이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
종료
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..
종료
Back to Squawk list
  • 24

Update on problem-plagued Air Force KC-46 headed for Oklahoma

제출됨
 
A report in Aviation Week includes a comprehensive assessment of the problem-plagued KC-46, the next-generation aerial refueler now in development by Boeing and scheduled to be based and maintained in Oklahoma once combat ready. The Pegasus will be serviced at Tinker Air Force Base and flight crews for the new plane will train at Altus Air Force new KC-46 Base. Boeing is scheduled to deliver the first planes to Altus in 2017. (newsok.com) 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


tbpera
Tom Pera 5
what is so hard about building a 767 tanker? Boeing has built and sold many overseas... It's the damn Air force insisting on everything being platinum plated... and adding and changing items with every whim. The F35 has taken how many years and still can't carry a lot of mature munitions... while our enemies have had time to get ready for it... something is very wrong with our military procurement system... and I'm a strong military supporter
nasdisco
Chris B 4
Given the costs of this program that Boeing have had to absorb, sounds like Boeing is having a hard time delivering on the product that Congress wanted and the Air force took, voluntarily or otherwise.
redrattler47
Its the same here in OZ....the military have to tinker with everything...can never buy off the shelf...eventually the purchase costs XXXXX squillion dollars extra, and delivery delays go on for years.
BurntOut
BurntOut 3
Everyone who built them is either dead or dying. And paper gets thrown out when a program ends (Mgmt always says "it costs too much and besides there are folks here who will remember how to recreate the wheel when the next contract comes arguing in 10 years."). And then there's the mgmt types who think "it's just an engineering problem - any kid with Matlab can solve the problem." Been there, heard that - got the ulcer to prove it.
Egadnow
Egadnow -7
Osama, oops, Obama!!!
mariofer
mariofer 4
Not particularly a fan of the guy but blaming this on Obama denotes complete ignorance on the subject with all due respect. This project, its design, specs and production plans were born way before Obama even thought to become the POTUS. Help me understand how he can influence the outcome of what a private company delivers? Even if the military (Not Obama) make all the changes they could have done.
Egadnow
Egadnow 0
He took away the money to give to the Welfare Queens. They Vote!
Viperguy46
He hires and fires all the Generals in charge!
jsbrewster1
are you f'ing kidding me? if your kid stubs her toe do you blame it on Obama? if anything, it's the idiot agenda-laden, in the richest pocket, congress, doing it, not Obama. Get a clue.
Egadnow
Egadnow -1
When someone places a Rock on the trail and turnes out the light I blame them .
Of course He had a lot of help
Viperguy46
I blame everything on Nobama! Everybody does so why not?
Egadnow
Egadnow 0
He be the CIC!!
NF2G
I refuse to provide marketing data to Google in order to read online content.
BurntOut
BurntOut 2
Story says it all: the plumbing can't get the fuel from the supply to the customer (it's buried in the phrase 'faulty plumbing'). And don't ask 'how hard can it be' because if it were easy Cessna would be designing tankers. :-)
jimwallsf
This is similar to a Labor-Management observation that you get the unions you deserve. Short course on how to be a non-union shop and stay that way: Treat your people as you would expect to be treated, or better, and they will not need a union. Treat your people badly and you will get a bad union. The similarity: You get the Vendors you deserve. Many companies will not apply for a government contract as the process is a nightmare, and if you mistakenly win, the nightmare gets worse.
jjgui100
Ji Fi 2
Boeing thought the project was going to be a little more off-the-shelf by borrowing what was already in the 767. As it turns out, a lot of the work was not up to the military standards and requirements for redundancy, location, etc. So, a back pedal and redo was required and it sounds like the fuel plumbing was a victim of the process. What do you expect when Boeing is constantly dumping its engineers to the curb instead of cycling thru to other projects. No follow-thru and transfer of knowledge when they can layoff to "right" their financial misplanning. A lesson Boeing didn't learn with the 747 and it still hasn't been learned today.
mrvair
mrvair 2
I heard that the specs for the C-47 filled a notebook, and the specs for the C-130 filled a C-47. But like Tom...I too am strong military supporter.
fhopper
In Wichita we are excited for the planes to get here; we have a lot of great refueling crews.
linbb
linbb 1
Ok so nothing new here as the Airbus contracts are mostly with countrys that supply for them. And seems that the Boeing program is being righted if one can figure out the poorly written story.
bobhirst
Looks to me like Boeing thought they could make an easy buck by converting the 767. The big problem with military contracts is that suppliers always KNOW that the specs are gonna be changed and Uncle will then pay the real freight. Too bad Boeing took its eye off the ball and wound up with a billion dollar mess.
honzanl
honza nl 1
you're funny: the Airbus tanker has won all foreign contracts so far, except Japan which is a traditional US ally. Let's face it: the 767 is an old design, and Boeing just screwed it. If you cann't stay the heat just stay out of the kitchen.
Egadnow
Egadnow 1
Osama, oops, Obama fired all the people who knew how to get things done and replaced them with "Yes Men(?)".

로그인

계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!