It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

KC-46 update

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I'm not sure what to call this, but insane. Boeing now plans to deliver 18 aircraft, not in 14 months, but in six. They are self funding the start of production of the first 18 aircraft, which were originally set to include the 4 test aircraft, upgraded to production standard, but now will include two. The Milestone C decision has already been pushed back from April 2015 to May of this year, and now the operational testing phase won't start until May 2017.

As of December 2015, Boeing and the AF estimated that Boeing would incur an additional $769M, and $1.4B in costs. Cost for the government has dropped just over $3B, to $48.2B.

In addition to the boom problem discovered when the aircraft tried to refuel the C-17, the drogue units won't receive their FAA certification until July 2017. They were supposed to have it in 2014, however, the manufacturer failed to follow FAA procedures during construction of the units. The FAA approved them for testing to prevent schedule slip.

www.flightglobal.com...




posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Jeez, makes you wonder how much their large body slippages contributed to the B21 decision.



posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Obviously they're recouping losses from the delays. Probably have a high profit margin and output right now so build them while they're cheap because the pentagon has to buy them anyway.



posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Caughtlurking

They're pumping money from the commercial division into the tanker. Yes the Air Force needs them, but they will get hurt on this contract, and possibly hurthurt badly.



posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Crazy that a few months ago we were contemplating Northrop's exit from the military aviation world, will we be looking at Boeing to withdraw their resources instead if the KC-46 fails?



posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Bfirez

With the current administration we'll be looking at Boeing falling out of everything but the tankers. Kuwait just walked away from a multi billion dollar Super Hornet deal, and they're in some danger of losing a 73 plane F-15 deal that's been waiting two years for approval. It's gotten so bad that even Jordan is looking at Su-32s. Without those orders, the Hornet line will be done by 2019 at the latest and the Eagle line by late next year.
edit on 4/14/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

What a pathetic company really. Without DOD welfare providing them untold billions year after year they'd be in the dustbin of corporate failures.

This is nothing revolutionary, nothing even evolutionary, its a 767 with a fuel tank and they STILL messed it up.

I don't care what anyone says but this is failure at its finest. I can't help but wonder if Boeing has any talented, half decent engineers left or if its all being performed by Indian replacements who never even seen a 767.

Come on USA, have we gotten so bad we can't even build stuff in 2016 that was already done 60 years ago with 99% less technology?

This explains perfectly why we are getting a B-2 Rev 1.0001 Alpha dog loser wing and not anything futuristic looking, we just can't do it anymore. We don't have the juice.

NASA is re-deisning a new rocket, why?! Just re-manufacture the Saturn V with todays materials tech and re-launch it. But NOOO Nasa needs to do a total re-do and guess what, they can't solve an issue with vibrations in the center.

Again, fail after fail even though we've done all this before!!!!

My brain is finally beginning to accept the fact that we just aren't that good anymore. We just aren't that good.



posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Uhhmm....
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this technically illegal until Milestone C approval is actually given? Not that the law apparently matters anymore as proven by the F-35 program, but still it shouldn't be allowed until a stable production article can be demonstrated as reliable and producible.

I think Boeing are getting smart and by forward producing airframes they are effectively trying to lock the USAF into accepting them. This is a desperate move to keep the military dollars flowing in till something else comes along and the production lines viable and warm.

LEE.



posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

No, it's not. Since it's self funded if the Milestone C were to say no, they'd be available for resale as KC-767s to another customer.



posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

Thank you for once again proving you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Still waiting for you to prove that they want to cancel the B-21.



posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Ya know I started typing this whole long winded thing about how some of us actually know what we are talking about, and how his statement's aren't that clear cut. Then I decided to take a page out of your book and say screw it, no sense banging my head against the wall.



posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Bfirez

All you get is a headache. It's just not worth it.



posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Bfirez

Yup, trolls will be trolls.




top topics



 
1

log in

join