Airlinercafe Home Page

Stop being a lurker - join our community and get involved. Sign up and start a conversation!
 

      Author Message

      airlinerart1


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 49
      Location:
      Occupation: Aviation illustrator and designer
      Age:

      Post #74728, posted on 03-20-2020 GMT-5 hours    
      Apparently the KC-46 programme is a fiasco, can anyone shed some light on this?

      Author Message

      mark m


      Upper Deck Member

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 313
      Location: Merritt Island, Fl
      Occupation: Naval Flight Officer E-2C Hawkeye
      Age: 56

      Post #74731, posted on 03-20-2020 GMT-5 hours    
      Greetings,

      2 year delay in getting them and $3Billion in cost overruns.... so far. The Air Force has discovered some safety of flight issues with the floor mounted cargo locks becoming unlocked in flight. The camera for controlling the boom can become distorted, and the boom had to be re-designed to accommodate the A-10. So not the best show.

      I am a program manager for navy acquisition and this is not uncommon. The Govt tends to write poor requirements, the contractor interprets them differently than what the user wanted and throw a little R&D in there for some new Gucci Systems and you get this. People always want to blame the contractor but you can almost always pull the string back to the Govt.

      The original winner of the competition was Airbus with a modified A-330 design as I recall. I am not familiar with the details on why that was rescinded, probably a Boeing protest combined with a Senator/Congressman assault on the process and they started over.

      Mark

      Author Message

      norherman


      Upper Deck Member

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 554
      Location: midwest
      Occupation: retired
      Age: 73

      Post #74735, posted on 03-21-2020 GMT-5 hours    
      Bad news, but this appears to be a new track record for Boeing. Speaking to many friends who work there or have retired. Many of them speak of major problems in the engineering dept where the old guard has moved on. The kids there now have problems, like can't finish what they start, and lack of common sense for the real world operations. Many of the retires have been asked to come back to help clean and finish things up.The kids like the toys or as I say their fluff, but not hard work it takes to finish up. . The confidence in Boeing is waning.

      Dave
      MSP

      Author Message

      aro757


      Administrators

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 1971
      Location: San Ramon, CA
      Occupation: Software Engineer
      Age:

      Post #74737, posted on 03-21-2020 GMT-5 hours    
      I think it's safe to say that Boeing's last great airplane was the 777.

      Regards,

      ahmed

      Author Message

      Ken Miller


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 904
      Location: Campbell, CA
      Occupation: Govt. Employee
      Age: 127

      Post #74755, posted on 03-22-2020 GMT-5 hours    
      Facts about the KC-46 issues....

      Category 1 deficiencies

      Most recent was cargo locks that became unlocked on a flight. Last I read was that they had been replaced and the plane is now cleared to carry cargo/passengers.

      Deficiencies with the boom remote vision system

      Boom scraping against the airframe of the reciever aircraft

      Boom must be re-designed to re-fuel the A-10 which does not have the thrust to push into the boom

      Deliveries were suspended this year after finding FOD inside multiple aircraft.

      Yes this program has "issues". The fixed price contract means that Boeing is "on the hook" for further expenses beyond the 4.9 Billion development costs. The article says Boeing has spent 3.9 billion to fund corrections to the technical issues.

      Ken

      Not the most recent article information but a good summary.

      https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2019/09/11/air-force-restricts-kc-46-from-carrying-cargo-and-personnel/

      Author Message

      airlinerart1


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 49
      Location:
      Occupation: Aviation illustrator and designer
      Age:

      Post #74759, posted on 03-23-2020 GMT-5 hours    
      Many thanks for the answers, very interesting.

      So if the USAF was allowed to go through with the A330 purchase in the first place would they have got a better aircraft for the mission.

      Author Message

      Ken Miller


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 904
      Location: Campbell, CA
      Occupation: Govt. Employee
      Age: 127

      Post #74761, posted on 03-23-2020 GMT-5 hours    
      So if the USAF was allowed to go through with the A330 purchase in the first place would they have got a better aircraft for the mission.



      Who knows??


      Here's the Wikipedia page on the USAF A330MRTT. So many twists and turns.


      Ken



      United States
      Main articles: KC-X and EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45
      The US Air Force (USAF) ran a procurement program to replace around 100 of their oldest KC-135E Stratotankers, i.e., initially excluding the more common updated KC-135R variant. EADS offered the A330 MRTT. The Boeing KC-767 was selected in 2002;[114] however the USAF cancelled the KC-767 order upon the uncovering of illegal manipulation and corrupt practices during the competition.[115][116][117]

      In 2006, the USAF released a new request for proposal (RFP) for a tanker aircraft, which was updated in January 2007, to the KC-X RFP, one of three acquisition programs that are intended to replace the entire KC-135 fleet.[118] The Airbus A330 MRTT was proposed again by EADS and Northrop Grumman as the KC-30. It again competed against the Boeing KC-767, which is a smaller aircraft (holds about 20 percent less fuel), less cargo, but is also cheaper. Northrop Grumman and EADS announced plans to assemble the aircraft at a new facility in Mobile, Alabama, which would also build A330 freighters.[119][120]

      The Air Force announced on 29 February 2008, that the KC-30 was chosen as the KC-135 replacement, and was designated KC-45A.[121][122] On 18 June 2008, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) upheld a protest by Boeing on the award of the contract to Northrop Grumman and EADS due to contract process improprieties.[123] This left the status of the KC-45A in doubt, because the GAO decision required the US Air Force to rebid the contract.[124]

      On 24 September 2009, the USAF began the first steps in the new round of bids, with a clearer set of criteria.[125] On 8 March 2010, Northrop Grumman withdrew from the bidding process, asserting that the new criteria were skewed in favour of Boeing's offering.[126][127][128] On 20 April 2010, EADS announced it was re-entering the competition on a stand-alone basis and intended to enter a bid with the KC-45, still intending for Mobile to be the final assembly site.[129] On 24 February 2011, the USAF announced that the development contract had been awarded to Boeing. William J. Lynn III, the deputy defence secretary, said Boeing was "the clear winner" under a formula that considered the bid prices, how well each of the planes met war-fighting needs and what it would cost to operate them over 40 years.[130]

      Author Message

      aro757


      Administrators

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 1971
      Location: San Ramon, CA
      Occupation: Software Engineer
      Age:

      Post #74791, posted on 03-27-2020 GMT-5 hours    
      Quote
      airlinerart1 :
      So if the USAF was allowed to go through with the A330 purchase in the first place would they have got a better aircraft for the mission.



      Yes, absolutely! The A330MRTT is a far more capable tanker built on a more modern platform. It can carry more and has a longer range. And, it was already in service which means it would've been delivered sooner than the KC-46. Again, the US taxpayers got an inferior product due to Boeing's clout in Washington.

      Regards,

      ahmed