Well, if anybody thinks Boeing is getting it’s act together, finally, I’d suggest it’s wishful thinking. Looking like a big exodus of the most experienced engineers, as they will be retiring this year to avoid the new pension provisions, so the only ones possibly able to improve Boeing’s “act” are bowing out. The accountants know how to use Excel so they can handle it, I suppose.

Israel buying 4 KC-46. Or rather, the USA buying them for Israel….

https://www.defensenews.com/global/m...c-46a-tankers/

Israel, Boeing agree to $927M deal for four KC-46A tankers

JERUSALEM — Boeing will soon sign a $927 million contract to deliver four KC-46A aerial refuelers to the Israeli military, the Israeli Defense Ministry and Boeing announced this week.

The ministry agreed to purchase the planes in January, following years of delays in finalizing a contract that stemmed from budgeting issues and local elections. The aircraft, which will arrive in 2025 and 2026, are coming from Boeing’s Lot 8 production….

Funding for the KC-46A aircraft will come from the $3.3 billion in security assistance that Israel received as part of a foreign military financing agreement with the U.S. The current contract gives Israel the ability to purchase four more of the planes after the initial four.….

We should have offered those 4-5 tristars now turned into coke cans, they could have had them for 20 million, or a pound or FREE (at least there'd still be some flying.)

then again i suppose it don't beat being paid to have new stuff, however woeful

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4b0a16f544.jpg

https://www.defensenews.com/industry...programs-drag/

Boeing reports $3.3 billion loss as KC-46, other defense programs drag

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/y...ot-in-cockpit/

KC-46 tanker test puts fuel boom operator, not copilot, in cockpit

The Air Force is moving forward with experiments to test whether a two-person crew could safely fly a KC-46 Pegasus tanker in an emergency.

A solo pilot and a fuel boom operator with the 22nd Air Refueling Wing at McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, on Oct. 25 took to the skies for two KC-46 sorties on a military test range, the service said Oct. 28.

Flying tankers without copilots is one idea Air Mobility Command is trying out as it considers the tactics it may need in a possible military conflict with China. The Air Force has stressed that approach would not be the norm.

Launching missions with a skeleton crew could lessen the number of potential American casualties in case of attack, or make the crew more nimble in a crisis. Multiple small crews could swap out in shifts during around-the-clock sorties, another concept the Air Force is fleshing out..

During the flight test, the McConnell airmen completed a simple flight path before adding in refueling tasks, the Air Force said.

“The boom operator was co-located in the cockpit with the pilot, except when performing boom operations, and a second instructor pilot was on board throughout the entire mission to serve as a safety observer,” the Air Force said.

Air Mobility Command called the test successful but did not immediately answer what the boom operator was allowed to do in the cockpit. The service has suggested additional training so airmen can learn the basics of other crew positions.

The Air Force has “thoroughly” considered the risks of removing a tanker’s copilot and how to minimize potential problems, wing commander Col. Nate Vogel said.

“This mission was practiced extensively in flight simulators,” he said in the release. “Each phase of evaluation has been carefully considered, taking into account crew safety, aircraft capabilities and existing federal aviation standards.”

But the idea has raised eyebrows among military watchers who question its motives and safety, particularly as the Air Force’s new aerial refueling platform continues to struggle with major design flaws.

The service has refuted claims that its enduring pilot shortage is what’s driving the concept.…..

Maybe Boeing should have kept all those engineers they got rid of to reduce costs….

Salute!

Vet of many refuelings, and all I ever needed was a good tanker pilot and boom-op. If I could get within visual of the tanker, I could snuggle up to a good spot for the boom-op to plug in.

Gums sends...

For national emergency cases, that seems to be a reasonable option, however, they can also get about 10,000 rated drivers out of the woodwork with a simple phone call, there is no shortage of competent crew that can still assist the squadron guys to get the job done, in a national emergency. Particularly for the 46, as gums says, the work gets done from the receiver guy and the boomer in the airforce, and the guy at the end of the hose is always on his own doing his thing.

For the majority of cargo ops as well, and even much of the EW large frames, this remains an option in an emergency. The US DOD should be looking at all means to achieve max effectiveness in bad times, much of the rest of the world hasn't even woken up to keeping reserve competency up to speed, and cannot surge in the same manner as the US can.

"much of the rest of the world hasn't even woken up to keeping reserve competency up to speed"

they have but they take one look at the costs and they can the idea.

I can't think how many times people in the Uk have tried to build decent reserve capability and they always run up against the military (who want all the cash fro current projects) and the Treasury (who hate spending any cash at all)

"Air Mobility Command called the test successful but did not immediately answer what the boom operator was allowed to do in the cockpit. The service has suggested additional training so airmen can learn the basics of other crew positions.

The Air Force has “thoroughly” considered the risks of removing a tanker’s copilot and how to minimize potential problems, wing commander Col. Nate Vogel said.

“This mission was practiced extensively in flight simulators,” he said in the release. “Each phase of evaluation has been carefully considered, taking into account crew safety, aircraft capabilities and existing federal aviation standards.”

But the idea has raised eyebrows among military watchers who question its motives and safety, particularly as the Air Force’s new aerial refueling platform continues to struggle with major design flaws.

The service has refuted claims that its enduring pilot shortage is what’s driving the concept.….."

My bulls**t meter is pegged! I am ashamed, but not surprised, at how disingenuous AMC is over this. In aviation it is wise to evaluate something not only when all goes well, but also how it stand up under the stress of the non-normal. Of course, how often does "non-normal" happen in warfare?

In my many years in the USAF, the time spent in the right seat was preparation for upgrade to the left seat. The shared experience, the mentoring, the learning that occurred in both seats over hundreds and thousands of hours paid off in those "few moments" of sheer terror.

Of course this couldn't happen in a better airplane.

Well they would, wouldn't they? :yuk:
Gotta love them powder blue spokespersons. Laying it on nice and thick.

Global, seems like they haven`t really sorted out the route to be a `Captain`; or is a co-pilot suddenly promoted to be a `Captain` on the day of the `emergency`.The original `captain` will remain,as he is a trainer,etc and has to teach `co-pilots....Bit of a `risky shift`,akin to the WW2 Japanese `kamikazi training...

I suppose the fighter community is scratching their heads over my concern. But in my opinion, having witnessed it for thousands of hours, the continuity of the interactions between pilots in transport airplanes has tremendous training benefits that pay off when things become difficult.

This is not like the airlines. This is having an aircrew where the AC and CP could be relatively low time lieutenants. In old days we at least had a grizzled flight engineer to watch over us.

The consequences of single pilot operations will not manifest on every mission. But it lacks the investment that pays big dividends later.

Salute!

As much as I loved being the only one in the jet, I have to go with Global.

True, we lights could refuel from a drone, but the big tanker needs more human systems besides the boom-op and a good pilot in the front seat.

In a last ditch situation, I can see a pilot taking off with a boom-op to do the mission. But not a routine operational requirement or employment.

Gums sends...

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/y...g-fighter-jet/

KC-46 tanker’s boom breaks, dents plane while refueling fighter jet

Air Force officials are investigating a mishap that heavily damaged a KC-46 Pegasus tanker plane while it refueled a fighter jet last month, Air Force Times has learned.

The tanker was on its way from Glasgow Prestwick Airport in Scotland to Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey, when it was tasked to gas up an F-15, an Air Force official confirmed Wednesday.

Investigators believe that during the rendezvous, the two aircraft were traveling at such different speeds that the refueling boom forcibly broke away from the fighter jet and slammed back into the KC-46, the official said. The Pegasus safely continued on to New Jersey after the mishap.

A photo posted Oct. 28 on an Instagram account for tanker memes appears to show a cracked refueling boom below a dented tail cone. The post voiced concerns about the jet’s safety, particularly as mobility officials experiment with using two-person crews instead of three in emergencies.

While the service believes it will cost at least $2.5 million to repair the KC-46, the official said he isn’t aware of any damage to the F-15.

“The incident is currently being investigated as a potential Class A mishap, with anticipated conclusion in late November,” Air Mobility Command spokesperson Capt. Natasha Mosquera said. “Final cost estimates will be determined at that time.”

“Brute force disconnects” are uncommon, but do happen, the official said. They recalled at least one or two other such in-flight tanker mishaps within the past few years.

The service said it does not suspect any systemic problems with the boom. It’s unclear if the Oct. 15 incident is related to multiple boom design issues that the Air Force added to the KC-46′s extensive list of faults in 2018, including that the pipe was too stiff to properly refuel lighter aircraft.

That has prevented the KC-46 from refueling the A-10C Thunderbolt II attack plane. Boeing is still redesigning the boom under a 2019 contract worth up to $55.5 million.


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1aa90cab21.png

Kc46a and 10 problems
 

Does not look good

Air Force Times www.airforcetimes.com KC-46 tanker's boom issue will prevent A-10 refueling for yea

IG

By the time this is fixed, they'll probably have dumped the Warthog.

Oh, wait.... they've tried that before, more than once?

airsound

Another 15 KC-46's ordered, bringing orders to 128 with 68 already delivered and being used. They seem to passing gas on a regular basis? including some fighter drags, although the vision system fix is still being worked.

Also note that more and more KC-10's going to the boneyard in recent weeks.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023...5-more-kc-46s/

House Armed Services Committee hearing today - RVS 2.0 delayed again to FY2025 - delivery in calendar year 2026 - all costs to be borne by Boeing including retrofit on all aircraft already delivered by then.

Also KC-135R will be remaining in service for another 20-30 years to maintain the mandated minimum 466 overall tanker fleet size (currently 467). So KC-135R will be getting another avionics upgrade.

This sobering news after the optimistic interview in January:“The new version of the vision system, dubbed RVS 2.0, uses 4K ultrahigh-definition cameras to give boom operators a full-color, sharp 3D image as they guide the refueling boom into the receiver aircraft.

The Air Force, which last year approved the design for the new RVS, says the upgrade will eliminate the KC-46′s longstanding issue with lighting conditions — and that it’s time to start making this design a reality.

We have the demos, we have the videos, we’ve flown it on [Boeing] planes … and it looks magnificent,” Lt. Col. Joshua Renfro, the head of the Air Force’s KC-46 Cross-Functional Team, said in a January interview with Defense News.”

I can smell the BS! It looks great, but it doesn’t meet the requirements.