P-8 POSEIDON COST CUTTING
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P-8 POSEIDON COST CUTTING
A military aircraft whose cost goes down? Boeing churns out P-8 sub hunters based on 737
A military aircraft whose cost goes down? Boeing churns out P-8 sub hunters based on 737 | The Seattle Times
Goes on..
So an obvious question is how did they do that compared to the KC46A ? ( lets not talk the diffs in mission and use and capability - both are military from modified Commercial . 737 commercial do not have missile and bombbays for example. )
A bit of insight- The P-8 program was designed/bid/priced/ almost entirely by Commercial management and old hands re 737 program. They knew how to read specs and the diff betrween mil spec wiring and commercial wiring standards.
The 767-KC46 was done almosat entirely by newbies ( the pointy end wIth widows is the front- really ! ) with a large dose of 787 mis-management and a plethora of MDC ex- spurts.
The rest is history . .
A military aircraft whose cost goes down? Boeing churns out P-8 sub hunters based on 737 | The Seattle Times
The program is going so smoothly that Boeing has been able to drop the base price of the aircraft by about 30 percent from about $170 million to $115 million.
So an obvious question is how did they do that compared to the KC46A ? ( lets not talk the diffs in mission and use and capability - both are military from modified Commercial . 737 commercial do not have missile and bombbays for example. )
A bit of insight- The P-8 program was designed/bid/priced/ almost entirely by Commercial management and old hands re 737 program. They knew how to read specs and the diff betrween mil spec wiring and commercial wiring standards.
The 767-KC46 was done almosat entirely by newbies ( the pointy end wIth widows is the front- really ! ) with a large dose of 787 mis-management and a plethora of MDC ex- spurts.
The rest is history . .
Last edited by CONSO; 28th Sep 2016 at 04:52. Reason: typos
1771 - I think that was what CONSO was saying. The base 737 model does not have bomb bay etc - P8 does and yet it is apparently coming in cheaper than estimated.
Tick VG to Boeing on this one.
Tick VG to Boeing on this one.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 767-KC46 was done almosat entirely by newbies ( the pointy end wIth widows is the front- really ! ) with a large dose of 787 mis-management and a plethora of MDC ex- spurts.
And about that tanker program: the early tanker program was run out of Long Beach as well, using engineers that developed the KC-10 and its Advanced Refueling Boom, along with the RARO (Remote Aerial Refueling Operator) station developed for the Dutch KDC-10. But they got pushed aside by the KC-767 folks in Seattle who basically came up with a wide body KC-135, right down to the old limited envelope KC-135 refueling boom. It was not until AFTER winning the protest that Boeing put the KC-10s FBW advanced refueling boom and an advanced RARO station on the KC-46.
My guess is that Boeing will be able to drive cost out of the KC-46 during full rate production the way they drove cost out of the P-8. Indeed they'll have to if they hope to ever recoup the billions in company money they have sunk into the KC-46 program.
Could sub lease them to Ryanair if things got tight..........
No cash? No problem, for an additional £5 fee we also take cards...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re
I assume you are NOT talking the 2001 ( lease) program ? This was the one put forward as a lease as the result of 911. One of the biggest problems was the interference of the MDC Military types who came up with the idea to assemble a 767 on the everett line- fly it to wichita- take it apart, install all the geer whiz systems, put it back together, etc.
The Commercial people were to deliver a flyable ' green ' airplane to the Military types at Boeing/everett field which then ' belonged' to the Boeing Military Systems- to be flown to either Long Beach or most likely wichita for ' reassembly '. This was to avoid ITAR issues and simply keep the 767 line open. Thus the costs were outrageous squared.
Add to that the Sears Dryun(she of the C-17 program ) mess along with tassle toed R DeLeon games- and the result is history.
the early tanker program
The Commercial people were to deliver a flyable ' green ' airplane to the Military types at Boeing/everett field which then ' belonged' to the Boeing Military Systems- to be flown to either Long Beach or most likely wichita for ' reassembly '. This was to avoid ITAR issues and simply keep the 767 line open. Thus the costs were outrageous squared.
Add to that the Sears Dryun(she of the C-17 program ) mess along with tassle toed R DeLeon games- and the result is history.
Last edited by CONSO; 28th Sep 2016 at 14:44. Reason: typos- added in cost effects
Program Differences- P-8 vs KC-46
If I am not mistaken,the P-8 is being procured strictly as a military aircraft, certified to military specifications and airworthiness requirements- derived from a civil airplane design, but neither seeking civil airworthiness certification nor achieving it.
On the other hand, the KC-46 starts as a new FAA-approved 767-2c, modified by STC with installation of numerous military subsystems and finally provisioned with certain military systems and functions that meet only military airworthiness requirements.
If that sounds "simple", it's not and it has been made all the more complex by an unending series of revisions of what belongs in each "bin" and a complex sequence of assembly of the pieces. All with their share of controversy and misunderstandings.
Program management at its finest.
On the other hand, the KC-46 starts as a new FAA-approved 767-2c, modified by STC with installation of numerous military subsystems and finally provisioned with certain military systems and functions that meet only military airworthiness requirements.
If that sounds "simple", it's not and it has been made all the more complex by an unending series of revisions of what belongs in each "bin" and a complex sequence of assembly of the pieces. All with their share of controversy and misunderstandings.
Program management at its finest.
On the other hand, the KC-46 starts as a new FAA-approved 767-2c, modified by STC with installation of numerous military subsystems and finally provisioned with certain military systems and functions that meet only military airworthiness requirements.
In concept, the 767-2C/KC-46 is very similar to the P-8. In practice the KC-46 still has a ways to go...
maybe Boeing saved some money by sending some of the early P8 engineers to look around an MR2 on a visit to Pax River many moons ago. The crew were proud to show them around given how the UK would soon be equipped with the superior 4-engined MRA4....doh! The Boeing boffins seemed especially impressed with the sonobuoy launchers and how they used that little known power source of gravity to get the buoys gone!
