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 delivery slipped

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Despite repeated assurances by Boeing that the first production KC-46 would fly in October and be delivered before the end of the year, sources are now saying that delivery won't take place until early 2018 now. That also puts the October 2018 operational requirement in danger.

The Air Force has identified three Category One issues with the aircraft, including two related to the boom. These problems combined with missed test points and certification delays have combined to push the aircraft further behind schedule. It's almost certain at this point that there will be further delays going forward.

www.seattletimes.com...




posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I am shocked... stunned... flabbergasted even..

Oh wait no I would be those things if anything was ever delivered on time.

ETA: I am still kind of surprised where they decided to place the first ones, figured while limited they would try to place it more central. (unless I read the wrong base)
edit on 20-9-2017 by Irishhaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Man how has Boeing screwed up the boom this time? They have had YEARS to get it right and test fly it with the KC-767. Or did I miss a redesign with the KC-46?



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

It's a different boom. The control station is the same as the Italian KC-767 IIRC, but it's a brand new boom.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Nope. McGuire gets the first ones, then McConnell and Travis.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

The big mistake Boeing made with this was that they offered a 767-2C converted to a tanker. That means that since the 767-2C is a new airframe, the FAA has to certify the basic airframe before they can start delivering them as military aircraft. If they had offered a purpose built KC based on a 767 airframe, it would have been an all military affair.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

When's the last time we had an aircraft delivered on schedule?



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Zaphod58

When's the last time we had an aircraft delivered on schedule?


HH-60W.

On budget and 6 months ahead of schedule, iirc.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

That's pretty recent isn't it? So it's not a matter of in today's day and age it can't be done.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Usually the smaller programs do fairly well. The bomber is still at the point where they can get back to their schedule.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: face23785

Usually the smaller programs do fairly well. The bomber is still at the point where they can get back to their schedule.


I was being unfair. Small programs tend not to have as many fingers in the pot.

The bomber just keeps getting screwed by congress: another continuing resolution?! Really?!



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

They ran into non-congressional issues. They actually saw an increase in funding, but they lost three months to the protest, and some minor issues on the demonstrator. Although I've heard rumors from several people that they hit a bigger issue that they're working through.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Just a curious question why didn't they choose a 777?



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 04:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

Way too big, and the 767 was a known quantity when it comes to airflow around the boom and drogue for the receivers.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Boeing is looking at replacing the cameras for the boom system to solve the scraping problem.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Why didn't they just stick with the window view like on the 135? Is it too heavy or expensive to do now? Just seems like a usual of it ain't broke don't fix it scenario.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

Cost played a role. They don't have to do extra modification to the aircraft to install a boom pod, and just put the boom operator by the flight crew. They've used this system on other 767 tankers and it worked, but the boom is new and it's not working as well.
edit on 9/21/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

How do you feel about them removing the boom pod and window? Just kind of feels to me we rely too much on technology now. What happens if there's an issue with the cameras and fuel can't he offloaded?



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

That's a point that I brought up early on in discussions with a couple people and was told it wouldn't be an issue. Personally, I think they should have left the pod.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

I would wager a very expensive retrofit will occur at some point in the future after just such a problem occurs and real world missions had to be scrapped because of it.




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join