JUST FUCK MY TANKER UP
>Due to ongoing issues with the KC-46’s refueling systems, Boeing will not be able to deliver the 18 certified tankers to the Air Force as planned by August 2017, a major contractual obligation known as Required Assets Available, or RAA.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/05/27/boeings-kc-46-tanker-miss-major-deadline/85039916/
Boeing, one of the largest manufacturer's in the world can't handle producing 18 modified airliners a year.
>>30341269
should have stuck with airbus
Unsurprisingly, procurement is driven more by politics and keeping aerospace companies afloat than it is actually delivering.
Such is life in the MIC
>>30341380
>the only product Boeing makes is the KC-46
Lol
>>30341534
Because the X-32 was a stroke of genius
>>30341587
boeing doesn't need the military to survive anon
>>30341368
Yep, and people unironically think we should have picked that happy abomination instead of the f-35.
The tanker was a bone thrown to boeing to keep their mil branch alive.
They utterly failed to build a modification of a plane they are already building.
Somebody should take them out behind the shed and old yeller them.
>>30341604
The company as a whole? no.
Just the military branch, which is choking.
>>30341368
Fucking this
>Boeing is bragging about doing their first air refueling in January 2016
>The MRTT did it's first refueling literally 7 fucking years ago
>>30341706
I wonder what kind of bullshit Airbus would be forced to do in order to make their tanker more "american". Re-design all the wiring so its in red, white and blue, and mounting some kind of over-complicated refueling system with a name that has FR3D0M as an acronym
>>30342757
i lol'd
>>30341380
>>30341706
You clearly have no understanding of the two tier jet tanker system the US operates with. Having the A330MRTT and the KC-10 would be like operating the C-130J and the A400M for the same purpose.
>>30341706
And the KC10 and KC-135 did theirs decades ago. Plus the KC-767, which is slightly different from the KC-46, is already in service in other countries. So what's your point?
>>30341269
So what makes the Pegasus so special? What does it do that previous tankers could not?
Gotta admit it looks nice though.
>>30342999
Nothing. It's just a more modern and efficient replacement for the KC-135.
>>30342999
How did they get the flag backwards?
Come on boeing at least try.
>>30343082
notsureifserious.jpg
Wow. Just read the wiki on this procurement saga. Shit was corrupt as India or Russia.
>>30343289
You say that while ignoring the the A330MRTT is notably more expensive per unit and doesn't carry a massively larger transferable fuel load compared to the KC-46.
>boeing showing lockmart how to lobby
>>30343318
Absolute bullshit.
The KC-46 specifically lost in South Korea to the MRTT because it is considerably more expensive. Read the ROKAF report.
>>30343512
Just go look at the fucking unit cost dipshit. And the fact of the matter is that only a few dozen A330MRTTs will ever exist. There will be nearly 9 times as many KC-46s.
>>30343512
Australia was offered the A330 at US$212 million per aircraft.
>>30343512
No, it lost in South Korea specifically because they wanted something sooner than Boeing could deliver.
>>30341269
>Boeing
>>30343698
>I am a retard who doesn't know what economies of scale are
Obviously if you compare the 27 MRTTs currently built to the 179 planned KC-46s you're going to end up with cheaper Boeing aircraft you fucking dumbass. Do you think the F-35A is cheaper than the Rafale because of some LM manufacturing magic?
The MRTT competed against the KC-46 at a unit order of 4 aircraft and won because pound for pound at equal procurement numbers, Airbus' aircraft is cheaper.
>>30344001
Not that anon, but its cheaper than the Rafale even in lower size batches, if economy of scale is what you're referring to.
I think I've solved the issue: fit the refuelling tanker with bombs, missiles and guns. That way, you have the range of a tanker without the need to do dangerous airborne refuelling.
>>30343082
MIC general?
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/article84629657.html
>>30341624
They'll probably get the trainer contract to keep their military branch alive.
>>30341610
>The tanker was a bone thrown to boeing to keep their mil branch alive.
Nope. It was given to Boeing to keep 767 production line running few years longer. It was already going into history due to declining sales. It is simply older design compared to A330, A350 and 787. Once 787 and A350 teething issues are history 767 would just die if it weren't for USAF and rather fucked up procurement in KC-135 replacement program.
>They utterly failed to build a modification of a plane they are already building.
Older KC-767 was simply obsolete from the start, it was based on older 767-200ER. So they changed it to upgraded not even flying yet 767-400ER.
Since procurement dragged on for ages... A330 sales are already slowing down, even when it's more modern design.
To make the point. 767's order backlog is about 100 planes, A330 is in similar situation... and that includes new 767-400 and KC-46. For 787 backlog is around 700 planes and A350XWB has about 800.
>>30342757
>I wonder what kind of bullshit Airbus would be forced to do in order to make their tanker more "american".
USAF spec avionics, set up A330F assembly line in Alabama or was it Louisiana IIRC in cooperation with Northrop Grumman and finally set up composite structures unit near assembly facility to increase US content in planes.
>>30341624
>Just the military branch, which is choking.
Tanker contract is handled by airliner branch.
>>30346338
What the fuck is with 'murricans calling their national fucking sports championships world series and shit? Fuck, even fucking trade union is "The International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers".
Simply too much FREEDOM to handle.
>>30342757
The irony being more of Airbus's tanker would have been built in America than Boeing's.
>>30344001
The F-35 is cheaper than the Rafale because of how the French procurement is set up, the production numbers exaggerate the difference.
>>30347138
Even more ironic is the fact that they could have actually delivered it with no delays or at least minimal delays. Twin engine A330 uses same wing as four engine A340, no modifications needed for refueling pod mounts a those can use outboard engine mounts.
>>30344001
>Do you think the F-35A is cheaper than the Rafale because of some LM manufacturing magic?
Economies of scale. R&D expenses and maintenance infrastructure costs are split on far higher number of aircraft.
>>30341269
For a second there I thought the image was photoshopped with bear grylls sitting in the refueling boom.
Might have to take this to /r/
>>30341610
And get the A-160, a program with actual tremendous value with good testing results, was cancelled.
How many smaller and more valuable programs involving Boeing were cancelled or scrapped to feed money into this shit? I'm curious.
>>30344001
Okay, so you literally just admitted to being wrong.
