KC-46 delivery slips

a reply to: Irishhaf

I am with you, ever since their management went from engineers to bean counters concerned about their bonus the quality has been failing steadily.

I could literally lift these exact words of yours and apply them to my own workplace. Your comments regarding union behavior also have some strong historical similarity. Even if unions aren't causing trouble today, their past deeds get used against them in the mainstream media. And Joe public either doesn't know or gets hoodwinked into believing that the status quo still exists. Meanwhile the self interested bean counters and corporate psychopaths continue to get away with it.
..... Until they finally kill the golden egg laying goose.

In the latest "WTF", the Pentagon announced that the KC-46 is unable to use the palletized lavatory, known as the Air Transportable Galley-Lavatory, a roll on-roll off system that combines a galley and lavatory on one pallet. The KC-46 load locks and rails are thinner than previous aircraft, so the ATGL has to be rotated 90 degrees to fit on the aircraft. But in that position the anti-spill valve doesn't fit correctly, which could allow water to drain into the floor while the aircraft climbs or descends. The issue isn't considered a technical problem, because the Air Force didn't specify the size of the cargo rails or locks.

www.defensenews.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

What a complete and total pig this thing is.

When I started my usaf career I never even considered boeing turning into this bag of poop.

The boom redesign is up to $100M, and won't start until 2024. The DoD IG blames Air Force mismanagement for the problems with the boom, and rightly so. After the initial proposal, and contract award, Boeing unveiled a new boom as part of the PDR process. It was quite a bit different than the original, and computer control was integral to its operation. In 2016 the Air Force signed off on the Milestone C decision. But, we have to go back a few years to see how badly the Air Force screwed this up. In 2014, the Air Force program office elected to reduce the flight test schedule for the boom. In 2016, C-17 pilots reported problems while on the boom. Boeing made software and hardware changes, and the Air Force cut the schedule further for the Milestone C decision. When the A-10 was tested, the aircraft used was in a clean configuration and able to take on fuel. They never flew an A-10 in a combat configuration. Likewise, they never tested the C-17 or F-16 near their maximum loads, or with varying CG configurations. It wasn't until 2018, when it was time for full functionality testing that the Air Force declared it a Category 1 deficiency.

www.defensenews.com...

Due to a software issue, the boom operator has to manually adjust the breakaway presets between every receiver.

www.airforcemag.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

What a pig...

Jesus and they want to start retiring some 10s and 135.

What the piss..

Sources Sought memo sent out. The Air Force has sent out a sources sought memo to see if there is capability or interest in the second tranche of tankers, after the initial 179 aircraft. The second tranche covers 140-160 aircraft.

KC-Y is back on the table.

At this point, I'm half convinced Boeing is trying to see how badly they can screw up a contract and keep it, and get another one awarded.

New Category One deficiencies