More KC-46 problems...
10-01-2020, 02:47 PM
#1
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,481
More KC-46 problems...
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020...stem-problems/
it ought not to be this difficult or expensive to take a mature airframe (767) and modify it to replace 1950s era technology KC-135s.
it ought not to be this difficult or expensive to take a mature airframe (767) and modify it to replace 1950s era technology KC-135s.
10-02-2020, 06:50 AM
#2
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,212
Originally Posted by Excargodog
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020...stem-problems/
it ought not to be this difficult or expensive to take a mature airframe (767) and modify it to replace 1950s era technology KC-135s.
it ought not to be this difficult or expensive to take a mature airframe (767) and modify it to replace 1950s era technology KC-135s.
Boeing Defense seems to do better, but obviously they can't build a tanker without BCA.
10-02-2020, 06:57 AM
#3
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,481
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I think it's probably BCA's corporate culture/philosophy... same folks that brought us the max.
Boeing Defense seems to do better, but obviously they can't build a tanker without BCA.
Boeing Defense seems to do better, but obviously they can't build a tanker without BCA.
10-02-2020, 07:08 AM
#4
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,212
Originally Posted by Excargodog
But jeez, they’ve been the tanker guys throughout history. Not just the KC-135s but converting C-97s to KC-97s, and even B-29s to KB-50s before that. And in months, not years. And for a damn sight less than $40 billion even in constant year dollars. You’d think the company would die from the embarrassment alone.
New Boeing is MD dba Boeing.
10-02-2020, 09:56 AM
#5
Occasional box hauler
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,676
“The KC 46 has been an extremely problematical program. I speak with Leanne Caret, the CEO of the defense side of Boeing, on a regular basis about it,” Lord said. “One issue is frankly the technical solution. That was the original design [and] is now being redesigned, but also we have had a myriad of manufacturing issues with [foreign object debris] and other issues.”
However, she said the root cause of the problems is the fixed-price firm contract used for the KC-46 program, which makes Boeing financially responsible for any costs beyond the $4.9 billion ceiling. So far, Boeing has spent more than $4.7 billion in company funds on the KC-46 program — almost equivalent to the Air Force’s own investment in the program.
So basically, the head of acquisitions for DOD sees the KC-46 as a poorly designed solution to the tanker mission. Then turns around and says it’s the AF’s fault for using a fixed-price firm contract, since Boeing couldn’t soak the taxpayers for wildly underbidding the true cost.
This sounds like AF acquisitions didn’t know how to draw up a proper competition that measured what actually matters and Boeing assumed that when it became evident how much they had underestimated costs Congress would bail them out. The ineptitude and corporate laziness is mind boggling. A clean sheet design would have better met the mission needs and would have avoided the contract contortions that trying to buy an American COTS airframe resulted in.
However, she said the root cause of the problems is the fixed-price firm contract used for the KC-46 program, which makes Boeing financially responsible for any costs beyond the $4.9 billion ceiling. So far, Boeing has spent more than $4.7 billion in company funds on the KC-46 program — almost equivalent to the Air Force’s own investment in the program.
So basically, the head of acquisitions for DOD sees the KC-46 as a poorly designed solution to the tanker mission. Then turns around and says it’s the AF’s fault for using a fixed-price firm contract, since Boeing couldn’t soak the taxpayers for wildly underbidding the true cost.
This sounds like AF acquisitions didn’t know how to draw up a proper competition that measured what actually matters and Boeing assumed that when it became evident how much they had underestimated costs Congress would bail them out. The ineptitude and corporate laziness is mind boggling. A clean sheet design would have better met the mission needs and would have avoided the contract contortions that trying to buy an American COTS airframe resulted in.
10-02-2020, 11:12 AM
#6
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,212
BCA should know what they're doing by now. They should have know how to bid a FFP contract without losing their arse, and they should have known better than to intentionally bid (if that's what they did) something like this at a loss in hopes of a bailout.
10-03-2020, 09:18 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 747 Captain (Ret,)
Posts: 804
Originally Posted by rickair7777
BCA should know what they're doing by now. They should have know how to bid a FFP contract without losing their arse, and they should have known better than to intentionally bid (if that's what they did) something like this at a loss in hopes of a bailout.
Joe
10-03-2020, 10:16 AM
#8
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Or, just like the new T-7A program: sell below cost, because you expect to make your profit in the long-term support contract.
No different than my new HP printer. Printer was $50.
Their replacement cartridges? $50 for Black, $75 for color....Wait...that means it’s cheaper to buy a new printer AND cartridge...than just a cartridge....
(Fortunately, there are aftermarket ones that work great for $32).
I’d bet Boeing is banking on the long haul for parts and services.
No different than my new HP printer. Printer was $50.
Their replacement cartridges? $50 for Black, $75 for color....Wait...that means it’s cheaper to buy a new printer AND cartridge...than just a cartridge....
(Fortunately, there are aftermarket ones that work great for $32).
I’d bet Boeing is banking on the long haul for parts and services.
10-03-2020, 10:48 AM
#9
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,212
Originally Posted by joepilot
I don't believe that they expect a bailout. I think that they expect additional orders beyond the initial order, and these additional orders would be profitable.
Joe
Joe
If you just want cheap, the soviet block is where to shop.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
