Skip to comments.Another Boeing Tanker Delay; How Long, Oh Lord?
Posted on 06/03/2016 8:05:23 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
WASHINGTON: When Boeing really, truly and finally won the airborne tanker competition by underbidding what was then EADS North America (now Airbus) by at least 10 percent, the chairman of the losing company, Ralph Crosby, said he believed it important that Boeing be watched closely to make sure they delivered at that price and on schedule.
If they arent, then they should be held accountable, he said at the press conference announcing EADS would not protest the win.
Well, Boeings KC-46 is quite late and very over-budget. It was supposed to be ready for a spring 2017 arrival at Altus Air Force Base, Okla. and McConnell AFB, Kansas. That will not happen, Air Force Brig. Gen. Duke Richardson, the program executive officer for tankers, said in a statement late Friday on the Memorial Day weekend (in the best tradition of government trying to avoid the news cycle).
Technical challenges with boom design and issues with certification of the centerline drogue system and wing air refueling pods have driven delays to low rate production approval and initial aircraft deliveries, Richardson said.
The government now expects to make the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) decision, known as Milestone C, in August 2016 to give Boeing more time to fix the problems. It appears the current problem lies with one of the aircrafts most important roles refueling the C-17 cargo plane and the A-10 due to because of high loads on the refueling boom.
Boeing had similar problems with the Italian tankers, the first tankers based on the 767. That drogue system exhibited serious stability problems that took years to find fixes for. In the end, the Italian tankers came in six years late. They performed their first tanking of a foreign aircraft only recently. However, it was a substantial milestone, with the Boeing-built KC-767A becoming the first foreign tanker to undergo refueling certification trials with a U.S. aircraft.
The KC-46 has refueled an Air Force F-16 using the boom. The tanker has also transferred fuel to a Navy F/A-18 and a Marine Corps Harrier, which use the hose-and-drogue system for refueling,
The tanker uses a boom to refuel Air Force planes and hoses that extend from the wings and center body to refuel Navy, Marine Corps and allied aircraft.
What is the Air Force or the Office of Secretary of Defense doing to hold Boeing accountable? Not much, so far.
Throughout KC-46 development, the Air Force remained cautiously optimistic that Boeing would quickly address these issues and meet the original goal, he continued. However, we understand that no major procurement program is without challenges and the Air Force remains committed to ensuring all aircraft are delivered as technically required.
What many may have forgotten is that Boeing won the deeply troubled tanker competition because it offered a lower price and promised that technical risk was low, so cost overruns and schedule delays were unlikely. I still remember asking Boeing about the technical risks of integrating a glass cockpit which the Italian version of the tanker does not have and being told essentially that it was competition sensitive so the company wouldnt detail the risks. Those risks have clearly been greater than most of us knew from the beginning.
The good news for the taxpayer is that none of the more than $1.3 billion cost overruns Boeing has incurred so far are costing us a dime because of the fixed price contract used. The last of the first 18 aircraft will be delivered by January 2018 instead of by August 2017.
The 767 airliner that this KC-46 tanker is based on has gone out of production and its assembly lines have been shut down by Boeing for lack of sales.
Advanced fly by wire refuling boom. WTH difference does it make? The old ones work just fine. We have become far too complicated. We can’t do a damn thing right.
Hose and drouge have been around for decades. How hard can that be to get right.
“The 767 airliner that this KC-46 tanker is based on has gone out of production “
More Internet crap info?? The 767 is still in production and will be past 2020.
Biggest recipients of welfare are military contractors
Boeing plans to further speed up 767 aircraft production
Wed Sep 9, 2015 5:34pm EDT
Yep, Air to air refueling has been done since the 50s.
Kept re-bidding the contract until Boeing won. Airbus saw the handwriting on the wall.
They would have been better off going with the original winner.
It was actually invented in the late 1920’s for endurance flying.
On another note layoffs are happening on 787 big time.
I would rather Boeing have delays than give the contract to Airbus.
The way the KC-46A contract was written, Boeing must eat any cost overruns.
The contract was re-bid because the Air Force did not follow their own rules in evaluating the proposals.
Awarding the contract to Airbus wouldn’t have prevented delays; they were years late delivering the A380.
It wasn't based on the 380. It was based on the 330. And they've been delivering them since 2011. The Airbus first re-fueled US aircraft in combat operations in September 2014.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opTRHjBh8WA (the comments are fun)
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.