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

Which means the total overrun alone is about what 18 x A330MRTT might have cost?

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......

KC46 Single Pilot Combat Ops?
 

Single Pilot KC-46 Tanker Operations Eyed By Air Force For Major Conflicts (msn.com)

The U.S. Air Force is exploring the possibility of allowing KC-46A Pegasus aerial refueling tankers to fly with just two individuals on board – a pilot and a boom operator – in certain high-end wartime scenarios, such as a future conflict against China. These tankers are currently not available to support combat operations of any kind, except in emergency circumstances. News of the plan has already prompted intense discussion, as well as criticism, online about potential safety concerns as a product of the increased workload on such a skeleton crew.

Air Force Maj. Hope Cronin, a spokesperson for Air Mobility Command (AMC), which oversees the bulk of the service's aerial refueling tanker fleets, has confirmed to The War Zone that officials at McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas have submitted a request for a waiver to allow two-crew KC-46A operations. Typically, tankers will fly with a minimum of a pilot, co-pilot, and boom operator. As of May, the Air Force had received 59 Pegasus tankers, with more than 20 of those having gone to units at McConnell

The first information about the waiver had appeared on unofficial Air Force social media channels, such as the and https://www.reddit.com/r/AirForce/comments/vzw3uv/mcconnell_kc46_waiver_for_only_one_pilot_and_one/, on July 15. The anonymous source for this initial information claimed that AMC commander Gen. Michael Minihan had received this request and was considering it due to concerns about recruitment and retention at McConnell, something the command has denied. The Air Force, overall, is https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2021/06/22/air-force-grapples-with-enduring-pilot-shortage-as-airlines-begin-to-rehire/ at present, something that has been https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3776/the-usafs-pilot-shortage-has-reached-disastrous-levels and that the service had been making some minor progress in recent years to reverse. The post-pandemic boom in air travel and hiring by the airlines could see the situation worsen once again in the future.

“AMC is moving forward faster in a risk-informed manner to ensure Mobility Air Forces are ready to be the meaningful maneuver force required to meet Joint Force needs in a peer competitor fight. Mobility aircraft typically fly with a pilot, co-pilot, and based on aircraft type, a loadmaster and/or a boom operator," Maj. Cronin, the AMC spokesperson, told The War Zone. "The command is currently reassessing minimum flight crew requirements as we explore and validate new tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) oriented towards a dynamic, future fight."

"The waiver request in question is part of the process to safely validate exploratory TTPs that are being assessed in training simulations and concept of employment development for potential use in a hypothetical peer competitor fight," she continued. "The AMC staff is currently reviewing this concept development and ensuring the authorities to execute this type of maneuver are at the MAJCOM [major command] level and can be executed within an adequate safety margin before approval will be provided."Air Force Col. Nate Vogel, at right, commander of the 22nd Air Refueling Wing at McConnell Air Force Base, shakes hands with AMC commander Gen. Mike Minihan, at left, during the latter officer's visit to the base on April 27, 2022. USAF / Airman Brenden Beezley)

The War Zone has reached out to AMC to find out whether similar TTPs have been approved or are now being considered for use with the Air Force's KC-135 or KC-10 tankers. The KC-135 and KC-10 are both much older designs than the KC-46, and have far more limited degrees of automation, which could limit any potential ability to operate with reduced crews. It is also important to note that there is no indication, even if the two-crew option for the KC-46 is approved, that it would ever be authorized for routine, day-to-day use.

Being able to fly KC-46As with just two crew members could possibly be useful in a large-scale conflict situation where the demand for aerial refueling sorties will be very high, but the total number of available tankers may be low, including due to losses from enemy action. In recent years, the Air Force has made no secret about its desire for more tanker capacity and concerns about the vulnerability of these aircraft in a high-end fight. It's important to remember that KC-46As are also capable of carrying out cargo and passenger-carrying and aeromedical evacuation missions, which will only add complexity to mission planning and tasking processes during a major conflict.

At the same time, as many commenters on social media, including current and former Air Force personnel, have already noted, the idea of attempting to operate a KC-46A, or any other tanker, with just two crew members can only prompt questions about safety and the general strain put on those individuals. Aerial refueling is an often complex and potentially dangerous task, especially during major combat operations, requiring significant communication and coordination between members of the tanker's crew, and between individuals on that aircraft and the one receiving the gas, especially during major combat operations.

With only a single pilot and boom operator, a KC-46A would have no backup personnel to perform a host of critical functions should either one of those individuals be incapacitated for any reason, including unexpected medical emergencies, during a mission. Impacts on other basic quality of life issues, including just needing to do things like eat, sleep, and go to the bathroom, would be exacerbated by having no alternate crew members on the aircraft.

There is a reason why the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) places restrictions on what kinds of private and commercial aircraft can be flown with just one pilot and when – certain light jets and smaller aircraft only, and even then only under certain circumstances – and those flights can generally be expected to be far less demanding than operating a tanker on a potentially long-duration sortie in a conflict zone. Nowhere in the world are commercial jets of a similar size to the KC-46 allowed to fly with just one pilot.

Robert Hopkins, an aviation historian, author, and contributor to The War Zone, who flew C-135s variants, among other aircraft, during his tenure with the Air Force, further highlighted on Twitter how this two-crew concept seemed to both acknowledge the vulnerabilities of traditional tankers and offer as a solution simply putting more of them in harm's way.

They ARE talking about a war situation - not routine ops

Fight as you train; train as you intend to fight.

The word ‘Except’ enables opportunity for error.

Common type rating; differences training as in commercial aircraft.

Design for man and machine, where the machine provides IA, Intelligent Assistance, and that ‘intelligent’ is from the human viewpoint - what is required and when.

The planes are military aircraft. Flying SPIFR is not unreasonable when there is a chance of losing the plane from hostile action, and operationally, get the boomer to come up to the cockpit to keep the coffee flowing for both. There are not too many things on the 767 that actually require a fire axe and someone cutting their way out of the fuselage and along the wing with a fire extinguisher under their blues or zoom bag. For force training, that can be simulated, and also practiced with a safety pilot if that is felt to be necessary. Back in round 2, not sure that B-17 and B-24, A-20s etc fared any better for having 2 polers vs the Lancasters, Stirlings, Halifax, Wellies and mossies... Seems like a prudent force surge capability to have on hand.

Rimpac 80 mass brief: "y'all gotta go out, ya don't gotta come back..."

Probably the stupidest idea ever considered by the USAF.....

IIRC the RN once made a decision to change from two to single pilot in a helicopter. I've never understood what the logic is if the aircraft is designed for two. Is it as simple as lack of aircrew?

That's the point - in real ops you get very very busy, very quickly. You don't get issued an extra set of ears and an extra mouth for all the radios, nor the extra eyes to look out, or to look in for link management, ESM / DAS, plan revisions over long vul times, tank as a receiver and, god forbid, actually doing the basic aviate, navigate and communicate bit!

In your opinion, although if you were just talking of the KC-46A decision we might be on common ground.

Most of the discussions about SP ops assume that the pilot will be 'alone and unafraid', whereas the risk mitigations will drive you to a scenario where the other pilots are on the end of the satellite link and will be capable not only of flying the aircraft remotely but also provide the "extra set of ears and an extra mouth for all the radios" and "look in for link management, ESM / DAS, plan revisions over long vul times" etc. and they will be hooked into the CAOC or whatever C2 system more closely than an airborne crew could ever hope to be.

See and avoid for most transport category aircraft does not work, so it's not an argument even for AAR ops.

And yet single pilot ops is the norm in combat for pilots who have to do all that and more.

Yes, so what is necessary under benign circumstances is no longer necessary under the most challenging lethal ones? Dumb as dirt.

I don’t know what “genius” at Mobility Command dreamed this up, but he’d be the first pilot I’d send out on a single pilot combat mission. Pity the poor boomer who goes with him. He’s probably the same guy who dreamed up RVS and wants the Air Force to take financial responsibility for inevitable failure of the RVS “fix”.

What’s the wartime crew duty day for a Pegasus? Does the single pilot just activate the autopilot while taking a nap? How many emergency situations require (or should require) two pilots? This only complicates the survivability dilemma of the tanker. Just plain dumb as dirt. I sure hope there’s still a general officer at Mobility Command with an ounce of common sense.

Meanwhile, the USAF seems to think that Boeing is finally getting its act together on the KC-46:
US Air Force mulls skipping tanker competition as confidence in Boeing’s KC-46 builds (defensenews.com)

“We lose money on every sale, but make it up on volume”…

Its an old joke, but how many companies have operated over the years - slowly losing money but hoping something will turn up to turn the business around before investors lose interest. (Take Uber as a current example).

Boeing is struggling in the FJ business, paused production of the newer versions of the 777, losing money on the 787, struggling with the 737 Max and threatening to cancel the Max-10*

* https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...congress-acts/

They lost $4.3B last year and another $1.5B in the first quarter of 2022. Their loses on the KC-46 program to date total $5.4B**

** https://www.airforcemag.com/kc-46-lo...illion-charge/

But they’ll bid to build more at the same price… hoping something will happen to turn things round…

https://www.airforcemag.com/boeing-l...-lowball-bids/

“We lose money on every sale….”

Whatever the Air Force is thinking of doing it isn’t based on merit or performance of Boeing. I wonder if this is about taking the heat off Boeing to avoid a major loss of a defense and aerospace contractor. What if Boeing decided to default on the tanker contract and cut its losses?

Strategically, it may too much a blow to national security, so try to keep Boeing in the business. It would not exactly be a bailout, but an incentive for favorable decision. It’s a losing strategy though, nothing keeps the company from reneging on a deal and meanwhile the Air Force funds the shareholder interests and executives’ golden parachutes. It sure isn’t meritocracy.

Reads like the politicians at the top of the USAF are casting desperately around for an excuse to not have a competition and run the risk of Airbus winning again.
They're talking in glowing terms about an AAR system with a number of Category 1 Defects, and stressing how as it can refuel almost all the transport fleet, glossing over the fact that it can't refuel a big part of the combat fleet.
Gotta give Boeing the unimpeded opportunity to sell another couple of hundred KC-46 at a high enough price that they'll get back the money they've flushed away so far on this program.

Don't think they actually had to do a landing with the boom extended as part of the certification, but better safe than sorry, its done now - unless it was an ex carrier pilot who thought it was a hook !!

Another issue for Boeing to sort.

Article and video

Couldn't they 'fly' the boom to keep it off the runway till the last moment? Or did they just forget that it was down?

Quite amusing that it's one of the aircraft they've slapped the star-spangled rag on.

It may be shoddy but at least its 'Merican.