More KC-46A woes....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...roubled-tanker
A Plastic Cap In A KC-46's Fuel Valve Generates More Turbulence For The Troubled Tanker
The U.S. Air Force’s beleaguered Boeing KC-46 Pegasus tanker program hit yet another snag earlier this year. Deliveries were halted for around a month after plastic debris was found inside an internal fuel line in one of the aircraft as it flew to its future home in North Carolina. The small red cap jammed a valve open, causing an uncontrolled fuel transfer between tanks……
A Plastic Cap In A KC-46's Fuel Valve Generates More Turbulence For The Troubled Tanker
The U.S. Air Force’s beleaguered Boeing KC-46 Pegasus tanker program hit yet another snag earlier this year. Deliveries were halted for around a month after plastic debris was found inside an internal fuel line in one of the aircraft as it flew to its future home in North Carolina. The small red cap jammed a valve open, causing an uncontrolled fuel transfer between tanks……
Thread Starter
Salute!
.
Make no mistake, I am biased about these matters due to my presence on the coast where the 'bus version of the tanker would have been built using U.S. folks, trains, boats and low cost of living area, etc.
On the tech and economic side, the thing is worse than the Aardvaark was in the late sixties.At least the f-111 turned into a supreme penetrating attack jet and very good Spark 'vaark.
- whoever thot TV display for the refueling boom was better and cheaper than a human boom-op looking at the reciever 25 or 30 feet away was not a boom operator with hundreds, if not thousands, of successful hook-ups. Sheesh. Virtuality and 3-d cameras/displays can only go so far. And then, on a stormy night when a low fuel receiver joins up, the damn stuff goes tits up! I will guarantee that the boom-op will connect faster and more reliably, especially after a few offloads on various receiver types. The experience many of us had in 'nam and the Storm will bear me out.
- production standards by what used to be the gold standard company of lore went AWOL. I can also guarantee that labor costs for the contract went up compared to Alabama due to the "right to work" laws and lower costs of living, just like making the 787 outside of the Seattle area.
MY VIEW: Big B got the production after initial award due to the U.S. delegation from Washington and their poly-tickian efforts and threats. That is my story and I am sticking to it.
Gums sends...
.
Make no mistake, I am biased about these matters due to my presence on the coast where the 'bus version of the tanker would have been built using U.S. folks, trains, boats and low cost of living area, etc.
On the tech and economic side, the thing is worse than the Aardvaark was in the late sixties.At least the f-111 turned into a supreme penetrating attack jet and very good Spark 'vaark.
- whoever thot TV display for the refueling boom was better and cheaper than a human boom-op looking at the reciever 25 or 30 feet away was not a boom operator with hundreds, if not thousands, of successful hook-ups. Sheesh. Virtuality and 3-d cameras/displays can only go so far. And then, on a stormy night when a low fuel receiver joins up, the damn stuff goes tits up! I will guarantee that the boom-op will connect faster and more reliably, especially after a few offloads on various receiver types. The experience many of us had in 'nam and the Storm will bear me out.
- production standards by what used to be the gold standard company of lore went AWOL. I can also guarantee that labor costs for the contract went up compared to Alabama due to the "right to work" laws and lower costs of living, just like making the 787 outside of the Seattle area.
MY VIEW: Big B got the production after initial award due to the U.S. delegation from Washington and their poly-tickian efforts and threats. That is my story and I am sticking to it.
Gums sends...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/144th_Fighter_Wing
Salute!
.
- whoever thot TV display for the refueling boom was better and cheaper than a human boom-op looking at the reciever 25 or 30 feet away was not a boom operator with hundreds, if not thousands, of successful hook-ups. Sheesh. Virtuality and 3-d cameras/displays can only go so far. And then, on a stormy night when a low fuel receiver joins up, the damn stuff goes tits up! I will guarantee that the boom-op will connect faster and more reliably, especially after a few offloads on various receiver types.
Gums sends...
.
- whoever thot TV display for the refueling boom was better and cheaper than a human boom-op looking at the reciever 25 or 30 feet away was not a boom operator with hundreds, if not thousands, of successful hook-ups. Sheesh. Virtuality and 3-d cameras/displays can only go so far. And then, on a stormy night when a low fuel receiver joins up, the damn stuff goes tits up! I will guarantee that the boom-op will connect faster and more reliably, especially after a few offloads on various receiver types.
Gums sends...
Salute!
Tnx, folks......guess I gotta find the 'bus proposal to compare.
My memory points toward a conventional boom-op station and real eyeballs to use controlling the boom.
The drogue is a no-brainer, and is easily implemented by drones nowadays'
I have refueled many times in "marginal" weather conditions but only a few times when almost outta gas. The boom op dudes got me hooked every time.
Gums sends,,,
Tnx, folks......guess I gotta find the 'bus proposal to compare.
My memory points toward a conventional boom-op station and real eyeballs to use controlling the boom.
The drogue is a no-brainer, and is easily implemented by drones nowadays'
I have refueled many times in "marginal" weather conditions but only a few times when almost outta gas. The boom op dudes got me hooked every time.
Gums sends,,,
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
True, neither the 46 or bus will probably ever “tow” someone back to friendly territory - but the bean counters will add up the cost of an extra crewman in every tanker crew over the life of th3 aircraft against the probable need and decide it’s more cost effective.
Plus, of course, the bus is trialling fully automatic refuelling and, machines being what they are, that most probably be more reliable over time, if only because it’s reaction time is thousands of times faster.
Plus, of course, the bus is trialling fully automatic refuelling and, machines being what they are, that most probably be more reliable over time, if only because it’s reaction time is thousands of times faster.
Salute!
I have no problem with a new system and maybe a dual role person on the crew. Was there, been that and flew/tested many new systems and concepts in the Sluf and Viper their first few years.
My USAF rumor network has indicated the visual system for operating the boom lacks a few things besides depth perception. Nevertheless, if ROSCOSMOS and Space X can have their super hook up system for the ISS using Dragon and Soyuz, I can see a similar implementation with a manual backup. Maybe a benign coating around the receptacle and a sensor on the boom.
My main beef has been the poly-tickian influence on the source selection at the beginning of the program and then the problems big B has had along the way. I'll back off, now.
BTW, I have no problem with snuggling up to the tanker at night in the rain, then stabilizing as the robot boom makes contact and gives me gas. My concern is the human using a bad visual system and the boom hitting my canopy. As far as I recall, once hooked up, even the antique 135 boom and the KC-10 one operated independent of the human boom op. Maybe another pilot that has experience with the things can comment here.
Gums sends...
I have no problem with a new system and maybe a dual role person on the crew. Was there, been that and flew/tested many new systems and concepts in the Sluf and Viper their first few years.
My USAF rumor network has indicated the visual system for operating the boom lacks a few things besides depth perception. Nevertheless, if ROSCOSMOS and Space X can have their super hook up system for the ISS using Dragon and Soyuz, I can see a similar implementation with a manual backup. Maybe a benign coating around the receptacle and a sensor on the boom.
My main beef has been the poly-tickian influence on the source selection at the beginning of the program and then the problems big B has had along the way. I'll back off, now.
BTW, I have no problem with snuggling up to the tanker at night in the rain, then stabilizing as the robot boom makes contact and gives me gas. My concern is the human using a bad visual system and the boom hitting my canopy. As far as I recall, once hooked up, even the antique 135 boom and the KC-10 one operated independent of the human boom op. Maybe another pilot that has experience with the things can comment here.
Gums sends...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022...vision-system/
The Air Force and Boeing haven’t yet fixed the troubled KC-46 Pegasus vision system
The Air Force and Boeing haven’t yet fixed the troubled KC-46 Pegasus vision system
We have Boeing jet drones landing on aircraft carriers at night but the bloody boom can't be fixed over years? By a company that successfully built hundreds of tankers over tens of years? Hard to believe. Ask Israel for a fix.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 11th Jan 2022 at 12:55. Reason: sigh
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022...vision-system/
The Air Force and Boeing haven’t yet fixed the troubled KC-46 Pegasus vision system
The Air Force and Boeing haven’t yet fixed the troubled KC-46 Pegasus vision system
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
https://aviationweek.com/defense-spa...space_20220127
https://aviationweek.com/defense-spa...space_20220127
Thread Starter
[...]bringing the total cost overruns for the tanker to about $5.4 billion
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.....
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022...arns-watchdog/
US Air Force could repeat KC-46 vision system mistake, warns watchdog
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force risks repeating its previous mistakes on the KC-46A Pegasus program by planning to accept a redesign of its troubled Remote Vision System without taking the right precautions, the Government Accountability Office said.
In a report released Thursday, GAO said the Air Force’s plan to accept the financial responsibilities of the vision system’s redesign could put the service at risk of incurring more costs and delays, if it finds out later the system needs further redesigns.
“These choices mirror those made during the development of the KC-46 that led to the delivery of an aircraft that did not fully meet its requirements, and the Air Force stands poised to potentially repeat its past mistake,” GAO said......
The Boeing-made aerial refueling tanker, which is eventually meant to replace one-third of the service’s legacy fleet of aging tankers, has a problematic vision systemthat makes it hard for the boom operator to clearly see the receiving aircraft’s refueling receptacle in some lighting conditions. This has sometimes led to the boom making undetected contact with the aircraft being refueled and damaging its coating.
Boeing in 2020 signed a memorandum of agreement with the Air Force to design a new vision system to address those problems, dubbed RVS 2.0, which is expected to be finished by mid-2024. Boeing is also updating the existing system along the way. But GAO expressed concern about the Air Force’s plan to assume financial responsibility for the new vision system’s design without making sure the program is taking steps to ensure its critical technologies are mature.
GAO said that KC-46 program plans to commit to “an immature design” for the new vision system, without setting up its own technology readiness assessment and a plan to mature the critical technologies involved. GAO also criticized the KC-46 program for not planning to test a prototype of the revised system in flight before the design is finished, which it said could lead to the discovery of new problems.
The memorandum of agreement said the Air Force would be financially responsible for any design changes that are made after the preliminary design review is finished. “This arrangement, effectively, reversed the original terms of the firm-fixed price contract that aimed to hold Boeing fully responsible for delivering a system that would work in any lighting conditions,” GAO wrote.
The Air Force told GAO that this was necessary because the service and Boeing had reached an impasse on how to address the vision system’s problems, and who would be financially responsible......
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022...arns-watchdog/
US Air Force could repeat KC-46 vision system mistake, warns watchdog
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force risks repeating its previous mistakes on the KC-46A Pegasus program by planning to accept a redesign of its troubled Remote Vision System without taking the right precautions, the Government Accountability Office said.
In a report released Thursday, GAO said the Air Force’s plan to accept the financial responsibilities of the vision system’s redesign could put the service at risk of incurring more costs and delays, if it finds out later the system needs further redesigns.
“These choices mirror those made during the development of the KC-46 that led to the delivery of an aircraft that did not fully meet its requirements, and the Air Force stands poised to potentially repeat its past mistake,” GAO said......
The Boeing-made aerial refueling tanker, which is eventually meant to replace one-third of the service’s legacy fleet of aging tankers, has a problematic vision systemthat makes it hard for the boom operator to clearly see the receiving aircraft’s refueling receptacle in some lighting conditions. This has sometimes led to the boom making undetected contact with the aircraft being refueled and damaging its coating.
Boeing in 2020 signed a memorandum of agreement with the Air Force to design a new vision system to address those problems, dubbed RVS 2.0, which is expected to be finished by mid-2024. Boeing is also updating the existing system along the way. But GAO expressed concern about the Air Force’s plan to assume financial responsibility for the new vision system’s design without making sure the program is taking steps to ensure its critical technologies are mature.
GAO said that KC-46 program plans to commit to “an immature design” for the new vision system, without setting up its own technology readiness assessment and a plan to mature the critical technologies involved. GAO also criticized the KC-46 program for not planning to test a prototype of the revised system in flight before the design is finished, which it said could lead to the discovery of new problems.
The memorandum of agreement said the Air Force would be financially responsible for any design changes that are made after the preliminary design review is finished. “This arrangement, effectively, reversed the original terms of the firm-fixed price contract that aimed to hold Boeing fully responsible for delivering a system that would work in any lighting conditions,” GAO wrote.
The Air Force told GAO that this was necessary because the service and Boeing had reached an impasse on how to address the vision system’s problems, and who would be financially responsible......