Jump to content

KC-46A Info


Hammer

Recommended Posts

On 4/3/2020 at 12:19 PM, hurls said:

And we actually dug that hole too, Northrop won the KC-X program until Boeing contested it and the requirements were then "updated" to favor the KC-46

Actually the USAF screwed this one up. They awarded Northrop Grumman bonus points for additional AR offload beyond the contractual minimum but that extra wasn't supposed to be scored per the contract, right or wrong. In Boeing's defense, they would have offered up a 777-based tanker since it would be able to offload more fuel. The GAO agreed with Boeing and the rest is history.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, precontact said:

Actually the USAF screwed this one up. They awarded Northrop Grumman bonus points for additional AR offload beyond the contractual minimum but that extra wasn't supposed to be scored per the contract, right or wrong. In Boeing's defense, they would have offered up a 777-based tanker since it would be able to offload more fuel. The GAO agreed with Boeing and the rest is history.

After seeing another program almost go that way...not shocked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the USAF screwed this one up. They awarded Northrop Grumman bonus points for additional AR offload beyond the contractual minimum but that extra wasn't supposed to be scored per the contract, right or wrong. In Boeing's defense, they would have offered up a 777-based tanker since it would be able to offload more fuel. The GAO agreed with Boeing and the rest is history.
They did the same thing with CSAR-X. They gave bonus points for hot high performance above the KPP and as a result the H-47 looked better than the medium lift helicopters they were really wanting. Other shenanigans happened as well but that was the one that sustained the initial protest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Does this even solve a problem? Are we short on copilots now? If you do single pilot ops, presumably that's an IP flying around themselves, which means the FPs aren't getting hours for upgrade, which means the problem gets worse in the future...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Stoker said:

Does this even solve a problem? Are we short on copilots now? If you do single pilot ops, presumably that's an IP flying around themselves, which means the FPs aren't getting hours for upgrade, which means the problem gets worse in the future...

All fun problems the staff never thinks about. Separately there is an article going around about C-130Js experimenting with single pilot.  What problem are we trying to solve? Or is this another potential lucrative deal for a bloated defense contractor at the expense of safety and readiness?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Stoker said:

Does this even solve a problem? Are we short on copilots now? If you do single pilot ops, presumably that's an IP flying around themselves, which means the FPs aren't getting hours for upgrade, which means the problem gets worse in the future...

Nah. If F-16 pilots can fly by thermals themselves starting in the FTU, surely the tanker guys can too...I mean, you don't even have to manage the weapons, right? 

/s

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Nah. If F-16 pilots can fly by thermals themselves starting in the FTU, surely the tanker guys can too...I mean, you don't even have to manage the weapons, right? 
/s


Good thing we're getting a higher quality pilot out of UPT 2.5 despite cutting training hours /s
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stoker said:

Does this even solve a problem? Are we short on copilots now? If you do single pilot ops, presumably that's an IP flying around themselves, which means the FPs aren't getting hours for upgrade, which means the problem gets worse in the future...

One of the issues for the -46, both on the boom and pilot side, was the only people in the community came via a TX course. Both PIQ and BIQ courses were finalized last month and Altus is currently teaching brand new pilots out of UPT and booms out of the enlisted pipeline. However, that will take some time to balance out between the four main operating bases (McConnell, Pease, Seymour, McGuire....with Travis, March, and Macdill behind).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the issues for the -46, both on the boom and pilot side, was the only people in the community came via a TX course. Both PIQ and BIQ courses were finalized last month and Altus is currently teaching brand new pilots out of UPT and booms out of the enlisted pipeline. However, that will take some time to balance out between the four main operating bases (McConnell, Pease, Seymour, McGuire....with Travis, March, and Macdill behind).


You think Altus can actually produce in volume? Aren’t there like three “FTUs” right now?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, ThreeHoler said:

 


You think Altus can actually produce in volume? Aren’t there like three “FTUs” right now?

 

Once the new CBA goes into action in January, hiring will pick up due to the pay increase. There’s a mini FTU at McConnell that teaches PTX/BTX and some internal IAC/IBC. All the MOB’s teach the ground and sim training for PTX/BTX. All the TX flying is still done at Altus.
 

My own opinion is since PIQ/BIQ is up and running, PCO is created, you’ll see the TX’s be reduced significantly and eventually fully moved back to Altus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once the new CBA goes into action in January, hiring will pick up due to the pay increase. There’s a mini FTU at McConnell that teaches PTX/BTX and some internal IAC/IBC. All the MOB’s teach the ground and sim training for PTX/BTX. All the TX flying is still done at Altus.
 
My own opinion is since PIQ/BIQ is up and running, PCO is created, you’ll see the TX’s be reduced significantly and eventually fully moved back to Altus.


Does that CBA include McConnell, Pease, Seymour, McGuire, and eventually Travis? Or just Altus? Last I saw to get hired for KC-46 sim at Travis you had to do time at Altus. Have they stopped that silliness?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2022 at 7:02 PM, uhhello said:

Single pilots ops waiver for the 46?

The AF needs to subscribe to VASAVIATION on YouTube! There’s hundreds of videos of just how busy it gets when a single engine goes out and ATC is bugging you while you are trying to run checklists to get configured to land heavyweight!

Edited by HeyEng
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the competitor: https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2022-07-airbus-a330-mrtt-becomes-worlds-first-tanker-certified-for

Meanwhile at Boeing: https://aviationweek.com/shownews/farnborough-airshow/new-air-force-one-delayed-again-first-delivery-set-2026  

If we pass up the KC-Y for more 46s we as a force deserve everything that comes after. The fact Boeing still gets contracts proves to me this whole bidding process is a sham. 

Edit: Forgot we already decided to acquire the wedgie from Boeing. We're screwed.

Edited by LiquidSky
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

Is there even one program that Boeing isn’t screwing up? It’s an honest question as I cannot think of one between all known military and civilian programs.

I flew a MAX today. Still here to talk about it. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

Is there even one program that Boeing isn’t screwing up? It’s an honest question as I cannot think of one between all known military and civilian programs.

I think the B-52 has a lot of potential well into the 2100s 😆

More seriously I think maybe the P-8 and MQ-25 have been well-received by the Navy? Hopefully the T-7 will do well? IDK, it’s a stretch with so many high profile massive FUBAR programs (starliner, KC-46, MAX, SLS, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The KC-46 is a great airframe and will be the preeminent tanker going forward. The underlying design is solid, but decisions made by Boeing in the name of saving money have hit it hard. We're gaining more confidence in the airplane everyday and its potential to be more than a tanker will be interesting to follow. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, precontact said:

The KC-46 is a great airframe and will be the preeminent tanker going forward. 

Only because the other tanker we've got left is approaching 70 years old with an AP from Boeing that occasionally tries to kill everyone on board. 

The 46 was supposed to be operational years ago. Wasn't supposed to have tools in the fuel tanks. And a remote vision system that added not detracted. Meanwhile the 330 from LM is fully operational with added capes (and on time to buyers). Yet we're talking about passing it yet again for more 46s for some reason. 

Especially bad when Boeing has the following track record:

135: A/P tries to kill them. 

46: Years late. Fod. Non working boom. NMC. Over budget. 

New 747: Overbudget. Years late. 

737 Max: Grounded for 2ish years. 

787: Batteries caught on fire. Grounded for awhile. Also initially late to buyers. Now a great platform. 

777X: 5 years behind timeline so far.

Wedgie: Not great capes. Old. Still going to take 4-5 years to hit the production line per reports despite being an existing design.

P8: Seems solid? Off an existing airframe. Don't follow the navy too much. 

TX: TBD

Airbus recent failures:

380: Wasn't designed structurally for cargo. And economically not the best for airlines.

LM Recent Failures: 

Fat Amy over budget and behind. 50/50 on LM and the scope. 

From my perspective Boeing has put out nothing on time or budget in the last decade or two. Aside from the 787 they've rehashed new designs rather than push the envelope.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • M2 locked this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...