Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
JayinKitsap wrote:So it should be losing another $ 500M on its $ 25B contract. Still not good but gets the perspective right.
Yes, the KC-46 is a fiasco financially for Boeing, it should have been a good program, but it seems there is always an eternal screw up.
scbriml wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:So it should be losing another $ 500M on its $ 25B contract. Still not good but gets the perspective right.
Yes, the KC-46 is a fiasco financially for Boeing, it should have been a good program, but it seems there is always an eternal screw up.
Total cost overruns are now in excess of $5 billion.
889091 wrote:Just so that I'm on the same page.
We are talking about mil spec nav lights here, right?
scbriml wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:So it should be losing another $ 500M on its $ 25B contract. Still not good but gets the perspective right.
Yes, the KC-46 is a fiasco financially for Boeing, it should have been a good program, but it seems there is always an eternal screw up.
Total cost overruns are now in excess of $5 billion.
SteelChair wrote:scbriml wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:So it should be losing another $ 500M on its $ 25B contract. Still not good but gets the perspective right.
Yes, the KC-46 is a fiasco financially for Boeing, it should have been a good program, but it seems there is always an eternal screw up.
Total cost overruns are now in excess of $5 billion.
Unfortunately, we will never know how Airbus would have delivered on the 330. Perhaps better. But I have always maintained that it was too big. Imho, the USAF needed a relatively larger number of smaller airframes due to the tanking requirements of tactical aircraft not being huge in terms of volume.
WRT comments about spare parts, one would expect that the 46 will be in service far longer than the commercial 767s, and that the installed base will dry up considerably. The freighters may help, since they tend to run longer.
mjoelnir wrote:SteelChair wrote:scbriml wrote:
Total cost overruns are now in excess of $5 billion.
Unfortunately, we will never know how Airbus would have delivered on the 330. Perhaps better. But I have always maintained that it was too big. Imho, the USAF needed a relatively larger number of smaller airframes due to the tanking requirements of tactical aircraft not being huge in terms of volume.
WRT comments about spare parts, one would expect that the 46 will be in service far longer than the commercial 767s, and that the installed base will dry up considerably. The freighters may help, since they tend to run longer.
As there are quite a few A330MRTT in various air forces in operation, I assume that the A330MRTT would also have done well for the USA Air Force.
mjoelnir wrote:SteelChair wrote:scbriml wrote:
Total cost overruns are now in excess of $5 billion.
Unfortunately, we will never know how Airbus would have delivered on the 330. Perhaps better. But I have always maintained that it was too big. Imho, the USAF needed a relatively larger number of smaller airframes due to the tanking requirements of tactical aircraft not being huge in terms of volume.
WRT comments about spare parts, one would expect that the 46 will be in service far longer than the commercial 767s, and that the installed base will dry up considerably. The freighters may help, since they tend to run longer.
As there are quite a few A330MRTT in various air forces in operation, I assume that the A330MRTT would also have done well for the USA Air Force.
747classic wrote:IMO both Boeing and the USAF are overwhelmed by all the other KC-46A deficiencies (cat 1,2,3, etc) upon acceptance, conseq. this minor dificiency is not even noted.
However one of the later builts : 19-46065 has been spotted, now again with a correct sequential tail number 96065
See : http://www.paineairport.com/kpae19377c.htm
Note : Aircraft built in BDS USAF LOT #6 ordered January 2021 (12X) and BDS USAF LOT #7 ordered January 2021 (15X) are ordered in FY* 2021 and aircraft built from these two lots will carry a tail number that starts with "1"
The first of lot 6 : B767-2C 21-46072 USAF KC-46A (VH072) Lot 6, #01/12, tail 16072
* FY 2021 starts at Oct 1st 2020 and ending at Sept 30th 2021.
bikerthai wrote:One more question to answer. When assigning the number, do they use the FY of budget approval? Or FY of actual contract signed?
Where there any political shenanigans going on at that time that may have delayed the budget?
bt
mjoelnir wrote:SteelChair wrote:scbriml wrote:
Total cost overruns are now in excess of $5 billion.
Unfortunately, we will never know how Airbus would have delivered on the 330. Perhaps better. But I have always maintained that it was too big. Imho, the USAF needed a relatively larger number of smaller airframes due to the tanking requirements of tactical aircraft not being huge in terms of volume.
WRT comments about spare parts, one would expect that the 46 will be in service far longer than the commercial 767s, and that the installed base will dry up considerably. The freighters may help, since they tend to run longer.
As there are quite a few A330MRTT in various air forces in operation, I assume that the A330MRTT would also have done well for the USA Air Force.
MEA-707 wrote:I just saw on planespotters.net that LN 1223, 19-46061, is not built. It's very rare for both Boeing and the USAF to skip a frame and number. Does anyone know why, or know it's a mistake?
MEA-707 wrote:Other question, are all the early frames like 1065, 1066, 1067, 1069, 1091, 1092 still earmarked for delivery to USAF and operation, and will 1098, 1100 and 1104 still be completed?
SteelChair wrote:That's true, but there no way USAF would have taken an off the shelf product. They would have added all kinds of additional requirements, necessitating modifications. Voila, the system is now behind schedule and over budget. It's what they do.
Cdydatzigs wrote:The needless "automated" refueling boom being the biggest reason for the delays
MEA-707 wrote:I just saw on planespotters.net that LN 1223, 19-46061, is not built. It's very rare for both Boeing and the USAF to skip a frame and number. Does anyone know why, or know it's a mistake?
Other question, are all the early frames like 1065, 1066, 1067, 1069, 1091, 1092 still earmarked for delivery to USAF and operation, and will 1098, 1100 and 1104 still be completed?
Spacepope wrote:MEA-707 wrote:I just saw on planespotters.net that LN 1223, 19-46061, is not built. It's very rare for both Boeing and the USAF to skip a frame and number. Does anyone know why, or know it's a mistake?
Other question, are all the early frames like 1065, 1066, 1067, 1069, 1091, 1092 still earmarked for delivery to USAF and operation, and will 1098, 1100 and 1104 still be completed?
1104 is in the pipeline to be delivered soon. 1223 still hasn't had its first flight yet but is built. You can get up to date stats on KC-46 production here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 2121076296
bikerthai wrote:Cdydatzigs wrote:The needless "automated" refueling boom being the biggest reason for the delays
It's not "automated". It is manual with a remote vision system (3D cameras).
With the all the troubles with the KC-46 program, the Israilies still wants theirs and is requesting to accelerate the delivery schedule. Makes you want to think they see the light at the end of the tunnel.
bt
JayinKitsap wrote:Spacepope wrote:MEA-707 wrote:I just saw on planespotters.net that LN 1223, 19-46061, is not built. It's very rare for both Boeing and the USAF to skip a frame and number. Does anyone know why, or know it's a mistake?
Other question, are all the early frames like 1065, 1066, 1067, 1069, 1091, 1092 still earmarked for delivery to USAF and operation, and will 1098, 1100 and 1104 still be completed?
1104 is in the pipeline to be delivered soon. 1223 still hasn't had its first flight yet but is built. You can get up to date stats on KC-46 production here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 2121076296
A question on the spreadsheet, it shows a pinkish brown with the term "REWORK", but there are no frames indicated in production or the like. Does the REWORK status indicate also in production?
RobK wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:Spacepope wrote:
1104 is in the pipeline to be delivered soon. 1223 still hasn't had its first flight yet but is built. You can get up to date stats on KC-46 production here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 2121076296
A question on the spreadsheet, it shows a pinkish brown with the term "REWORK", but there are no frames indicated in production or the like. Does the REWORK status indicate also in production?
The site is outdated. It hasn't been updated for years. What is there looks to be guesswork.
Spacepope wrote:Are you referring to the Google spreadsheet? It has clearly been updated with first flights (of 064 and 065) and delivery (012) in the past week.
RobK wrote:Spacepope wrote:Are you referring to the Google spreadsheet? It has clearly been updated with first flights (of 064 and 065) and delivery (012) in the past week.
OK maybe a few isolated cases but the bulk of it is very outdated.
Spacepope wrote:RobK wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:
A question on the spreadsheet, it shows a pinkish brown with the term "REWORK", but there are no frames indicated in production or the like. Does the REWORK status indicate also in production?
The site is outdated. It hasn't been updated for years. What is there looks to be guesswork.
Are you referring to the Google spreadsheet? It has clearly been updated with first flights (of 064 and 065) and delivery (012) in the past week.
bikerthai wrote:It's not "automated". It is manual with a remote vision system (3D cameras).
Cdydatzigs wrote:looking out of a window that caused the problem by making the system needlessly more complex then it had to be.
USTraveler wrote:I'm curious if this could be ONE of the reasons we have been seeing the F-117s active lately...
LyleLanley wrote:The F-117’s reemergence has precisely zero to do with this. Frankly, it’s nice to see them officially again, without the ungentlemanly hours of their black-ish program.
JayinKitsap wrote:Are the F-117's officially back? I thought they were just doing 'aggressor' squadrons via a contractor.
RJMAZ wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:Are the F-117's officially back? I thought they were just doing 'aggressor' squadrons via a contractor.
Rumour is they are now flying unmanned. The F-117 has the most simple mission profile and it would be the easiest to fully automate. It would work great for highly defended targets that needed a 2,000lb class bomb. A glorified cruise missile.
JayinKitsap wrote:Cobham caused significant problems and delays on the program, and they paid handily per this report back in 2019. Anyone know what the status is of the WARP pods for the 767, I don't believe they are in use yet, only the centerline drogue .
https://www.defensedaily.com/cobham-acc ... air-force/