Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Assessment: KC-46A Tanker Low Cost/Technical Risk  
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6280 times:

Quote:
Boeing Co. (BA)’s aerial tanker program poses “low” cost and technical risk to the Pentagon and only a “moderate” risk that it will fall behind schedule, according to a U.S. Air Force assessment.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...technical-risk-air-force-says.html

Nice to see this moving along so far. It would appear this contradicts the earlier reports that implied the USAF was duped by Boeing into picking up a large share of any over-runs.


My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12808 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6197 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Wait, this would be the same Air Force that not so long ago evaluated the KC-30 as the superior tanker? We all know what happened there.  

I guess the AF can say it's low-risk financially, because, IIRC, Boeing's already bumped the price up to the maximum that requires additional AF (Govt.) spending. Any cost rises now are completely at Boeing's expense.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlinejetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7423 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6122 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting redflyer (Thread starter):
Nice to see this moving along so far. It would appear this contradicts the earlier reports that implied the USAF was duped by Boeing into picking up a large share of any over-runs.

There was no way Airbus was going to get that tanker contract. It was nothing more than just a side-show. That's the gv't for you.



Made from jets!
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6115 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 1):
Wait, this would be the same Air Force that not so long ago evaluated the KC-30 as the superior tanker? We all know what happened there.

*Yawn*
Not so long ago the KC-30 was the superior aircraft, based on the way that particular RFP was written and how rules were broken along the way to ensure the KC-30 was the "superior" aircraft.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12808 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5974 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting redflyer (Reply 3):
Not so long ago the KC-30 was the superior aircraft, based on the way that particular RFP was written and how rules were broken along the way to ensure the KC-30 was the "superior" aircraft.

Exactly my point! The same AF that managed that debacle is now saying the KC-46 program is low risk. IMHO, the chances of the AF being right this time are, shall we say, debatable?

Quoting redflyer (Reply 3):
*Yawn*

Sorry to bore you.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4470 times:

Seems like Boeing got themselves a poisoned gift by bidding a price so sharp they are potentially to
loose many millions.
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/m...f-boeing-tankers-keeps-rising.html

Quoting from the link:
Cost of Boeing tankers keeps rising
Puget Sound Business Journal
Date: Monday, November 28, 2011, 5:21am PST

Boeing Co. may make "zero profit" on its new refueling tanker it's building for the U.S. Air Force and could exceed by as much as $500 million the cost ceiling on its tanker contract.

The Washington Post reports Boeing is responsible for any costs above $4.8 billion associated with the new tanker, which is built on Boeing's 767 commercial airplane platform, and above $4.9 billion, Air Force officials say Boeing makes "zero profit." Boeing's bid to win the tanker contract from Europe's EADS was extremely aggressive.



[edit post]
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4403 times:

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 5):
Seems like Boeing got themselves a poisoned gift by bidding a price so sharp they are potentially to
loose many millions.
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/m...f-boeing-tankers-keeps-rising.html

Quoting from the link:
Cost of Boeing tankers keeps rising
Puget Sound Business Journal
Date: Monday, November 28, 2011, 5:21am PST

Boeing Co. may make "zero profit" on its new refueling tanker it's building for the U.S. Air Force and could exceed by as much as $500 million the cost ceiling on its tanker contract.

The Washington Post reports Boeing is responsible for any costs above $4.8 billion associated with the new tanker, which is built on Boeing's 767 commercial airplane platform, and above $4.9 billion, Air Force officials say Boeing makes "zero profit." Boeing's bid to win the tanker contract from Europe's EADS was extremely aggressive.

That $4.8 billion contract price is for the first tranche of aircraft, which I think is for 18 copies. I believe I read somewhere that Boeing wasn't expecting to make a profit on those first deliveries. Their profit, however, small it may be, will come from the remaining deliveries of 161...or so everyone at Boeing hopes.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Assessment: KC-46A Tanker Low Cost/Technical Risk
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
KC-135 Tanker Wing posted Sat Jan 6 2007 01:17:13 by Blackbird
KC-X Air Tanker Information Request posted Tue Dec 12 2006 19:48:06 by TropicBird
First KC-767 Tanker Rolls Out posted Fri Feb 25 2005 11:39:57 by 777ER
Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread. posted Thu Feb 24 2011 16:11:36 by moderators
Usaf Mixes Up KC-X Tanker Bid Information posted Fri Nov 19 2010 19:33:33 by wolbo
KC-X Tanker Saga Continues posted Fri May 14 2010 19:49:05 by Beta
2010 KC-X Tanker ModernizationRFP Released posted Thu Feb 25 2010 02:03:47 by Zeke
2009 KC-X Tanker Part II posted Sun Nov 1 2009 12:08:45 by Scbriml
2009 KC-X Tanker Modernization Program posted Fri Sep 25 2009 06:58:58 by Zeke
KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled! posted Wed Sep 10 2008 06:40:05 by Observer

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format