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.

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.

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.

That was the old Boeing, which built airliners that their chief pilot could barrel-roll in the traffic pattern.

New Boeing is MD dba Boeing.

“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.

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.

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

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.

That could work, many countries will tend to gravitate towards whatever military hardware the US buys, in pursuit of quality, interoperability, and prestige. Although I think that "gold standard" paradigm has ceded a lot of ground to Europe in recent years.

If you just want cheap, the soviet block is where to shop.

Aren't there a few countries flying the tanker successfully?