More KC-46 problems...
10-20-2020, 08:08 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,622
Originally Posted by Excargodog
And yet none of the KC-46s yet delivered actually meets any of those requirements,
Yes, Boeing has made mistakes. But so have the USAF -- and then some.
10-21-2020, 11:11 AM
#33
Permanent Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,677
Originally Posted by PurpleToolBox
The KC-46 meets the requirements. As I said earlier, the USAF wanted a remote boom station and Boeing gave them what they asked for. After boom operators kept having COTRs (Contacts Outside the Receptacle), they blamed the camera system's fidelity. But the US Air Force ACCEPTED the tanker as is. Then they pressured Boeing for a change.
Yes, Boeing has made mistakes. But so have the USAF -- and then some.
Yes, Boeing has made mistakes. But so have the USAF -- and then some.
The problem is the USAF's acquisition system, and unreasonable requirements.
The USAF could have bought the existing 767 tanker and gotten a proven airframe/tanker for cheap, and it would have met 90%+ of the requirements.
Instead, they (USAF) insists on meeting 100% of requirements, regardless of cost or complexity.
It is not a nuclear warhead. The system has to change.
10-21-2020, 07:26 PM
#34
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,502
Originally Posted by navigatro
The problem is the USAF's acquisition system, and unreasonable requirements.
The USAF could have bought the existing 767 tanker and gotten a proven airframe/tanker for cheap, and it would have met 90%+ of the requirements.
Instead, they (USAF) insists on meeting 100% of requirements, regardless of cost or complexity.
It is not a nuclear warhead. The system has to change.
The USAF could have bought the existing 767 tanker and gotten a proven airframe/tanker for cheap, and it would have met 90%+ of the requirements.
Instead, they (USAF) insists on meeting 100% of requirements, regardless of cost or complexity.
It is not a nuclear warhead. The system has to change.
10-23-2020, 12:28 PM
#36
Occasional box hauler
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,683
Originally Posted by paulcg77
I'm holding out hope the AF will still order some A330 MRTT's. No reason they can't co-exist given the variety of tanker models currently and previously operated by the US military.
10-23-2020, 12:39 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Position: A shack in Kailua
Posts: 290
Originally Posted by tnkrdrvr
The A330 based tanker has some significant issues as well. It’s wingspan would significantly reduce the number of tails that could be parked in a given amount of ramp. The ice shield on the boom is also so fat that it has not been cleared for USAF F15 variants last I checked (It has been a couple years). Finally, while the number of pallets it can carry is impressive for a strat airlifter, it translates into a higher fuel burn that eats away “instantaneous” far more rapidly than a four engine 135. The real problem is the USAF wrote a bad RFP to begin with. Boeing’s malfeasance is merely a rewarded symptom of a broken system.
10-23-2020, 04:37 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,096
Originally Posted by paulcg77
I'm holding out hope the AF will still order some A330 MRTT's. No reason they can't co-exist given the variety of tanker models currently and previously operated by the US military.
10-23-2020, 05:55 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Position: A shack in Kailua
Posts: 290
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
This would be the dumbest thing the USAF could do. For anyone who has employed tanker MWSs, you would quickly understand why this is a horrible idea. The fact that the USAF even considered the MRTT was a huge mistake -- no pun intended!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
