KC-46 aerial refueling tanker has been rewired to meet US Air Force standards and is being prepared for its first flight sometime in late spring 2015, the companies chief operating officer says.

“We’re doing final prep for first flight on tanker,” Dennis Muilenburg, Boeing’s president and COO, says on 3 December at the Credit Suisse Global Industrials Conference in Chicago. “We are feeling very good about where that program is at now that we’ve got some of those technical issues behind us. Now we’ll focus on executing the flight test program under development and then getting the programme into production.”

Boeing earlier this year alerted the air force to “anomalies” in the aircraft’s wiring, which is required to be triple redundant to meet military and US Federal Aviation Administration specifications.

The company launched a wiring audit that found about 5% of the aircraft’s 98,000 wiring bundles were installed too close to redundant counterparts. The first four engineering and manufacturing development aircraft had to be rewired before they could roll off the production line.

“Those have now been resolved and closed out,” he says. “That airplane is done. We completed factory functional test. That airplane has now rolled out of the factory.”

[D-IFF_ident]

December 27 according to aviation week:

USAF Tanker Platform Slated For Year-end Debut | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-tanker-platform-slated-year-end-debut)

[KenV]

First flight of the 767-2C, the civil basis for the military KC-46 will be in late December. First flight of EMD-2, the first mission configured KC-46, is scheduled for April of next year.

[tdracer]

I can confirm what KenV posted - 767-2C first flight should happen the week after Christmas, the first KC-46 configured airplane first flight in April.
I was on the first 767-2C last week for initial engine runs. Very interesting interior layout - it has what appears to be the 'standard' 767-200 passenger door configuration (left and right regular doors in the front and rear, and one overwing exit on each side), plus a big main deck cargo door. I was curious about the floor configuration (e.g. cargo handling provisions) but with all the flight test instrumentation racks, water barrels, etc. it was hard to tell much.
Flight deck is also a pretty standard 'passenger' layout - 767 built as freighters typically have a larger flight deck with more jump seats and the galley/lav, then a bulkhead barrier with a door to the cargo area.
Lots and lots of extra bumps, blisters, lights, etc. on the exterior. Some obviously related to the AR mission, others not so much.

[busdriver02]

The palatalized seat are awful. The jump seats suck as well, but if you're relying on jump seats that means there's options to lay out your sleeping bag! Seriously I'd rather fly across the oceans in a C-17 laying on the floor sleeping soundly in my sleeping bag than any other mode of cross continent travel. The troops don't want seats, they want open cargo floor space; at least I do.

[chopper2004]

Anyone want to choose what it will be called?

Cheers and Happy New Year :D

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/10805763_872322156145416_741942951134530299_n_zps70ef3698.pn g

[BEagle]

A month ago it was announced that the intended name will be 'Phoenix'.

[tdracer]

From Webster's:
phoenix Egypt. Myth, a bird which lived for 500 years and then consumed itself in fire And people criticize the Pegasus name for the 767-2C/KC-46? :rolleyes:

[Heathrow Harry]

well "Lightning " for the F-35 is a bit of a misnomer -

but I guess "Giant Tortoise " doesn't have much of a ring to it

[Bigbux]

....or Stella

[chopper2004]

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/10869766_876682449042720_2379322238730174676_o_zpsa1aed747.j pg

[Heathrow Harry]

Oh dear....

I see the New Years resolution of peace & goodwill didn't last long............

Tin hats on lads 'n lasses - incomimg fire from Seattle.............. :eek::eek: