Originally Posted by
Bing
Well in that case they can cancel the KC-46A and save all that time and money. If you write requirements that can't be met don't be surprised if it goes badly.
Oh my. Requirements that can't be met? The suggestion was made that if someone had stood up against USAF and eliminated the main deck cargo door and floor requirement they'd already be flying new tankers. That's utter tosh. Those items were ALREADY developed, tested
and certified. The delays and cost increases have NOTHING to do with the cargo door and floor. But lets suppose USAF did eliminate the cargo door and floor requirement for the KC-46 because they already have hundreds of cargo door and floor equipped tankers. Those tankers will ALL be retired and then USAF will only have tankers with no main deck cargo door and floor. You might as well argue to eliminate the boom requirement. After all, USAF already has hundreds of boom equipped tankers. The delays are all due to various developmental items the no tanker anywhere has. USAF wanted those items in their new tanker because they wanted the new tanker to do much more than just pass gas or haul trash. They wanted them to be part of future fights. That's one reason the KC-46 (unlike any other tanker, including A330MRTT) is EMP hardened.