USAF Frustrated By Boeing KC-46 Fix

KC-46
Credit: USAF

The U.S. Air Force does not believe Boeing’s proposal for the KC-46 Remote Vision System (RVS) will meet the program’s critical performance parameters, according to a service official.

This is based on evidence the service has seen to date, Lt. Gen. Jon Thomas, Air Mobility Command deputy, told Aerospace DAILY Jan. 29. 

“The tanker is not capable of all of its missions and won’t be until the problems with the Remote Vision System are fixed,” he said.

The Air Force is counting on the KC-46A Pegasus to recapitalize its tanker fleet and delays to the program only exacerbate the service’s capacity problem.

“It’s really hard for us to consider the KC-46 part of our operational capacity,” Thomas said.

The Air Force awarded a contract to Boeing in 2011 for $4.9 billion to deliver 179 KC-46A aircraft through 2027. The two parties are still negotiating the scope of a final redesign of the aircraft’s RVS. The new technology is essentially the eyes for the boom operator.

The problem with the RVS is what the Air Force calls a “rubber sheet” effect that distorts the image on the visual display used by the boom operator during refueling operations. Boeing has agreed to pay for the RVS design fix.

The company maintains getting the KC-46A program back on track is a top priority. Boeing CEO David Calhoun met with Air Force chief of staff Gen. David Goldfein on his third day on the job. The chief executive said he must spend the majority of his time fixing the 737 MAX but it does not mean the KC-46 will be overlooked.

“We’re committed to see that through and see it through the right way,” Calhoun said Jan. 29. “It’s going to finish beautifully.” 

Comments

10 Comments
Why don't they go back to just looking through the window ? Always seemed to work on the KC135 !
@derwenttech - they were able to increase internal stowage and fuel capacity of the KC-46 as compared to the KC-135 & KC-10 by eliminating the boom operator's booth in the back of the plane and the associated walkway to it.
Because the 46's boom operator sits up front looking at TV screens not in a 135 style boom pod.
The remote vision system is a complete disaster. If nothing else, the operator of the remote vision system does not create the sense of urgency, care, and focus that the KC=135 system does. Air Force and Boeing should admit that and set up Boom Operator configuration like KC-135 which worked quite well by the skilled Boom Operators. The KC-46 has multiple conflicting tasks - roller floors for packing in a lot of large boxes of light cargo, etc. may preclude even getting to the back of the aircraft by the boom operator may be the reason for the TV screen up front concept. I guarantee that TV video won't provide the sense of urgency and absolute focus that the KC-135 boom operator has when nearly face to face with the receiving aircraft's pilots.
The remote vision system is a complete disaster. If nothing else, the operator of the remote vision system does not create the sense of urgency, care, and focus that the KC=135 system does. Air Force and Boeing should admit that and set up Boom Operator configuration like KC-135 which worked quite well by the skilled Boom Operators. The KC-46 has multiple conflicting tasks - roller floors for packing in a lot of large boxes of light cargo, etc. may preclude even getting to the back of the aircraft by the boom operator may be the reason for the TV screen up front concept. I guarantee that TV video won't provide the sense of urgency and absolute focus that the KC-135 boom operator has when nearly face to face with the receiving aircraft's pilots.
Yes RBHIX, I know the 46's boom operator is up-front but that was my point. Go back to a rear station with direct vision. The operator also has to manage a "probe and drogue" system if it is fitted. On the other hand the RAF's Vickers VC10 tankers had only "remote vision" 40 years ago for their 3-point "probe and drogue" installation. Sounds as if we are trying to be too "clever dick" these days !
Further to my previous comment, before someone pulls me up, I appreciate that "probe and drogue" systems do not need manipulation by the refueling operator as do "boom" systems. On the RAF VC10 the flight engineer on the flight deck acted as refueling operator.
So who do we believe. The author of the article or the CEO whose company has to resolve the problem with the RVS.
Why, why, why, why why did someone think the boomer had to be upfront?
“Sarge, get back there. We’ll see you after they’re refueled.”
Nearly 70 years of success despoiled by the opinion of who?
What system does the Airbus tanker use? It seems to work.