Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

More KC-46A woes....

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

More KC-46A woes....

Old 18th Oct 2017, 16:02
  #621 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Old Hampshire
Age: 63
Posts: 554
The old system was deemed fine for non stealth aircraft but they have stealth aircraft now. That have a more fragile coating that can be disturbed by old type of refueling.

Will it be cheaper to come up with a better paint for the stealth aircraft?
VX275 is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2017, 16:46
  #622 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 61
Posts: 370
It surprises me that there have not been reported, or maybe it doesnt, reports of problems refuelling B2s?
PhilipG is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2017, 11:16
  #623 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,156
Originally Posted by PhilipG View Post
It surprises me that there have not been reported, or maybe it doesnt, reports of problems refuelling B2s?

Previous generation (or several generations) coating technology.

Maybe they need to go probe and drogue for tactical aircraft......
Davef68 is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 11:24
  #624 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Defense News: Boeing hit with another KC-46 cost overrun, this time worth $329M
Boeing on Wednesday disclosed more bad news on the KC-46 program: The company will have to eat another $329 million as a result of cost overruns.

Under the terms of its fixed-price deal with the U.S. Air Force, Boeing must pay out of pocket for any expenses over the $4.9 billion contract value. That agreement has been a tough pill for Boeing to swallow, as the company has now had to cough up about $2.9 billion in pretax fees — or about $1.9 billion after tax — as delays and cost overruns mount.

There are signs another missed milestone may be on the way.
Ian Corrigible is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 11:41
  #625 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 270
At what point does it become more cost effective for Boeing to just pull out of the project and pay back the $4.9 Billion?
Bing is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2017, 00:34
  #626 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: California
Posts: 339
I hear that they are now going to fly the unfinished frames to BAE for final refurbishment, therefore guarenteeing no further cost overruns....

f
fleigle is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2017, 18:38
  #627 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,263
My friends still working the program are telling me they're having huge issues getting FAA Part 25 certification (which I'd predicted back when the program was launched). Getting Part 25 certification of a military airplane is the very definition of "non-valued added work" - and it's incredibly difficult and time consuming.
It seems that making something suitable for military use can make it incompatible with the FARs. Who would have known - oh wait, that would have been me, six years ago (and I was far from alone)...
Sometimes is sucks to be proven right.
tdracer is online now  
Old 28th Oct 2017, 00:44
  #628 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 73
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
My friends still working the program are telling me they're having huge issues getting FAA Part 25 certification (which I'd predicted back when the program was launched). Getting Part 25 certification of a military airplane is the very definition of "non-valued added work" - and it's incredibly difficult and time consuming.
It seems that making something suitable for military use can make it incompatible with the FARs. Who would have known - oh wait, that would have been me, six years ago (and I was far from alone)...
Sometimes is sucks to be proven right.
Golly gee- the weast bellcurve types simply wired the first few to meet FAA standards including the extra military stuff. THEN after ghey rolled out a few, somebody reread the contract specs about the time a mil tped inspection said WTF ? re wiring separation. Panic ensued and they drafted man renton types who had been somewhat involved in P-8 and or mil versions of 737 for special purposes and ran them up tom everett on tdy ( avoiding paying extra milage by the way ) to teach the chart boys how to read a mil spec that had many two syllable words... and 3 and four letter abbreviations like EMP and shield and separation and redundant . .

And the beat goes on . . .
CONSO is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2017, 10:20
  #629 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 72
Posts: 978
First Operational KC-46 Takes Flight As Boeing Races To Deliver

Aviation Week article

Snip:-
Boeing’s first KC-46 Pegasus tanker slated for delivery to the U.S. Air Force made its first flight Dec. 5, as the company finally acknowledged that the aircraft won’t be handed over to the service until 2018.
Progress - but costs still rising.
Meanwhile, costs continue to rise, with Boeing seeing an additional $329 million charge related to KC-46 development in the third quarter of 2017 in addition to the more than $2 billion incurred since 2014.
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2017, 15:24
  #630 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 743
A modest, but interesting export order. One for Japan- perhaps up to 3 more.


Japan signs for KC-46A tanker | Jane's 360
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 08:12
  #631 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 83
DOT&E report on the KC-46A program that date:

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2017/pdf/af/2017kc46a.pdf
2805662 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 08:17
  #632 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,086
"A modest, but interesting export order. One for Japan- perhaps up to 3 more."

The Japanese know which side their bread is buttered on - especially with events in Korea............ The Israeli's are the same for the same reason
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 13:49
  #633 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 9,844
Interesting? Perhaps inevitable would be the better word.
ORAC is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2018, 10:25
  #634 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 72
Posts: 978
Delivery doubts - on Aviation Week.

Boeing’s KC-46 Tanker Delayed Again

Snip:-
The U.S. Air Force is predicting that Boeing won’t deliver the first KC-46 tanker until late 2018, casting doubt on the defense firm’s ability to meet a contractual deadline that, if missed, likely would result in significant penalties.
Boeing’s master schedule currently pegs first aircraft delivery to the fleet in the second quarter of calendar year 2018—already months behind schedule. But after a joint schedule risk assessment, the Air Force now believes delivery is more likely to occur in late 2018, according to spokeswoman Capt. Emily Grabowski.
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2018, 19:42
  #635 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,114
US Air Force adds new deficiencies to KC-46’s list of problems

https://www.airforcetimes.com/air/20...t-of-problems/

-RP
Rhino power is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2018, 20:21
  #636 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Dorset,UK
Posts: 364
Have they got any refuelling pods to put on them yet?
Or is that another cost overrun?
Compass Call is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2018, 13:33
  #637 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 304
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/03/...c-46-problems/

The best bit:

A Boeing spokesperson emailed me that “there is no greater priority at The Boeing Company right now than the delivery of the KC-46."


That's some seriously weapons-grade bull.
George K Lee is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2018, 16:35
  #638 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,086
Just goes to show there is no "easy" option in aerospace...............

I thinl ALL of us assumed this would be an easy, low risk, profitable design for Mr B.. and it's turned into an awful vale of tears................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2018, 16:54
  #639 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 4,290
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
Just goes to show there is no "easy" option in aerospace...............

I thinl ALL of us assumed this would be an easy, low risk, profitable design for Mr B.. and it's turned into an awful vale of tears................
However, the company has reported more than $2 billion in losses due to manufacturing and development issues since receiving the KC-46A contract. Over the long term, the company believes it can turn a profit as the total value of delivering the 179 KC-46As the US Air Force wants is expected to be about $30 billion.
Not shedding too many tears just yet...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ncerns-446919/
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2018, 22:59
  #640 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 36
I thought I had read earlier in this thread that Boeing's margins were razor slim on this deal...now they can be profitable with a $2B over-run means they must have 10%-15% profit in their price. In 2017 their operating margin was 11% so it looks like this was a good deal for them from the get go....or accounting magic happening here.
Preemo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.