Boeing on Jan. 26 reported another charge of $402 million on the KC-46, bringing the total cost overruns for the tanker to about $5.4 billion, and the way the company announced it highlights an ongoing rift with the U.S. Air Force.

Boeing and the service are working to fix the tanker’s biggest problem—its Remote Vision System—by overhauling the aircraft’s system of cameras, sensors and the boom operator’s station. But Aerospace DAILY reported earlier this month that a preliminary design review of the new system has been delayed because of deficiencies with a panoramic visual system.

usair1489 wrote:

It's been a little while since Boeing delivered KC-46s, and today 3/18/2022 two are flying to their new homes:

Aircraft 19-46064 to Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst as PUDGY06.
Aircraft 19-46066 to Seymour Johnson AFB as BACKY10.

With this, Seymour Johnson is almost at full strength and McGuire will be one-quarter of the way to full strength.

STT757 wrote:

I'm wondering if the 108th ARW will get the KC-46, if they do perhaps they will move back to the 514th/ 305th side of the airfield. The KC-46s will not fit into their KC-135 hangars. That would allow the Navy and Marines to expand on the Texas avenue side of the airfield. C-40s and P-8s would fit easily in the 108th's hangars.

LyleLanley wrote:

STT757 wrote:

I'm wondering if the 108th ARW will get the KC-46, if they do perhaps they will move back to the 514th/ 305th side of the airfield. The KC-46s will not fit into their KC-135 hangars. That would allow the Navy and Marines to expand on the Texas avenue side of the airfield. C-40s and P-8s would fit easily in the 108th's hangars.

No, that's not dumb enough. Remember, this is New Jersey; the same place that, when they went to turn on the runway lights to their brand new runway (06/24), they didn't work because the contractor never connected them. Why? Because that "wasn't in the contract" (they were right), so they had to tear up the brand new runway, connect the lights, and then rebuild it... They'll tear down the old-ish hangars, keep the 108th KC-46s on the 108th side, then build new hangars and squadron buildings for the 737s somewhere else. Probably on the Victor row. Why? Because it's New Jersey. Ohhh!!!

STT757 wrote:

usair1489 wrote:

It's been a little while since Boeing delivered KC-46s, and today 3/18/2022 two are flying to their new homes:

Aircraft 19-46064 to Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst as PUDGY06.
Aircraft 19-46066 to Seymour Johnson AFB as BACKY10.

With this, Seymour Johnson is almost at full strength and McGuire will be one-quarter of the way to full strength.

Hopefully JB-MDL gets a top up order, right now they are slated to get 24. They are replacing 32 KC-10s, hopefully 8 more can find there way. In person the KC-46 is appreciable quieter than the KC-10s. I'm wondering if the 108th ARW will get the KC-46, if they do perhaps they will move back to the 514th/ 305th side of the airfield. The KC-46s will not fit into their KC-135 hangars. That would allow the Navy and Marines to expand on the Texas avenue side of the airfield. C-40s and P-8s would fit easily in the 108th's hangars.

usair1489 wrote:

STT757 wrote:

usair1489 wrote:

It's been a little while since Boeing delivered KC-46s, and today 3/18/2022 two are flying to their new homes:

Aircraft 19-46064 to Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst as PUDGY06.
Aircraft 19-46066 to Seymour Johnson AFB as BACKY10.

With this, Seymour Johnson is almost at full strength and McGuire will be one-quarter of the way to full strength.

Hopefully JB-MDL gets a top up order, right now they are slated to get 24. They are replacing 32 KC-10s, hopefully 8 more can find there way. In person the KC-46 is appreciable quieter than the KC-10s. I'm wondering if the 108th ARW will get the KC-46, if they do perhaps they will move back to the 514th/ 305th side of the airfield. The KC-46s will not fit into their KC-135 hangars. That would allow the Navy and Marines to expand on the Texas avenue side of the airfield. C-40s and P-8s would fit easily in the 108th's hangars.

I believe the 305th and 514th will, in the end, have the 13 C-17s operating alongside the 24 KC-46s. I don't think the 108th will see KC-46s anytime soon. In fact I truly believe they will be one of the last Guard wings to fly the KC-135.

The squadron that flies the C-130Ts, VR-64, will probably get hand me down C-130Js or KC-130Js. I don't believe they'll get C-40s; had VR-52 never been decommissioned that would have been the C-40 squadron.

As for P-8s, I highly doubt we will see them at JBMDL unless we order more P-8s and decide reservists need them and VP-66 gets reactivated.

In my opinion the only other new aircraft type JBMDL could see in the next five to ten years would likely be the CH-53K King Stallion.

bikerthai wrote:

Boeing field is the delivery & flight test center for both the KC-46 and P-8A.

Next door to the south of the museum is the P-8A flight line.

North Boeing field is where they install the military hardware, in including the boom. Saw a Japanese tanker last week on the flight line. Not sure if it was a KC-767 in for upgrade or KC-46.

bt

JayinKitsap wrote:

Took my son's family to the Museum of Flight yesterday, hadn't been there in a decade, the cover was not over the display planes the last time I was there.

As we were leaving a KC-46 landed, quite cool. I couldn't read the numbers on it. Do they do much with the KC-46 at BFI? Always see AWACs and the like there.

RobK wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Took my son's family to the Museum of Flight yesterday, hadn't been there in a decade, the cover was not over the display planes the last time I was there.

As we were leaving a KC-46 landed, quite cool. I couldn't read the numbers on it. Do they do much with the KC-46 at BFI? Always see AWACs and the like there.

It was '46068 (N1794B) on contractual delivery (transfer from Boeing to the USAF tanker program, which takes place at BFI).

rlwynn wrote:

Right now there are two KC-46 doing tracks over Hungary. First time I have seen them in the region.

Kind of a funny callsign. FIAT30 and FIAT31 (Fix It Again Tony).

rlwynn wrote:

Right now there are two KC-46 doing tracks over Hungary. First time I have seen them in the region.

Kind of a funny callsign. FIAT30 and FIAT31 (Fix It Again Tony).

Spacepope wrote:

Well, the drogues should be fully functional on the -46 and the Truman should still be operating out of the Adriatic, right?

rlwynn wrote:

Right now there are two KC-46 doing tracks over Hungary. First time I have seen them in the region.

Kind of a funny callsign. FIAT30 and FIAT31 (Fix It Again Tony).

mxaxai wrote:

Today there was again FIAT30 doing tracks over Hungary, as well as a KC-46 with callsign PICO40 refueling a B-52 over southen Germany (both visible on adsbexchange).

Although Boeing first briefed the RVS 2.0 preliminary design in May 2021, Air Mobility Command recommended that the Air Force hold off on approving the preliminary design — a milestone expected to occur last fall — until it reached a consensus with Boeing on the panoramic camera system, AMC spokesman Col. Damien Pickart told Breaking Defense in January.

With the RVS 2.0 preliminary design now set in stone and approved by Air Force acquisition leadership, Air Mobility Command and Boeing, the Air Force now assumes financial responsibility for future changes to the system.

“In the coming weeks, the Air Force and Boeing will update the Engineering and Manufacturing Development contract with the Product Baseline Design Specification, which documents the jointly developed design and transfers technical responsibility to the Air Force,” Morrison said.  “The overall RVS 2.0 program is still on schedule.”

A critical design review for RVS 2.0 is currently on track for June 2022. The design for the new system — as agreed to by the Air Force and Boeing — will include a new Aerial Refueling Operator Station, improved visible cameras (as well as the addition of redundant cameras), better infrared cameras, redesigned image processors and a new full color 4k display.

The new design will allow the Air Force to resolve “significant portions” of two critical “Category I” deficiencies, Morrison said. Specifically, in its current state, the RVS doesn’t reliably convey to boom operators when the boom scrapes the surface of a receiver aircraft and therefore poses a safety risk.

Air Force leaders have stated that the KC-46 won’t be designated as fully operational until all critical deficiencies have been addressed — in 2023 at earliest, if current schedules hold. However, the service is gradually clearing the tanker to perform certain operational missions, with Air Mobility Command most recently sending four KC-46s to Europe, where it has supported refueling missions on NATO’s eastern front.

So far Boeing has delivered 57 KC-46s to the Air Force, the company said in a statement, with 179 tankers planned as part of the program of record. It has also delivered two KC-46s to Japan. Israel has also announced plans to buy two KC-46s.

texl1649 wrote:

So Boeing is off the hook now, but USAF still has to finish reviewing it around June.

Stitch wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

So Boeing is off the hook now, but USAF still has to finish reviewing it around June.

As I read it, the USAF and Boeing have agreed on a final design specification for RVS 2.0 and if the USAF wants anything beyond that, the USAF will have to pay for it.

par13del wrote:

So how much additional money did the Air Force cost Boeing by taking this long to agree on a standard? The RVS system is one of the major deficiencies which have to be cleared, it impedes full production and was the cost of much bashing of Boeing, some warranted, now we know that the Air Force could have finalized the design changes much earlier but chose not too. A number of us thought it was just the RVS, now we know there was more.....still a cluster fu****

Avatar2go wrote:

I suspect in reality, the USAF realized there would be a huge difference in clarity between the two systems, which they would have to pay to resolve eventually. So they declared a deficiency in order to include that work in the fixed-cost contract. They're getting a pretty good deal in the end, this is a full system upgrade with 10 to 15 year advancement in technology. It will be autonomous-ready as well. But it works for Boeing too, if they get KC-Y.

par13del wrote:

My question would be, since this is the first time the Air Force would deploy remote vision systems, is the panoramic view available on other nations tankers that presently have RVS or is this another new technology that the Air Force wanted in their low cost fixed price tanker replacement of the KC-135?

par13del wrote:

Now the Air Force will be paying for some portions of the update / replacement of the RVS....
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/05/air ... 0the%20fix.

JayinKitsap wrote:

The KC-46 has now done the longest endurance tanker flight, 24.2 hours. I'm sort of surprised that we didn't do 36 hour mission tests back in the hot parts of the cold war. What are the longest ferry flight lengths, and say B-52 flights.

https://www.airforcemag.com/kc-46-sets- ... ur-flight/

Avatar2go wrote:

par13del wrote:

Now the Air Force will be paying for some portions of the update / replacement of the RVS....
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/05/air ... 0the%20fix.

Sounds like they are treating the panoramic system as more of an upgrade than a fix. Boeing will pay for the development and surrounding infrastructure, including displays and station redesign. USAF will pay for the production external cameras for each aircraft. That seems like a fair resolution as the improvement in capability will be substantial.

With the boom system, there was an issue of non-usability with some aircraft and some conditions. That obviously is a significant issue and an intolerable deficiency. With the panoramic system, the issue was the range at which aircraft identification could be made. But not an issue for aircraft being able to use the drogue refueling systems. So it may have been tolerable, but at least now will be addressed.

The KC-46’s panoramic sensor suite comprises three line replaceable units, or LRUs, which provide video to three panoramic displays used by boom operators to see aircraft flying towards the KC-46. Currently, each LRU has a single long wave infrared camera. The upgraded panoramic suite will add a electro-optical camera to each LRU as well as replace the existing infrared sensor with the same, more modern system that will be used as part of the Remote Vision System, Morrison said.

“The Air Force will purchase the new panoramic sensors to support fleet retrofit and to provide to Boeing, as Government Furnished Equipment, in support of production,” she said. “While the panoramic displays will remain the same, the improved panoramic sensors and the ability to display panoramic imagery on the upgraded primary display will result in significant improvements in capabilities.”

If the upgrades to RVS 2.0 or the panoramic sensor suite do not end up having the intended effect, the Air Force will be responsible for paying for future modifications to the system, as the RVS 2.0 design approved last month is now considered the official design specification for the system.

However, the Air Force believes “the approved RVS 2.0 design, to include the panoramic sensor upgrades, provides the lowest technical risk toward meeting all requirements and resolving deficiencies,” Morrison said.

JayinKitsap wrote:

The KC-46 has now done the longest endurance tanker flight, 24.2 hours.

https://www.airforcemag.com/kc-46-sets- ... ur-flight/