KC-46 Camera still having issues

[midwestpa24]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...n-reliably-show-the-end-of-the-refueling-boom

Kind of reminds me of the anecdote about how NASA spent a million dollars creating a pen that could write in zero gravity. Russia used a pencil. The KC-135 and KC-10 use a boom operator looking out a window, a system that has worked for over half a century. Someone in the Pentagon wanted something high tech.

 

[wanttaja]

Kind of reminds me of the anecdote about how NASA spent a million dollars creating a pen that could write in zero gravity. Russia used a pencil.

100% BS. Russians used grease pencils. NASA used pencils in the early days, but pencils produce flammable wood shavings and conductive particles of graphite. Neither are good ideas in a 100% oxygen environment with electrical equipment. In addition, the particles could drift into the astronaut's eyes.

Dr. Fisher developed the pens on his own, spending $1M of his own money. NASA eventually bought 400 of them after the Apollo 1 fire, for about $3000. Not $3,000 each... $3,000 for the entire order.

Even the Russians bought Fisher's pens.

https://history.nasa.gov/spacepen.html

So if you want to sneer at NASA, please pick another example.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Morgan3820]

100% BS. Russians used grease pencils. NASA used pencils in the early days, but pencils produce flammable wood shavings and conductive particles of graphite. Neither are good ideas in a 100% oxygen environment with electrical equipment. In addition, the particles could drift into the astronaut's eyes.

Dr. Fisher developed the pens on his own, spending $1M of his own money. NASA eventually bought 400 of them after the Apollo 1 fire, for about $3000. Not $3,000 each... $3,000 for the entire order.

Even the Russians bought Fisher's pens.

https://history.nasa.gov/spacepen.html

So if you want to sneer at NASA, please pick another example.

Ron Wanttaja

That historical anecdote was working just fine until you showed up. Are you happy now?

 

[Bill]

100% BS. Russians used grease pencils. NASA used pencils in the early days, but pencils produce flammable wood shavings and conductive particles of graphite. Neither are good ideas in a 100% oxygen environment with electrical equipment. In addition, the particles could drift into the astronaut's eyes.

Dr. Fisher developed the pens on his own, spending $1M of his own money. NASA eventually bought 400 of them after the Apollo 1 fire, for about $3000. Not $3,000 each... $3,000 for the entire order.

Even the Russians bought Fisher's pens.

https://history.nasa.gov/spacepen.html

So if you want to sneer at NASA, please pick another example.

Ron Wanttaja

That damned Ron, always showing up with FACTS!

(keep it up)

 

[midwestpa24]

100% BS. Russians used grease pencils. NASA used pencils in the early days, but pencils produce flammable wood shavings and conductive particles of graphite. Neither are good ideas in a 100% oxygen environment with electrical equipment. In addition, the particles could drift into the astronaut's eyes.

Dr. Fisher developed the pens on his own, spending $1M of his own money. NASA eventually bought 400 of them after the Apollo 1 fire, for about $3000. Not $3,000 each... $3,000 for the entire order.

Even the Russians bought Fisher's pens.

https://history.nasa.gov/spacepen.html

So if you want to sneer at NASA, please pick another example.

Ron Wanttaja

Ok fine, urban legend...Buzz Killington!

Still, nothing like the Pentagon spending millions re-inventing the wheel, then blaming Boeing when it doesn't work. I've ridden in the boom operator's position on a KC-135. I didn't see any reason that didn't work.

 

[Seanaldinho]

The Airbus 330 MRTT also has a camera based visual system, but it doesn't seem to make the news as having many issues. They also completed autonomous AAR using the camera system with the boom operator just on standby.

Pentagon wouldn't buy an Airbus though.

 

[Van Johnston]

The Airbus 330 MRTT also has a camera based visual system, but it doesn't seem to make the news as having many issues. They also completed autonomous AAR using the camera system with the boom operator just on standby.

Pentagon wouldn't buy an Airbus though.

Congress didn't let them buy an Airbus.

 

[AKiss20]

Still, nothing like the Pentagon spending millions re-inventing the wheel, then blaming Boeing when it doesn't work. I've ridden in the boom operator's position on a KC-135. I didn't see any reason that didn't work.

Boeing was the one who said "yes we can achieve those requirements in x years and for y billion dollars". Whether the Pentagon's desire/decision to move to a camera system is founded or not, it's Boeing's fault for making a system that doesn't meet the requirements they agreed to. As the Airbus example shows, this type of system is perfectly feasible from a technology standpoint.

 

[wanttaja]

Boeing was the one who said "yes we can achieve those requirements in x years and for y billion dollars". Whether the Pentagon's desire/decision to move to a camera system is founded or not, it's Boeing's fault for making a system that doesn't meet the requirements they agreed to. As the Airbus example shows, this type of system is perfectly feasible from a technology standpoint.

This, of course, is affected by the filter I heard it through, but: The story in the Engineer's union was that Boeing bid the program based on the use of younger, less experienced (e.g., lower paid) engineers, with few senior engineers to provide leadership. The managers assigned to the program were expected to provide the technical guidance. Some are good engineers...some rushed their way through the engineering ranks to get to management as quickly as they could and lacked experience in actually DOING things.

About three years before I retired, I almost ended up on the KC-46 program. A manager there found out that (A) I was an experienced systems engineer, (B) I was a pilot, with an understanding of FAA certification, and (C) I could write quickly. Pointed out to my upper-level boss that he desperately needed (A) and (C) if he hoped to win more space contracts in our group. So I stayed, wrote a winning proposal, and was the lead engineer on a successful new satellite program.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[nauga]

As the Airbus example shows, this type of system is perfectly feasible from a technology standpoint.

Were the requirements the same for both systems?

Nauga,
who did his time

 

[X3 Skier]

Were the requirements the same for both systems?

Nauga,
who did his time

If you mean the USAF KC-X Requirements, Yes

Rick,
Who worked the RFP

Cheers

 

[Sluggo63]

Congress didn't let them buy an Airbus.

Well, it was more like the GAO. But don’t forget all the shady Boeing dealings to get the request reopened after Airbus won. Then people went to jail and miraculously Boeing was awarded the contract.

 

[Wingsofglass]

The KC-46 strikes me as the perfect example of fraud, waste and incompetence that is the defense industry. Based on a perfectly good already flying aircraft it's been 20 years and the thing still isn't right. That's the equivalent of the B-29, originally conceived of in 1939 being put in service in 1959 - only the B-29 was a clean sheet revolutionary design. Am I wrong about this? How come no one is in jail over this? I had no involvement with this program and have never worked in the defense industry so I'm happy to be educated by those that know.

 

[AKiss20]

Were the requirements the same for both systems?

Nauga,
who did his time

Does it matter? Boeing was the one who said they could do it. They failed to do so. Not sure how that puts the Pentagon at fault.

My point in bringing up Airbus was simply to say this isn't some kind of far-fetched technology that may or may not even be possible, or if it is, only after 20 years of future development. While the specific requirements of the Boeing and Airbus tanker systems may be a bit different, to first order they are the same. They are achieving the same general goal, with the same general operating space, with the same general mission.

 

[AKiss20]

This, of course, is affected by the filter I heard it through, but: The story in the Engineer's union was that Boeing bid the program based on the use of younger, less experienced (e.g., lower paid) engineers, with few senior engineers to provide leadership. The managers assigned to the program were expected to provide the technical guidance. Some are good engineers...some rushed their way through the engineering ranks to get to management as quickly as they could and lacked experience in actually DOING things.

About three years before I retired, I almost ended up on the KC-46 program. A manager there found out that (A) I was an experienced systems engineer, (B) I was a pilot, with an understanding of FAA certification, and (C) I could write quickly. Pointed out to my upper-level boss that he desperately needed (A) and (C) if he hoped to win more space contracts in our group. So I stayed, wrote a winning proposal, and was the lead engineer on a successful new satellite program.

Ron Wanttaja

Sounds like a story endemic in the aerospace industry. Boeing, and others, love to lay off experienced engineers for costing too much during the more fallow years only to have that decision bite them in the a** 5 years later when demand is back and they need talent. That's a failure of leadership to see the value of continued knowledge transfer.

 

[X3 Skier]

I could tell at lot of tales about the KC-X source selection but suffice it to say what the USAF did (after I left) was totally outside the rule book and they got caught.

Cheers

 

[Sluggo63]

The KC-46 strikes me as the perfect example of fraud, waste and incompetence that is the defense industry. Based on a perfectly good already flying aircraft it's been 20 years and the thing still isn't right. That's the equivalent of the B-29, originally conceived of in 1939 being put in service in 1959 - only the B-29 was a clean sheet revolutionary design. Am I wrong about this? How come no one is in jail over this? I had no involvement with this program and have never worked in the defense industry so I'm happy to be educated by those that know.

It’s worse than that, IMO. There are KC-767s flying right now in the Italian and Japanese Air Forces. And they both use a flying boom. It has literally been produced and in operation already. For years.

 

[nauga]

If you mean the USAF KC-X Requirements, Yes

No, I mean the the requirements for the camera system on the A330 MRTT and the KC-46.

Does it matter?

When you say it's feasible and the Airbus system shows it can be done then yes, similarity of requirements (and the resulting system) matters if the comparison is to be valid. I'm not downplaying the fact that the system does not meet the requirements, and if it's CFE it's Boeing's problem.

My lag time constant was slightly longer than @wanttaja's, I was pulled into the program to work on other equally serious issues for my last month at Boeing. My departure was unrelated to the assignment.

Nauga,
who notes those issues are still issues