7 minutes ago, AC&W said:

In the interest of facts, not championing the KC-46. Deliveries were briefly halted in early 2025, but they have resumed and delivered at least 10 since the stopage.

And RVS?

5 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

And RVS?

Yeah, RVS sucks. They could have, should have fielded their improvement by now, but that is our wonderful Prime and Acquisition efficiency on display.

Existing RVS is good enough for current operations.

The -46 is a mess, so many lost opportunities on what could have been, but over 100 have been produced and production is still active.

The Airbus tanker is fielding an autonomous boom AAR capability for Singapore, the KC-390 is awesome. There was a time when, "Fly Boeing Tankers" was a cool slogan, unfortunately the -46 has tarnished that a bit.

Edited 22 hours ago22 hr by AC&W
Spelling

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

The project was pitched to USAF (by me and a few others), three years ago. At that point the timelines were completely doable for the China fight.

Cool story except the jet is ALREADY doing those things...at least with the variable speed drogue. (Brazilian Air Force (since 2019), Portuguese Air Force (2023), and Hungarian Air Force (2024). It was designed to refuel Helos which it has been doing since 2014, the variable speed drogue was certified two years ago, I think they started with F-5's. Regardless, it is now certified for a bunch of aircraft...Gripen completed a few months ago. The Northrop Boom is TRL 7 so mot of the risk is gone.

It is already at scale and in service with the Brazilian Air Force (since 2019), Portuguese Air Force (2023), and Hungarian Air Force (2024). They make one per month, have the organic capability to make two per month. With investment, 10 per month...being fully digital means they are already postured for rapid production. Also, funny you mention the parts...Collins Avionics, the engines are the International Aero Engines (IAE) V2500-E5 right off the Airbus 320 CEO...a purposeful decision.

Also, kind of funny you mention timelines, Boeing was late delivering KC-46's and now deliveries are stopped because of major cracks. The RVS is broken and they openly admit they won't have a fix until 2027.

This and the fool me once meme are the reasons we are trapped in our own dogma. ZERO vision and willingness to try something different...now the tanker choads can just chew their cude...you got what you deserved...our at least what your masters think you deserved.

I've discussed it before but saw the same thing with the Wedgetail (which is better than a 60 year old E-3, but us still a flying tube of hot garbage). When we offered a far superior option with a brand new but proven radar, imported existing mission and data management systems from current ISR platforms with MILLIONS of flight hours and mounted on a Bombardier bizjet that could part up at FL 510...greatly changing the physics of the AMB world. We submitted HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of pages of tech data including detailed engineering reports from actual flights. As I recall there were 480 pages just on the certification of the "shapes" that would house the radar and other toys alone. We submitted the entire package and USAF responded ONE HOUR later - "not technically feasible." I am sure they did a detailed analysis of all the engineering and documentation in that hour. The NEXT DAY the gave Boeing a Sole-Source for E-7.

Other air forces are already using it, cool story. That has nothing to do with how long it will take to get this platform approved for use with every fighter in our inventory. AFSOC may be able to get shit fielded in 3 years but us peasants in the CAF can barely get software changes in that timeframe so excuse me if I have doubts on your timeline.

The E-7 is a good illustration of my point that "proven" platforms in use by our allies still take many years to become operational in our services. That's a critique on us not Embraer.

I've sat through too many shameless pitches from dudes who wear LM, Northrop, Boeing, RTX, etc. polos and who were once "bros" to believe the company brochure. Phrases like "most of the risk is gone" are par for the course. That's a critique on dudes I know that were either ignorant or blatant sellouts. Don't take it personally.

I don't know a single line pilot that isn't on board for trying something different when it comes to better capes/ acquisitions. The bobs who won't be going down range and are banking on a board spot at a big 3 are the ones that need convincing. Also, maybe vets should stop helping these companies oversell and under deliver...

12 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

Other air forces are already using it, cool story. That has nothing to do with how long it will take to get this platform approved for use with every fighter in our inventory. AFSOC may be able to get shit fielded in 3 years but us peasants in the CAF can barely get software changes in that timeframe so excuse me if I have doubts on your timeline.

You are perfectly illustrating the problem… which is you. I don’t say that to be pejorative as in you personally, but rather the active-duty component that turns a sour face to every new method and then falls back to the dogma that is failing. You can’t get software updates because you keep going back to the same primes, then turn a jaundiced eye if someone suggests there is another way—just because they are former bros in polos? Believe it or not, some of us really care about the customer.

More and more companies outside the big five primes are doing things the way AFSOC does. AGILE software development was the start, and it changed the game. For those who don’t know, computer engineering major dinosaurs like me learned to program using a method called waterfall. In short, you start at the beginning of the problem and write the program sequentially.

Years ago, industry came to understand that this is a horribly inefficient way to program and developed a method called AGILE/SCRUM. AGILE breaks the problem down into segments and assigns effort based on the toughest problems to solve within the task.

I had a classified program in 2017, and the government came to do a progress review for milestone payments. They were completely clueless and actually wanted to terminate our contract because we had not started on the first module. Despite 12 months of trying to educate them, they were so stuck in their dogma they could not wrap their heads around a new methodology. I had to go directly to the three-star, who stopped them from canceling our contract.

Ninety days later, we delivered the completed project nine months early and with zero defects. We even gave the government an SDK (Software Development Kit) for free so they could make changes on their own—meaning no vendor lock. A few months later, that program experienced a crash due to Spatial D. We delivered a software aid to reduce risk in less than 30 days (17 with regression testing), and we did it at cost (approximately $90K).

We used the same approach on our E-3 replacement and the KC-390 by employing MOSA/SOSA. If you don’t know, MOSA stands for Modular Open Systems Architecture, which means that in all new designs almost all of the “boxes” can be swapped out or replaced by non-OEM parts. That means the aircraft OEM does not have vendor lock, and if the government finds a new, cheaper vendor that develops a better box of knobs, they can swap it out on their own.

There are ICDs that regulate the input and output of each box so anyone can compete, which drives faster innovation and lower costs to the government.

13 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

The E-7 is a good illustration of my point that "proven" platforms in use by our allies still take many years to become operational in our services. That's a critique on us not Embraer.

There are several problems with the E-7. Yes, it is “proven” — but proven not to work all that well at times. Look no further than South Korea and its trials and tribulations trying to operate it in very hot conditions. In fact, they are divesting it and going with… a freaking bizjet with a radar. Who would have thought it?

Another problem is the 737 platform. The airframe and wing have been engineered to the limit of what is possible without starting from scratch. As a result, you are stuck with a platform that will struggle to get to FL350 fully loaded, which severely limits what can be done due to physics.

Boeing is the other issue. The 737 production pipeline has a five-year backlog. Yes, the USAF can cut to the front of the line, but our allies can’t, so you are going to end up with a mixed fleet. The allies have caught on and are all (sans the Aussies, who are already invested) going with bizjets. It’s sad that our allies will have better capabilities (20 years newer and operating at FL510).

Embraer, thanks to help from L3Harris and now Northrop Grumman, is taking the risk out by certifying platforms on its own — meaning it is not waiting for the government to do it (see the Gripen example). They are getting the certifications on their own dime and doing it rapidly.

---

13 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

I've sat through too many shameless pitches from dudes who wear LM, Northrop, Boeing, RTX, etc. polos and who were once "bros" to believe the company brochure. Phrases like "most of the risk is gone" are par for the course. That's a critique on dudes I know that were either ignorant or blatant sellouts. Don't take it personally.

Industry is not perfect, and there are some who are simply there to make a dollar. At some point, the Bobs have to invest some intellectual capital and actually read the proposal and the engineering work instead of hand-waving away nine months of effort in less than an hour. There are ways to assess risk, force companies to give honest assessments, and hold their feet to the fire — but they don’t. Instead, you pivot back to the big five primes who have been battering you for 50 years.

Finally, I do take it personally — because not everyone is trying to screw the government. Again, I’m not attacking you personally. I don’t know you. I’m grateful you stepped forward to serve, but we don’t know each other.

So let me briefly share my story and a situation I encountered that should tell you where I stand.

When I retired, I was recruited to interview with a big company, which I did. They went quiet on me, which was fine, as I was in the throes of the airline hiring process. I was hired by Delta and was waiting for training when the company suddenly called to make an offer. Something had been messed up in the HR process, and they thought they had made an offer two months prior.

Anyway, they wanted to bring me on as a VP with a pay package equal to seven-year pay at Delta, accelerated from there. I was sitting at a bar with my wife when the offer came in, and we laughed knowing I had the Delta job. She jokingly said, “Ask for more.” So, over my third beer, I crafted a note and asked for a lot more — and they accepted.

Fast forward a year, and I was working some tough problems when the engineers came to me with newly developed, highly classified technology that solved a very difficult issue. I’m purposely being vague here, but they needed diagrams from the government to ensure it would fit on the platform without interference.

I made some calls, and a well-meaning, hard-charging bro on the staff — who had previously worked for me — sent me the aircraft diagrams. I opened the PDF, and at the bottom they were labeled “Proprietary” by the OEM. I immediately closed the PDF, notified my boss, IT, and our in-house counsel. They verified that I hadn’t forwarded the email, notified the OEM and the government, and closed the issue.

A few weeks later, the SVP of Engineering approached me and asked if I had ever received the diagrams. I explained what had happened, and he got an odd look on his face. He then asked if I could share them with just him. I immediately said no. He then asked if I could at least tell him what they said — specifically the measurements. Again, I said no and went straight back to my boss and in-house counsel.

I was prepared to quit if anyone pushed the issue further. Fortunately, they did not, and the SVP quietly left the company a few months later. In my ten years in industry (I retired last year), I only had one other incident like that, and it went down much the same way. In both instances, the individuals with questionable ethics were career industry Bobs.

I know not all former bros wearing polos have the same ethics, but I did. So it was beyond frustrating to take a solution to the government that was not only better and cheaper but would save lives — only to have some jaundiced staffer pay little to no attention to my brief and immediately write it off with zero intellectual rigor.

It’s a two-way street. As long as the staff maintains the attitude you’ve expressed, then you — and the Bros — are going to be stuck with the same crap they’ve been buying for 50 years.

40 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

It’s a two-way street. As long as the staff maintains the attitude you’ve expressed, then you — and the Bros — are going to be stuck with the same crap they’ve been buying for 50 years.

I think we're talking past one another here. The attitude I have is one of skepticism with regard to defense companies and their ability to do what they say they can in a timely fashion. I'm also skeptical that anyone's prior service outweighs their loyalties when selling a product for their new employer. That just means I don't put added weight to what someone at the company is saying because they wore a flt suit way back when.

One solution to said skepticism is for the DoW to stop signing contracts that allow us (us being the end users and taxpayers) to get bent over by companies. Or, as you said, force honest assessments from companies and hold thier feet to the fire. DoW bares half the blame in my opinion when it comes to our acquisition woes.

I think a lack of skepticism on the part of DoW decision makers, specifically when dealing with the primes, is part of what has put us in this vicious cycle. Skepticism from my view does not mean scoff the newcomers and go back to the primes. DIUx is a prime (pun intended) example of where I'd like to see us moving w.r.t acquisitions.

Trust but verify, is all I'm saying when it comes down to it.

1 hour ago, Boomer6 said:

I think we're talking past one another here. The attitude I have is one of skepticism with regard to defense companies and their ability to do what they say they can in a timely fashion. I'm also skeptical that anyone's prior service outweighs their loyalties when selling a product for their new employer. That just means I don't put added weight to what someone at the company is saying because they wore a flt suit way back when.

One solution to said skepticism is for the DoW to stop signing contracts that allow us (us being the end users and taxpayers) to get bent over by companies. Or, as you said, force honest assessments from companies and hold thier feet to the fire. DoW bares half the blame in my opinion when it comes to our acquisition woes.

I think a lack of skepticism on the part of DoW decision makers, specifically when dealing with the primes, is part of what has put us in this vicious cycle. Skepticism from my view does not mean scoff the newcomers and go back to the primes. DIUx is a prime (pun intended) example of where I'd like to see us moving w.r.t acquisitions.

Trust but verify, is all I'm saying when it comes down to it.

Copy, your Memes were not communicating that. We are in violent agreement when it comes to trust but verify.

I personally think a lot of the skepticism is who we send to the staff. As a multi-time commander I would vector some of my best and brightest to the staff and it would be met with wailing and gnashing of teeth. I finally had a CC call and laid it out, do you like some of the equipment we have...."No sir" if I don't send some sharp candles to the staff then weak swimmers or worse, the admin REMFs are going to continue to pick what we get and how we get it. I need a few meat eaters FIGHTING for change and the right tools to do our mission. Not a slam against our Guard and Reserve folks but in recent at a lot of the MAJCOMs the active component has short-filled the staff jobs and few Guard and Reserve folks have stepped in as senior advisors to the commander...it was my experience that 69% of them were completely out of touch with new tech and capabilities...especially as you went higher in rank.

DOW does indeed need have better contracts and be more nimble in awarding said contracts. Not dragging politics into this but look at NASA right now as a good example. Jared Issacman is justifiably turning the place on it's skull. If you haven't you really should listen to his outbreif on the Dreamliner incident. In short, it exceeded the threshold for a Class A 100 FOLD, but the bobs downplayed the mistake in order to save the program. It has now come to light we nearly lost that crew. He is raking Boeing over the coals and they deserve every bit of it. Interestingly, Boeing got more than double of fundage as compared to SpaceX and they completely failed, meanwhile SpaceX had to rescue the crew. A lot of lessons that could be imported to DOW.

For me a big change would be DOW taking a few more chances while holding people accountable...force the timeline. Don't be afraid to fail, but if you are going to fail, fail fast.

20 hours ago, AC&W said:

Yeah, RVS sucks. They could have, should have fielded their improvement by now, but that is our wonderful Prime and Acquisition efficiency on display.

Existing RVS is good enough for current operations.

The -46 is a mess, so many lost opportunities on what could have been, but over 100 have been produced and production is still active.

The Airbus tanker is fielding an autonomous boom AAR capability for Singapore, the KC-390 is awesome. There was a time when, "Fly Boeing Tankers" was a cool slogan, unfortunately the -46 has tarnished that a bit.

The MRTT also holds eight 463L pallets in the forward and aft lower cargo hold. The KC-46 holds 10 centerline and 18 side-by-side (before that FCIF restricting side-by-side cargo loading due to another Boeing design fuck up). Every KC-46 can do AE missions, unknown about the MRTT because countries either configure them for full cargo hauling with the “cookie sheet” pallets civilian cargo uses or full passenger A330 config. The MRTT also isn’t cleared to refuel conformal fuel tank (CFT) F-16 two-seaters due to the lack of clearance due to the massive size of the boom (STS) compared to the KC-46. Then you have the strategic mission that the KC-135s do, the KC-10s didn’t, and the KC-46s sorta due. Unknown how the MRTT would do that mission.

If Boeing fixed the RVS with RVS 2.0, stopped the APUs from prematurely failing, fixed the cargo loading system/cargo floor, the KC-46 wouldn’t be that bad.

If only we practiced strategic thinking… select one large cabin biz jet as the base platform for the replacement of big wing HVAAs for a new concept of more, medium wing HVAAs

Bombardier family of jets as we already fly the E-11 is one option

Bombardier 6500 or 7500

Tanker, AWACs, UCAS C2, Medivac, etc…

Or work on bigger strategic partnerships with South America and specifically Brazil, could work on Argentina too with this idea

Embraer for either a deal on KC and C-390s and Phenom for a multi engine trainer, could look at updated ERJ but that is probably not worth the squeeze, they partner with an American manufacturer and solve the Buy American provision

Tangent: I’d also propose talking to Argentina about their IA-63 and IA-100 trainer aircraft, that’s just a secondary idea but… using these acquisitions to engage with nations China is trying to pull into their orbit is a way to link up lines of effort so that they all in some amount pull in the same general direction