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

[marauder2048]

Not only must it be stealthy but it also has to fire lasers as well.

http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/us-air-force-wants-stealthy-laser-shooting-next-gen-tanker

For the life of me I can't understand why that would make sense in their opinion.


Stealth is not magic, you can't just say "we need a stealth tanker, and while at it make it capable of this, this and that".

Tankers, cargos and AWACS, at large, are not survivable assets, and will probably never be. They need to operate in safe areas as long as air superiority and the removal of A2/AD are not established.

The progress they are making in active aircraft defensive systems may change that assessment.
Large aircraft could carry a relatively deep magazine of towed decoys, kinetic intercept countermeasures, defensive DEWS etc. without much penalty.

 

[NeilChapman]

http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/us-air-force-wants-stealthy-laser-shooting-next-gen-tanker

"The KC-Z would likely come online in the 2030-40 time frame"

How does this compare with production schedules for B-21? Gut feeling, this indicates that they aren't considering a B-21 based solution.

Perhaps. General Everhart seems to have a great deal of AMC experience. These guys know what's required to get the job done. I'm sure he's thinking about how to ensure he provides his troops with the platform to succeed.

That being said, B-21, as a program, is a massive, expensive, critical, strategic imperative with lots of moving parts. Getting anyone to consider a B-21 variant before the bomber is IoC is not something even a four star can accomplish. Even if he's thinking about it you're not going to suggest it.

This is the sort of program that comes down from above.
1. You come up with requirements for a large, stealthy tanker, make the survivability case, let industry submit ideas and develop cost estimates.
2. The fighter & bomber jocks get involved and start asking questions about how they're expected to get their packages home in the expanded A2/AD environments.
3. Congress holds hearings about the plans for the large, stealthy tanker.
4. There's consensus that a outsized cargo inter-theater transport with tanking capability and a stealthy tanker are necessary. But not necessarily the same platform.
5. AF wonders where the $ will come from for two new airframes.
6. Then, at some point, the SecAF or SecDef says - hey, can't we accomplish the stealthy tanker requirement with a B-21 variant and save the development costs?

And you say, "Great idea, Sir. That's why you're the boss!"

---

On another note, it may not even be AMC that get's a stealthy tanker. It could be the AFSOC or even embedded in the AFGSC.

 

[marauder2048]

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/lockheed-details-hybrid-wing-body-future-tanker

 

[sferrin]

Almost looks small enough to fold its wings and stick it on a carrier.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Guessing that the bumps top and bottom are laser turrets.

 

[bobbymike]

Future arsenal plane.

 

[AeroFranz]

Not to nit-pick, but that doesn't look like a HWB. To me it looks more like a tube and wing with generous blending, i.e., it looks like there's a pretty distinctive transition between the fuselage and the wing, unlike the pictures above.

 

[TomS]

Wonder if that changes with the proportions corrected. That image looks pretty distorted.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Vertical axis compressed taking the half moon as a guide, contrast altered.

 

[Mat Parry]

To my eye this configuration looks more like a enlarged (manned) General Atomics Predator C avenger, not a HWB.

 

[GeorgeA]

To my eye this configuration looks more like a enlarged (manned) General Atomics Predator C avenger, not a HWB.

Agreed. One could also make a case for a variation of the TR-X shape as well.

 

[flateric]

...

 

[FighterJock]

...

Nice find flateric. B)

 

[sferrin]

...

They both look distorted, just in different ways. ???

 

[hesham]

Good Projects,thank you my dear Flateric,

but for this aircraft,it is just dream,never to be built,we heard about many tailless
transport and tanker airplane Projects from 1940s,1950s & 1960s,but nothing at
all we got.

 

[Mark S.]

I don't know if it will be built but per a Aviation Week article article L-M addressed the tail issue. Said it was to have a "H" tail. Time will tell.

 

[Flyaway]

Lockheed Details Hybrid Wing-Body Future Tanker

As the U.S. Air Force sets its sights on a more survivable next-generation tanker that will be able to support strike assets in increasingly dangerous battlespace, Lockheed Martin believes it has the answer: a fuel-efficient, hybrid wing-body aircraft that can take off and land on short runways for maximum operating flexibility. Gen. Carlton Everhart 2nd, chief of Air Mobility Command, recently kicked off an effort to study a next-generation “KC-Z” tanker—one that may look ...

http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/lockheed-details-hybrid-wing-body-future-tanker

 

[gtg947h]

In the public domain NG did some demonstrations with 2 global hawks using a hose and drogue set up. Albeit a reversed situation where the aircraft being refuelled took position upfront & extended a hose and drogue, the plan was that the buddy tanker would insert it's probe into the drogue and pump the fuel forward /uphill to the receiver. (I never figured out the reasons for this set up). As I recall no fuel was actually exchanged

The idea was that the aircraft with the probe had to have the "smarts" to fly to the drogue and connect. Better to put that part on a handful of dedicated tanker aircraft and let the receiver fly along straight and level, instead of having to have every aircraft get the specialized equipment.

Whether the trade in weight vs. specialized components works out in favor of this scheme, I don't know. I guess it depends on how much the system costs...

 

[GeorgeA]

Lockheed Martin KC-Y/Z concept on display at AIAA Sci-Tech Conference. Some Speed Agile similarity, especially the tail section.

https://twitter.com/TheWoracle/status/819210345659174912

https://twitter.com/TheWoracle/status/819211171442081792

(Moved from USAF future transports topic.)

 

[Triton]

Lockheed Martin KC-Y/Z concept on display at AIAA Sci-Tech Conference. Some Speed Agile similarity, especially the tail section.

https://twitter.com/TheWoracle/status/819210345659174912

https://twitter.com/TheWoracle/status/819211171442081792

(Moved from USAF future transports topic.)

 

[sferrin]

Wonder where the boom would go and how the engine exhausts being where they are would effect stability when trying to refuel.

 

[NeilChapman]

Wonder where the boom would go and how the engine exhausts being where they are would effect stability when trying to refuel.

I'm not an AE so I'm really just asking. With that wing design and expected load what kind of take-off roll would be expected? Less than a KC-46?

It'd be nice to get tankers in to more potential airfields, not less.

 

[bobbymike]

Arsenal Plane, arsenal plane, arsenal plane please.

 

[NeilChapman]

Arsenal Plane, arsenal plane, arsenal plane please.

Hey Coleman
Yes?
What should we do about lunch, the lobster or the cracked crab?
What do you think?
Can't we have both?
Why not.

 

[marauder2048]

Wonder where the boom would go and how the engine exhausts being where they are would effect stability when trying to refuel.

At a guess...

 

[Flyaway]

If the airforce decides to skip KC-Y and go to Z this LM's entry for the competition.

Lockheed Martin unveils wing-body tanker concept for refuel stealth aircraft

http://defence-blog.com/news/lockheed-martin-unveils-wing-body-tanker-concept-for-refuel-stealth-aircraft.html

 

[DrRansom]

What is interesting I'd that this is the most recent, or maybe first?, stealthy jet transport.

And it looks really weird. Fuselage lift, relatively highly swept wings. Just looks strange. The Speed Agile aircraft looked much more normal than this.

 

[red admiral]

Probably not that low RF signature beyond something like Avro Vulcan. Not much in the way of planform alignment, hardly any cant on the tails. The only thing a bit "stealthy" is the engine installation, which still has clear los from frontal aspects unless some sort of radar blocker is used - with consequences for aircraft performance.

 

[Airplane]

That Lockheed model certainly is sexy. It looks like a 21st century B-1B, but sexier than the Bone. The tail looks like it could be a dubious moniker, kind of like the canards on the Lockheed ATF proposal.... the tail could be a bit stealthier. Fit it with 4x F135s and a weapons bay and it would be a cool jack of all trades A2G platform.

 

[Foo Fighter]

The blended wing/body designs will no doubt look odd until we get used to them. When the F-117 was first announced I thought it looked odd but now the blended wing/body looks like a development of that. I tewnd to agree that tanker assets would be best used where they can be defended in depth rather than risked within range of target defences.
What do you think about drone tankers? It would cut down on weight and make it easier to carry self defence weaponry. Yes, I know I have no ecperience of the Air Force or its tactics it just makes sense to me.

 

[kaiserd]

The blended wing/body designs will no doubt look odd until we get used to them. When the F-117 was first announced I thought it looked odd but now the blended wing/body looks like a development of that. I tewnd to agree that tanker assets would be best used where they can be defended in depth rather than risked within range of target defences.
What do you think about drone tankers? It would cut down on weight and make it easier to carry self defence weaponry. Yes, I know I have no ecperience of the Air Force or its tactics it just makes sense to me.

The idea that any airforce will field a large number of "ornate" highly stealthy highly expensive tanker aircraft that can and will be risked in areas where there stealthy capabilities are really needed sounds far fetched to me.
A reasonably large number of smaller some what cheaper but still relatively stealthy (trade-off of lower fuel to giveaway) drones which would be rather more expendable/ willing to risk (and complementing larger non-stealthy tankers and potential greater buddy refuelling by existing or future stealthy bomber and fighter types) would appear to be a more realisable and sensible goal.

 

[DrRansom]

Now that you say it, it does bear more than a passing resemblance to the F-117.

Which raises the question, wasn't the F-117 passed by more modern approaches to stealth? Interesting that this model looks like the older type.

 

[marauder2048]

The idea that any airforce will field a large number of "ornate" highly stealthy highly expensive tanker aircraft that can and will be risked in areas where there stealthy capabilities are really needed sounds far fetched to me.
A reasonably large number of smaller some what cheaper but still relatively stealthy (trade-off of lower fuel to giveaway) drones which would be rather more expendable/ willing to risk (and complementing larger non-stealthy tankers and potential greater buddy refuelling by existing or future stealthy bomber and fighter types) would appear to be a more realisable and sensible goal.

But that's not LM's proposal: it's for an aircraft with a combination of active/passive signature reductions +
active/passive countermeasures to operate outside of SAM range but within GCI + AAM range.

I'm not sure how (absent a move to a higher energy density fuels) you build a drone that
could provide a meaningful amount of fuel to a B-2/B-21 and yet be
more affordable and therefore purchased in greater quantities that what LM is proposing.

 

[CiTrus90]

Wonder where the boom would go and how the engine exhausts being where they are would effect stability when trying to refuel.

I'd imagine here:

Edit:
The more I look at it, the more I'm inclined to think it depicts a probe & drogue system rather than a boom & receptacle one. Unless those pods are supposed to house magical-telescopic booms...

 

[Mat Parry]

If you will forgive me, just a thought. This Lockheed model would appear to have inherited some of the features of its forebears (to my eye this looks like a sleeker sexier evolution of some of the speed agile concepts). I can also see some F-117 in it too. But I wonder if there are some features that might have been passed on from the loosing Lockheed LRS-B design?

It's been clearly explained elsewhere on this forum that a flying wing is the only sensible platform for LRS-B (so nothing like this stealth tanker model). However if, in years to come, artwork on the Lockheed design is released my guess is that there could be a family resemblance in say the intake designs.

Marauder's point on drones to refuel B-2/B-21 is a good one, for aircraft of that size it's a very expensive option. Perhaps it might be possible for F-35/F-22 refuelling? Could a stealthy pod be designed that could contain a hose and drogue (a la F-18 buddy refuelling) the difference being that the refuelling is reversed and a drone pushes the fuel uphill via it's probe to the fighters via the drogue pod? It would avoid the cost of having to fit probes and plumbing to the entire fleet of Air Force F-35/F-22

 

[NeilChapman]

The blended wing/body designs will no doubt look odd until we get used to them. When the F-117 was first announced I thought it looked odd but now the blended wing/body looks like a development of that. I tewnd to agree that tanker assets would be best used where they can be defended in depth rather than risked within range of target defences.
What do you think about drone tankers? It would cut down on weight and make it easier to carry self defence weaponry. Yes, I know I have no ecperience of the Air Force or its tactics it just makes sense to me.

The idea that any airforce will field a large number of "ornate" highly stealthy highly expensive tanker aircraft that can and will be risked in areas where there stealthy capabilities are really needed sounds far fetched to me.
A reasonably large number of smaller some what cheaper but still relatively stealthy (trade-off of lower fuel to giveaway) drones which would be rather more expendable/ willing to risk (and complementing larger non-stealthy tankers and potential greater buddy refuelling by existing or future stealthy bomber and fighter types) would appear to be a more realisable and sensible goal.

Why would a large number would be necessary? If the requirement is to provide relatively close refueling capabilities for stealthy strike formations such as B2, B21, F22 and future PCA, these assets are deployed in relatively small numbers. You'd need quite a few MQ-25's to top off a B2/21 and get it back into the fight. Guess it really depends on how close to the threat you expect the tanker to be.

If the mission profile is what we've seen w/B-2 the object will be to mission plan en-route for other than initial flights. Transmissions will be limited. Follow-on flights may need modified target lists based on prior flights BDA. They may want to hit targets of opportunity if ordinance is left over. This means that they'll want tankers pretty close in. Will require very stealthy tankers - but not necessarily large numbers.

 

[Airplane]

Wonder where the boom would go and how the engine exhausts being where they are would effect stability when trying to refuel.

I'd imagine here:

Edit:
The more I look at it, the more I'm inclined to think it depicts a probe & drogue system rather than a boom & receptacle one. Unless those pods are supposed to house magical-telescopic booms...

If its usaf then there is a boom. Its not hard to imagine that its buried in the tail beneath a door.

I sincerely doubt the DoD would allow anything (shaping, size, and engines) of the Lockheed bomber to be made public until after the B21 is unveiled.

 

[CiTrus90]

Wonder where the boom would go and how the engine exhausts being where they are would effect stability when trying to refuel.

I'd imagine here:

Edit:
The more I look at it, the more I'm inclined to think it depicts a probe & drogue system rather than a boom & receptacle one. Unless those pods are supposed to house magical-telescopic booms...

If its usaf then there is a boom. Its not hard to imagine that its buried in the tail beneath a door.

I agree there should be a boom, but the high tail may also be suggestive of a cargo door (as seen with Speed Agile?). Otherwise this concept would be for a tanker only, without any multi-role mobility capabilities.

 

[Flyaway]

Wonder where the boom would go and how the engine exhausts being where they are would effect stability when trying to refuel.

I'd imagine here:

Edit:
The more I look at it, the more I'm inclined to think it depicts a probe & drogue system rather than a boom & receptacle one. Unless those pods are supposed to house magical-telescopic booms...

If its usaf then there is a boom. Its not hard to imagine that its buried in the tail beneath a door.

I sincerely doubt the DoD would allow anything (shaping, size, and engines) of the Lockheed bomber to be made public until after the B21 is unveiled.

Isn't a boom a lot more difficult to make stealthy though?

 

[Dragon029]

I don't see why; a drogue has a flexible hose (making the application of long-lasting RAM more difficult), as well as springs and a basket that has fairly reflective geometry. With a boom you can facet it fairly easily, apply RAM more easily, etc. The only difficult part would be the nozzle itself at the end, but I'm sure there are ways to minimise its signature.