I don't know - this sounds more like the USAF wants perfection instead of what they really need which is 'gets the job done'.
I saw that attitude more than once during the various KC-46 design reviews I was in. When we'd point out that a requirement didn't add any value to the end product, the response was 'what part of mandatory don't you understand'.
The aircraft operates in the real world - perfection is seldom possible in the real world. They seem to think it's some big laboratory where perfection is obtainable.

Not perfection. Meet the contract requirements and satisfy the military need. Promises promises.

But some of the requirements are silly or unrealistic. While I have no direct knowledge of the remote vision system - I know that in my area we spent lots of manpower and millions of dollars meeting a spec requirement that had no basis in reality (and the 'what part of mandatory don't you understand' was the response when I tried to explain that to the USAF reps). This stuff is all considered proprietary so I can't elaborate - but the requirement might have made sense and been meaningful on a 1950s tech engine, but had no basis in reality for a full FADEC PW4000 engine. But it was a mandatory requirement and we had to meet it.
Government bureaucracy at is inefficient finest.

The time to challenge a KUR is at the bid phase, not after you underbid to win the contract and can’t meet it….

That's not something in the engineer's control - that's done by accountants and lawyers - and apparently people in the USAF that still have a mind think based on the KC-135 technology.
Think about it - you hire someone to make an addition to your house. You spec something based on how they built things 50 years ago. The builder comes in - points out that what you're asking for doesn't make any sense with today's technology - they can do something that works better, will last longer, look nicer, and oh by the way, will save you money not only up front but in maintenance/operating costs.
Would you listen to them and give it a fair hearing, or would you tell them to shut up and do it the way you spec'ed it?
Because I know first hand how the USAF handled it.

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.

So it wasn't just "technology for technology's sake" TD?

because that's what it looks like from the outside

I fail to see what is so hard to solve concerning this tanker? A proven airframe, an experienced manufacturer, a need for a new tanker, a lot of money and it still can't be done? How about the other 767-tanker operators?

There are 1205 other posts on this topic all asking the same question. It looked like a complete no-brainer - the worlds biggest Aerospace company, one that has built more tankers than every one else put together, a proven airframe that had been in serial production for years, it wasn't even a tremendously challenging spec on the headline numbers.............................

Someone had to try very very hard to get to where we are now.

With Boeing, everything is a no-brainer until it can't be made to work. 747 excepted.

IG

Some of it might be. The USAF spec'ed a remote vision system (the refueler stations are right behind the flight deck). It occurs to me that access to the traditional tail station could be limited if there were cargo pallets in the hold, but I don't know if being able to refuel while carrying a large cargo load was a consideration.
I do know the KC-46 doesn't use the same boom system as the KC-767 does - and the USAF didn't want the legacy system that the KC-767 uses.
The KC-767 had it's fair share of issues - but the expectation was there would be lessons learned to keep similar issues from occurring on the KC-46. Instead the KC-46 had some of the same issues, plus many, many new ones.
Repeating myself here, but many of the issues with the KC-46 trace back to sloppy management - for example many systems did not implement the required wiring separation (e.g. battle damage protection). Yet in Propulsion we knew all about the requirement and designed for it (tricky, because there are limited places to route wiring on the wing and wing/body joint) - so why did so many other systems neglect that requirement resulting in massively expensive rework? Piss poor management IMHO. Most of the KC-46 managers came from the 787 - and brought along the same flawed management techniques that messed up that program so badly. Too much emphasis on process, not enough emphasis on outcome (i.e. product). Some people can't seem to learn from their own mistakes...
There were other issues that seem to defy explanation - for example they designed a new fuel system manifold that leaked like a sieve - to fix it they had to start over from scratch. How can a company that's been successfully building large aircraft for 80 years suddenly be unable to design a fuel manifold that doesn't leak?

Looks like an appalling loss of institutional memory

They should put some modular automated boom in there and forget about the manual system. Just jump the queue to the next level and use the delay to progress. Like a MQ-25 with a boom.

FFS, they can’t even get the toilets to work….

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021...etized-toilet/

The KC-46 has a messy problem with its palletized toilet

WASHINGTON — The Boeing KC-46 tanker currently can’t carry the palletized toilet normally used by mobility aircraft without the risk of waste water leaking into the cabin, leaving the tanker unable to conduct long-distance flights with a large number of passengers until the lavatory is modified.

The issue, according to U.S. Air Mobility Command, involves the Air Transportable Galley-Lavatory, a combined kitchen and bathroom that can be rolled on and off mobility aircraft like the KC-46, C-17 and C-130.

A source with knowledge of the program told Defense News on Wednesday that the problem arises because the ATGL cannot be loaded and stored in its normal orientation. The source said the issue stems from the KC-46′s cargo rails and locks, which are not as wide as other Air Force cargo aircraft. Instead, the ATGL is turned 90 degrees to fit inside a KC-46, but the lavatory system’s anti-spill valve does not work correctly while in that orientation.

That could allow toilet waste to drip into the cabin whenever the tanker climbs or descends in altitude, resulting in a messy problem. The source indicated that the issue was discovered during ground testing.

The problem is not considered a technical deficiency against the KC-46 aircraft because the Air Force’s 2011 contract with Boeing did not forbid the company from delivering a tanker with a narrower cargo rail system, the source said. Ultimately, the Air Force intends to fix the issue by developing a new valve for the ATGL, but so far the service has not designed, tested or fielded a replacement.

The Air Force intends to start testing a solution to the issue imminently, an Air Mobility Command spokeswoman said in a statement…..

ORAC, not sure you can blame that on Boeing. The toilet is a standard USAF unit, not something Boeing is responsible for, and they never told Boeing they had a requirement for a specific orientation requirement for the palatized toilet.
Hard to design for a requirement that isn't communicated...

tdracer

While you are correct within the context of design by a subcontractor, I suspect the "powers that be", will consider Boeing as the prime contractor and therefore responsible.

If I have a problem with the oil pump in my new car, I will not accept the supplier of my car saying it is not our problem because we did not design the oil pump. It may have been supplied to the manufacturer for inclusion in their final product. But to me, the supplier of my new car is at fault.

IG

Now there is some incentive to keep pitch to a minimum! Flat approaches- no flare!

Hire Navy pilots.

Image, in the airframer world, we have a couple of terms - BFE and SFE - "Buyer Furnished Equipment" and "Seller Furnished Equipment". The airframer is directly responsible for anything that is SFE, even if they didn't actually manufacture it. BFE is a completely different kettle of fish - unless the buyer specifies that the aircraft must function correctly with various BFE, it's the buyer's problem if it doesn't work.
To put it a little differently, if you buy a car with a fancy entertainment system from the factory - the auto manufacture is responsible for it working correctly. OTOH, if you take your car in and get a fancy aftermarket entertainment system installed - and it doesn't work right or interferes with proper operation of the car - the manufacturer will (rightly) tell you to pound sand - that it's your problem...

It’s strictly speculation on my part, but Boeing probably met the written requirement of being able to securely load the latrine. The Air Force folks who wrote the RFP and evaluated Boeing’s proposal were probably unaware of the latrine’s design details, at least regarding its required orientation.

I agree and would add to that, the latrine is likely a 'standard' pallet size - and as a freighter the main deck is configured to hold a bunch of standard pallets (~20 IIRC)(a real pain to walk around back there due to all the automated cargo handling hardware - for flight tests they had these floor panel things mounted so everyone didn't fall on the butts, but they didn't cover the whole cargo floor). But due to the width of interior, to allow side by side pallets they are oriented with the 'long' side fore and aft. The latrine was designed to be loaded with the 'short' side fore and aft.
Whoops...

Of course if the USAF had acquired a civilised aircraft such as the A330MRTT in the first place, they wouldn't have any need for this 'rendition class' palletised seating nor for the 'Air Transportable Galley-Lavatory, a combined kitchen and bathroom' - which sounds quite disgusting, particularly for long flights...

Or just use the C130 system................ERRRR never mind :ouch:

Can the A330MRTT carry 20 pallets of main deck cargo (and a cargo loading door to go with it)? Because that was one of those USAF non-negotiable mandatory requirements. If the idea was to just carry SLF on the main deck, I'm sure Boeing would have been happy to provide main deck seating - but the USAF wanted an aircraft that was a jack of all trades.
Or do we need to go through the whole 'the MRTT didn't meet the USAF requirements' debate again?

According to Google Airbus did that for the German Airforce

Really? Germany has A330 MRTTs?
Since when?

Sorry my bad had a seniors moment. It was Lufthansa that had popped as having the A330

Yes, on the A310 MRTT.

The Luftwaffe already operated the A310 MRT in 'combi' fit before the tanker conversion. The additional fuel for the tanker conversion was carried in 4 x removeable auxiliary tanks in the lower holds, although it would have been feasible to have included a 5th tank. The upper deck freight floor and rear passenger seats were retained, so that the aircraft had a wide variety of possible operating fits.

Luftwaffe AAR is now provided by the A330MRTT, operated by the multinational tanker force at Eindhoven and Köln/Bonn.

Even in the non-freighter variant, the A330MRTT has prodigous lower hold space for a wide variety of freight options and is fitted with large lower hold doors, so that there is no real need for the upper deck cargo and cargo door option.

While the A330 has a much larger cargo hold than the 767, it in no way compares to the main deck cargo capability of the 767 when configured as a freighter - the A330 can't take full size freighter pallets under the floor, the 767F can on the main deck. And once again, there is that messy USAF MANDATORY requirement for main deck cargo carrying.
As for doing some sort of 'combi' setup, another one of those messy mandatory requirements is for full FAA certification (no idea why - it added considerable costs to the program with no real value added - but "What part of Mandatory don't you understand" :ugh:). FAA/JAA/EASA really upped the regulations for a 'Combi' after Helderberg disaster - to the point where I don't think anyone has successfully certified a new "combi" configuration since then.

The A330 can take pallets on the upper deck with a door fitted (as was spec'd on the USAF KC-45 and as fitted to the French Phenix).

I think the part of 'mandatory' that I dont understand is the part where it seemingly wasn't required when the initial A330 selection was made, but suddenly became a must have when Boeing forced a rerun.

My response was to BEagles post regarding how the A330 MRTT has main deck passenger accommodations so no need for 'palletized' seats and conventional lavs. Sure, you can specify either an A330 or a 767 for conventional main deck passenger accommodations. Or you can spec if for carrying main deck cargo.
BUT, you can't spec the aircraft to do both!
You can have one or the other. The only other option is to do some sort of Combi configuration - but good luck getting FAA/EASA certification of a combi with the current regulations...
Regarding the 'rerun' - Boeing protested because the USAF gave the A330 'extra credit' for exceeding the required capacities -rather than matching what the KC-135 could do (which is what the RFP specified - a KC-135 replacement, not something bigger). That broke the stated procurement rules - which don't allow for 'extra credit' unless it's specified in the RFP.
Regarding all those messy mandatory requirements, the new request after the successful Boeing protest including a bunch of 'new stuff' relative to the previous RFP - it seems that since the USAF couldn't grant 'extra credit', they created a big wish list of everything they wanted the 'tanker' to do and made them all mandatory. Obviously can't detail what, but there was a lot of stuff in the new RFP that had absolutely nothing to do with aerial refueling - and the existing A330 MRTT didn't meet those requirements (nor did the existing KC-767). To have competed in the revised competition would have required a major redesign of the A330 MRTT - just like it did the KC-767 - to meet all those requirements.
For the most part, it was the redesign needed to meet all those new mandatory requirements that caused problems with the KC-46.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023...top-7-billion/

Boeing’s tanker losses top $7 billion

WASHINGTON — Boeing reported a $245 million charge on the KC-46A Pegasus tanker in the first quarter of 2023, due to a supplier’s quality issues.

The penalty means the KC-46 has now racked up more than $7 billion in charges, and follow a $1.2 billion hit the company took on the Air Force tanker in the third quarter of 2022.….

Boeing said the charge was largely driven by a previously disclosed quality issue due to a supplier, but did not offer further details in a call with analysts.

The aviation news website the Air Current reported in March a subcontractor had not followed proper painting and priming procedures on the center fuel tanks of some KC-46s and 767s, on which the KC-46 is based, which has held up deliveries. That quality issue could risk contamination of the aircrafts’ fuel systems, Air Current reported.

Brian West, Boeing’s chief financial officer, confirmed the quality issue with the 767 center fuel tanks later that month at a Bank of America conference.

David Calhoun, Boeing’s chief executive, said on Wednesday’s call work is progressing on fixing that problem. But the company warned investors more losses on the KC-46 could come during the remainder of the year…..

It would appear that Boeing should be hammering on its suppliers to meet (and maintain) quality standards rather than cost targets. 787, 737 MAX, now this have cost the company billions - much more than just doing the job right would have cost.
More fallout from the MacDac merger...

It feels like some time ago they changed their traditional QC for cheaper "watertight" legal contracts that didn't prevent practical hiccups from happening and became much more costly in the end. I'd move it back to more real world QC. Add fixed price contracts like for this tanker and much left to do this is expensive and might only turn profitable with services and spare parts on a very long run if ever.
The B-52 business will make up for it.

“We lose money on every one we make, but we’ll make it it up op on olume”….

Six Troubesome Cat 1 Deficiencies
 

Just read about the latest status of the KC-46 program and 6 Category 1 deficiencies remain. I’m surprised that although these all concern military unique parts and systems that FAA certification is still an issue with some of the “fixes”. I just hope the Air Force and FAA are relentless is ensuring the safe and effective resolution of these deficiencies.

The Air Force defines a Category 1 deficiency as one which “may cause death, severe injury, or severe occupational illness; may cause loss or major damage to a weapon system; critically restricts the combat readiness capabilities of the using organization; or result in a production line stoppage.”

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...combat-mission

KC-10 Extender Has Flown Its Last Combat Mission

After more than four decades during which it provided vital inflight refueling and airlift, the U.S. Air Force’s venerable KC-10A Extender has flown its last combat mission.

While the Air Force already began sending KC-10s to the boneyard in 2020, the latest milestone signals the impending retirement of the type, although it’s not yet entirely clear what the service’s future tanker fleet will consist of.

Photos published today by the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service (DVIDS) show a KC-10 departing Prince Sultan Air Base (PSAB), in Saudi Arabia, on October 5.

According to accompanying captions, the departure of the Extender concluded the type’s final combat deployment at the base.

Air Mobility Command (AMC) confirmed to The War Zone that this was the last combat deployment of the KC-10 anywhere in the world, not just in the Middle East.

“For nearly four decades, the KC-10 has helped secure global reach for America,” AMC spokeswoman Jessica Brown said. “It’s expected to redeploy to its home station soon.”….

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4ad804eee7.jpg

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a6c8ae7aa8.jpg

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d24554008c.jpg

Well that explans why there were so many KC-10s in close proximity over Europe yesterday morning, a flight of 3 into Mildenhall and another flight of 3 into Spangdahlem. 43 years since first KC-10 flight, 67 since first KC-135 flight and in the later case that's well over half the 120 since Kitty Hawk.