I wonder how they check for FOD in inaccessible areas? Xray? Test fly it, bunt and listen for the rattle?

and now we have

Air Force Says It Will Be Years Before Boeing's Faulty New Tankers Are Fully Operational

Problems with the boom operator's vision system and the boom itself persist and a recently disclosed issue prevents the aircraft from carrying cargo.
By Joseph Trevithick September 19, 2019

As the (corporate) holes in the swiss cheese line up..
 

..Will the Frankentanker, like its namesake Stein, be the one to eliminate it's maker???

Having been peripherally involved in the KC-46 program since it began, until a few years ago, I never thought to question the inclusion of the Remote Visual System for the boom operator, whose station is located in the forward cabin just behind the flight deck. Was RVS a necessity? Was it impossible to have a boom operator station located in the tail with a window and controls, like it is in the KC-135?

It's Monday morning quarterbacking, I know, but it seems like great increase in complexity, with associated increase in failure modes etc., for a military system. Having a few decades of EO experience, I'm of the opinion its nigh impossible to replicate the visual acuity of the Mk 1 eyeball with a visual system comprised of cameras and displays. Not just a question of resolution but depth perception, system delay, etc. If, for some reason, there was a need to add precise symbology and flight data, etc., something like a HUD could have been used.

What am I missing? Now, considering the difficulties the RVS is posing to the program and the IOT&E, I wonder who else might be asking the same question.

KDC-10 and A330MRTT remote visual systems seem to be working well enough...

Perhaps, then why was it so hard to get right for the KC-46?

GlobalNav wrote: Because, perhaps unlike the KC-767J whose remote boom system also works fine: the USAF wanted a 'sixth generation boom system' for the Pigasaurus? Which doesn't seem to be doing very well.

On Flight Global.
Boeing looks at laser-range finder for KC-46A refuelling boom

What are AirTanker doing with those spare airframes now Thomas Cook aren’t using them? Of course they’d have to add a boom, but that’s off the shelf - and I’m sure the MOD would be happy to do a deal...

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/12/13/the-air-force-needs-more-tankers-could-the-defense-industry-have-the-answer/

The US Air Force needs more tankers. Does the defense industry have the answer?

SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill. — With no end in sight to the demand on the tanker fleet, the U.S. Air Force is actively seeking agreements with defense contractors for aerial refueling services.

On Dec. 17, Air Mobility Command will hold an industry day at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, in the hopes of better understanding how it can contract for commercial air refueling services to supplement tanking missions performed by the Air Force’s KC-135s, KC-10s and KC-46s.

“We do think that this is an opportunity that needs to be pursued,” Lt. Gen. Jon Thomas, the command’s deputy chief, said during an exclusive interview with Defense News on Dec. 10. “If we can find a viable, clear path with industry, we should do it.”

The Air Force believes there are a certain set of aerial-refueling missions conducted in a uncontested environment that could provide a predictable stream of business, Thomas said. Through the industry day, the service is hoping to better understand how companies might be able to fulfill those requirements.

“There are several providers … that would propose that they have their own tanker that’s already flying and doing great work for other air forces,” he said. “That’s fascinating to us. There’s another vendor that has procured boom-equipped tankers from a foreign air force that is a proven capability. There are some others that may be doing the same thing with a different foreign air force. So I would say that they’re out there and they’re committing to the idea that if the Air Force is serious, we’re serious about this, too.”......

Hmm, those ex-RAT Tristars are still at Bruntingthorpe

Goldfein: USAF Won’t Use KC-46 Unless It Has To
 

In case of fire break glass...................

Link to the article in which GlobalNav's quote above appears...
 

https://www.airforcemag.com/goldfein...kNz7VKcBJaUGlQ

-RP

Flight Global article.
US State Department approves sale of 8 Boeing KC-46A tankers to Israel

For Lyneham Lad:
I wonder if the Israelis are already working on an organic/homegrown mod to make sure that they can see what they are doing back there ... I'll wager a nominal 5 bucks that they are.

For Lyneham Lad and Lonewolf:

Dear Israel
Did you know you could have bought the A330MRTT with a working boom? Something like 12 other countries have done that, and 42 MRTTs have been delivered out of a total order, so far, of 60.

airsound

Yes, but as I'm sure we all know, Israel will be getting the KC-46A at a much lower 'price' than the A330 MRTT

For Airsound:
And yet the Israelis went for the KC-46 anyway: maybe they don't trust the French.
(And the rest of Airbus multinational team)
Or, maybe they got yet another good deal under the table - as has happened for a variety of other hardware over the years :p

With all the sad travails of the KC-46A, I would have thought that any potential customer could expect a good (financial) deal, over or under the table.... Or maybe not?
Whatever, not many other countries seem to be tempted. :\

airsound