Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Thu May 22, 2025 5:01 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 7:15 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 12:28 pm
Posts: 1196
Pat Carry wrote:
Whatever happened to the USAF developing a new tanker? Wasn't Boeing in line to get the contract to build this new tanker?


As Phil indicated, the KC-46 program is delivering tankers to the USAF, but has been beset by delays, cost over-runs and problems, most troubling being the remote vision system which is still not ready. The system has problems in certain low light situations, and after much litigation is being ripped out and totally replaced and fingers are crossed it might work. Was a high risk promise that was promised to be better than the human eyeball which had worked perfectly well on boom equipped tankers for some 70 years- a total travesty.

The next round of tanker buys was scheduled to start soon as a nearly off the shelf derivative and may lead to a larger tanker, perhaps giving Airbus a better chance (they won, then lost the program that resulted in the KC-46), or the Air Force might change their mind again....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 7:44 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:52 pm
Posts: 3411
Location: Wichita Falls, Texas, USA
The Air Force has said they are likely scrapping any plans of a KC-Y competition because there's just not a need for it in the current operational climate.

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/04/lac ... dall-says/

As for the KC-46, I honestly think the USAF should be footing the bill for the vision system (which they aren't - all but a couple of the overruns are 100% on Boeing). It was the USAF that didn't want to use the KC-767's VR system which has been working just fine for the last decade plus. Boeing wanted to offer an updated KC-767 with an updated flight deck, the new FBW boom (that is being retrofitted on the KC-767) and the VR-based remote boom system. But the USAF was "concerned" about using a headset as being "too cumbersome and nausea inducing"...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 274 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group