Boeing KC-46 Pegasus

www.defensenews.com

The Air Force and Boeing haven’t yet fixed the troubled KC-46 Pegasus vision system

Air Mobility Command expects the revamped Remote Vision System will still be delivered on schedule, but the Air Force has not yet accepted its design.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
breakingdefense.com

KC-46's new vision system in limbo as panoramic issues come into view - Breaking Defense

The Air Force worries that if it approves Remote Vision System 2.0 before concerns about the tanker's panoramic display system are resolved, it could be locked into paying for a fix.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

USAF Delays Closing KC-46 Remote Vision System PDR | Aviation Week Network

The plan to fix the KC-46’s troubled Remote Vision System (RVS) is delayed as the U.S. Air Force and Boeing try to work through a longstanding issue with the aircraft’s panoramic visual system.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
 
Grey Havoc said:
www.defensenews.com

KC-46 vision system problems lead to $402 million charge for Boeing

Boeing and the Air Force say the new version of the KC-46's Remote Vision System remains on schedule, despite lingering problems still being worked out.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...

So, what happens if Boeing do not get the problem with the Remote Vision System sorted? another fine or worse? this whole saga is getting worse year after year. With each new success with the KC-46 there is another problem needing to be solved.
 
I don't know to what extent 'evolving' customer requirements played a role in Boeing's misfortunes with the KC-46. Still - did Airbus dodge a bullet when they lost the tanker contract to Boeing?
 
"Poisoned chalice" - that's a good question indeed. Did the poison came from USAF requirements, or did Boeing poisoned themselves all alone ?

It baffles me, Boeing screwed that one after building 850 tankers, TWICE - KC-97s followed by KC-135. Plus the B-29 / B-50 conversions before (wikipedia tells me, 420 bombers converted), and the civilian 707 tankers in parallel (is there a number and a list of 707 tankers somewhere ? NOT C-135s)

Must have been 2500 or even 3000 tankers since 1945. And still, Pegasus completely destroyed that legacy of goodness.
 
Arjen said:
I don't know to what extent 'evolving' customer requirements played a role in Boeing's misfortunes with the KC-46. Still - did Airbus dodge a bullet when they lost the tanker contract to Boeing?
Click to expand...

Impossible to say for certain, though it is probable that they would have issues of their own. For example, the boom stiffness problem would have likely afflicted the A330 just like it does the KC-46, since that problems is at its core a badly written requirement and not a Boeing design decision.

There was also plenty of room for problems to appear modifying the A330 for USAF requirements. They would have had to considerably modify the aircraft to meet USAF requirements against EMP and physical attack. Other mods, like implementing both a centerline drogue and boom (the MRTT either has the drogue or the boom, not both) could have created issues. Similarly, having the entire aircraft (except for classified military systems such as the communication and defensive systems) be FAA certified would have created plenty of problems just like it has on the KC-46.

Airbus could have delivered on time, or they could have been in the same sort of trouble Boeing is right now. Or something in between.

Archibald said:
"Poisoned chalice" - that's a good question indeed. Did the poison came from USAF requirements, or did Boeing poisoned themselves all alone ?

It baffles me, Boeing screwed that one after building 850 tankers, TWICE - KC-97s followed by KC-135. Plus the B-29 / B-50 conversions before (wikipedia tells me, 420 bombers converted), and the civilian 707 tankers in parallel (is there a number and a list of 707 tankers somewhere ? NOT C-135s)

Must have been 2500 or even 3000 tankers since 1945. And still, Pegasus completely destroyed that legacy of goodness.
Click to expand...
There are two main factors. First, Boeing underbid, by a lot, to prevent Airbus from winning the recompete. Which basically underfunded the development from the start. Add in the death spiral of Boeing's corporate culture and the program was bound for major trouble.
 
Airbus would have not. Just look at the Australian program and the delay they have encountered. There is a detailed link somewhere with a post buried in this thread's pages.

Also, Boeing did have to take such a low margin given that Airbus, proposal having no hardware built, nor any experience at the time, was deemed competitive by the USAF.

Again, Australia had to put a lot of extra ressources to make something functional out of the initial MRTT. Let's not forget it.
 
Last edited:
I was answering on the premise of if Airbus had won the second competition in 2011, not the 2008 competition. Though we do have the hindsight benefit to know that there is no way the KC-45 would have delivered before 2015.
 
TomcatViP said:
[...]AMC has cleared the KC-46 to fuel F-22s and F-35s, meaning it can now refuel roughly 85 percent of the fleet.
Click to expand...

www.airforcemag.com

KC-46 Cleared for More Refueling; Likelihood of Bridge Tanker Competition Falls | Air & Space Forces Magazine

US Transportation Command head Gen. Jacqueline Van Ovost said the KC-46 is cleared to refuel 85 percent of planes.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
Click to expand...

Now that is better news for the KC-46, that it can now refuel roughly 85 percent of the USAF aircraft. I wonder what happened to the remaining 25 percent of the aircraft that cannot refuel from the tanker.
 
TomcatViP said:
@FighterJock : among them, should we list the A-10?
Click to expand...

Forgot about the A-10, what was the issue behind the A-10 not being able to refuel from the KC-46? It seams rather strange when it can be refueled successfully from a KC-135 without any problems and has done so since entering service.
 
FighterJock said:
Forgot about the A-10, what was the issue behind the A-10 not being able to refuel from the KC-46? It seams rather strange when it can be refueled successfully from a KC-135 without any problems and has done so since entering service.
Click to expand...
The A-10 can and has demonstrated refueling from the KC-46 (as far back as 2016). But they haven't been able to finish the certification process for reasons that seem to have as much to do with bad management as actual technical problems.
 
TomS said:
FighterJock said:
Forgot about the A-10, what was the issue behind the A-10 not being able to refuel from the KC-46? It seams rather strange when it can be refueled successfully from a KC-135 without any problems and has done so since entering service.
Click to expand...
The A-10 can and has demonstrated refueling from the KC-46 (as far back as 2016). But they haven't been able to finish the certification process for reasons that seem to have as much to do with bad management as actual technical problems.
Click to expand...

Thanks TomS, sack the managers if it down to bad management, if they cannot get the certification finished, then get the A-10 certified problem solved.
 
Air Force and Boeing negotiated a “cost-sharing approach” to upgrading panoramic system after they determined new sensors could provide boom operators inside the KC-46 with improved imagery even if the displays inside the tanker were not upgraded.

While Boeing will pay to develop the new sensors, the service will foot the bill to buy the individual electro-optical and infrared cameras for the panoramic suite. Boeing will also pay for “provisioning” costs such as “wiring [and] processing hardware” that ties the panoramic sensors to the wider vision system, Morrison said.
Click to expand...

breakingdefense.com

Air Force backtracks, now says it’s paying for KC-46 panoramic camera fix - Breaking Defense

The Air Force could not provide a cost estimate detailing what the service will pay in order to replace the KC-46's panoramic sensors.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
He also reiterated that the Air Force has become “much less confident” that it will hold a competition for the KC-Y bridge tanker, which will pave the way for the service’s next-generation KC-Z. If the service doesn’t hold a KC-Y competition, it would buy more KC-46 Pegasus aircraft from Boeing while retiring older KC-10 and KC-135 tankers.

Kendall praised the KC-46 as a major “night-and-day” improvement over the KC-135.
Click to expand...

news.yahoo.com

US Air Force wants to lower the number of tankers required in its fleet

The KC-46A Pegasus is also now cleared to refuel about 97% of the aircraft that fly on U.S. Transportation Command missions.
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com
 
Gen. Mike Minihan, head of Air Mobility Command, announced June 2 that the KC-46 has been granted a seventh interim capability release (ICR), clearing more aircraft to be refueled from the new tanker, which can now refuel 97 percent of the airplanes that AMC is required to pass fuel on a daily basis.

The new aircraft now cleared to take fuel from the KC-46 include the B-1B bomber, all C-135 variants, the E-8 Joint STARS radar aircraft, the EC-130H Compass Call, F-35B/C Joint Strike Fighter variants, KC-10 tanker, and the Navy’s P-8 Poseidon patrol jet.
Click to expand...

www.airforcemag.com

Kendall: KC-46 Might Have Worked Better If Not Fixed-Price; Pegasus Now Cleared for 97% of US Aircraft | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The KC-46 is cleared to refuel 97 percent of required aircraft, but issues with its RVS may have been avoided under a different contract structure.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
 
TomcatViP said:
Gen. Mike Minihan, head of Air Mobility Command, announced June 2 that the KC-46 has been granted a seventh interim capability release (ICR), clearing more aircraft to be refueled from the new tanker, which can now refuel 97 percent of the airplanes that AMC is required to pass fuel on a daily basis.

The new aircraft now cleared to take fuel from the KC-46 include the B-1B bomber, all C-135 variants, the E-8 Joint STARS radar aircraft, the EC-130H Compass Call, F-35B/C Joint Strike Fighter variants, KC-10 tanker, and the Navy’s P-8 Poseidon patrol jet.
Click to expand...

www.airforcemag.com

Kendall: KC-46 Might Have Worked Better If Not Fixed-Price; Pegasus Now Cleared for 97% of US Aircraft | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The KC-46 is cleared to refuel 97 percent of required aircraft, but issues with its RVS may have been avoided under a different contract structure.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
Click to expand...

It is too late to say that the KC-46 would have worked better had it not been for Fixed Price, they should have thought of that before going with it back when they selected the KC-46.
 
aonestudio said:

DARPA Reimagines KC-46 As Airborne Battery Charger | Aviation Week Network

DARPA has launched a new project that sees a fresh role for the U.S. Air Force fleet of aerial tankers as airborne recharging points for networks of electric-powered UAS by adding a wing-mounted laser pod.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Click to expand...
LOL! The electric UAV is going to sustain the KC-46's stalling speed for the duration of the charge is it? Perhaps instead this laser is going to "track" the UAV? Get this wonderhorse doing some QID, MULE & HOBO missions day in, day out, then you can gimmick your way off into the sunset!
 
Opportunistic Minnow said:
aonestudio said:

DARPA Reimagines KC-46 As Airborne Battery Charger | Aviation Week Network

DARPA has launched a new project that sees a fresh role for the U.S. Air Force fleet of aerial tankers as airborne recharging points for networks of electric-powered UAS by adding a wing-mounted laser pod.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Click to expand...
LOL! The electric UAV is going to sustain the KC-46's stalling speed for the duration of the charge is it? Perhaps instead this laser is going to "track" the UAV? Get this wonderhorse doing some QID, MULE & HOBO missions day in, day out, then you can gimmick your way off into the sunset!
Click to expand...

DARPA has been tinkering with the idea for a while now.

www.popularmechanics.com

Drones Recharged by a Laser Could Fly Forever

DARPA chooses the Silent Falcon as its drone of choice for the laser recharging experiment.
www.popularmechanics.com www.popularmechanics.com
 
The charge is done via directed energy (Laser is the target medium here). The laser have to be hemispherically gimballed, meaning that there isn't any contact or pursuit trajectory needed.
The tanker can be placed into a orbit inside where the UAV can be charged without contact (remotely).
Altitude have not to be similar either. There should also be a tolerance built into the system toward masking weather (depending on the solution chosen and the discarded energy deemed appropriate).
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
DARPA has been tinkering with the idea for a while now.
Click to expand...
It may well have. I don't necessarily have a problem with the concept. The platform though, is all wrong.

The KC-46 is too heavy, high and fast. It would be the reverse of the old diving KC-97 parody of the 50s! The little electric UAV will be tearing it's guts out while the KC-46 has everything hanging down for the duration of the charge. SFC - hardly finger-licking good.
​
It could well be a complete waste of a 3-point tanker, depending on what is actually meant here by "laser". If visible-spectrum, there will be no manned aircraft permissible aft of the spars for miles whilst lasing. Not at the wattage necessary. A tanker with an exclusion zone isn't going to commend itself to battlespace planners! Unless we are to return to the dark old days of the Cold War and give pilots eye patches!

Better a C-130 with a palletized laser on the ramp. No draggy pod. Swing-role (if that's still in fashion?). Cruising comfortably within any likely electro-UAV's flight envelope without any energy-expensive climbing/accelerating to the racetrack. Likely a far healthier SFC from a tanker designed to operate within those speeds/altitudes for extended periods. Also no precious booms and drogues going to waste. Other aviators need not close with the tanker.

Better still a modular, quick-swap battery pack for the UAV waiting for it at homeplate and less wunderfaff but I suppose think-tanks need busywork betwixt revolutions.​

There is a certain irony here. A little while back I recommended a 767 over the C-130 for the TACAMO mission. Now I'm recommending the Herc over the Peg!​
 
I think you're misunderstanding the concept. It's not a tanker drag where the UAS pulls up behind the tanker and charges up. It's about having drones hanging around the tanker tracks doing various missions and getting recharged periodically while still on task.
 
I would need to know more about the laser specs to make any informed comment but there is no law against snap judgements that can be amended later where I am from. On the surface, that seems an even worse idea. How could you guarantee that no errant, allied FBW computer, civilian FADEC or the like would not cross the beam in a convoluted combat situation and receive any number of spurious signals? Any laser (and IR?) warners on the battlefield become obnoxiously ineffective while wandering beams reacquire their targets, manoeuvring while "still on task". Peacetime training over populated regions? Not this side of the pond. Oh and DARPA reckons the next war is back in the conveniently dry middle east, not the slightly more damp European/Pacific theatres? That's handy to know.

Sounds like an aerial laser minefield to me. How many specialists does it take to change a battery? This just strikes me as reckless and complexity for complexity's sake.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, Pegasus is recovering at the same time Starliner peforms a near perfect second flight. Did we buried Boeing too fast - or they are just "too big to fail" ?
 
Archibald said:
So, Pegasus is recovering at the same time Starliner peforms a near perfect second flight. Did we buried Boeing too fast - or they are just "too big to fail" ?
Click to expand...

Probably too big to fail Archibald. I would not like to see Boeing go under or worst get absorbed like what happened to McDonnell Douglas back in 1996.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom