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 slips

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 06:01 PM
link   
The Air Force has announced that the first delivery of the KC-46, scheduled for later this month, has been pushed back. Boeing says it will happen by the end of the year, the Air Force won't commit to any kind of timeline for delivery.

There are currently five Category One deficiencies that have to be corrected remaining. All five are related to refueling. They are still waiting on the military operating certificate to be able to deliver the first aircraft.

www.defensenews.com...




posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Because it was cheaper, but less capable... Meanwhile, ...
edit on 17-10-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

There's no way to know that Airbus would have been able to modify it to meet AF requirements with fewer issues.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Not after they rewrote the requirements to save Boeing...



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Even if they didn't, there's no reason to think they could have done it perfectly and without any delays.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It's not a good look for a program that was supposed to begin delivery five years ago. Technically more, since that'd be the second KC-X solicitation issued.



posted on Oct, 23 2018 @ 02:55 AM
link   
November 16 appears to be the new delivery target.



posted on Oct, 24 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Apparently with an additional $179M in overruns, too.

www.defensenews.com...



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   
McConnell is expecting the first aircraft by the end of the year, but delivery date hasn't been officially set.

www.kansas.com...



posted on Dec, 16 2018 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Unofficial word coming through the grapevine is that the program continues to be completely screwed. Sources are saying that due to continuing RVS issues, the first aircraft will be delivered but will only be used to move cargo, with no refueling missions. They're also saying the IFR receptacle is good for 5,000 contacts.



posted on Dec, 16 2018 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Colour me shocked.


Boeing was always our least favourite contractor/customer. It probably goes Boeing followed by Airbus/Boeing defense in a close race with the last two.



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 05:27 PM
link   
And now we have a fun little cluster mess going on. First delivery is delayed until next year officially. They were waiting on Mattis to sign the paperwork clearing the delivery, on the day he announced his resignation. So it was delayed slightly, but then came the accelerated departure, and the announcement of Shanahan taking over. Since Shanahan is former Boeing, he's required to recuse himself from any decisions involving them, so it's not entirely clear who will accept delivery of the aircraft and clear them to go forward. The most likely candidates are either SecAF Heather Wilson, or the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord.

www.defensenews.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   
The Air Force has accepted the first KC-46.

www.seattletimes.com...


At the same time they announced accepting the first aircraft they announced they would withhold the maximum of $28M per aircraft delivered until Boeing shows a good faith effort towards fixing the issues with the aircraft.


edit on 1/10/2019 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/10/2019 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/10/2019 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I still can't, for the life of me, wrap my head around why Boeing didn't simply dust off the plans for the KC-10's boom and controller station from the McD archives, adapt it to the 767 airframe, and call it a day.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

I'm still baffled by the decision to remove the boom pod and go for cameras.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 04:42 PM
link   
According to this article from the military geniuses at Forbes, the problems are really simple to fix. According to the author all they have to do to solve the glare problem is turn so the sun is at a different angle.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

They seem to have glanced over the problem of what happens if the camera system goes down?!



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510


That was my first thought, losing a generator is not that unusual in flight.

its what 3 or 4 class 1 discrepancies and at least 1 of them the USAF has already said they will pay to fix.
I figured this would be the end result, much like the C-17 on its release, heard through the grape vine it was such a POS that the army refused to jump out of it.

Yea its a good platform now... but how much money did the tax payers have to spend to make it a good plane.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

An answer in search of a question, possibly the single greatest example of such in the history of modern military procurement.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

An answer in search of a question, possibly the single greatest example of such in the history of modern military procurement.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join