Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KC-46 saga

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Chunder
    replied
    It's never bothered them with the hundreds of other aircraft that are too big for hangars, or any allies that can't be assed with it, and even if it was, I'm sure you're able to build some sheds for your very expensive aircraft, but uh, it's bullshit.

    Leave a comment:


  • JA Boomer
    replied
    Originally posted by Chunder View Post
    Gosh I remember things like 'hangars not being able to accommodate them' being used across the U.S. political spectrum as some sort of valid argument against Airbus.
    You still here about this. I was at an airshow last weekend with both types. No appreciable size difference to my eye.

    Obviously there IS a size difference, I'm just saying it wasn't immediately apparent to me looking at them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chunder
    replied
    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post

    The choice was entirely political. As for the technical side, we had Boeing, with 50+ years of experience in air-air refueling, and Airbus, the new kid on the block. And look how the two programs turned out...
    I'd say Boeing had zero incentive to improve being a major sole source supplier, thus experience is kind of nought. When your allies, some of them close, and many of them experienced in RFPs all side for the new commer (save Japan) it doesn't put that competition in a good light and now the operational experience is bearing that out.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Originally posted by Chunder View Post
    The A330 base did go through its own boom teething issues but I suspect given the arguments at the time 2008/ish that it was never to do with platform capability, it was who was offering the platform. Gosh I remember things like 'hangars not being able to accommodate them' being used across the U.S. political spectrum as some sort of valid argument against Airbus. Air force after air force went for the Airbus option. Today it's use in those air forces speaks volumes as to its success. They're happy with theirs.

    What made it so much worse is the U.S. had by then announced its Pacific pivot. A330s still maintain a commercial base in the Pacific in Asia because of its legs. The 767 - don't know when the last time I saw that one. Doesn't THs life coach & idol fly one?
    The choice was entirely political. As for the technical side, we had Boeing, with 50+ years of experience in air-air refueling, and Airbus, the new kid on the block. And look how the two programs turned out...

    Leave a comment:


  • Chunder
    replied
    The A330 base did go through its own boom teething issues but I suspect given the arguments at the time 2008/ish that it was never to do with platform capability, it was who was offering the platform. Gosh I remember things like 'hangars not being able to accommodate them' being used across the U.S. political spectrum as some sort of valid argument against Airbus. Air force after air force went for the Airbus option. Today it's use in those air forces speaks volumes as to its success. They're happy with theirs.

    What made it so much worse is the U.S. had by then announced its Pacific pivot. A330s still maintain a commercial base in the Pacific in Asia because of its legs. The 767 - don't know when the last time I saw that one. Doesn't THs life coach & idol fly one?

    Leave a comment:


  • Dazed
    replied
    I am sure the KC-46 will work, for Boeing it will be a money loser $5 Billion to date.

    Boeing started with the KC-767 and Darleen Druyun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun. This lead to the U.S. Air Force tanker contract controversy. Resulting in the CEO and Presidents of Boeing losing their jobs for their actions. The KC-767 was delayed and over budget. Some flutter problems but successfully demonstrated a remote fly-by-wire boom refueling system. Operational to this day. The refueling boom using the same technology is not quite up to speed on the KC-46..

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    USAF stops delivery of the KC-46. Again...

    I will never understand what is going on at Boeing, with this program. The company is the world leader in air refueling: decades of first building and maintaining the largest air tanker fleet in the world.

    And then they get to design a new model and... 2 years behind schedule and massive cost overruns.

    Meanwhile Airbus, with pretty much zero experience, launches their model with almost no problems...
    While the KC-46 is going through its teething issues I want to point out that as a weapon system is coming on line there is an organization within the service who's job it was to look down the road to what the next item is needed.

    In the US Army there is an entire organization dedicated to that...the US Army Futures Command. It is run by a 4 star and headquartered in Austin, TX...not because Austin is the hot bed of weaponry. It is because the University of Texas is in Austin has several world class research institutes in wave propagation, transportation and electronics, all key points of any future combat system. It also allows the Army a formal entryway into research academia across the US.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Originally posted by Monash View Post
    Certainly true that Boeing hasn't exactly been covering itself with glory these last few years. One assumes there's not much they can do to stuff up the F-15 replacement program. At east I hope not. Reading up on the history of that program though I sometimes get the impression that in part at least the DoD was throwing Boeing a bone. One last chance to get it right and stay in the 'warplane business' or be gone.
    The F-15 side seems to be going strong. Don't forget they'd been selling F-15Es to other countries for years, and I've heard of no problems. The F-15EXX is pretty much based on these sales. It's the Boeing side that's been messing up: the KC-46, the Starliner...

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    Certainly true that Boeing hasn't exactly been covering itself with glory these last few years. One assumes there's not much they can do to stuff up the F-15 replacement program. At east I hope not. Reading up on the history of that program though I sometimes get the impression that in part at least the DoD was throwing Boeing a bone. One last chance to get it right and stay in the 'warplane business' or be gone.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dazed
    replied
    What makes this debacle worst is most of these problems are carry overs from the KC767 program. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-767

    Boeing management has lost their way. She should have been there in the first place, but Nikki Haley stepped down from the Board of Directors stating her disagreement with the board over a Boeing receiving a Covid bailout.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    ------------------- double post...
    Last edited by jlvfr; 21 Jun 22,, 23:12.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    This gets better and better: the USAF is allready looking for another tanker. That is how bad this program has gotten. Barelly made it into initial OC, won't make it untill 2023 (or that's the hope...) and the USAF is allready shopping for a replacem... sorry, an interim tanker....

    The article ends with "Airbus had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication", which I translate into "Airbus it's laughing it's head off"...

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Aaaand the fail continues...

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    started a topic KC-46 saga

    KC-46 saga

    USAF stops delivery of the KC-46. Again...

    I will never understand what is going on at Boeing, with this program. The company is the world leader in air refueling: decades of first building and maintaining the largest air tanker fleet in the world.

    And then they get to design a new model and... 2 years behind schedule and massive cost overruns.

    Meanwhile Airbus, with pretty much zero experience, launches their model with almost no problems...
Working...
X