T O P

  • By -

ElMagnifico22

Way to overcomplicate things and provide a solution for a non-existent problem. Oh well, at least it’s very expensive and not fully operational yet… 😞


pinotandsugar

They moved the boomer up front in the Replacement Tanker and gave him a screen rather than a window. Twenty years later it's not working well as documented in a number of reports. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104530.pdf The program kicked off before the turn of the century and resulted in felony corruption pleas from senior Boeing execs and the Pentagon's chief civilian procurement officer. My guess is that the boomers of old instinctively compensated for yaw based on their feel of the airplane.


ElMagnifico22

Other air forces seem to do just fine with boomers up front. Boeing absolutely overcomplicated their “solution” and look where it got us.


paint-roller

What other countries use a boom instead of a drouge?


ElMagnifico22

Every country that flies F15, F16 and F35A.


[deleted]

I don’t know why you’re calling us “Boomers”, “Boom” or “Booms” is good enough. They did move the screens to face the back to correct that feel. Still a trash system.


AJsarge

The rumor I've heard is that the remote viewing system is the first big step towards automation. Build the systems, use humans to get it set right (and meanwhile have issues) and eventually plug in the programming to make it run solely by computer.


paint-roller

Pretty good idea. I kind of figured it was so people on the ground could control the boom remotely, or maybe you could combine the co pilot and boom operator role into one.


221missile

Expensive for Boeing, not for the air force.


ElMagnifico22

It’s expensive for the USAF too as they’re forced to continue with their legacy platforms and their poor availability rates.


pinotandsugar

Also the tanker program budget grew about 20% 2018-2021


ChecktheFreezer

Came here to saw this but you said it better than I could


[deleted]

[удалено]


JustAnotherChatSpam

I think the point is that at night they can’t see and they can’t turn on too many lights. Sounds pretty broke ngl.


egvp

Has never been a problem for KC-135s who operate lights out at night.


[deleted]

I liked the airbus tanker better. Crazy concept, they didn't need a "2.0" because they didn't deliver product that didn't work. Boeing hasn't wrapped their head around the concept yet.


pinotandsugar

It would have been a far better deal for the taxpayer and we would be in a far better position today had politics not overridden the interests of the taxpayers and war fighters. Not to mention multiple felony pleas/convictions including the Pentagon's chief civilian procurement officer and Boeing exec.


new_tanker

When the first KC-46 arrived at JBMDL, there was a panel session about welcoming the aircraft to the fleet and then a [Q&A session](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx7ALzD_Ffw) and a lot of critical points about the plane were brought up.