General warns AF may be forced to break KC-46 contract

The program executive of the KC-46 program warned that if Congress passes a Continuing Resolution, and not a budget, the Air Force may be forced to break the contract with Boeing for the KC-46 tanker. At a speech at the Air Force Association conference, General Duke Richardson warned that under the terms of the contract a Continuing Resolution would not allow for the Air Force to fulfill it's obligation for ordering aircraft.

Currently the contract is a fixed price contract, capped at $4.9B, anything higher and Boeing pays for it out of their pocket. But this requires the Air Force to order 8 aircraft through two LRIP purchases, once Milestone C is reached and LRIP is approved. Milestone C is expected to be reached in April of 2016. Currently, under the budget, LRIP one consists of 7 aircraft. If a CR is passed, they would be unable to order aircraft 8-12 without a waiver from Congress.

NATIONAL HARBOR Md. — If the Pentagon is forced to operate for a long time under a continuing resolution, it could lead the US Air Force to break its contract with Boeing on the KC-46 tanker.

Brig. Gen. Duke Richardson, the program executive on the Air Force’s next-gen tanker program, told an audience at the Air Force Association annual convention that a continuing resolution (CR) would create a “very large problem” for the program.

But how big a problem wasn’t clear until after his speech, when he told a reporter that the CR could potentially break the contract with Boeing, one which is notable for the financial protection it affords the service.

www.defensenews.com...

Capital hill phones should be ringing off the hook right now.

/smh

a reply to: grey580

They probably are. From Boeing telling them to pass a CR so they're off the hook for overruns.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I still wonder why, with all the teething problems of the Franken-boeing, they couldn't simply have bid a 777-200ER or 787 derivative.

There really seems to be zero reason for going with the 767-based design (which necessitated all of the frankensteined engineering work) other than minimizing tooling costs and keeping the assembly line open.

Airbus won the first round of this debacle on the merits of their newer A330-vased design, and Boeing, in hindsight, should have countered with a 777-200-based design, rather than relying on their lobbyists to sell a warmed-over collection of old 767 parts.

a reply to: Barnalby

The 777 had a bigger footprint than the KC-30 does. The 787 would have been two years minimum before the first prototype rolled off the line and testing started.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That's what the promised folding wingtips were for!

a reply to: Barnalby

That's why you let the civilian market test things like that. I can see a number of missions being canceled because the wingtips won't come down. Or serious fatigue issues with them, because they'd have to be folded every time, unlike the civilian world which would only have to at certain airports.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I think you know that I've always believed they should have stuck with the KC-45. Pride comes before a fall and all that.