KC-Z / Next-Generation Air Refueling System (NGAS)

donnage99 said:
this shape and size and the fact that it's manned screams more than just gas hauler to me. Just a thought, what if we split the tanker role into 2 fleets. 1 converted commercial aircraft sitting far behind away from threats. 1 connector types that has large volume like this one that can act as tanker and a secondary offensive role that supplement NGAD. connector type can loiter behind NGAD and act as missile arsenal and can take additional gas from the more conventional type that sit even further back while pump gas for NGAD whenever needed in contested airspace.

This would justify its existence more than a pure stealthy tanker while being much cheaper than NGAD being stripped of all the exotic stealthily embedded sensors and kinetic performance.
Click to expand...
When I saw this image, my first thought was what @Scott Kenny said:


With it's shape and wings, it will be way more than a tanker, if not commanding CCAs and getting a dozen of AIM-174B in it's rotary launcher
 
SK2 said:
When I saw this image, my first thought was what @Scott Kenny said:


With it's shape and wings, it will be way more than a tanker, if not commanding CCAs and getting a dozen of AIM-174B in it's rotary launcher
Click to expand...
You mean my idea about NGAD being the size of an F111, at 100+klbs?

I'd still rather have a stealthy tanker take over from the C130s as the tactical airlifter...
 
What I suggest was the KC-Z displayed by Skunk Works was actually NGAD instead, as it fits the shape, together with your idea of super size fighter
 
I like the look of the current stealthy next generation Air-refueling system concept Stargazer, one problem though is with the engines why not bury the engines into the fuselage B-2 like and stop the radar bouncing back from the turbines?
 
FighterJock said:
I like the look of the current stealthy next generation Air-refueling system concept Stargazer, one problem though is with the engines why not bury the engines into the fuselage B-2 like and stop the radar bouncing back from the turbines?
Click to expand...
Cost, NGAS cost control is going to require pretty tight decision-making. JetZero's pitch is derived from their commercial concept and commercial operators want engines that have unrestricted airflow (for efficiency) and are easy for maintenance crews to access. So USAF would have to pay for all the changes needed to bury the engines, on top of paying for the cost of making it a tanker/airlift platform in the first place. It's probably not worth it anyway, the BWB would have reduced signature compared to a tube+wing airframe, which would allow it to operate closer to enemy air defenses, but it's not really a "stealth" airframe.
 
That is a pity about that Moose and Grey Havoc, but if they are serious about cost cutting then there is no alternative.
 
Ainen said:
It now sounds like USAF is stuck choosing between NGAD and LO tanker, and in the current financial climate, there is no way to get both.
Both sides of the debate take public shots at each other.
Click to expand...

The tanker is more important since it's the only way JSF and Raptor can fight in the Pacific tbf.
 
I understand. But a team work of that magnitude does not revolve around some key members, as senior as they were.* But it's up to Boeing to tackle the situation.
What can be sure, is that there are certainly refinements in their formula that would be missing for IP reasons or them being unaware. For example, I can't see the ejector effect that gave Boeing model its efficiency (see the podded engines position).

An other aspect is the plane RCS. Do we really believe a Startup (with public capital and funds raising) has the means to achieve anything useful on an aircraft that size at the classified level most of the work request?

* Remind me those European startups that after years of existence and funds raising still promote their professionalism by referring their manager's older employers such as Tesla or SpaceX...
 
Last edited:
Yes correct. It's not the same design from back at McDonnell Douglas days. However, many changes (IP reasons) and improvements were made going from that to current Jet zero design. I don't think they would ever attempt to do any RCS works themselves. Most likely the goal for them is to fly a demonstrator then partner up with a large company (most likely northrop) for further refinement and RCS reduction if requirements are there if USAF gives the next greenlight
 
I'd definitely want to partner with either LockMart or NG to do the stealth work!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The USAF plans to achieve survivable air refueling by improving conventional large tankers like the KC-46 and KC-135, rather than developing an expensive stealth tanker (NGAS).
They aim to disrupt enemy tracking and targeting of tanker supply chains rather than relying solely on stealth technology.
So it seams to be, that the NGAS program is dead. :confused:
Source:

U.S. Air Force Next-Gen Tanker Prospects Are Running On Fumes | Aviation Week Network

The Air Force no longer deems a stealthy successor to the Boeing KC-46 and KC-135 necessary for its modernization strategy.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
 
fightingirish said:
The USAF plans to achieve survivable air refueling by improving conventional large tankers like the KC-46 and KC-135, rather than developing an expensive stealth tanker (NGAS).
They aim to disrupt enemy tracking and targeting of tanker supply chains rather than relying solely on stealth technology.
So it seams to be, that the NGAS program is dead. :confused:
Source:

U.S. Air Force Next-Gen Tanker Prospects Are Running On Fumes | Aviation Week Network

The Air Force no longer deems a stealthy successor to the Boeing KC-46 and KC-135 necessary for its modernization strategy.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Click to expand...
And when the fight with China kicks off, I expect every single non-stealthy tanker in the USAF to get blown out of the sky because that didn't work as well as they thought it would.
 
fightingirish said:
The USAF plans to achieve survivable air refueling by improving conventional large tankers like the KC-46 and KC-135, rather than developing an expensive stealth tanker (NGAS).
They aim to disrupt enemy tracking and targeting of tanker supply chains rather than relying solely on stealth technology.
So it seams to be, that the NGAS program is dead. :confused:
Source:

U.S. Air Force Next-Gen Tanker Prospects Are Running On Fumes | Aviation Week Network

The Air Force no longer deems a stealthy successor to the Boeing KC-46 and KC-135 necessary for its modernization strategy.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Click to expand...
"Disrupt the enemy tracking and targeting" as in "send PGS to PLAAF airfields and C3I centers".
The US military couldn't even properly execute JSF, expecting a stealthy tanker is way too much hence I have never put too much hope into this program. And the VLRAAM threat IMO is way blown out of proportion.
 
yeetmahboi said:
And the VLRAAM threat IMO is way blown out of proportion.
Click to expand...
Why?
"Even"(not exactly even, bar is quite high) against PLAAAF/PLANAF of today, it doesn't seem likely. There is very little way to interrupt up targeting loop on a glorified civilian airliner. Unless you want to park them exclusively over Burkes, and even that didn't ultimately save A-50s; missile pK just isn't absolute.

With next gen airframes and the rate of expansion PLAN shows, it is getting to the point of wishful thinking; it isn't unreasonable for PLAN to get equal freedom of operational maneuver by year 2030.
Rather than *just* stealth geometry, I'd personally ask for something like hardkill point defense lasers on those support airframes.
If we are to expect at least some survivability from them.
 
I think they intend to saturate the refueling orbits with FQ-X, a slow lingering mix of UAS that will have maneuvering deficiency against something like a high supersonic fighter.
I wonder if those drones will fly alongside all the way or would be something akin to the parasitic fighters...

Anyhow, at Mach 3, you can cover 500Nm in 15 minutes and hence probably be able to completly reverse an attack geometry or outflank most of the defenses.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom