KC-46…
01-27-2022, 06:20 PM
#1
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,480
KC-46…
The KC-46 program has racked up a total of $5.4 billion in pre-tax charges over the course of its development — all costs Boeing must bear due to the terms of its fixed-price contract with the US Air Force.
The latest charge “was primarily driven by evolving customer requirements for the remote vision system, as well as factory and supply chain disruptions including the impact of COVID-19,” Boeing spokeswoman Didi VanNierop said in an email to Breaking Defense.
Under the 2011 agreement, Boeing is responsible for paying costs in excess of its $4.9 billion contract with the service, meaning that at this point, Boeing has paid more in cost overruns than the Air Force has paid to develop its newest tanker.
The Air Force plans to buy 179 KC-46s over the course of the program. Due to longstanding issues with the tanker’s remote vision system — a series of cameras that allows the boom operator to oversee the refueling process, which Boeing has agreed to pay to redesign — the service will not be able to declare the KC-46 fully operational until fiscal 2024.
Currently, the KC-46 can conduct “limited” aerial refueling operations in support of about 70 percent of military aircraft, Lt. Col. Kevin White, Air Mobility Command’s deputy leader of the KC-46A cross functional team, said in a statement in December.
The latest charge “was primarily driven by evolving customer requirements for the remote vision system, as well as factory and supply chain disruptions including the impact of COVID-19,” Boeing spokeswoman Didi VanNierop said in an email to Breaking Defense.
Under the 2011 agreement, Boeing is responsible for paying costs in excess of its $4.9 billion contract with the service, meaning that at this point, Boeing has paid more in cost overruns than the Air Force has paid to develop its newest tanker.
The Air Force plans to buy 179 KC-46s over the course of the program. Due to longstanding issues with the tanker’s remote vision system — a series of cameras that allows the boom operator to oversee the refueling process, which Boeing has agreed to pay to redesign — the service will not be able to declare the KC-46 fully operational until fiscal 2024.
Currently, the KC-46 can conduct “limited” aerial refueling operations in support of about 70 percent of military aircraft, Lt. Col. Kevin White, Air Mobility Command’s deputy leader of the KC-46A cross functional team, said in a statement in December.
02-03-2022, 09:28 AM
#4
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,480
Originally Posted by Beech Dude
"Declare fully operational by fiscal 2024", wow. I remember reading that exact quote...except it was in 2006 saying FOC in 2008; I think it could be safe to say this boondoggle may be worse than the F-35 program.
02-03-2022, 09:34 AM
#5
Occasional box hauler
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,676
Originally Posted by Excargodog
Not even close. This was a firm fixed price contract. Boeing shareholders, not the tax paying public at large - are getting the shaft on this one.
02-03-2022, 09:41 AM
#6
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,480
Originally Posted by tnkrdrvr
The taxpayers are still getting shafted since we don’t have operational use of the aircraft we paid for. Until Al Udeid and Dhafra have 46s on the ramp instead of 135s and 10s, we don’t really have the product we paid for.
02-03-2022, 02:00 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 595
In the late 90’s as a young man going through Army flight school, I wanted to fly ‘Guns’ and chose Apache’s.
The old guys teaching us said that we’d wind up our careers in either the Longbow or the Comanche. Heck there were even computer flight sim games built around the Comanche where you could sneak into enemy territory low level and fling ‘pew pellets’ and hellfires at bad guys. It was a sure thing.
Almost 25 years later, the only Comanche I sat in was a prototype in the museum. Really cool and it woulda been a sweet ride. As soon as that program was shut down, the amount of money that rolled into the existing airframes was astounding in EW/Threat detection, new and very improved FLIRs, better hellfires…. Even a new off the shelf (COTS) airframe to replace Huey’s and Kiowa’s. I was shocked at the $$$$’s that program siphoned away.
And if any of the program managers on this tanker program came from the Army, I’d like to offer my heartfelt apologies.
The old guys teaching us said that we’d wind up our careers in either the Longbow or the Comanche. Heck there were even computer flight sim games built around the Comanche where you could sneak into enemy territory low level and fling ‘pew pellets’ and hellfires at bad guys. It was a sure thing.
Almost 25 years later, the only Comanche I sat in was a prototype in the museum. Really cool and it woulda been a sweet ride. As soon as that program was shut down, the amount of money that rolled into the existing airframes was astounding in EW/Threat detection, new and very improved FLIRs, better hellfires…. Even a new off the shelf (COTS) airframe to replace Huey’s and Kiowa’s. I was shocked at the $$$$’s that program siphoned away.
And if any of the program managers on this tanker program came from the Army, I’d like to offer my heartfelt apologies.
02-11-2022, 06:59 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,621
Originally Posted by tnkrdrvr
The taxpayers are still getting shafted since we don’t have operational use of the aircraft we paid for. Until Al Udeid and Dhafra have 46s on the ramp instead of 135s and 10s, we don’t really have the product we paid for.
Once RVS is fixed, the KC-46 will be a great tanker and mobility asset.
02-15-2022, 03:49 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 146
Originally Posted by Excargodog
Not even close. This was a firm fixed price contract. Boeing shareholders, not the tax paying public at large - are getting the shaft on this one.
It was unusual for Boeing to sign a fixed firm price contact for the KC-46, and everyone touted it as "great for the taxpayer" and all of that. I have to imagine Boeing has done some work on the back end to make sure they get their pound of flesh, though.
I'd suspect their is contractual language somewhere that guarantees Boeing the repair and overhaul work on the KC-46. This would be inline with Boeing's strategy to diversify into services offerings, vs strictly aircraft production.
02-15-2022, 08:22 AM
#10
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,211
Originally Posted by fasteddie800
I have no doubt that Boeing is paying the overages, but I'm skeptical about who's getting the shaft in all of this.
It was unusual for Boeing to sign a fixed firm price contact for the KC-46, and everyone touted it as "great for the taxpayer" and all of that. I have to imagine Boeing has done some work on the back end to make sure they get their pound of flesh, though.
I'd suspect their is contractual language somewhere that guarantees Boeing the repair and overhaul work on the KC-46. This would be inline with Boeing's strategy to diversify into services offerings, vs strictly aircraft production.
It was unusual for Boeing to sign a fixed firm price contact for the KC-46, and everyone touted it as "great for the taxpayer" and all of that. I have to imagine Boeing has done some work on the back end to make sure they get their pound of flesh, though.
I'd suspect their is contractual language somewhere that guarantees Boeing the repair and overhaul work on the KC-46. This would be inline with Boeing's strategy to diversify into services offerings, vs strictly aircraft production.
IIRC it was assumed in the industry that Boeing low-balled the bid, basically taking a risk that they'd be able to make it up on the flip side. I'm pretty sure there are no such contractual guarantees since the bid was for the tanker, not the follow on and bidders cannot unilaterally change the terms of the RFP in a competitive contest. Boeing would have a presumed competitive advantage with future support bids, since they built the plane and systems. Even if the gov controls some of the product IP, the processes still belong to Boeing.
