Boeing KC-46 Pegasus

First KC-46 for Japan ready for first flight:

boeing-kc46-aerial-refueling-tanker-for-japan-maritime-self-defense-force-01*xx3503-2335-228-0.jpg

 
Well I imagine the KC-46 is almost autonomous already. The boom operations could probably be automated in relatively short order. Mostly a social issue inside the USAF and out.
 
It would appear that KC-46 top of Israel wish list of kit funded by US aid program, presuming needed to improve their ability to bomb Iran.

breakingdefense.com

Israeli Cabinet OKs $9B US Arms Deal; Boeing KC-46As Top List - Breaking Defense

The $9 billion is aimed at purchasing the KC-46As, a new heavy helicopter to replace the Israeli air force CH-53, the purchase of V-22s, all this in addition to more F-35s and F-15 EXs. The estimated price of the KC-46As will be $1 billion.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
“[The OBIGGS countdown timer - On-Board Inert Gas Generation System, which is used to convert oxygen in the aircraft’s fuel tanks to nitrogen, preventing the aircraft from exploding if the tanks are hit by lightning or enemy fire] will start at 99, and it will just tick down and we can’t do anything until that timer gets to zero,” said Capt. Michelle McMillen, a KC-46 pilot and the 22nd Operations Group executive officer. “It’s very cumbersome. Sometimes it will randomly reset, and we don’t know why, and then we have to wait for it.”
The problem is a category 2 deficiency, which isn’t considered to have a major impact on safety or operations, said Brig. Gen. Ryan Samuelson, who leads the Air Force’s KC-46 cross-functional team, which coordinates the continued development and fielding of the tanker.
Click to expand...

www.defensenews.com

The KC-46 tanker’s most infamous problem isn’t the one that impacts pilots the most

The problem doesn't rise to the level of a serious category 1 deficiency, which has a major impact on safety or operations, but it can be annoying to pilots.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
From 1951 Boeing build something like 850 KC-97 followed by an equal number of KC-135 plus some 707 tankers; nearly 2000 aerial refueling platforms.
...
Nowadays they can't even build a working tanker TOILET.
 
Archibald said:
From 1951 Boeing build something like 850 KC-97 followed by an equal number of KC-135 plus some 707 tankers; nearly 2000 aerial refueling platforms.
...
Nowadays they can't even build a working tanker TOILET.
Click to expand...

I would not like to be on a KC-46 Pegasus without a working toilet that's for sure.
 
Archibald said:
From 1951 Boeing build something like 850 KC-97 followed by an equal number of KC-135 plus some 707 tankers; nearly 2000 aerial refueling platforms.
...
Nowadays they can't even build a working tanker TOILET.
Click to expand...
"the Air Transportable Galley-Lavatory" - even working, that sounds like a less than ideal combination!
 
Can't be worse than Apollo "waste management system" - only NASA could invent such an euphemistic accronym to mask such a misery. Had women been flown on Apollo missions, there would have been a major privacy issue... and a major problem for peeing. Even the Shuttle was tricky at times.
Of course that point wasn't discussed in For all mankind... or maybe they had a subplot to steal the Soyuz toilet. How the soviets did managed to put a toilet in Soyuz - even the upward module - I have no idea. I wonder if it would have fit in the Lunar Module: but once that one dropped... the issue would return. Then again, Apollo 13 proved the LM could stay attached to Apollo until the very end.

The module also contains a toilet, docking avionics and communications gear. Internal volume is 6 m3 (210 cu ft), living space 5 m3 (180 cu ft). On the latest Soyuz versions (since Soyuz TM), a small window was introduced, providing the crew with a forward view.
Click to expand...

  • Lunar Module
  • Crew cabin volume: 235 cu ft (6.7 m3)
  • Habitable volume: 160 cu ft (4.5 m3)
Click to expand...

The Lunar Module is nearly as roomy, 4.5 m3 habitable volume vs 5 m3 for Soyuz orbital module...
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
Archibald said:
From 1951 Boeing build something like 850 KC-97 followed by an equal number of KC-135 plus some 707 tankers; nearly 2000 aerial refueling platforms.
...
Nowadays they can't even build a working tanker TOILET.
Click to expand...

I would not like to be on a KC-46 Pegasus without a working toilet that's for sure.
Click to expand...
There is a working toilet. The problem is with the palletized accomodations which are intended for high passenger-capacity ferry flights. On normal missions with just the standard crew on board, that module isn't installed.
 
Moose said:
FighterJock said:
Archibald said:
From 1951 Boeing build something like 850 KC-97 followed by an equal number of KC-135 plus some 707 tankers; nearly 2000 aerial refueling platforms.
...
Nowadays they can't even build a working tanker TOILET.
Click to expand...

I would not like to be on a KC-46 Pegasus without a working toilet that's for sure.
Click to expand...
There is a working toilet. The problem is with the palletized accomodations which are intended for high passenger-capacity ferry flights. On normal missions with just the standard crew on board, that module isn't installed.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information Moose, I did not know that they could remove the toilet for normal missions and then put it back in when required.
 
The Air Transportable Galley-Lavatory is actually 2 toilets and a small kitchen all in one module, and it's been around for quite awhile. The problem on KC-46 is that the ATGL doesn't fit the way it does on other aircraft that use it, and it's orientation causes a valve in the plumbing to malfunction under the right, or perhaps very wrong, circumstances. USAF is, sensibly, going to refit the ATGLs with new valves which won't have this problem. But until they do it's an easy problem to make fun of.
 
just catching up to the tanker drama..
how different is the KC-46 from the KC-767 which was already being operated by Japan and Israel? I'm just trying to understand why there's so much trouble over this when its a pre-existing design.
 
helmutkohl said:
just catching up to the tanker drama..
how different is the KC-46 from the KC-767 which was already being operated by Japan and Israel? I'm just trying to understand why there's so much trouble over this when its a pre-existing design.
Click to expand...
From last year, the Category 1 deficiencies:
The tanker’s remote vision system or RVS — the camera system that allows KC-46 boom operators to steer the boom into a receiver aircraft without having to look out a window and use visual cues — provides imagery in certain lighting conditions that appears warped or misleading. Boeing has agreed to pay for potentially extensive hardware and software fixes, but the Air Force believes it will system won’t be fully functional until 2023-2024.

The Air Force has recorded instances of the boom scraping against the airframe of receiver aircraft. Boeing and the Air Force believe this problem is a symptom of the RVS’s acuity problems and will be eliminated once the camera system is fixed.

Boeing must redesign the boom to accommodate the A-10, which currently does not generate the thrust necessary to push into the boom for refueling. This problem is a requirements change by the Air Force, which approved Boeing’s design in 2016. Last year, Boeing received a $55.5 million contract to begin work on the new boom actuator

“The KC-46 fuel system is equipped with redundant protection for fuel containment. In some cases with this issue, aircraft maintenance crews are finding fuel between the primary and secondary fuel protection barriers within the system,” the company said in a statement.
Click to expand...
There's also been work quality issues with the production line.

The export KC-767s don't have RVS and don't have to worry about refueling A-10s.
 
Moose said:
helmutkohl said:
just catching up to the tanker drama..
how different is the KC-46 from the KC-767 which was already being operated by Japan and Israel? I'm just trying to understand why there's so much trouble over this when its a pre-existing design.
Click to expand...
From last year, the Category 1 deficiencies:
The tanker’s remote vision system or RVS — the camera system that allows KC-46 boom operators to steer the boom into a receiver aircraft without having to look out a window and use visual cues — provides imagery in certain lighting conditions that appears warped or misleading. Boeing has agreed to pay for potentially extensive hardware and software fixes, but the Air Force believes it will system won’t be fully functional until 2023-2024.

The Air Force has recorded instances of the boom scraping against the airframe of receiver aircraft. Boeing and the Air Force believe this problem is a symptom of the RVS’s acuity problems and will be eliminated once the camera system is fixed.

Boeing must redesign the boom to accommodate the A-10, which currently does not generate the thrust necessary to push into the boom for refueling. This problem is a requirements change by the Air Force, which approved Boeing’s design in 2016. Last year, Boeing received a $55.5 million contract to begin work on the new boom actuator

“The KC-46 fuel system is equipped with redundant protection for fuel containment. In some cases with this issue, aircraft maintenance crews are finding fuel between the primary and secondary fuel protection barriers within the system,” the company said in a statement.
Click to expand...
There's also been work quality issues with the production line.

The export KC-767s don't have RVS and don't have to worry about refueling A-10s.
Click to expand...
boo, if only the USAF was like the USN and went with the probe
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom