Air Force Says It Will Not Use the KC-46 Unless it Is Forced To

[MIflyer]

From Air Force Magazine. Sometimes it seems that a hole with some Plexiglas over it is the best solution after all....

"Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein told Senate legislators March 3 the service would not use the new KC-46 tanker unless absolutely necessary to fight a powerful adversary.

The wide-ranging Senate Armed Services hearing—the first of multiple chances the Air Force has this week to argue for its $169 billion budget request—continually circled back to the Pegasus tanker's most pressing issue: its subpar remote vision system, built by Rockwell Collins. RVS is supposed to let Airmen see where the plane's refueling boom is in relation to an aircraft it is trying to gas up. But at around 10 feet from the receiver aircraft, the RVS doesn't focus well enough to connect, sometimes causing the operator to hit the nearby plane.

"We are meeting every day on that topic," Air Force Secretary Barbara Barrett said. "It is really one of the highest priorities in the building."

She reiterated the Air Force's intent to find a solution to the RVS problem by the end of March.

Boeing's new Chief Executive Officer David Calhoun "committed to me that the KC-46 was his top military priority and he was going to do what was required to fix it," Goldfein said. "I have seen a change in the behavior of that company since he took over. That's why we're more confident sitting here today that we have a serious fix on the table."

KC-46 is slated to be ready for operations in 2023 or 2024. But Goldfein still isn't comfortable enough with the tanker to let it fly regular missions. Instead, the Air Force will only send it into battle with highly trained crews if absolutely necessary. Without an RVS fix in place, Airmen would not only deal with blurry vision but also issues like a blinding glare off of the receiver airplane on clear, sunny days."

 

[jetcal1]

Yes siree! Decades of tanking experience and somebody in the USAF said let's do this electronically! WTF?

 

[MIflyer]

I strongly suspect the problem is that the airframe could not accommodate a window in the correct place without expensive modifications.

Even the KC-135 required a fairing in the back where the boom operator had to be in the prone position. There may be no easy way to put one in a KC-46.

 

[jetcal1]

I strongly suspect the problem is that the airframe could not accommodate a window in the correct place without expensive modifications.
Even the KC-135 required a fairing in the back where the boom operator had to be in the prone position. There may be no easy way to put one in a KC-46.

No offense, I strongly suspect that someone decided to be "transformational" and the boys at Boeing decided it would be less risk than trying to maintain TSO for every item in the aircraft. (Yes! They even got a TSO for the boom!) Which brings us back to your cost issues.
Providing a simple pressurized bathtub fairing would have probably provided some access and pressurization issues. Nothing insurmountable. My bet is they didn't want to mess with the FAA certification requirements the Air Force insisted on.

 

[MIflyer]

I recall one of the guys I worked with at Tinker AFB say that they were going TDY in a KC-135 and one guy decided to ride in the boomer's position. After takeoff they went back to take a look out from what is the best view in the airplane and found the guy almost unable to talk. When the airplane rotated on takeoff he was sure that it was going to smash him into the runway. So maybe the KC-46 can't handle having something that sticks down and comes that close to the runway on takeoff.

 

[jetcal1]

I recall one of the guys I worked with at Tinker AFB say that they were going TDY in a KC-135 and one guy decided to ride in the boomer's position. After takeoff they went back to take a look out from what is the best view in the airplane and found the guy almost unable to talk. When the airplane rotated on takeoff he was sure that it was going to smash him into the runway. So maybe the KC-46 can't handle having something that sticks down and comes that close to the runway on takeoff.

You'll have to please excuse my cynicism. But, why man the station during TO?

 

[MIflyer]

But, why man the station during TO?

For Fun! There ain't a lot of windows in a KC-135. A man I worked with at Tinker AFB said that on one trip across the SW USA he settled down in that position during flight and found it to be just marvelous sightseeing. The Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, etc. Beats the heck out of any other vantage point in any other airplane.

 

[jetcal1]

For Fun! There ain't a lot of windows in a KC-135. A man I worked with at Tinker AFB said that on one trip across the SW USA he settled down in that position during flight and found it to be just marvelous sightseeing. The Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, etc. Beats the heck out of any other vantage point in any other airplane.

Okay. I guess, my attitude is different. There were positions that we did not occupy in the Navy aircraft I flew in as a pax because there was no need for someone to be in them during takeoff.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

There were positions that we did not occupy in the Navy aircraft I flew in as a pax because there was no need for someone to be in them during takeoff.

Maybe no need, but the view from the nose bubble of a P2V is worth the price of admission. Just hope you don't hit a seagull.

 

[GreenKnight121]

The main reason for moving the boom operator's position was that otherwise they would have to leave a path through the cargo compartment on every flight for the operator to move forward to access the lavatory, access the required crash-rated seat during take-off & landing, etc.

This would restrict what cargoes they could carry, and reduce total cargo weight.

Apparently that had just been accepted with the KC-135, but the USAF insisted that the KC-46A had to eliminate that cargo restriction.

 

[MIflyer]

It would have had to be accepted with the KC-10 as well, which has a boom operators position that is like a living room couch compared to the 135.

 

[jetcal1]

Maybe no need, but the view from the nose bubble of a P2V is worth the price of admission. Just hope you don't hit a seagull.

Funny you should mention the P-2. My understanding is the nose was left unoccupied during TO and landing.

 

[jetcal1]

The main reason for moving the boom operator's position was that otherwise they would have to leave a path through the cargo compartment on every flight for the operator to move forward to access the lavatory, access the required crash-rated seat during take-off & landing, etc.

This would restrict what cargoes they could carry, and reduce total cargo weight.

Apparently that had just been accepted with the KC-135, but the USAF insisted that the KC-46A had to eliminate that cargo restriction.

Interesting, so the Loadmaster would have zero access to pallets inflight?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Funny you should mention the P-2. My understanding is the nose was left unoccupied during TO and landing.

Yup, that's what NATOPS said. But certain inland based reserve squadrons full of old timers, older than NATOPS itself, sometimes winked at the "Blue Book".
Cheers,
Wes

 

[jetcal1]

Yup, that's what NATOPS said. But certain inland based reserve squadrons full of old timers, older than NATOPS itself, sometimes winked at the "Blue Book".
Cheers,
Wes

They wouldn't have been out of Glenview?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

They wouldn't have been out of Glenview?

Nope. Think even farther from big water than that. Where did you go to A School?

 

[jetcal1]

Nope. Think even farther from big water than that. Where did you go to A School?

Why Millington, of course. Funny thing, I can't remember any of the tenant commands.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Why Millington, of course. Funny thing, I can't remember any of the tenant commands.

When I was there, there was, besides NATTC, a Maintenance Officers School, a Navy/Marine aircraft maintenance records depot, a Marine Reserve A4 squadron, a Navy Reserve P2 squadron, and a USAF/Luftwaffe detachment from Luke AFB to support and turn around the German F104s that visited us almost daily. They had large US stars and bars on their wings and fuselages and a small iron cross on the vertical stab.
The maintenance officer school was in the back of the TD school building, and we shared a coffee mess. The TD ranks at the time were top-heavy with college graduates, and most of us had been turned down for OCS because we didn't meet line officer physical standards, which were absurdly strict at the time (essentially a flight physical), and it was amusing chatting with these officers, who kept encouraging us to apply for OCS.
The P2 guys couldn't find any submarines in the Mississippi, so they would go hedgehopping downriver to the Gulf of Mexico to play their games. If you could show them you'd passed water survival in AFUN P School, and that you could egress the aircraft with a Mae West on, they might take you along for the ride and let one of their enlisted "observers" go home with credit for attending his weekend drill. They were a pretty senior and pretty laid back, easygoing bunch, but they knew their shit, and had the best maintenance in the P2 community, with the awards to prove it.
NATTC was definitely a learning experience.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[GreenKnight121]

I was there 1981-82, and the USNR VP squadron was flying P-3s. The USMC squadron VMA-124 was still there, flying A-4Ms.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I was there 1981-82, and the USNR VP squadron was flying P-3s. The USMC squadron VMA-124 was still there, flying A-4Ms.

At least they upgraded. In 1970 they had some pretty ratty looking A4Bs and Cs with numerous patches on their hides. Those birds had clearly paid their dues in harm's way. When I got out in '74, the Angels were flying A4Ms, and could put on quite a show. When VF43 showed up at Boca Chica in their "shiny new" (actually badass dull camouflage) A4Ms as the official aggressor squadron, it made VF101 sit up and take notice. No more tired TA4Fs as opponents.
Cheers,
Wes