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.