Originally Posted by
GlobalNav
Well, I’m not sure it was engineers who promised what they couldn’t deliver. But if you can’t, you should not submit a bid saying you can. I agree it’s probably a dumb requirement, because you can’t show a “3D” image on a 2D display. I’ve been around displays and imaging technology for decades and can attest to that. And I’ve been around display and imaging vendors who claim otherwise. That’s called “snake oil”.
For the money USAF and Boeing poured down this rat hole, I suspect automatic connection could have been designed and built. But putting the boomer in the tail looking out a window worked for longer than the KC-135 has been in service, and for whatever the cost of modifying the 767 tail to accommodate it, would have been less risky and less costly, and would satisfy the military need. Not sure why USAF specified RVS. Was it their idea or Boeing’s? But Boeing said they could do it.
Again, I can't comment too much because this stuff is all considered Proprietary (or higher). But its not a '2d system'. It doesn't work as well as they hoped - the newer 4k systems is way better. I don't know what sort of issues they still have - but the question remains - is it 'good enough' to get the job done at least as well as the dude laying in the back could?
Because that's what the requirement
should be.