Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Military
More KC-46 problems... >

More KC-46 problems...

Notices
Military Military Aviation

More KC-46 problems...

Old 10-10-2020, 04:09 PM
  #21  
Gets Everyday Off
 
TransWorld's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 6,880
Default

Ah, yes, my old friend (not really) Mike Sears. If I recall, he had the illegal discussion while sitting in the terminal at Lambert Field in STL.
TransWorld is offline  
Old 10-11-2020, 09:38 AM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
PurpleToolBox's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,621
Default

Originally Posted by bababouey View Post
remember, Airbus won the initial contract until Boeing called in favors.
No, Boeing didn’t call in “favors.” The USAF unfairly executed the proposal and Boeing protested the decision. SNAFU. The GAO didn’t agree with every protest that Boeing had but they did say this:

Specifically, we sustain the protest, because we find that (1) the Air Force did not evaluate the offerors' technical proposals under the key system requirements subfactor of the mission capability factor in accordance with the weighting established in the RFP's evaluation criteria; (2) a key technical discriminator relied upon in the selection decision in favor of Northrop Grumman relating to the aerial refueling area of the key system requirements subfactor, was contrary to the RFP; (3) the Air Force did not reasonably evaluate the capability of Northrop Grumman's proposed aircraft to refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing, tanker'compatible aircraft using current Air Force procedures, as required by the RFP; (4) the Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing with respect to whether it had satisfied an RFP objective under the operational utility area of the key system requirements subfactor; (5) Northrop Grumman's proposal took exception to a material solicitation requirement related to the product support subfactor; (6) the Air Force did not reasonably evaluate military construction (MILCON) costs associated with the offerors' proposed aircraft consistent with the RFP; and (7) the Air Force unreasonably evaluated Boeing's estimated non'recurring engineering costs associated with its proposed system development and demonstration (SDD).
PurpleToolBox is offline  
Old 10-11-2020, 10:44 AM
  #23  
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,407
Default

Originally Posted by PurpleToolBox View Post
No, Boeing didn’t call in “favors.” The USAF unfairly executed the proposal and Boeing protested the decision. SNAFU. The GAO didn’t agree with every protest that Boeing had but they did say this:

Specifically, we sustain the protest, because we find that (1) the Air Force did not evaluate the offerors' technical proposals under the key system requirements subfactor of the mission capability factor in accordance with the weighting established in the RFP's evaluation criteria; (2) a key technical discriminator relied upon in the selection decision in favor of Northrop Grumman relating to the aerial refueling area of the key system requirements subfactor, was contrary to the RFP; (3) the Air Force did not reasonably evaluate the capability of Northrop Grumman's proposed aircraft to refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing, tanker'compatible aircraft using current Air Force procedures, as required by the RFP; (4) the Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing with respect to whether it had satisfied an RFP objective under the operational utility area of the key system requirements subfactor; (5) Northrop Grumman's proposal took exception to a material solicitation requirement related to the product support subfactor; (6) the Air Force did not reasonably evaluate military construction (MILCON) costs associated with the offerors' proposed aircraft consistent with the RFP; and (7) the Air Force unreasonably evaluated Boeing's estimated non'recurring engineering costs associated with its proposed system development and demonstration (SDD).

And yet none of the KC-46s yet delivered actually meets any of those requirements,

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-...vision-system/

And the long delayed decision on full rate production has now been delayed ANOTHER FOUR YEARS.

Boeing Sees $44 Billion Tanker Decision Delayed by Four Years


Tony Capaccio

10/06/2020(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Air Force has delayed by four years a decision on whether the $44 billion KC-46 tanker program should be approved for full-rate production while contractor Boeing Co. tries to show it has fixed the flawed camera system used for the plane’s midair refueling mission.

An Air Force statement issued late Monday said the decision will come in July to September of 2024. It was previously planned for this September, Ann Stefanek, a spokeswoman for the service, disclosed on Tuesday.
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/money/tops...w6?li=BB12J2Hy

while the competition has been flying now with full capabilities for over a decade:

https://www.time24.news/2020/09/norw...us-tanker.html

By way of comparison, the KC-135 program was started in 1954 based on the Dash-80 that would eventually become the 707.

The first tanker aircraft first flew in 1956, and had initial operational capability in 1957. The KC-46 contract was signed in 2011. It was based on the 767, an aircraft that first flew in 1981 and was FAA certified in 1982.

The KC-46 program has, IMHO, now exceeded the criteria for SNAFU and is closely approaching FUBAR.
Excargodog is offline  
Old 10-11-2020, 03:43 PM
  #24  
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,407
Default

Yep. Impending FUBAR...



Excargodog is offline  
Old 10-14-2020, 12:40 AM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,168
Default

Originally Posted by Excargodog View Post
And yet none of the KC-46s yet delivered actually meets any of those requirements,

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-...vision-system/

And the long delayed decision on full rate production has now been delayed ANOTHER FOUR YEARS.



https://www.msn.com/en-xl/money/tops...w6?li=BB12J2Hy

while the competition has been flying now with full capabilities for over a decade:

https://www.time24.news/2020/09/norw...us-tanker.html

By way of comparison, the KC-135 program was started in 1954 based on the Dash-80 that would eventually become the 707.

The first tanker aircraft first flew in 1956, and had initial operational capability in 1957. The KC-46 contract was signed in 2011. It was based on the 767, an aircraft that first flew in 1981 and was FAA certified in 1982.

The KC-46 program has, IMHO, now exceeded the criteria for SNAFU and is closely approaching FUBAR.

Shack. McD-Boeing is a dumpster fire on all fronts, commercial, defense and space. The entire front office should take a ride on a Max being refueled by a KC-46 and IF they arrive, take a ride on the Starliner.
Grumble is offline  
Old 10-14-2020, 06:47 AM
  #26  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,097
Default

Originally Posted by Grumble View Post
take a ride on the Starliner.
I think they should be the ops-test crew on the starliner... to mars.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 10-14-2020, 07:32 AM
  #27  
Gets Everyday Off
 
TransWorld's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 6,880
Default

Originally Posted by Grumble View Post
Shack. McD-Boeing is a dumpster fire on all fronts, commercial, defense and space. The entire front office should take a ride on a Max being refueled by a KC-46 and IF they arrive, take a ride on the Starliner.
Would make life interesting.
TransWorld is offline  
Old 10-18-2020, 06:13 AM
  #28  
Occasional box hauler
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,636
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
I think they should be the ops-test crew on the starliner... to mars.
This! Boeing has been driven off a cliff by its C suite.
tnkrdrvr is offline  
Old 10-18-2020, 02:22 PM
  #29  
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,407
Default

Originally Posted by tnkrdrvr View Post
This! Boeing has been driven off a cliff by its C suite.
indeed it has...





It’s not the first time the Army has suspended Apache deliveries. From March to August 2018, the service halted acceptances after finding a flaw in a part that holds the helicopter’s rotors to the aircraft.

Boeing quality-control practices have been called into question by both the commercial industry and the military. The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating potential manufacturing issues on 787 Dreamliner aircraft.

The U.S. Air Force had to halt deliveries of KC-46 tankers on numerous occasions after military inspectors found trash, parts, and tools left inside the aircraft. In March 2019, Will Roper, the head of Air Force acquisition, blamed the company’s assembly line culture for the issues.

The coronavirus pandemic has only made things worse for Boeing and its suppliers as air travel evaporates and airlines cancel plane orders. Earlier this year, executives said the company’s $34 billion defense business would outperform its typically lucrative commercial business for the first time in more than a decade.
Excargodog is offline  
Old 10-18-2020, 04:35 PM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2020
Posts: 399
Default

It’s a burning house...
firefighterplt is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
inky13
Major
0
12-24-2008 09:37 PM
FBEDCOM
Major
8
12-01-2008 10:11 PM
ERJ135
Regional
26
01-24-2008 12:39 PM
N2rotation
Regional
20
11-07-2007 09:05 PM
Sir James
Major
1
07-17-2005 08:47 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices