Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Foreign Policy)   The plane is late, over budget, and doesn't work but the Air Force is buying them anyway. Difficulty: not the F-35   (foreignpolicy.com) divider line
    More: Fail, KC-135 Stratotanker, Aerial refueling, Boeing, U.S. Air Force, United States Department of Defense, KC-10 Extender, United States Air Force, B-52 Stratofortress  
•       •       •

2015 clicks; posted to Business » on 10 Jan 2019 at 10:29 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



21 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2019-01-10 8:37:02 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-01-10 10:48:35 PM  

gameshowhost: [img.fark.net image 500x368]


It's a fixed price contact.
 
2019-01-10 10:57:04 PM  

Allen262: FTA:
The first 18 new tankers will cost the Air Force $4.9 billion under a fixed-price contract signed in 2011.

So it is not over budget but yes late. Subby be trolling.

FTA:
Boeing had racked up more than $3.5 billion in cost overruns on the program.

[img.fark.net image 360x270]

Okay Subby your off the hook for the trolling headline.


Took the quote I was going to use. My response was just "Sounds okay with me".
 
2019-01-10 11:03:37 PM  

Allen262: Boeing had racked up more than $3.5 billion in cost overruns on the program.


Here is what I read: "Boeing has eaten $3.5 billion in overrun charges."

How did you get a different version of the article? Either way, that's amazing if Boeing actually had to eat the overrun.
 
2019-01-10 11:04:39 PM  

igor.cash: gameshowhost: [img.fark.net image 500x368]

It's a fixed price contact.


Take it up with the cat, dude!
 
2019-01-10 11:19:13 PM  

gameshowhost: [img.fark.net image 500x368]


The first one of these I've ever agreed with.
 
2019-01-10 11:20:42 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: This is a strange story.  Boeing managed to fark up something they should have been able to deliver fairly easily---a modification of the kind of aircraft they already build.  They farked up the contract so badly that they've incurred $3 billion in overruns, on top of $600 million in fines for corruption.

And what really confuses me is that this is the same company that delivered the P-8 Poseidon under budget and ahead of schedule in one of the best-executed military procurements of the last 50 years.


As someone with experience in this stuff, sometimes one dicksponge manager is all it takes.
 
2019-01-10 11:23:41 PM  
I'm shocked that an entity, with little oversight and a fountain of money with monopolies on military construction, are money pits that underdeliver and run over budget.

No one could have seen it coming.
 
2019-01-10 11:26:06 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: This is a strange story.  Boeing managed to fark up something they should have been able to deliver fairly easily---a modification of the kind of aircraft they already build


That is messed up. Japan has been flying them for 10 years. Italy since 2011.
 
2019-01-10 11:29:27 PM  
It would have taken half the time but the Marine Corps insisted on a VTOL version.
 
2019-01-11 12:24:42 AM  

morg: It would have taken half the time but the Marine Corps insisted on a VTOL version.


One big issue with the F-35: 3 different sets of design requirements that don't play nice with each other.

Successful multi-role aircraft often start out single-role and become multi-role when it's realized they can be adapted to do other things very well too.
 
2019-01-11 12:41:49 AM  
The plane is late, over budget, and doesn't work but Congress is forcing the Air Force is buying them anyway

FTFY


/meanwhile, at your local VA hospital....
 
2019-01-11 1:39:39 AM  
Great. Just park them next to the tanks we don't use.
 
2019-01-11 3:26:32 AM  
So there's a camera system not yet up to snuff. Big deal. TFA doesn't even say how it doesn't meet spec.

On the other hand the Air Force bought 800 KC-135s so there will be a LOT more KC-46 orders and they will make up that 3.5B overrun.

Of course there may not be an Air Force to sign another procurement contract if the government shutdown persists long enough.
 
2019-01-11 5:36:41 AM  

BolloxReader: So there's a camera system not yet up to snuff. Big deal. TFA doesn't even say how it doesn't meet spec.

On the other hand the Air Force bought 800 KC-135s so there will be a LOT more KC-46 orders and they will make up that 3.5B overrun.

Of course there may not be an Air Force to sign another procurement contract if the government shutdown persists long enough.


The KC-135 is a modified Boeing 707 (or perhaps the other way around due to a 2" difference in fuselage diameter). The last KC-135 was built in 1965 and the last 707 was built in 1979.
 
2019-01-11 9:16:11 AM  

morg: It would have taken half the time but the Marine Corps* insisted on a VTOL version.


*
img.fark.net
 
2019-01-11 10:24:31 AM  

Kouta: One big issue with the F-35: 3 different sets of design requirements that don't play nice with each other.


No kidding. Every prior time the USAF and USN have tried to share aircraft it has been one or the other design requirements causing problems. F-111 was vastly overweight for navy use so the F-14 was designed. The F-16 was single-engine so the F-18 was designed for the navy. Now the F-35 has a single engine (and the navy wasn't enthusiastic about that) but maybe engine reliability is good enough for navy use. Still, the F-35C is a different enough plane that the navy probably could have picked an entirely different design than the F-35 without much of a problem.

USMC does need STOVL capability. Everything else for the USAF and USN? They should have held competitions for separate aircraft.
 
2019-01-11 10:27:38 AM  

Kouta: The KC-135 is a modified Boeing 707 (or perhaps the other way around due to a 2" difference in fuselage diameter).


Neither. They were separate aircraft.

The 367-80 prototype was a proof-of-concept that jetliners would work. The KC-135 predates the 707 and they have different fuselage diameters (and shorter than the 707) as well as difference of internal structure. The tooling was separate for each aircraft and they shared very little in terms of parts.
 
2019-01-11 11:46:35 AM  

gameshowhost: morg: It would have taken half the time but the Marine Corps* insisted on a VTOL version.

*
[img.fark.net image 40x51]


Prepping for final inspection in boot camp we were told one of the questions was going to be, "What is the most important thing you've learned here?" A guy across the squad bay from said he was going to go with, "The P and S are silent, sir." Fortunately or unfortunately he must not have said because I was watching and I'm pretty sure there would have been some reaction. In my heart I hope he really was that crazy and they just didn't ask the question. I never asked him about it later.
 
2019-01-11 3:15:47 PM  

jaytkay: HMS_Blinkin: This is a strange story.  Boeing managed to fark up something they should have been able to deliver fairly easily---a modification of the kind of aircraft they already build

That is messed up. Japan has been flying them for 10 years. Italy since 2011.


IIRC those have a traditional boom operator station instead of remote operation with cameras.   The remote station is apparently where the trouble comes from.
 
2019-01-11 6:16:55 PM  

Baradium: IIRC those have a traditional boom operator station instead of remote operation with cameras.   The remote station is apparently where the trouble comes from.


And of course we have to reinvent the wheel here. We can't have a conventional boom operator station as done successfully for the past 50+ years. Nope, go high tech for 10x the cost!
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.