Posted on 04/02/2016 5:15:46 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
A problem that has prevented Boeing Co 's KC-46A tanker aircraft from transferring fuel to a C-17 transport plane may delay a Pentagon decision approving low-rate production of the new tanker in May, the U.S. Air Force said on Thursday.
"We don't yet know the schedule impact to the planned May Milestone C decision, but the problem is well understood and we don't expect an extended delay," said Air Force spokesman Daryl Mayer.
Mayer said the issue arose during testing of the refueling boom that is used to transfer fuel from the 767-based tanker aircraft to a C-17 transport plane, also built by Boeing.
The issue marks another setback for the Boeing program, which has run into delays due to wiring issues and other problems. However the program's projected cost dropped by $3.5 billion to $48.2 billion in a Pentagon report to Congress.
Mayer said the Boeing and Air Force flight test team recorded higher-than-expected boom axial loads during testing of the tanker's ability to offload fuel to a C-17 cargo plane.
Boeing spokesman Todd Blecher said Boeing was looking at ways to resolve the issue.
"We expected to find items like this in development test and we are evaluating system changes to improve boom response. Over the coming weeks, we will have a better understanding of program impacts, if any," Blecher said.
Boeing and the Air Force expect to know about a possible delay in the Pentagon's low-rate production decision after the company tests its proposed fix for the issue in mid-April, according to a source familiar with the matter.
The company must also still refuel an A-10 aircraft. It has successfully refueled F-16, F/A-18 and AV-8B fighter jets, and has been refueled itself by a KC-10 tanker during the testing required to begin low-rate production.
(Excerpt) Read more at in.reuters.com ...
I have always been suspicious of defense contracts that are in reality job programs. Usually over bloated with write offs and incentives for the contractor to increase it’s workforce and bribes and other graft for elected officials.
Usually by the time the “new” project gets to the military , the costs are anywhere from a hundred to a thousand times more than budgeted and many of the “systems” still don’t work as ordered.
Eisenhower was right in 1960 and his words are still true today.
Yea, me too. I’d rather the military go to Radio Shack, Amazon, or E-Bay to buy their hardware, just as I do. They seem to have NO IDEA what’s out there on the Internet.
The Air Force deserves this after letting Boeing steal this contract from Northrup Grumman and Airbus that was going to build it in Mobile AL. Boeing protested the original award and then was awarded the contract after a re-bid based on lies, deception and a huge lobbying effort. I hope Boring and the Air Force get taken to the cleaners on this.
Do not like the Boom Operator not being in the back of the jet. Too much can go on during an aerial refueling and your peripheral vison and depth perception are very important (saved my butt more than once). In my 11 year experienced opinion you are just begging for a mid-air collision or damage to the receiver aircraft.
That is sarcasm I assume?
President Eisenhower’s 1961 (often taken out of context) “military industrial complex” speech contributes to an enduring negative view of the defense industry. Indeed, President Eisenhower’s speech is cited as a warning about the defense industry and its growing influence among the “councils of government.” However, in context, President Eisenhower acknowledged the need for a robust defense industry. President Eisenhower called on informed citizenry and politicos to “recognize the imperative need for this development.” (The “development” referred to a healthy defense industry). Consequently, far from condemning the defense industry, he was recognizing its vital role in advancing US political, economic and military goals.
Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library, January 17, 1961 “Press release containing the text of the address;” http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/farewell_address/1961_01_17_Press_Release.pdf
Some of it sure.
Where do you find emp hardened electronics for an airial refueling platform on amazon? I can’t find it. Maybe radio shack?
Yeah cause NG doesn’t do the same. Lol
Airbus? That’s a french company right?
The original RFP stated no extra points for a “big” aircraft, so Boeing went for the offer they had and scrapped early any plans for a 777 tanker version. However, the original contract award to Airbus was justified, in part, by citing how big the Airbus platform would be (meaning carry more payload, fuel and such).
However, a large platform means less operating locations and less coverage, physically and time. There was another very important aspect to this whole thing: it was stated on Good Morning Britain by an MoD official (forget who, I was in London at the time and watching at a breakfast meeting), that the award to Airbus gave the Europeans an effective “veto” over a vital US national security asset. It was stated that if, say, the US was to initiate a military operation that was not supported by, or objected to by, the Europeans (like another Iraq), they would simply shut-off the support and supply train and our refueling fleet would soon grind to a halt, thereby forcing the Americans to adhere to European desires, regardless of US national security concerns.
Mostly french, yes, and we should always trust the french when it comes to US national security (see Post 10).
Having been on both sides of the fence...AF Flight test pilot at Edwards and later a Boeing engineer...do not discount the government’s tendency to overspec, gadget load, and not pay much attention to what we pilots actually wanted.
And let’s not mention the lawyers, contract managers, politicians, etc. who could eff up the design of a crystal radio set.
Obviously sarcasm. I just get a bit ticked when people attack our military for making things too expensive. It’s the kind of crap that left us with 21 Stealth Bombers (now 20), and gave the media the talking point of saying that they cost over a billion dollars each, when that includes development. The initial run was SUPPOSED to be for 132 planes. If Tesla limited his build of Model 3’s to 21, it would take mulch-millionaires to buy them.
I get SICKENED by people, supposedly on our side, using TALKING POINTS OF THE LEFT to tear-down our military. If they have a better way, they should be like Elon Musk, and offer it to the country, rather than just throw rocks.
Which is probably why the Europeans were pushing so hard. They wanted a lever.
“mulch-millionaires”? I know lots of places that have many many tons of the stuff, but I didn’t know that made them millionaires. WOW!
“Stealth Bombers” B-2s you mean? Not to mention the paltry 187 F-22s which work canceled because they were too expensive in favor of the even more expensive F-34s which don’t work?
They do have a better way and are offering it first through 0bama’s drastic reduction of the military and the changing its mission from defense to social engineering and second from Sanders who will likely eliminate it entirely. So you see how good change is for us? We don’t need no stinking defense because once we don’t have any, everyone will love us and kumbayas will ring from the rafters ...
Isn’t it wonderful that Tesla is so much like Boeing and Lockmart (yes one makes vehicles the others aeroplanes) but both get large amounts of money from the Government - one by direct purchases and tax breaks and the other by direct subsidies and both make products that are generally far too expensive for ordinary people to afford.
Are you feeling ok?
Usually. How ‘bout you?
“Not to mention the paltry 187 F-22s which work canceled because they were too expensive “
Sir, the cuts were driven not by “cost” per se, but by a false belief that there was no tactical reason for building more when we had the JSF coming on-line and we didn’t have enough jets in the pipeline to actually “do” something.
Downward cycle, cut and the cost goes up, cut more and the cost goes up even more AND you no longer have enough jets to make a substantial impact theater-wide or strategically, so cancel the program because it is too costly and you ain’t going to fight anyone, anyway (no peer threat).
The cost per jet went up with each cut in the number of jets produced. At 187 operational jets and 8 test aircraft, the cost-per jet is around 126M (pg 16 of 328: http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-150309-005.pdf).
If the total F-22 buy was as planned (around 650-ish), the cost per jet would be much lower, comparable to the current cost per jet of the JSF (70M) and you would have a capable jet in sufficient numbers to be effective.
Costs were the issue in Congress - Sen. Obie (D) was one of those pushing it as too expensive and deliberately killed the program with his amendment forbidding export - sure there were other reasons all false but that does not change the fact that the F-22 did cost less (fully build out & exported) and does work unlike the F-35 (fully build out & exported) which does cost more and does not work.
The F-35 was supposed to be a compliment to the F-22 not to supplant it as you suggest. What we did not have in the “pipeline” was political will. Someone hired a bunch of short-sighted, yes-men to reinforce the destruction of the mil. Killing the F-22 is comparable to the detrimental effect of placing women in combat arms on groundpounders’ fighting abilities ...
There is no comparison between the F-35 and the F-22 beyond they are both panes and use jet engines. One is an air superiority fighter and the other is a multi-role bomber (which it is as yet incapable of performing). One is a stealth fighter and the other is a stealthy bomb-dropper whenever it can actually do that.
If you felt I was saying the F-22 and F-35 were comparable, meaning the F-35 was to replace the F-22, I must not have been clear.
I was pointing out the cost factor was not the factor, it was an artificial construct that was a result of cuts and delays that made it THE factor later in the program. . though Obey was talking cuts back in the 105th citing costs, and the cuts also led to an inability to field enough jets to be effective, thereby justifying termination of the program.
As I stated: “Downward cycle, cut and the cost goes up, cut more and the cost goes up even more AND you no longer have enough jets to make a substantial impact theater-wide or strategically, so cancel the program because it is too costly and you ain’t going to fight anyone, anyway (no peer threat).”
The ban on export: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/2266 Title VIII, Section 8118. The “Obey Ammendment,” as it is known.
Banned export to protect our Air Dominance capability above all others because 5th Gen was so new, so advanced, that we were really sensitive about it. The Congressional Record reflects that sentiment: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/1997/3/20/senate-section/article/S2721-1
In the Congressional Record for the 105th, Obey gets his peanuts squashed, hard, when he tried to cut funding for the jet: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/1996/6/13/house-section/article/h6341-2?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%221997+F22%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=1 (If you do a word search, it is the 27th reference to “Obey” where the F-22 discussion begins). Obey cited experts saying we don’t have a threat now (1997) so why buy the jet so cut/delay the program, which will significantly increase cost of the jet’s program over a billion dollars. Interesting exchange.
Anyway, the F-22 is a spectacular jet and we shall see about the JSF.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.