RhinoPherret

Production Decision on Boeing's Troubled KC-46 Tanker Expected Soon

IBD/GILLIAN RICH

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Air Force is still on track to hold a formal decision-making meeting over the Boeing (BA) KC-46 tanker later this month.

At the State of the Air Force hearing Wednesday, Air Force Secretary Deborah James said a meeting with top Pentagon procurement officer Frank Kendall will take place later this month to approve production of the KC-46 tanker, known as Milestone C.

"We believe that aircraft has meet all the wickets that are required to meet Milestone C, but of course it remains to be seen, so I'll say stay tuned for that," she said.

The meeting was originally scheduled for June, but Boeing said in a May statement that it was delayed so the company would have "additional time to implement the solution to a refueling boom loads issue identified during flight testing earlier this year."

Boeing took a $393 million after-tax charge on the KC-46 in the second quarter due to higher costs to work on technical issues that put the plane behind schedule.

Boeing also reported a charge on the tanker in Q1 and has racked up $1.5 billion in cost overruns on additional engineering and development work.

At the hearing, James also outlined incentives to retain pilots, as U.S. commercial airlines likeUnited Airlines (UAL), American Airlines (AAL) and Delta Air Lines (DAL) are on a hiring spree to replace retiring pilots. The Air Force is expected to face a shortfall of 1,000 pilots by the end of the year.

Last month, Boeing projected that airlines would need 617,000 pilots the next 20 years, up 11% from its forecast in 2015. U.S. carriers are expected to hire 20,000 pilots over the next decade.

Mink

Why is this so difficult? Boeing has built tankers before, the 767 has been around for decades. $hit, the Japanese are already flying a 767 tanker version.

Another US Defense Dept procurement program gone awry. Shocked.

FDXLAG

Plenty of blame to go around, when you have to make sure every congressman gets his beak wet, there is bound to be a little spillage.

Grumble

Don't forget all the contractors in test, eval, acquisition, etc. It's not about whether the airplane works, it's about whether all the fingers in the pie can keep themselves relevant and thus employed.

galaxy flyer

Remember, it's the Frankentanker--not a B767 converted to KC-46. I think it's a -200 fuse, -300IGW wing and center section, -400 cockpit with militarized avionics. Lots of "moving parts". Not to excuse the 20-year development cycle and overruns.

And the Japanese versions weren't exactly smooth sailing, either.

GF

UAL T38 Phlyer

Nor the Italian. Seems I read about flutter, either in the wing, or boom.

My question: how does Boeing manage to royally screw this up, when they INVENTED the flying boom more than 60 years ago????

And Galaxy is correct.

Yoda2

Possibly because Boeing is a much bigger company than it was 60 years ago. More people frequently means more problems... Maybe there are some KC97's at DM that could be pressed into interim service

PurpleToolBox

So the tanker hit a few engineering challenges, shouldn't that be expected?

I don't understand why everyone, including the USAF, is giving Boeing so much grief about this. Boeing's paying for it.

But I do have one major issue with the KC-46, putting the Boom Operator in the cockpit with the Remote Air Refueling Station. Big mistake. Boeing just made air refueling much more susceptible to single modes of failures and more complex for the boom operator.

Grumble

Really?

Ex-Boeing CFO gets jail for tanker scandal - Chicago Tribune

Boeing, the Pentagon and the tanker scandal that won?t go away - Boeing and Aerospace News

The Boeing Scandal After the Boeing Scandals

Lets not forget, after they got busted the lost the original bid to EADS.

UAL T38 Phlyer

In a new design, yes. But not in one that is fundamentally 35 years old, and already flying in three major variants; 4-6 if you include minor variations.

While the KC-97 reference is amusing, McBoeing does have two proven booms in their inventory: the KC-135 and the KC-10. Since they recycled all the other pieces here, why not the boom?

I agree though that putting the Boomer up front is ridiculous. The resolution on a TV will be much better than just looking out a window, and I'm sure the system will never fail, nor the lens(es) on the camera(s) never get dirty.....