scbriml wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Imagine how bad things would be if Boeing didn't have all those decades of tanker experience.

As many here have tried to explain, the KC-46 is not the KC-135, it's significantly more advanced, as requested by the USAF. The decades of experience with the KC-135 won't overlap very much with the KC-46. All the systems are different, airframe is different, boom is different, fuel system is different, avionics are different, certification is different, hardening is different, defenses are different.

Your user profile indicates you weren't hear during "tanker wars", when Boeing's tanker experience was touted by many as a major factor in why they should be awarded the contract.

It also shouldn't be forgotten or ignored that Boeing had already delivered 767-based tankers to Italy and Japan.

Same argument applies, the KC-46 is not the KC-767. Therein lies the contract overage and disputes with the USAF.

You're correct that I wasn't here for the tanker wars, didn't participate in that discussion. I personally would not have held that Boeing deserved the contract out of experience. I've said here that the MRTT is a good and capable aircraft, and could serve well in the US.

scbriml wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Imagine how bad things would be if Boeing didn't have all those decades of tanker experience.

As many here have tried to explain, the KC-46 is not the KC-135, it's significantly more advanced, as requested by the USAF. The decades of experience with the KC-135 won't overlap very much with the KC-46. All the systems are different, airframe is different, boom is different, fuel system is different, avionics are different, certification is different, hardening is different, defenses are different.

Your user profile indicates you weren't hear during "tanker wars", when Boeing's tanker experience was touted by many as a major factor in why they should be awarded the contract.

It also shouldn't be forgotten or ignored that Boeing had already delivered 767-based tankers to Italy and Japan.

I was, and it is amazing how folks then and now seem to continue to ignore that the USAF DID NOT WANT the 767 tanker that was already being produced nor the A330 version already in development. As for Boeing experience with say the boom for instance, everyone knew that larger a/c could take a higher fuel flow than the fighters but.....oh and the USAF and Boeing experience on RVS was priceless.....

Boeing claims to have foreign customers lined up for the KC-46, with as many as 40 potential aircraft sales. Expects at least some to close by the end of 2022.

I would guess some nations would be sitting on the fence, waiting to see if the KC-46 problems will be worked out.

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/06/cov ... -official/

Avatar2go wrote:

I would guess some nations would be sitting on the fence, waiting to see if the KC-46 problems will be worked out.

A lot of the KC-46 problems are not major concerns for export customers. Some customers will not be so demanding, others may not be using RVS/boom, etc etc. I'm not surprised Boeing is bullish with the low(ish) unit cost of the KC-46. But that said, I wonder how the USAF will react if Boeing's attention is diverted to export customers while the primary user is still waiting for fixes.

angad84 wrote:

But that said, I wonder how the USAF will react if Boeing's attention is diverted to export customers while the primary user is still waiting for fixes.

Sales Staff and Engineering Staff . . .

As long as these potential customers are not requesting customization. The article stated that Boeing will not remove the refueling system for those who only want the KC-46 as a transport.

Even though there may not be a lot of foreign sale, any additional frame reduces the per frame price of each lot buy. The USAF would want that.

bt

angad84 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

I would guess some nations would be sitting on the fence, waiting to see if the KC-46 problems will be worked out.

A lot of the KC-46 problems are not major concerns for export customers. Some customers will not be so demanding, others may not be using RVS/boom, etc etc. I'm not surprised Boeing is bullish with the low(ish) unit cost of the KC-46. But that said, I wonder how the USAF will react if Boeing's attention is diverted to export customers while the primary user is still waiting for fixes.

Since the primary user is the only user of the a/c and is responsible for a lot of the delays due to not wanting to utilize the efficiency and cost savings of their Off the shelf project, they should welcome a break from their demands and Boeings inability to pivot on a dime. Allow both of them a rest while others operate the a/c within their limited parameters.

par13del wrote:

Allow both of them a rest while others operate the a/c within their limited parameters.

Right, for those operators who do not fly stealth aircrafts, the vision issue is not as big a deal as draging the boom across the receiver wont damage any stealth coatings.

bt

angad84 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

I would guess some nations would be sitting on the fence, waiting to see if the KC-46 problems will be worked out.

A lot of the KC-46 problems are not major concerns for export customers. Some customers will not be so demanding, others may not be using RVS/boom, etc etc. I'm not surprised Boeing is bullish with the low(ish) unit cost of the KC-46. But that said, I wonder how the USAF will react if Boeing's attention is diverted to export customers while the primary user is still waiting for fixes.

I presume that the DoD will have to approve any foreign sales of the KC-46. They've been willing to do so for Japan and Israel.

An amendment to the FY23 NDAA, that would have required the USAF to conduct a KC-Y competition, was defeated by the House. Proponents have vowed to try again next year.

Also the KC-46 refueled the MV-22 Osprey for the first time last week. Currently a C-130 must shuttle fuel between a boom tanker and the Osprey, making several trips. The KC -46 can refuel the Osprey in one shot, using the centerline drogue.

Anyone here know how DOD contracts work for purchases beyond the contract amount? For example LM keeps building C-130's, jet engines keep getting ordered well past the contract amounts etc. There were the engines for the F-15EX that was first sole sourced, but PW protested as they had the contract for the last US destined F-15's, The re-compete required PW to cover the certification costs which GE did not as their engines were certified with the Qatar et al frames. But what allowed the Air Force to do the sole source RFP in the first place, can't be from thin air. The KC-Y set of frames would have been the competed contract, but if sole source it could be for say 50 units, then a few years on another 50 units. It's been around 15 frames a year being ordered currently.

It's possible that in 10 years they will have a better idea of the third batch in terms of quantity, size, performance, etc. KC-Y could be split, with that future tanker being competed then. Possibly a blended wing autonomous tanker.

USAF has announced an Aerial Refueling Family of Systems program, which is thought to be a replacement for the KC-Y competition. It seeks to improve the capabilities of KC-46 & KC-135, while simultaneously establishing the criteria for next generation KC -Z.

Included goals are:

1. “resilient line of sight (LOS) and beyond line of sight (BLOS) airborne connectivity with the future Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) environment”

2. "open architecture design, federated systems & data streams"

3. "alternative forms of positioning, navigation and timing (PNT)"

4. “enhanced survivability and mission effectiveness, increased situational awareness that enhances situational understanding"

5. "on-board electronic warfare (EW)/electronic attack (EA)"

6. "interoperability with off-board Autonomous Collaborative Platforms (ACP)” (loyal wingman)

https://www.airforcemag.com/air-force-i ... formation/

bikerthai wrote:

par13del wrote:

Allow both of them a rest while others operate the a/c within their limited parameters.

Right, for those operators who do not fly stealth aircrafts, the vision issue is not as big a deal as draging the boom across the receiver wont damage any stealth coatings.

bt

Does the Airbus tanker have the stealth aircraft refueling requirement?

bobinthecar wrote:

Does the Airbus tanker have the stealth aircraft refueling requirement?

Both MRTT and KC-46 are certified to refuel the F-22 and F-35. Like the KC-46, the MRTT is not yet certified to refuel the B-2. But probably could be.

At this point there's not a lot of operational difference between them. The main difference is that the KC-46 needs authorization to participate in combat theater operations. That will remain true until the vision system is fixed.

Pease ANGB has painted a full American flag art on one of its KC-46’s tail.
https://www.facebook.com/10004481152798 ... 2tGdl/?d=n

https://www.flygirlpainters.com/

Avatar2go wrote:

bobinthecar wrote:

Does the Airbus tanker have the stealth aircraft refueling requirement?

Both MRTT and KC-46 are certified to refuel the F-22 and F-35. Like the KC-46, the MRTT is not yet certified to refuel the B-2. But probably could be.

At this point there's not a lot of operational difference between them. The main difference is that the KC-46 needs authorization to participate in combat theater operations. That will remain true until the vision system is fixed.

I don't think that Avatar2go and I need to rehash everything already written, but other should please undertand that this view is not obviously correct. Arguments for both sided can be found in this thread around post #68 or so for the debate (which we still don't need to redo).

"The U.S. Air Force has confirmed that it is still not using its fleet of KC-46A Pegasus aerial refueling tankers to support combat operations, and will not for the foreseeable future except in response to "emergency need."

bikerthai wrote:

angad84 wrote:

But that said, I wonder how the USAF will react if Boeing's attention is diverted to export customers while the primary user is still waiting for fixes.

Sales Staff and Engineering Staff . . .

As long as these potential customers are not requesting customization. The article stated that Boeing will not remove the refueling system for those who only want the KC-46 as a transport.

Even though there may not be a lot of foreign sale, any additional frame reduces the per frame price of each lot buy. The USAF would want that.

bt

Why would anyone want a KC-46 for mere transport? There are LOTS of cheaper ways to move freight!

A used 767F or A330F is maybe $30-$60M, and a KC-46 is $287M.

kitplane01 wrote:

I don't think that Avatar2go and I need to rehash everything already written, but other should please understand that this view is not obviously correct. Arguments for both sided can be found in this thread around post #68 or so for the debate (which we still don't need to do).

"The U.S. Air Force has confirmed that it is still not using its fleet of KC-46A Pegasus aerial refueling tankers to support combat operations, and will not for the foreseeable future except in response to "emergency need."

As stated, the USAF authorizes missions around the globe for the KC-46. These are permitted in the context of exercises and training. As detailed in this article:

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... years-away

In addition to the U.S., seven other countries have also cleared some of their aircraft to refuel with the KC-46. Earlier this year, four KC-46s deployed to Spain in an exercise that AMC designed to refine its tactics and plans for the aircraft in addition to validating the tankers abroad. The tankers flew 81 missions offloading fuel to 155 aircraft including Spanish F-18s, and supporting U.S. fighters that were deploying to Europe for air policing missions on NATO’s eastern front.

“Allies asking for a while, hey, we’d love to certify our aircraft against your KC-46 and we finally felt that we were in a position to do that,” Samuelson says of training with allies.

The Boeing E-7A is also undergoing tests with the KC-46 ahead of both clearance for allied operators to receive fuel from the tanker and before the U.S. Air Force itself plans to buy the Wedgetail. Royal Australian Air Force E-7s have flown in multiple exercises inside the U.S. this year.

While the KC-46 is cleared for most operations, initial and full operational capability is also years away because AMC will not declare these milestones until the new Remote Vision System is completed and installations begin in 2024. The current RVS 1.0 has several serious deficiencies affecting operations, with washed out areas or deep shadows on displays that can cause boom impacts outside the receiver’s refueling receptacle.

“Until that visual system is upgraded, AMC does not have a plan to declare this aircraft fully operationally capable,” Samuelson says. “However, does that mean you won’t see the KC-46 around the world filling [aerial refueling] mission sets? No. It means you will see that, it’ll just be a measured risk.”

Like the deployment to Europe earlier this year, AMC is planning similar exercises across the globe to come soon. KC-46s will deploy to the Pacific for exercise Valiant Shield starting this month, with a deployment to the Middle East to follow.

The KC-46 also just participated in Cope North, an exercise with Japan and Australia in the Pacific, that paired it up with the MRTT KC-30A.

https://www.mcconnell.af.mil/News/Artic ... -north-22/

Cope North is an annual U.S. Pacific Air Forces combined multi-lateral field training exercise and is underway Feb. 2-18, combining air forces from Australia, Japan, and the United States to perform humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, large force employment, and aerial combat training.

“Having the ability to apply the new tactics, techniques, and procedures that we have developed over the past several months has been a career highlight,” said Capt. Jack Rush, 344th Air Refueling Squadron. “We are landing at austere locations with the world’s newest tanker aircraft and applying dispersal techniques that will have strategic impact. The KC-46 may be in its Initial Operational Test and Evaluation process, but you would think otherwise watching yesterday’s Special Refueling Operations at an austere field.”

Cope North operations are taking place at Andersen Air Force Base and Northwest Field on Guam; the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, including Rota, Saipan, and Tinian; Palau; and the Federated States of Micronesia.

kitplane01 wrote:

Why would anyone want a KC-46 for mere transport?

Not a "mere" transport, but a military transport with military grade electronics, wiring and self protection.

But the question would then be why would they want a KC-46 when they it may be cheaper to convert a 767 or 767F to a military transport.

There could be several answers:

1) Boeing holds the IP and is reluctant to go down that path

2) For the life cycle, the KC-46 may indeed be the less expensive option.

3) They want to be interoperable with the US fleet.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Why would anyone want a KC-46 for mere transport?

Not a "mere" transport, but a military transport with military grade electronics, wiring and self protection.

But the question would then be why would they want a KC-46 when they it may be cheaper to convert a 767 or 767F to a military transport.

There could be several answers:

1) Boeing holds the IP and is reluctant to go down that path

2) For the life cycle, the KC-46 may indeed be the less expensive option.

3) They want to be interoperable with the US fleet.

bt

Also a fair fraction of the cost overruns of the KC-46 involved hardening and adhering to mil-spec. And it still has civilian transport certification. So no reason to reinvent that wheel, when the investment has been made.

My guess is the nations that want this, would need the boom, drogues, and fuel tanks removed to increase cargo volume & weight. But probably not enough demand to make it worthwhile for Boeing.

Perhaps it's just a matter of these operators do not want to buy the boom and drouge. I would be surprised if the KC-46 do not have an operation configuration where the boom is removed (for tech reason) along with some of the aux tank.

bt

Blast from the past! Sorry for the extended delay, but here's my take:

Avatar2go wrote:

While they acknowledged that the vision system has acuity issues, they also said the aircraft is a major improvement over the KC-135 that it replaces. And that they can handle the boom pretty well in most cases, except some lighting conditions.

If I may point out, please read what you wrote: "the aircraft (KC-46) is a major improvement over the KC-135 that it replaces". I would hope an aircraft rolling off the assembly line in 2022 will be a major improvement over an aircraft from Eisenhower's first term. I don't disagree at all with what you wrote. In fact, even the current RVS is mostly ok during the day and phenomenal at night. I'd take it over a window, at night, any time! The problem is the acuity: my 20/20 vision is more like 20/60 with the RVS and pano.

Avatar2go wrote:

...nor have I read or heard anything about what you are claiming, as a defect. The USAF has said the panoramic display issue is similar to the boom in that it's a matter of resolution & acuity, due to the camera systems being dated.

It's not a bug, it's a feature. As you wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

That was not considered a defect, it's just how analog cameras work. Modern digital cameras are able to capture the complete image in one frame, processing the frame as a single image instead of a series of alternating lines. That requires significant memory and digital processing, which was at one time quite expensive, but almost trivially cheap today. Any new cell phone probably has a vastly superior camera to the analog standard. So obviously a huge improvement.

Thank you for making my point for me: if Boeing had not penny-pinched with their vision system, then, they would not be on the hook for replacing the entire system, now.

Avatar2go wrote:

As far as Boeing being outmaneuvered by the USAF, please note that's not what I said. The fact admitted now by the USAF, by multiple individuals and in multiple venues, is that they did not have a good understanding of the amount of development work involved from the KC-767 to the KC-46. The KC-767 was built for foreign service, but most of the design was still commercial spec and not US mil-spec. That made the contract unsuitable for the project, and the number of changes they would request.

That too is borne out by the documented development changes that were requested by the USAF, which were a large part of the delay. The vision system is really only a small part of that. It's the most prominently reported because of the disagreement it caused, but it was only the last in a long line of major changes. All of which were paid for by Boeing as required in the contract.

I get it. But Boeing signed for a fixed price contract with a whale-of-a-customer who had very specific specs and needs. The RVS system was obsolete and far surpassed years before the design was frozen. If they had done their due diligence and spent real money for real development they wouldn't be $5 billion down-the-hole and years behind schedule, now.

There are a lot of great features about the KC-46, and if given the choice I probably wouldn't go back to the KC-10. But that I answer "probably" instead of definitely should say something.

Avatar2go wrote:

Also the KC-46 refueled the MV-22 Osprey for the first time last week. Currently a C-130 must shuttle fuel between a boom tanker and the Osprey, making several trips. The KC -46 can refuel the Osprey in one shot, using the centerline drogue.

The KC-10 has been cleared to refuel the CV-22 for years, now. I tanked one circa 2014.

I get that you aren't happy with Boeing. Maybe we should leave it at that.

I've tried to explain the other side, that these things did not happen without reason, that USAF provided boomers to evaluate the RVS, that they reported favorably, and that USAF approved the RVS right up until the issues were discovered in certification.

Looking back in hindsight, it's easy to see that the technology was not up to the required performance, but also clear that everyone involved thought they could make it work, until they couldn't.

The dispute arose because Collins insisted the unintended contact rate was not much higher than expected, and they could tweak the software and use image enhancement to overcome the problems. Those changes eventually became the now installed RVS v1.5. But USAF correctly pointed out that even if the contact rate was reduced to below spec, there were still corner cases that just weren't feasible or acceptable.

Muilenburg was unwilling to absorb any more cost on the contract, and took Collins' side against the USAF. When Calhoun took over, he instead created an expert panel to decide the issue, and the conclusion was that the technology was not adequate. The panel then assisted in the development of a state-of-the-art system, that the USAF accepted.

I agree with the argument that the dispute wasn't really necessary, and Boeing was in the wrong there. But saying that "Boeing is cheap" as the sole explanation for the complex problem that ocurred, is not realistic either.

The proof of all this is that the USAF has cleared interim operations for 97% of the fleet. As Collins had said, the system performance was close to spec, which is now borne out. But ultimately that wasn't good enough. It was a near miss, but a miss nonetheless.

LyleLanley wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Also the KC-46 refueled the MV-22 Osprey for the first time last week. Currently a C-130 must shuttle fuel between a boom tanker and the Osprey, making several trips. The KC -46 can refuel the Osprey in one shot, using the centerline drogue.

The KC-10 has been cleared to refuel the CV-22 for years, now. I tanked one circa 2014.

Yes, but the KC-135 cannot as it lacks a drogue system. The KC-46 adds this capability in large numbers as the KC-135 is replaced. That was the purpose of the KC-X program.

I'm not mad at Boeing. I'm just disappointed.

I have to disagree with some of your major points, especially that the USAF test booms reported favorably of the RVS 1.0. I happen to know some of the very test booms you're referring to and their impressions of the RVS - even in 2010-2011 timeframe when Boeing was soliciting their inputs for the final design - was quite negative. This was in direct contrast to the positive impressions from the MRTT's vision system. The KC-46's vision system has been a consistent area of concern since before day 1 of contract signing. The test booms were impressed with the boom itself and many other aspects, but the vision was a joke even then. Now, whether their candid voices and recommendations made it past AFMC is another matter, but to say they "reported favorably" is a bit much. Perhaps if 1.5 was the original kit, their opinions might have been better, but 1.5 came almost a full decade (!!!) after.

Further, I never said "Boeing is cheap" is the only factor at play. It takes two to dance. But that the supposed tanker experts with decades of refueling expertise across multiple generations of aircraft gets to the point where the USAF has to call BS for years (at billions of dollars of expense to Boeing) says a lot. If they'd taken those concerns from the start we wouldn't still be at this juncture. Boeing didn't eventually take $5 billion in losses because of charity or "for the veterans", but because it was their responsibility and as the lead manufacturer and program integrator it's their ball. If Boeing had made sound decisions with their engineering brains instead of their wallets then they wouldn't have to reach so far into their wallets, now.

Lastly, you point to the 97% ICR clearance as an indicator of success rather than what it is: a band-aid the AF instituted because they simply have no other option than to use it, even with its limitations, due to manning caps, budgets, ramp space, tanker obsolescence, and TRANSCOM requirements all coming to a head and forcing the solution for them. It's not because it's a "near miss".

LyleLanley wrote:

I'm not mad at Boeing. I'm just disappointed.

I'm a Boeing Fanboy but I am also disappointed at the KC-46 execution

Speaking of which, and will warrant a separate thread, looks like preliminary RFI for KC-Z may drop soon.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... licitation

Sorry, pay wall, but the headline says it all.

bt

Avatar2go wrote:

LyleLanley wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Also the KC-46 refueled the MV-22 Osprey for the first time last week. Currently a C-130 must shuttle fuel between a boom tanker and the Osprey, making several trips. The KC -46 can refuel the Osprey in one shot, using the centerline drogue.

The KC-10 has been cleared to refuel the CV-22 for years, now. I tanked one circa 2014.

Yes, but the KC-135 cannot as it lacks a drogue system. The KC-46 adds this capability in large numbers as the KC-135 is replaced. That was the purpose of the KC-X program.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but your post didn't say any of that. Just that "currently" the V-22 has to tank off a C-130 instead of hitting a big-wing tanker directly. And that the KC-46 cuts out the middleman C-130.

The KC-46's AR systems, apart from the vision system, are nothing revolutionary if you came from the KC-10. It's only the former KC-135 folks who are blown away by boom and drogue on the same flight, or not having to manually track the receiver, independent disconnect, or the ability to make fire.

bikerthai wrote:

I'm a Boeing Fanboy but I am also disappointed at the KC-46 execution

Speaking of which, and will warrant a separate thread, looks like preliminary RFI for KC-Z may drop soon.

bt

Cool looking jet! Hope she turns out.

LyleLanley wrote:

I'm not mad at Boeing. I'm just disappointed.

I have to disagree with some of your major points, especially that the USAF test booms reported favorably of the RVS 1.0. I happen to know some of the very test booms you're referring to and their impressions of the RVS - even in 2010-2011 timeframe when Boeing was soliciting their inputs for the final design - was quite negative. This was in direct contrast to the positive impressions from the MRTT's vision system. The KC-46's vision system has been a consistent area of concern since before day 1 of contract signing. The test booms were impressed with the boom itself and many other aspects, but the vision was a joke even then. Now, whether their candid voices and recommendations made it past AFMC is another matter, but to say they "reported favorably" is a bit much. Perhaps if 1.5 was the original kit, their opinions might have been better, but 1.5 came almost a full decade (!!!) after.

Further, I never said "Boeing is cheap" is the only factor at play. It takes two to dance. But that the supposed tanker experts with decades of refueling expertise across multiple generations of aircraft gets to the point where the USAF has to call BS for years (at billions of dollars of expense to Boeing) says a lot. If they'd taken those concerns from the start we wouldn't still be at this juncture. Boeing didn't eventually take $5 billion in losses because of charity or "for the veterans", but because it was their responsibility and as the lead manufacturer and program integrator it's their ball. If Boeing had made sound decisions with their engineering brains instead of their wallets then they wouldn't have to reach so far into their wallets, now.

Lastly, you point to the 97% ICR clearance as an indicator of success rather than what it is: a band-aid the AF instituted because they simply have no other option than to use it, even with its limitations, due to manning caps, budgets, ramp space, tanker obsolescence, and TRANSCOM requirements all coming to a head and forcing the solution for them. It's not because it's a "near miss".

Like I said, it's obvious you don't like Boeing or the KC-46 program, and that is abundantly clear from your comments, which go against what the USAF has said publicly on the KC-46.

Further, at least one paper was published on the Collins RVS that describes initial testing with boomers. The comments and results of the testing were favorable. Which jives completely with the early approvals granted by the USAF.

Further, the statement about the Osprey refueling came from the USAF, not me. The statement was that the KC-46 eliminates the shuttling of fuel, which had been the previous practice.

Further, the 97% interim capability approval was described by the USAF as the result of a rigorous testing program, with confidence enough to certify foreign aircraft, and to deploy in combat theaters for exercises and training. That is hardly a "band-aid" or "no other choice" statement. It's understandable that the corner cases might not be avoidable in combat, which supports that restriction, but also clear that they are minor enough to not be a factor in routine operations.

So you are once again arguing against your own bosses. Which I interpret in terms of my opening statement, that you are expressing your own opinion, but it's not the opinion of the USAF.

Avatar2go wrote:

Like I said, it's obvious you don't like Boeing or the KC-46 program, and that is abundantly clear from your comments, which go against what the USAF has said publicly on the KC-46.

Further, at least one paper was published on the Collins RVS that describes initial testing with boomers. The comments and results of the testing were favorable. Which jives completely with the early approvals granted by the USAF.

Further, the statement about the Osprey refueling came from the USAF, not me. The statement was that the KC-46 eliminates the shuttling of fuel, which had been the previous practice.

Further, the 97% interim capability approval was described by the USAF as the result of a rigorous testing program, with confidence enough to certify foreign aircraft, and to deploy in combat theaters for exercises and training. That is hardly a "band-aid" or "no other choice" statement. It's understandable that the corner cases might not be avoidable in combat, which supports that restriction, but also clear that they are minor enough to not be a factor in routine operations.

So you are once again arguing against your own bosses. Which I interpret in terms of my opening statement, that you are expressing your own opinion, but it's not the opinion of the USAF.

Since when did I ever say my posts are the official position of the USAF? What’s your opinion, then? What are your credentials?

Yeah, no: you’re not getting off that easily. I actually don’t dislike Boeing, nor do I dislike the KC-46. It’s a great airframe, that could’ve been absolutely incredible from the start. But it didn’t turn out that way, due to the shitty job Boeing has done. So don’t try spinning my thoughts as ‘Boeing hate’. Maybe just intolerant of incompetence. And pinning your bs Osprey comments as the Air Force is poor form, too. Take ownership, guy, because you can’t have things both ways.

Maybe that’s just me having a functioning brain and thinking occasionally, and not simply parroting PA statements. Sorry. Btw, that’s not the official position of the USAF.

LyleLanley wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Like I said, it's obvious you don't like Boeing or the KC-46 program, and that is abundantly clear from your comments, which go against what the USAF has said publicly on the KC-46.

Further, at least one paper was published on the Collins RVS that describes initial testing with boomers. The comments and results of the testing were favorable. Which jives completely with the early approvals granted by the USAF.

Further, the statement about the Osprey refueling came from the USAF, not me. The statement was that the KC-46 eliminates the shuttling of fuel, which had been the previous practice.

Further, the 97% interim capability approval was described by the USAF as the result of a rigorous testing program, with confidence enough to certify foreign aircraft, and to deploy in combat theaters for exercises and training. That is hardly a "band-aid" or "no other choice" statement. It's understandable that the corner cases might not be avoidable in combat, which supports that restriction, but also clear that they are minor enough to not be a factor in routine operations.

So you are once again arguing against your own bosses. Which I interpret in terms of my opening statement, that you are expressing your own opinion, but it's not the opinion of the USAF.

Since when did I ever say my posts are the official position of the USAF? What’s your opinion, then? What are your credentials?

Yeah, no: you’re not getting off that easily. I actually don’t dislike Boeing, nor do I dislike the KC-46. It’s a great airframe, that could’ve been absolutely incredible from the start. But it didn’t turn out that way, due to the shitty job Boeing has done. So don’t try spinning my thoughts as ‘Boeing hate’. Maybe just intolerant of incompetence. And pinning your bs Osprey comments as the Air Force is poor form, too. Take ownership, guy, because you can’t have things both ways.

Maybe that’s just me having a functioning brain and thinking occasionally, and not simply parroting PA statements. Sorry. Btw, that’s not the official position of the USAF.

All my opinions are based on things the USAF has said in interviews, or has published on their base sites. As well as one extended discussion I had with a KC-46 crew at an air show. I asked them many questions, and my belief at least, was that they gave me honest answers. Those answers were very different from yours. Also those answers are consistent with developments we see now in the program. So I have to go with that.

Here is the source on the Osprey:

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/kc ... 42.article

The USAF states that refuelling directly from the KC-46A saves time. Ordinarily, a CV-22 on a combat mission would refuel from a Lockheed Martin MC-130J, which would in turn have to refuel from another tanker.

“Because KC-46s can refuel us directly, we can go straight to them and get everything done much more quickly,” adds Belviso.

It's clear that we won't agree on this, and I'm not interested in trading insults. So will just let this go. The future of the program will establish which of us has the more correct view, more than any debate we can have here. I'll be looking forward to further improvement and utilization.

Pease ANGB just did a heck of a job painting up one of their new KC-46s.

https://www.dvidshub.net/image/7300041/ ... -pease-jet

Looking forward to seeing other units paint up their Pegasuses.

I'm not trying to insult you. You bring a lot of value and perspective to this forum. We're coming from very different perspectives, and nothing wrong with disagreement.

That being said, please understand there's a difference between an official USAF representative at an airshow (i.e. the KC-46 people you spoke with) or a base PAO, or some General Officer speaking to Aviation Week, and my unvarnished thoughts on an internet forum. At an airshow you're known by your rank and name and any words spoken to the public must necessarily be coached. I wouldn't volunteer details or gripes to some random person who steps onto my jet and asks "how are things?". That's not the time or the place. I would emphasize the positives and deflect the negatives by saying the bugs are being worked out. For instance, the pano system provides good situational awareness for receivers in formation and is a definite improvement over the small windows I had in the KC-10. This is most evident at night, but is still very useful during the day. The centerline drogue is also very effective and enables us to deliver fuel to our Navy and coalition partners who don't use the boom system and soon we'll have WARP capability. We're also now cleared to refuel the CV/MV-22 so now we can deliver gas directly to the warfighter instead of having to "step down" our gas to an MC-130 tanker like the boom-only KC-135 had to do.

Here my username and avatar are a character from The Simpsons and I have no problem airing gripes. Example given: the pano system sucks. It's so ancient it has lines that move across it and the resolution is terrible, yet it's brand new(!!!). Really? These black and white screens are the best we can do? I could look out a window on my old jet and make out the receiver type from much farther than this! Oh, well if I change the scene selection it gets better. Of course, we're in an anchor and the sun keeps changing positions in the turn so that's not so good. It's so bad, in fact, Boeing is replacing this brand new ancient system. Of course, they're replacing the whole setup anyway after years of obfuscating and delays. Although unlike most of the issues with this jet the USAF is paying for the new pano system. Of course, the USAF is paying for it all in one way or another anyway, and right now we're buying a tanker we can't deploy to our current war with... Unless there's a 'real' war... I don't really care about all that, though: I just want a useable system with a shiny picture that doesn't make my eyes do funny things. In the meantime, I'll gladly take the extended break from the never-ending sandbox deployments. The drogue? Yep, it's fine I guess. It's pretty much the same setup as the 10, so not really anything new for me. Still boring. WARPS? Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. That's not exactly an opinion I'm going to share with some random guy at an airshow, nor will the base PAO publish it to twitter or af.mil. Fortunately.

Contrary to what you might think, I actually really do like this jet. She can just be so much better. It's a much safer and more capable aircraft than a KC-135, as it should be. Of course, the KC-135 can actually deploy right now. She's certainly no KC-10 replacement, but that's not what she was designed for. She's still nice, though.

Avatar2go wrote:

I'll be looking forward to further improvement and utilization.

You and me both!

CX747 wrote:

Pease ANGB just did a heck of a job painting up one of their new KC-46s.

https://www.dvidshub.net/image/7300041/ ... -pease-jet

Looking forward to seeing other units paint up their Pegasuses.

Beautiful!!!

More KC-46s for Joint Base MDL?

The act would authorized 15 new KC-46A air tankers, which are replacing the old KC-10s at the Joint Base, New Jersey’s second-largest employer.

The NDAA also included $197.5 million for communications and training systems, and research and development for the tankers, and a provision to replace the KC-135 refueling tankers used by the New Jersey National Guard’s 108th Air Refueling Wing with KC-46 aircraft.

https://www.nj.com/politics/2022/07/njs-2nd-largest-employer-would-get-billions-under-new-defense-policy-bill.html?outputType=amp

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/07 ... 46-builds/

Interesting take from this is the last few paragraphs:

When asked whether he is confident enough in Boeing and the Pegasus to consider going with more of them, he pointed to the improvement in the KC-46′s capabilities over the last year.
“Compared to a year ago at this time … we’d say ‘We’re not using the KC-46, it’s not really operational,’” Hunter said. “There’s been a huge sea change in the last year, and Air Mobility Command has really cleared the way for operational use of the KC-46.”
Last month, AMC announced the KC-46 had been approved to refuel 97% of the aircraft flown on U.S. Transportation Command missions.

And a year from now, Hunter predicted the Air Force will have a “very robust and operationally viable KC-46.”
He acknowledged quality control issues Boeing has had with the KC-46, most notably multiple problems with debris left in some planes when they were delivered to the Air Force, and said he wouldn’t minimize those problems. But, he said, their work has improved since then.

Opus99 wrote:

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/07/16/us-air-force-mulls-skipping-tanker-competition-as-confidence-in-boeings-kc-46-builds/

Interesting take from this is the last few paragraphs:

When asked whether he is confident enough in Boeing and the Pegasus to consider going with more of them, he pointed to the improvement in the KC-46′s capabilities over the last year.
“Compared to a year ago at this time … we’d say ‘We’re not using the KC-46, it’s not really operational,’” Hunter said. “There’s been a huge sea change in the last year, and Air Mobility Command has really cleared the way for operational use of the KC-46.”
Last month, AMC announced the KC-46 had been approved to refuel 97% of the aircraft flown on U.S. Transportation Command missions.

And a year from now, Hunter predicted the Air Force will have a “very robust and operationally viable KC-46.”
He acknowledged quality control issues Boeing has had with the KC-46, most notably multiple problems with debris left in some planes when they were delivered to the Air Force, and said he wouldn’t minimize those problems. But, he said, their work has improved since then.

The major change with the KC-46 is that the dispute between Boeing and the USAF, over the vision system, was settled. With that out of the way, the USAF has had a free hand to develop capabilities. Prior to that, there was reluctance to utilize a substandard system, with the risk that it might become permanent if the dispute was not resolved.

Good that Boeing went to the expert panel to settle the issue, even though it wasn't in their favor. That was the right thing to do in those circumstances. It removed politics and economics, only the technical merits were considered.

Avatar2go wrote:

It removed politics and economics, only the technical merits were considered.

Politics yep, economics, not necessarily. Boeing has their own incentive for perfecting the vision systems for future KC-Z application. Spend money now or spend later. . .


bt

bikerthai wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

It removed politics and economics, only the technical merits were considered.

Politics yep, economics, not necessarily. Boeing has their own incentive for perfecting the vision systems for future KC-Z application. Spend money now or spend later. .

Agreed that it benefits Boeing in the long run, I meant only that they quit complaining about the cost overruns on the fixed cost contract. That had been the major stumbling block, and source of the dispute.

STT757 wrote:

More KC-46s for Joint Base MDL?

The act would authorized 15 new KC-46A air tankers, which are replacing the old KC-10s at the Joint Base, New Jersey’s second-largest employer.

The NDAA also included $197.5 million for communications and training systems, and research and development for the tankers, and a provision to replace the KC-135 refueling tankers used by the New Jersey National Guard’s 108th Air Refueling Wing with KC-46 aircraft.

https://www.nj.com/politics/2022/07/njs-2nd-largest-employer-would-get-billions-under-new-defense-policy-bill.html?outputType=amp

Initial plans were for McGuire to receive 24 KC-46s. That fell short of the 32 KC-10s being replaced and was always a huge question mark. McGuire was to receive 15 KC-46s in FY22, which has already passed....Is the FY 23 NDAA discussing funding for the 15 birds already tallied...or new builds? I certainly hope it is new builds and putting funding NOW in a FY23 document would lean towards 15 additional KC-46s headed to NJ.

McGuire has the ramp space for another 15 KC-46s and would be a perfectly placed location for additional booms. Also, nice to see the 108th on deck to receive Pegasuses. A robust fleet of 39 active duty and 8-10 ANG KC-46s in the US's Northeast would be strategically a wise choice. A great mix of Active Duty, Reserve and ANG birds.

Are any of the KC-46s getting tail location markings like other tankers and AMC aircraft? With the exception of the remarkable tail art of the NH KC-46, what other units have their home base on the tails?

The Air Force is studying eliminating the co-pilot on the KC-46, possibly only having the Pilot and Boom Operator, this seems a bit crazy unless the KC-46 is capable of autonomous flight. I could see having only a Pilot & one other on duty at any point, so only a relief pilot not relief pilot and co-pilot required on the flight deck. When refueling there really needs to be a Pilot, Co Pilot and boom operator on duty. Take off and landing a pilot and co-pilot up until the planes automation can land the plane itself.


https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... ker-crews/

JayinKitsap wrote:

Take off and landing a pilot and co-pilot up until the planes automation can land the plane itself.

What if for take off and landing, your co-pilot could be one still back at a ground station simulator?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Take off and landing a pilot and co-pilot up until the planes automation can land the plane itself.

What if for take off and landing, your co-pilot could be one still back at a ground station simulator?

bt

All interesting, possibly this is an item being tucked into KC-Y. Remote operation, autonomous operation, single pilot operation. Boeing could develop as part of the civil -2C certification so it can also be used in the new 764F freighter, that alone would sell a ton of freighters.

I'd be OK safety wise to have a remote co-pilot on a freighter or tanker. The aircraft bot calls up the remote station for a co-pilot anytime the plane drops out of autopilot.

JayinKitsap wrote:

The aircraft bot calls up the remote station for a co-pilot anytime the plane drops out of autopilot.

Sounds like a new business opportunity for pilots who can not pass medical!

bt

The KC-46 has civilian transport certification, so single pilot would not be allowed by the FAA for any transport or medevac mission. USAF might fudge the rules on refueling flights, but that seems really counterproductive.

It’s not being looked at as a regular thing, but more as a contingency in case of war with China “if we’re low on crews but fat on jets, what can we do?” type of scenario.

I think the concept is a Pandora’s box, but love the outside of the box thinking, no pun intended.

aumaverick wrote:

Are any of the KC-46s getting tail location markings like other tankers and AMC aircraft? With the exception of the remarkable tail art of the NH KC-46, what other units have their home base on the tails?

Nope. AMC crunched the numbers and decided morale wasn’t worth the 69 man-hours to remove the paint when a jet leaves a station and the 69 hours to paint when the jet arrives at her new home.

I give 2 years before the next shiny-penny brings up fuel savings and permanently drains our potable water tank.

CX747 wrote:

STT757 wrote:

More KC-46s for Joint Base MDL?

The act would authorized 15 new KC-46A air tankers, which are replacing the old KC-10s at the Joint Base, New Jersey’s second-largest employer.

The NDAA also included $197.5 million for communications and training systems, and research and development for the tankers, and a provision to replace the KC-135 refueling tankers used by the New Jersey National Guard’s 108th Air Refueling Wing with KC-46 aircraft.

https://www.nj.com/politics/2022/07/njs-2nd-largest-employer-would-get-billions-under-new-defense-policy-bill.html?outputType=amp

Initial plans were for McGuire to receive 24 KC-46s. That fell short of the 32 KC-10s being replaced and was always a huge question mark. McGuire was to receive 15 KC-46s in FY22, which has already passed....Is the FY 23 NDAA discussing funding for the 15 birds already tallied...or new builds? I certainly hope it is new builds and putting funding NOW in a FY23 document would lean towards 15 additional KC-46s headed to NJ.

McGuire has the ramp space for another 15 KC-46s and would be a perfectly placed location for additional booms. Also, nice to see the 108th on deck to receive Pegasuses. A robust fleet of 39 active duty and 8-10 ANG KC-46s in the US's Northeast would be strategically a wise choice. A great mix of Active Duty, Reserve and ANG birds.

That assumes the 514th will retain the KC-46 component…

LyleLanley wrote:

CX747 wrote:

STT757 wrote:

More KC-46s for Joint Base MDL?



https://www.nj.com/politics/2022/07/njs-2nd-largest-employer-would-get-billions-under-new-defense-policy-bill.html?outputType=amp

Initial plans were for McGuire to receive 24 KC-46s. That fell short of the 32 KC-10s being replaced and was always a huge question mark. McGuire was to receive 15 KC-46s in FY22, which has already passed....Is the FY 23 NDAA discussing funding for the 15 birds already tallied...or new builds? I certainly hope it is new builds and putting funding NOW in a FY23 document would lean towards 15 additional KC-46s headed to NJ.

McGuire has the ramp space for another 15 KC-46s and would be a perfectly placed location for additional booms. Also, nice to see the 108th on deck to receive Pegasuses. A robust fleet of 39 active duty and 8-10 ANG KC-46s in the US's Northeast would be strategically a wise choice. A great mix of Active Duty, Reserve and ANG birds.

That assumes the 514th will retain the KC-46 component…

Could the 108th become a Guard/Active associate unit?

STT757 wrote:

Could the 108th become a Guard/Active associate unit?

That’s the scuttlebutt. I’ve seen some of the briefs, and that’s the idea: the 514th would lose the tanker mission and the 108th would become an associate unit. No iron to move, and manpower would shuffle to C-17 or change from federal to state.

With the pivot to Asia, McGuire is a much less important location and the NETTF is already saturated.

LyleLanley wrote:

STT757 wrote:

Could the 108th become a Guard/Active associate unit?

That’s the scuttlebutt. I’ve seen some of the briefs, and that’s the idea: the 514th would lose the tanker mission and the 108th would become an associate unit. No iron to move, and manpower would shuffle to C-17 or change from federal to state.

With the pivot to Asia, McGuire is a much less important location and the NETTF is already saturated.

I would think the 108th would move across the airfield (they were there prior to 1995) to co-locate with the active component. The KC-46s wouldn't fit into their current KC-135 hangars anyway. The 108th used to have two squadrons of KC-135Es (16 total). When they went to one squadron of 8 KC-135Rs that freed up the space for the Navy Logistics C-130s to move from Willow Grove. Moving the 108th over to the other side of the airfield would free up more ramp space, it would be the perfect place to relocate the Marine KC-130Js from Stewart. It's not a big move since a good number of the reservists at Stewart probably can get to Fort Dix just as easy. The Marine KC-130Js would probably fit into the KC-135 hangars, also I believe the Navy is updating it's logistics squadrons to C-130Js so they can share supply and support resources.