What was gained from adding the remote boom pod? Truly curious.

8 hours ago, Runr6730 said:

Reminds me of the “why can’t the boom just get a window?” argument when the KC-46 first came online and started demonstrating growing pains with the RVS. If we constrain ourselves to the way it’s always been done then we’ll never solve the problems facing us in the pacific fight.

In what decade do you expect said growing pains to cease?

3 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Is it dead as a potential acquisition?

I suspect the USAF can not afford the man power bill, unless maybe it's government owned, contractor operated like a few other bespoke systems.

2 minutes ago, AC&W said:

I suspect the USAF can not afford the man power bill, unless maybe it's government owned, contractor operated like a few other bespoke systems.

Probably another factor working against it

I wonder if this had gotten flying before the A330 MRTT if it would have found a launch customer

4 hours ago, uhhello said:

What was gained from adding the remote boom pod? Truly curious.

Being able to fully see behind the tanker with multiple cameras. Not being able to look through the deice/anti-ice fluid to try and make contact. Not having to cancel air refueling due to a cracked window. LWIR ability.

RVS on the KC-767 works…ask the Italians or Japanese. USAF specified a different RVS system for KC-46.