|
|
Post by phelan on May 26, 2016 23:20:19 GMT
In the latest example of how not to develop an aircraft, the KC-46 is looking at another delay of at least six months. This will be added to the nine month delay in first flight, the 11 month delay to the Milestone C decision that still hasn't happened, and the 11 month delay to IOT&E. The initial plan was to buy 15 aircraft next year under the full rate production milestone. But due to all the delays the 15 aircraft being bought next year are under LRIP instead. They've only completed 20% of testing due to the boom issues, and are essentially out of extra days under the contract signed. m.aviationweek.com/defense/kc-46a-tanker-program-braces-another-delay |
|
|
|
Post by lizardo on May 27, 2016 1:36:30 GMT
It's almost as if in the wake of losing the B-21, Boeing has given up on pleasing the DOD and has instead decided to simply stop trying.
I can't think of any other reason for the KC-46 to be continuing on as such a trainwreck.
|
|
|
|
Post by samlogic on May 27, 2016 1:53:42 GMT
It's almost as if in the wake of losing the B-21, Boeing has given up on pleasing the DOD and has instead decided to simply stop trying. I can't think of any other reason for the KC-46 to be continuing on as such a trainwreck. The only thing is that this is costing Boeing and arm a leg and it would only hurt themselves if they continue to delay things any longer. They are sort of stuck now. |
|
|
|
Post by phelan on May 27, 2016 20:54:51 GMT
Today comes the announcement that the Milestone C decision is delayed until August at least. And at the same time comes news that the WARP pods won't see certification and installation until October 2018.
|
|
|
|
Post by v1boomuhoh on May 27, 2016 23:23:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by phelan on May 28, 2016 0:03:54 GMT
Gotta love the fact that she still gets a pension.
|
|
|
|
Post by samlogic on May 28, 2016 0:09:18 GMT
Airbus must be smelling blood about now. I can see them offering thier tanker in the mean time as a stop gap measure against Boeing's issues.
Will realy make it hard for Boeing in the KC-Y program.
|
|
|
|
Post by phelan on May 28, 2016 0:11:16 GMT
Honestly I'll be shocked if Boeing gets KC-Y. The only way they're going to at this point, and even this way will be hard to justify, is if Congress tells the Air Force they're giving it to Boeing.
|
|
|
|
Post by samlogic on May 28, 2016 0:20:28 GMT
Which is too bad because a 777 tanker would be one hell of a sexy beast.
|
|
|
|
Post by phelan on May 28, 2016 0:24:53 GMT
It would definitely be interesting to see. Be curious to see the wake turbulence studies on it as a tanker.
|
|
|
|
Post by phelan on May 31, 2016 23:44:15 GMT
Interesting comment I saw today. Some analysts are apparently of the belief that Boeing will lose money on all the tankers they sell to the USAF, but will make it up on upgrades, parts, and foreign sales.
|
|
|
|
Post by samlogic on Jun 1, 2016 0:52:15 GMT
Interesting comment I saw today. Some analysts are apparently of the belief that Boeing will lose money on all the tankers they sell to the USAF, but will make it up on upgrades, parts, and foreign sales. It's a distinct possibility with all the delays that are going to add up cost wise. I wonder if Boeing knew this going into it in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by phelan on Jun 1, 2016 1:41:26 GMT
If they didn't they had to have figured it out pretty quickly. They're already over a billion in overruns.
|
|
|
|
Post by phelan on Jun 3, 2016 23:44:56 GMT
Boeing admitted that their software fix isn't robust enough and the boom will require a hardware fix to solve the axial load issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by phelan on Jun 5, 2016 0:00:46 GMT
|
|
