KC-46A 2017

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 666
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post20 Sep 2019, 05:04

blain wrote:There is a reason why Boeing lost the ATF, JSF, ATB, and LRS-B programs. If the Navy is smart, they would be wise to re compete the MQ-25 contract and award it to LM or NG.

To be fair, the MQ-25 guys actually know what they're doing since it's STL / McAir.
blain wrote:Now they are trying to force the AF to make NG accept them as a partner for the $63 billion GSBD program. Boeing claims the AF will get system sooner if it is involved. NG doesn't want them as a partner. I wonder why.

This is what a Boeing executive said about their conversations with NG.

"We talked to them immediately after we sent our no-bid letter in July. They considered it for about a month and then told us ‘no thanks,’”

That is so sad and pathetic.

This is great.
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23271
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Sep 2019, 20:47

Some detail for hope - I know - grasping at straws here....
AMC: KC-46 Can’t Deploy for at Least 3-4 Years
18 Sep 2019 Brian Everstine & John A. Tirpak​

"...Of the four Category One deficiencies affecting the jet—including a recently discovered issue with flawed cargo locks, announced in early September—the remote camera and sensor system used by the boom operator to guide the refueling boom to refuel receiving aircraft is the most critical.

The Air Force identified nine critical parameters Boeing must fix. The company is working with USAF scientists, Miller said, and the combined team has been “making progress” on seven of them. But two have proven “very difficult.” These include a problem with the acuity, or definition, of the display; with the current, flawed system, the boom operator’s vision is akin to 20/50 vision, Miller said. Depth perception is also a problem, making it particularly difficult for operators to know how far the boom is from the receiving aircraft.

Boeing “knows it has to meet all nine,” Miller said, calling AMC’s evaluation process a “pass/fail” matter. Failing to solve any one parameter counts as failure. Miller promised to “increase the pressure,” but did not specify what means would be applied. “The pressure’s on to get this into the fight,” she said. “Our teams will work together to get this into the fight.”

Speaking for Boeing, Mike Hefer, the company’s senior manager for KC-46 business development, told Air Force Magazine that the Air Force and Boeing have a memorandum of agreement regarding the RVS. “Maybe we had some fault on both sides defining what the system should look like,” he said. But “we’ve established very objective data now on what the RVS should be able to perform. We’ve gotten the green light from the Air Force to build, upgrade, and enhance the RVS system, to meet all those … critical performance parameters. So we’ve got a clear path forward.”...

...According to Hafer, “nothing came loose” in the incident that triggered the order barring cargo and passengers from KC-46 flights. “It stayed secure the whole flight,” he said. “At no time was there a safety of flight issue. It just did not indicate a full lock.”

Boeing suspects vibrations caused the indicators on the clamps to shift from locked, to “off center.” Although he offered no timetable, Hafer promised, “We can get that fixed.” “We’re doing the full root cause analysis,” Haver said. “We need to verify our solution,” he noted, saying “our solution is being put to the test right now. Once that analysis is complete, we turn that analysis over to the Air Force.”..."

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... Years.aspx
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2290
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post21 Sep 2019, 04:50

With the new contract structure you get paid for 'work'. It probably pays better in the short term to find 'issues' that the USAF design required so that Boeing can 'fix' them.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1806
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post22 Sep 2019, 18:48

outlaw162 wrote:If I might say one more thing for 'BASHER' before getting back to the KC-46. That photo of 5 F-100Cs and 5 KC-97Gs is from the USAF archives. It was the first all ANG non-stop deployment to Europe, Operation Ready Go in 1964, before my time.
If those DC Guard guys stayed with the tankers all the way at 210 KCAS or so (maybe at best 300-320 KTAS) it must have been miserable. At least the winds were probably out of the west.



:salute:
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2649
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post22 Sep 2019, 20:35

“If the Navy is smart, they would be wise to re compete the MQ-25 contract and award it to LM or NG.”

Three chances on that idea — fat, slim and notta. BA ‘owns’ the Navy.
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post24 Sep 2019, 00:25

quicksilver wrote:“If the Navy is smart, they would be wise to re compete the MQ-25 contract and award it to LM or NG.”

Three chances on that idea — fat, slim and notta. BA ‘owns’ the Navy.


So true. NG dropped out so they wouldn't likely submit anything in a re compete. It kind of reminds me of the KC-X competition. I believe NG didn't submit. In this one case, Boeing probably had the best design. But we'll see...
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3438
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post24 Sep 2019, 13:20

rheonomic wrote:
blain wrote:There is a reason why Boeing lost the ATF, JSF, ATB, and LRS-B programs. If the Navy is smart, they would be wise to re compete the MQ-25 contract and award it to LM or NG.

To be fair, the MQ-25 guys actually know what they're doing since it's STL / McAir.
blain wrote:Now they are trying to force the AF to make NG accept them as a partner for the $63 billion GSBD program. Boeing claims the AF will get system sooner if it is involved. NG doesn't want them as a partner. I wonder why.

This is what a Boeing executive said about their conversations with NG.

"We talked to them immediately after we sent our no-bid letter in July. They considered it for about a month and then told us ‘no thanks,’”

That is so sad and pathetic.

This is great.


That was hilarious!

In all seriousness, unless Boeing delivers a miracle fighter in the form of the F-15EX... they'll be out of the fighter business after that. I can't see them winning PCA, the Navy's F/A-XX or... anything else fighter related.

They are living on borrowed time with the F-15EX. Only another monsterous showing in the air to air arena with their latest Eagle will save them. Even then, who's going to buy it... when the F-35 is cheaper?? Oh wait, the USAF just did lol...
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests