Airliners.net

CX747 wrote:

While not production related, the USAF has decided to base some of the first combat coded KC-46s at McGuire AFB and Travis AFB. KC-10s are stationed at those two locations, not KC-135s. There has been some rumbling about retiring the -10s and then comments made to keep them flying. Just a new wrinkle in exactly how the -46 is going to be used. 135 replacement, 10 replacement or just adding another type to the fleet. Note that none of the 135s are being retired as 46s come on board, they are just being sent to other bases and squadrons to increase numbers.

Delivery of Boeing’s first KC-46 air-to-air refueling tanker to the Air Force, already late and way over budget, has been further delayed from this fall into next year, according to a person familiar with the schedule.

Flight testing and certification milestones have been missed and various problems have emerged in flight test, including instances of the extendable fuel boom scraping against the receiver aircraft.

KarelXWB wrote:

First KC-46 delivery slides into next year:

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... next-year/

Delivery of Boeing’s first KC-46 air-to-air refueling tanker to the Air Force, already late and way over budget, has been further delayed from this fall into next year, according to a person familiar with the schedule.

Flight testing and certification milestones have been missed and various problems have emerged in flight test, including instances of the extendable fuel boom scraping against the receiver aircraft.

hilram wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

First KC-46 delivery slides into next year:

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... next-year/

Delivery of Boeing’s first KC-46 air-to-air refueling tanker to the Air Force, already late and way over budget, has been further delayed from this fall into next year, according to a person familiar with the schedule.

Flight testing and certification milestones have been missed and various problems have emerged in flight test, including instances of the extendable fuel boom scraping against the receiver aircraft.

Whatever happened to Boeing project management? How come they managed to make the previous tankers? Or is it that they can just let it slide over budget, knowing that eventually Pentagon will cave, and pay up whatever they want?

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

From memory all the people that worked on the previous programs have essentially retired or moved on. So despite the company having done plenty of tankers before this time they're almost starting from scratch.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

As for the US Government coming to the rescue I don't think that's going to happen. So far it seems the US Government are sticking hard to the fixed price contract and Boeing are having to eat any overruns. Whether this means a follow on batch are more expensive to recoup costs I don't know. But it looks like this first order will be at the original price for the US Government.

Anthony Capaccio‏ Verified account @ACapaccio 14h14 hours ago

AF discloses today @BoeingDefense KC-46 tanker's been issued 3 Category One deficiency reports including for ``uncommanded boom extension''

Revelation wrote:

AF discloses today @BoeingDefense KC-46 tanker's been issued 3 Category One deficiency reports including for ``uncommanded boom extension''

hilram wrote:

Whatever happened to Boeing project management? How come they managed to make the previous tankers?

hilram wrote:

Or is it that they can just let it slide over budget, knowing that eventually Pentagon will cave, and pay up whatever they want?

Stitch wrote:

The KC-46A has been designed and built in what was expected to be a more streamlined process than the KC-767 and KC-135 / KC-10 programs leveraging Boeing Commercial assets rather than the traditional process of building a passenger 767 and then flying it to a separate facility and gutting it to rebuild it as a military frame. Overall, it will allow Boeing to build them cheaper and faster on the main FAL with final polishing at the EMC, but nobody in BCA has any experience in doing it and most of the original BDS team have retired or moved on so getting to that point has taken far longer and been far more expensive (shades of the 787 where Boeing tried to do something totally new with insufficient experience to pull it off).

ssteve wrote:

So either way the 3-minute pitch wins, the bid is won, and it's all a grand experiment to see if the 3-minute pitch was right.

bikerthai wrote:

It's time to design an automated engagement system for the boom receptacle. We all know the AI system has a much quicker response than a human. At least get a AI assist system going. You can start with a visual system and switch to an RF system later.

bt

mjoelnir wrote:

available on the A330MRTT

Ugly51 wrote:

Maybe the USAF should have pushed harder for the MRTT they wished for?

Ugly51 wrote:

Maybe, but it must be horrible for the team from USAF that selected the MRTT. There question will be why are we accepting second best.

Revelation wrote:

Ugly51 wrote:

Maybe, but it must be horrible for the team from USAF that selected the MRTT. There question will be why are we accepting second best.

The real "horror" goes to the Boeing team for delivering second best, not the USAF team.

747classic wrote:

Both RLNAF KDC-10's have a RARO installed. AFAIK no issues as mentioned with th KC46A -boom have been noticed. Boeing is providing support for both the KC-10 and the KDC-10.

In contrast to the KC-10 tanker of the US Air Force - where the “boom-operator” conducts the refueling through an Air Refueling Operator station (ARO) / a window in the back of the aircraft - the Dutch version does not controls its “boom” from the rear of the aircrafts fuselage. In fact there is a complete operating system with computers and video monitors just behind the cockpit area. This system called Remote Air Refueling Operating (RARO) allows to watch and remotely direct the boom: three surveillance cameras follow the approaching aircraft and enable a 180 degree angle view behind the tanker. Two stereo cameras produce a 3-dimensional picture for the actual refueling. The cameras transfer very clear pictures, working near infrared to operate safely at night and can also change the given view by using different digital filters - depending on the current lighting circumstances during the AAR-operation.



Original uploaded by Mike aviation Twitter, see : http://twitter.com/mikeaviation/status/ ... 6253390848

mjoelnir wrote:

747classic wrote:

Both RLNAF KDC-10's have a RARO installed. AFAIK no issues as mentioned with th KC46A -boom have been noticed. Boeing is providing support for both the KC-10 and the KDC-10.

In contrast to the KC-10 tanker of the US Air Force - where the “boom-operator” conducts the refueling through an Air Refueling Operator station (ARO) / a window in the back of the aircraft - the Dutch version does not controls its “boom” from the rear of the aircrafts fuselage. In fact there is a complete operating system with computers and video monitors just behind the cockpit area. This system called Remote Air Refueling Operating (RARO) allows to watch and remotely direct the boom: three surveillance cameras follow the approaching aircraft and enable a 180 degree angle view behind the tanker. Two stereo cameras produce a 3-dimensional picture for the actual refueling. The cameras transfer very clear pictures, working near infrared to operate safely at night and can also change the given view by using different digital filters - depending on the current lighting circumstances during the AAR-operation.



Original uploaded by Mike aviation Twitter, see : http://twitter.com/mikeaviation/status/ ... 6253390848

The KC-46 has have a similar system, but, as it is, it has sub par cameras and resolution.

mjoelnir wrote:

747classic wrote:

Both RLNAF KDC-10's have a RARO installed. AFAIK no issues as mentioned with th KC46A -boom have been noticed. Boeing is providing support for both the KC-10 and the KDC-10.

The KC-46 has have a similar system, but, as it is, it has sub par cameras and resolution.

Revelation wrote:

Honestly, it's difficult to make sense of all of the stuff we are being told about this issue. We see the NL KDC-10s are using camera tech for a while now. The capabilities of the current KC-46 cameras had to be well known. The idea that different cameras are needed seems suspect. Sure, camera tech advances rapidly these days so newer is better, but if better tech was needed this should have been known from the start and highlighted as a risk. Given how delayed the program is, it's very disappointing that this issue is 'the long pole in the tent'.

Stitch wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

747classic wrote:

Both RLNAF KDC-10's have a RARO installed. AFAIK no issues as mentioned with th KC46A -boom have been noticed. Boeing is providing support for both the KC-10 and the KDC-10.

The KC-46 has have a similar system, but, as it is, it has sub par cameras and resolution.

At the time the cameras were sourced, they were the best available. In the intervening years, technology marches on and so the KDC-10 benefits from those later advancements. As such, Boeing is considering replacing the original spec cameras with current-generation models because of those advances.

Revelation wrote:

Honestly, it's difficult to make sense of all of the stuff we are being told about this issue. We see the NL KDC-10s are using camera tech for a while now. The capabilities of the current KC-46 cameras had to be well known. The idea that different cameras are needed seems suspect. Sure, camera tech advances rapidly these days so newer is better, but if better tech was needed this should have been known from the start and highlighted as a risk. Given how delayed the program is, it's very disappointing that this issue is 'the long pole in the tent'.

The KC-46A had the best cameras available at the time (and perhaps better than what the KC-30B would have had, as well). It also has yet to be determined if the "scrape rate" on the KC-46A is any worse than it is on the KC-135 and KC-10 fleets. If it is not, then Boeing might be off the hook for the cost of any fixes as they delivered a system better than what is currently in operation and it would be the USAF deciding they want better and having to pay for it.

Stitch wrote:

from those later advancements. As such, Boeing is considering replacing the original spec cameras with current-generation models because of those advances.

WIederling wrote:

Stitch wrote:

from those later advancements. As such, Boeing is considering replacing the original spec cameras with current-generation models because of those advances.

KC-46 is the most recent project and not beyond EIS yet. What "later" advancements would you think apply here?

Stitch wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Stitch wrote:

from those later advancements. As such, Boeing is considering replacing the original spec cameras with current-generation models because of those advances.

KC-46 is the most recent project and not beyond EIS yet. What "later" advancements would you think apply here?

It's the most recent project, but the specifications were decided and the camera system was chosen in 2009 at the latest and possibly earlier if the system was part of the 2007 RFP. Ten years is a long time in electronics development.

kanban wrote:

hind sight is always 20/20.... the question becomes does one go with the best available to meet the specs or go with nothing and hope like hell someone develops a better one in time? ...

Revelation wrote:

... which suggests in 2009 or 2007 they went forward with a design that was not sufficient for the task.

Stitch wrote:

Revelation wrote:

... which suggests in 2009 or 2007 they went forward with a design that was not sufficient for the task.

I guess, but again, it was the best they had available. I expect Boeing knew better would happen and it appears that the system is designed for upgrades so at least they didn't lock themselves into a single design with the expectation it would remain best in class for the life of the airframe. And while we know it's scraping receiver aircraft, it has yet to be determined if it is doing so at a rate higher than non-remote systems currently in use with the USAF.

Revelation wrote:

My engineer's brain would say "the camera is X meters away from the receptacle and the smallest dimension I need to resolve is Y meters/cm/whatever across and the minimum light level to be supported is Z lumens and the therefore (a) the camera can meet the requirements or (b) I have to go back to the traditional boomer's operating position"...

jarheadk5 wrote:

I was NOT surprised to hear that the indirect-view system is being blamed for the current boom strike issue. I don't think any boom operator in either tanker was in favor of the indirect-view system, other than the ones who were angling for a .civ job with A or B.

Stitch wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

747classic wrote:

Both RLNAF KDC-10's have a RARO installed. AFAIK no issues as mentioned with th KC46A -boom have been noticed. Boeing is providing support for both the KC-10 and the KDC-10.

The KC-46 has have a similar system, but, as it is, it has sub par cameras and resolution.

At the time the cameras were sourced, they were the best available. In the intervening years, technology marches on and so the KDC-10 benefits from those later advancements. As such, Boeing is considering replacing the original spec cameras with current-generation models because of those advances.

Revelation wrote:

Honestly, it's difficult to make sense of all of the stuff we are being told about this issue. We see the NL KDC-10s are using camera tech for a while now. The capabilities of the current KC-46 cameras had to be well known. The idea that different cameras are needed seems suspect. Sure, camera tech advances rapidly these days so newer is better, but if better tech was needed this should have been known from the start and highlighted as a risk. Given how delayed the program is, it's very disappointing that this issue is 'the long pole in the tent'.

The KC-46A had the best cameras available at the time (and perhaps better than what the KC-30B would have had, as well). It also has yet to be determined if the "scrape rate" on the KC-46A is any worse than it is on the KC-135 and KC-10 fleets. If it is not, then Boeing might be off the hook for the cost of any fixes as they delivered a system better than what is currently in operation and it would be the USAF deciding they want better and having to pay for it.

Revelation wrote:

What I'm trying to get at, is why did they decide they needed to go to the camera-based approach rather than the Mk1 Eyeball approach in use for a long time now?

mjoelnir wrote:

How do you know they sourced the best available system and cameras?

mjoelnir wrote:

And is the aim for the KC-46 to be not worse than the KC-135, rather than the best? All about just meeting minimum requirements.

kanban wrote:

hind sight is always 20/20.... the question becomes does one go with the best available to meet the specs or go with nothing and hope like hell someone develops a better one in time? ...

WIederling wrote:

Even the Japanese and Italian tankers as a rather fresh and intense experience seem to have had low impact in that department.

bikerthai wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Even the Japanese and Italian tankers as a rather fresh and intense experience seem to have had low impact in that department.

The Japanese and the Italian have not had to tank composite air frames. They will face the same issue when they get the F-35.

Personally, I don't think it's the cameras. The camera systems were selected because the mod is much easier than adding the window at the bottom of the aircraft. Having to design access to the lower lobe to place an operator viewing window there and all the necessary communication and safety system in place to support that operator does not make sense.

And true, the camera systems have improved since way back, but I believe the best camera system back in 2009 or so is still pretty good.

My feeling is that the issue is probably in the dynamics of the probe control system itself, from the joystick, force feedback and air flow around the boom. All of these forces makes a much more difficult design than blaming it on the cameras. That is why I think trying to get an automated computer assist system may be the better solution as we all know software can react much quicker and more precisely than the human eye - human hand - joystick combination.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

The Japanese and the Italian have not had to tank composite air frames. They will face the same issue when they get the F-35.

Revelation wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Even the Japanese and Italian tankers as a rather fresh and intense experience seem to have had low impact in that department.

The Japanese and the Italian have not had to tank composite air frames. They will face the same issue when they get the F-35.

Personally, I don't think it's the cameras. The camera systems were selected because the mod is much easier than adding the window at the bottom of the aircraft. Having to design access to the lower lobe to place an operator viewing window there and all the necessary communication and safety system in place to support that operator does not make sense.

And true, the camera systems have improved since way back, but I believe the best camera system back in 2009 or so is still pretty good.

My feeling is that the issue is probably in the dynamics of the probe control system itself, from the joystick, force feedback and air flow around the boom. All of these forces makes a much more difficult design than blaming it on the cameras. That is why I think trying to get an automated computer assist system may be the better solution as we all know software can react much quicker and more precisely than the human eye - human hand - joystick combination.

bt

Thanks for the detailed answer. I agree blaming the camera is the easy thing to do, and it resonates because most of us have upgraded our smartphones a few times since 2009 so we are familiar with the upgrade in camera tech since then. On the other hand even in 2009 digital cameras were well understood and if a good enough camera wasn't available I think both Boeing and USAF would not have moved forward with a design that was not good enough. Therefore it is quite plausible that they are blaming the camera where the real problem is the difficulty in dealing with the dynamics of the probe.

bikerthai wrote:

These is one thing that I did not think about beyond the software is the mechanical/electrical system of deploying the boom itself. No mater how fast a computer can react, you still have the latency of hydraulics and hardware moving.

747classic wrote:

Or perhaps it's the lack of experience of the USAF boom operators with the new KC-46A vision systems (camera's), because the current generation of USAF boomoperators is only used to "eyeball one' boom operation.
Other airforces with KDC-10, KC-767A and A330MRTT aircraft have gained already years of experience with remote operated booms with camera visibility only.

jarheadk5 wrote:

747classic wrote:

Or perhaps it's the lack of experience of the USAF boom operators with the new KC-46A vision systems (camera's), because the current generation of USAF boomoperators is only used to "eyeball one' boom operation.
Other airforces with KDC-10, KC-767A and A330MRTT aircraft have gained already years of experience with remote operated booms with camera visibility only.

This is possible, and I don't discount it. However, all USAF boom operator initial training is done in simulators, so it's not like watching your stick movements translate to boom movements on a display screen is somehow "new ground" for USAF BOs.
I can't speak for the -135 BO community, but KC-10 BOs go to the simulator every quarter for Abnormal/Emergency Procedures refresher training, so there's another element of familiarity for some USAF BOs with doing it on a screen vs. a window. I know at least two of the USAF test team BOs are former -10 BOs... and I highly doubt that Boeing doesn't have a dedicated KC-46 BO sim for them to get familiar with the system and how it flies.

A Boeing-U.S. Air Force test team recently refueled a KC-46A tanker from another KC-46A tanker for the first time.

During the four-hour flight, the two aircraft successfully refueled each other and achieved the maximum fuel offload rate of 1,200 gallons per minute. The program’s first and second tankers transferred a total of 38,100 pounds of fuel over the course of the flight. Both aircraft took off and landed at Boeing Field, south of Seattle.