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

[TomS]

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 you look through the MACK thread on Postwar Projects, you'll see iterations of MACK or Speed Agile with almost the same tail configuration and a flying boom. There are no lower stern quarter shots to show exactly how it stows but I'd bet on a retractable boom that would stow mainly inside the cargo bay. The K-X version would essentially replace the ramp in the cargo version with a panel containing the boom and optics for the operator.

 

[CiTrus90]

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 you look through the MACK thread on Postwar Projects, you'll see iterations of MAK or Speed Agile with almost the same til configuration and a flying boom. There are no lower stern quarter shots to show exactly how it stows but I'd bet on a retractable boom that would stow mainly inside the cargo bay. The K-X version would essentially replace the ramp in the cargo version with a panel containing the boom and optics for the operator.

I had gone through all the 21 pages of the thread and had been able to miss the tanker configuration on the very first page, thanks for pointing out though ;D

Still, I don't think a stealth tanker makes much sense, but that's just my opinion.

 

[NeilChapman]

Still, I don't think a stealth tanker makes much sense, but that's just my opinion.

What are you suggesting in its stead? e.g. how would the mission be handled?

 

[CiTrus90]

Still, I don't think a stealth tanker makes much sense, but that's just my opinion.

What are you suggesting in its stead? e.g. how would the mission be handled?

At the present time, dealing with what we have?

I assume that:
1 - the mission is against a peer-State, with sophisticated air defenses (otherwise there wouldn't be much need for stealthiness);
2 - the conflict remains conventional, without nuclear escalation risks (which is a dubious assumption at best when dealing with a peer-State);

First thing would be to kick the doors down with BGM-109, AGM-158 and AGM-86C/D from the long distance. Targets should be radar sites, airbases, command and control nodes.
AGM-158 would be launched from B-2s and in the near future B-21s, which are stealth. CALCMs, with their greater range, would be delivered by B-1s and [my mistake here] B-52s, staying back in the field, as far away as possible from enemy air defenses.
BGM-109s would be deployed by submarines and naval assets. Subs should be considered inherently survivable. Surface ships instead would have to be at the edge of their weapons range and rely on AEGIS for their main defense, possibly on CAP but only as long as the air assets play defensively, as far away as possible from the enemy A2/AD threat.

If this phase does not succeed in taking out most of the enemy A2/AD threat (especially negating the use of airbases to enemy fighters and strike aircraft), the campaign doesn't proceed further. You'd have to, at least, create a relatively safe corridor for your fighters and strike packages to operate in. If you can't guarantee it, there's no second phase you can proceed to.

If this phase does indeed have success, you've drastically reduced the enemy counter air capabilities. It means you have air superiority over the battlefield and have reduced the SAM threat (e.g. S-400 operational range is estimated at 400km, the F-22 combat radius is 852km, so you have no need to move a tanker close to the S-400 range). There is now no need for a stealth tanker to conduct aerial refuelling deep into the enemy A2/AD bubble (which you will need to keep pushing back in the same way as above, if you want to advance further).

In regards to the future?

As I wrote a few pages ago in this thread, my idea is that a dedicated laser interceptor, possibly stealth, tasked with the protection of valuable assets (like tankers, AWACS, point defence of surface vessels, etc.) would be more useful than having a stealth tanker.
A stealth laser interceptor could also accompany strike packages deep into enemy territory, providing even more survivabilty to those aircraft.

Other things that should be worked upon, and fast, are the LRSO, the Arsenal plane and the PCA.

For any other scenario I don't see a need for a stealth tanker. OTOH I can see a niche for a STOL/STOVL/VTOL stealth cargo, but not for a tanker though.

 

[NeilChapman]

Still, I don't think a stealth tanker makes much sense, but that's just my opinion.

What are you suggesting in its stead? e.g. how would the mission be handled?

At the present time, dealing with what we have?

I assume that:
1 - the mission is against a peer-State, with sophisticated air defenses (otherwise there wouldn't be much need for stealthiness);
2 - the conflict remains conventional, without nuclear escalation risks (which is a dubious assumption at best when dealing with a peer-State);

First thing would be to kick the doors down with BGM-109, AGM-158 and AGM-86C/D from the long distance. Targets should be radar sites, airbases, command and control nodes.
AGM-158 would be launched from B-2s and in the near future B-21s, which are stealth. CALCMs, with their greater range, would be delivered by B-1s and [my mistake here] B-52s, staying back in the field, as far away as possible from enemy air defenses.
BGM-109s would be deployed by submarines and naval assets. Subs should be considered inherently survivable. Surface ships instead would have to be at the edge of their weapons range and rely on AEGIS for their main defense, possibly on CAP but only as long as the air assets play defensively, as far away as possible from the enemy A2/AD threat.

If this phase does not succeed in taking out most of the enemy A2/AD threat (especially negating the use of airbases to enemy fighters and strike aircraft), the campaign doesn't proceed further. You'd have to, at least, create a relatively safe corridor for your fighters and strike packages to operate in. If you can't guarantee it, there's no second phase you can proceed to.

If this phase does indeed have success, you've drastically reduced the enemy counter air capabilities. It means you have air superiority over the battlefield and have reduced the SAM threat (e.g. S-400 operational range is estimated at 400km, the F-22 combat radius is 852km, so you have no need to move a tanker close to the S-400 range). There is now no need for a stealth tanker to conduct aerial refuelling deep into the enemy A2/AD bubble (which you will need to keep pushing back in the same way as above, if you want to advance further).

In regards to the future?

As I wrote a few pages ago in this thread, my idea is that a dedicated laser interceptor, possibly stealth, tasked with the protection of valuable assets (like tankers, AWACS, point defence of surface vessels, etc.) would be more useful than having a stealth tanker.
A stealth laser interceptor could also accompany strike packages deep into enemy territory, providing even more survivabilty to those aircraft.

Other things that should be worked upon, and fast, are the LRSO, the Arsenal plane and the PCA.

For any other scenario I don't see a need for a stealth tanker. OTOH I can see a niche for a STOL/STOVL/VTOL stealth cargo, but not for a tanker though.

Who would you consider near-peers for the US? Given the "today" scenario you mention above how would the US fuel that first strike I've emphasized from your text?

 

[CiTrus90]

AGM-158 would be launched from B-2s and in the near future B-21s, which are stealth.

Who would you consider near-peers for the US?

PRC and RF.

Given the "today" scenario you mention above how would the US fuel that first strike I've emphasized from your text?

Avoiding deep strike inside enemy territory, focus on successive layers of defense, e.g. negate airbases near the coasts, then negate airbases behind those, then negate the ones deeper into enemy territory.

The B-2 has intercontinental range. Assuming a conservative combat radius for it of 3000km (to which you can add a conservative 900km range for a JASSM-ER), they could refuel anywhere out of SU-27s/J-11s + R-37 class of missile range.
Tanker orbits could be estabilished in the Arctic region, North Sea, over the Pacific (Guam) and Indian Ocean (Diego Garcia, with a refuel point over the Bay of Bengal). This, if the USA could not receive support from any of its allies, otherwise those refueling orbits could be moved even closer.

If the question is: "How do I bring the tankers there if I don't have forward-positioned tankers?" the answers is by setting up relays, similarly to Black Buck operations.

What I mean, with all of this, is that only the tip of the spear needs to be sharp.

 

[Hood]

I find myself nodding in agreement with CiTrus90's argument.

The whole emphasis of recent developments has been about increasing range, whether its B-21, the Arsenal Plane or PCAP. That surely is as much about reducing the need for tanker support as it is about deep penetration of enemy defences. The current B-51, B-1 and B-2 fleet have operated globally without any problems regarding range so I can't see that becoming a problem now. In addition in the scenarios regarding China and Russia the USAF has a ready stack of bases to operate from within Western and Eastern Europe, the Middle East and the Pacific Rim. I wonder though if it signals a realisation that its forward operating bases in these are vulnerable and that fighter-based strike packages are going to have to be launched further back (CONUS) and topped up as they arrive nearer the engagement area?

As a means to top-off tactical fighters it seems a very expensive method though, its taken $1.5 billion just to get a over a dozen 767-based KC-46As and all 179 are likely to cost over $45 billion, a dedicated platform like this with RCS materials and self-defence equipment is likely to cost a lot more. An Arsenal Plane version might reduce that but that would just parallel the B-21 and the Arsenal Plane looks more likely just to be a B-52 or B-1 with extra stuff slung on it.

As to the model, it looks 'cool' but then how many 'cool' concept models of aircraft and warships have been displayed in the past that have been nothing more than attractive advertising materials?

 

[NeilChapman]

AGM-158 would be launched from B-2s and in the near future B-21s, which are stealth.

Who would you consider near-peers for the US?

PRC and RF.

Given the "today" scenario you mention above how would the US fuel that first strike I've emphasized from your text?

Avoiding deep strike inside enemy territory, focus on successive layers of defense, e.g. negate airbases near the coasts, then negate airbases behind those, then negate the ones deeper into enemy territory.

The B-2 has intercontinental range. Assuming a conservative combat radius for it of 3000km (to which you can add a conservative 900km range for a JASSM-ER), they could refuel anywhere out of SU-27s/J-11s + R-37 class of missile range.
Tanker orbits could be estabilished in the Arctic region, North Sea, over the Pacific (Guam) and Indian Ocean (Diego Garcia, with a refuel point over the Bay of Bengal). This, if the USA could not receive support from any of its allies, otherwise those refueling orbits could be moved even closer.

If the question is: "How do I bring the tankers there if I don't have forward-positioned tankers?" the answers is by setting up relays, similarly to Black Buck operations.

What I mean, with all of this, is that only the tip of the spear needs to be sharp.

When we use the term near-peer what do we mean? At the very least it means a country that is likely to be successful in engaging US militarily. Perhaps not ultimately but certainly they are likely to be successful in downing US planes and engaging US ships.

It's likely the US would use stand-off missiles to strike targets. Considering the two countries you mentioned, even if you knocked out every threat within 1000km the countries will be able to strike back conventionally from deeper held assets. It is still likely that US planes will require tankers overfly hostile territory.

Recall the US sent qty-3 B-2's and launched 110 Tomahawk's just to bomb Libya. Countries as massive as the PRC and RF would require a significant number of the US's B-2/F-22 force. Probably limited by the % the US would want to risk as opposed to the number required for tasking. Consequently, there would also be a significant # of tankers involved.

There would likely be many anchors to maintain. The heavy bombers need to refuel en-route and they would be traveling in radio silence so several en-route paths would need anchors. There would be several anchors fairly close to the border to support the strike packages multiple ingress and egress paths. These close-in anchors would be there to support SAR missions as well. Tankers often need to overfly hostile territory to meet and fuel planes that otherwise would not make it home. Many pilots owed the success of their missions - and some their lives - to being refueled by tankers who came and got them.

It's these close-in anchors that require highly survivable tankers. What's it worth to the US to ensure a USD7.5Billion strike package of 3 B-2's and 6 F-22's gets fuel? And that's just one group. Two groups, 15Billion (& 30% of the B-2 force). What's it worth to ensure the SAR teams have fuel to get lost pilots out? How many B-2 pilots are there?

It's a no brainer to build - basically - a stealthy C-130. Something that can run cargo to improvised "highway" airstrips, provide SAR and strike package refueling etc. A stealthy MQ-25 would have assisted in this mission but perhaps the Navy felt they didn't have the capabilities to maintain the RAM.

Until that aircraft is available a B-21 tanker variant seems technologically feasible and is worth building considering the risks mentioned above.

 

[CiTrus90]

I like to highlight once more how all this discussion is highly theoretical, as I'm more than sure that any conflict with a peer State would see an escalation into a nuclear war.

Considering the two countries you mentioned, even if you knocked out every threat within 1000km the countries will be able to strike back conventionally from deeper held assets.

It is still likely that US planes will require tankers overfly hostile territory.

This is a non sequitur.
What I said before still stands: targets need to be engaged in successive layers, with the intent to push back the enemy's ability to hit you.
You advance the battlefield as you proceed in eliminating targets, from the closest to you to the farthest away.
The targets I'm specifically speaking of are those that need to be eliminated in order to achieve air control. All other targets are to be engaged in following phases.
If you cannot estabilish air superiority and SEAD, then you're sending your men to a slaughterhouse and are going to loose the war.

There would be several anchors fairly close to the border to support the strike packages multiple ingress and egress paths.

In the answer I gave above, I carefully chose the aircraft and weapons I mentioned for the opening phase of a conflict. Notice I did not mention any F-22 or F-35, but B-2 and B-52, with the latter staying out of range of enemy fighters.
The last two, given their range, don't need close-in anchors.
Instead, as the F-22 and F-35 are tactical fighters, and not strategic weapons, they lack the range to conduct this sort of operations.

Here is indeed the core of the issue in my opinion: a stealth tanker would be "needed" only to sustain the operations of tactical stealth fighters, while, given the range of strategic bombers like the B-2 and B-52, those wouldn't need anything different than a normal tanker.

But, tactical fighters should do what they're supposed to, and if you try and change their mission in order to make them strategic weapons you encounter all sorts of shortcomings.
There is a reason if during the Cold War there were a Strategic Air Command and a Tactical Air Command.
They didn't do the same things.

These close-in anchors would be there to support SAR missions as well.

SAR missions conducted with what exactly?
Because if you have a need for a stealth tanker, good luck in getting back in the same area where one of your aircraft was shot down, with a helicopter or a V-22.

Tankers often need to overfly hostile territory to meet and fuel planes that otherwise would not make it home. Many pilots owed the success of their missions - and some their lives - to being refueled by tankers who came and got them.

You're right.
Can you provide any example where this happened before air control and SEAD were estabilished in the area of operation?

I can anticipate your objection: "But if you had a stealth tanker you could move in without the need to do that".

Right, but I doubt a damaged aircraft would still be stealth. And if you have not removed the A2/AD threat consider that aircraft lost, with or without a stealth tanker that can refuel it.

It's a no brainer to build - basically - a stealthy C-130.

I suppose who was in Abbottabad in 2011 doesn't have the same opinion.
Neither do the ones that had to devise Operation Eagle Claw.

A Senior Citizen class of aircraft would have a very dedicated and interesting niche.

Naturally, all of this, is just my opinion.
I don't feel the need to convince you, but I just don't see where a stealth tanker could fit in, honestly.

 

[kaiserd]

I like to highlight once more how all this discussion is highly theoretical, as I'm more than sure that any conflict with a peer State would see an escalation into a nuclear war.

Considering the two countries you mentioned, even if you knocked out every threat within 1000km the countries will be able to strike back conventionally from deeper held assets.

It is still likely that US planes will require tankers overfly hostile territory.

This is a non sequitur.
What I said before still stands: targets need to be engaged in successive layers, with the intent to push back the enemy's ability to hit you.
You advance the battlefield as you proceed in eliminating targets, from the closest to you to the farthest away.
The targets I'm specifically speaking of are those that need to be eliminated in order to achieve air control. All other targets are to be engaged in following phases.
If you cannot estabilish air superiority and SEAD, then you're sending your men to a slaughterhouse and are going to loose the war.

There would be several anchors fairly close to the border to support the strike packages multiple ingress and egress paths.

In the answer I gave above, I carefully chose the aircraft and weapons I mentioned for the opening phase of a conflict. Notice I did not mention any F-22 or F-35, but B-2 and B-52, with the latter staying out of range of enemy fighters.
The last two, given their range, don't need close-in anchors.
Instead, as the F-22 and F-35 are tactical fighters, and not strategic weapons, they lack the range to conduct this sort of operations.

Here is indeed the core of the issue in my opinion: a stealth tanker would be "needed" only to sustain the operations of tactical stealth fighters, while, given the range of strategic bombers like the B-2 and B-52, those wouldn't need anything different than a normal tanker.

But, tactical fighters should do what they're supposed to, and if you try and change their mission in order to make them strategic weapons you encounter all sorts of shortcomings.
There is a reason if during the Cold War there were a Strategic Air Command and a Tactical Air Command.
They didn't do the same things.

These close-in anchors would be there to support SAR missions as well.

SAR missions conducted with what exactly?
Because if you have a need for a stealth tanker, good luck in getting back in the same area where one of your aircraft was shot down, with a helicopter or a V-22.

Tankers often need to overfly hostile territory to meet and fuel planes that otherwise would not make it home. Many pilots owed the success of their missions - and some their lives - to being refueled by tankers who came and got them.

You're right.
Can you provide any example where this happened before air control and SEAD were estabilished in the area of operation?

I can anticipate your objection: "But if you had a stealth tanker you could move in without the need to do that".

Right, but I doubt a damaged aircraft would still be stealth. And if you have not removed the A2/AD threat consider that aircraft lost, with or without a stealth tanker that can refuel it.

It's a no brainer to build - basically - a stealthy C-130.

I suppose who was in Abbottabad in 2011 doesn't have the same opinion.
Neither do the ones that had to devise Operation Eagle Claw.

A Senior Citizen class of aircraft would have a very dedicated and interesting niche.

Naturally, all of this, is just my opinion.
I don't feel the need to convince you, but I just don't see where a stealth tanker could fit in, honestly.

I would almost completely agree with your comments above.
A stealth tanker would be necessarily a very niche but I could see still potential relatively low risk/ relatively low additional cost small number partial solutions such as existing stealthy designs (manned and unmanned) buddy refuelling (even if this requires probe and drouge rather than the US airforces favoured flying booms).

 

[NeilChapman]

CiTrus90 - Thank you for the thoughtful discussion.

Just some points where I believe our suppositions disagree.

1. You state your expectation that any conflict with a near-peer would result in nuclear war. Perhaps this influences the methodical battle plan suggested which you conclude deems a stealthy tanker not being necessary.

We may or may not agree that some military conflict will occur between the US and a near-peer. It is necessary to plan for that war to be using conventional weapons, IMO. In either scenario it is also likely that established US bases would be threatened. Alternate plans for turning sorties are required - hence the stealthy "C130-like" airframe conjecture from me.

2. While I understand the layered plan you put forth, I don't know if the priority target lists would fit this scenario. My expectation is that limited air control missions would be necessary. We'll have to agree to disagree in this regard.

3. In support of SAR missions or running into hostile airspace, tankers have to loiter. IMO, it would be nice if they weren't big fat targets while waiting. We'll have to agree to disagree in this regard.

4. Your right. You don't need to convince me. Whomever at AMC that's decided a stealthy tanker is required is the one that needs to be convinced.

Thanks!

 

[CiTrus90]

We probably have different approaches when confronted with the same difficulties, but the world is a richer and more interesting place thanks to people with different thoughts.

I'm thankful for this discussion and I'll think about your point of view

 

[marauder2048]

It may have been posted elsewhere, but Lockheed had (practically) an entire session at AIAA Aerospace Sciences this
year devoted to the Hybrid Wing Body. (GEPC-01: Hybrid Wing Body): http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/MASM17

For those with AIAA ARC access I've attached some thumbnails of the abstracts.

 

[kaiserd]

It may have been posted elsewhere, but Lockheed had (practically) an entire session at AIAA Aerospace Sciences this
year devoted to the Hybrid Wing Body. (GEPC-01: Hybrid Wing Body): http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/MASM17

For those with AIAA ARC access I've attached some thumbnails of the abstracts.

Thanks marauder.
Am I correct to understand that such a Hybrid Wing Body is designed with efficiency and not with low radar signature or other "stealth" in mind?
With its big fans clearly visible a military version would not be a true stealth type but may (far more by coincidence than design) happen to have a appreciably lower signature than the conventional layout we are all familiar with.
Further to other contributors comments above this particular design wouldn't be looking to penetrate an peer opponent's airspace anytime soon.

 

[Flyaway]

It may have been posted elsewhere, but Lockheed had (practically) an entire session at AIAA Aerospace Sciences this
year devoted to the Hybrid Wing Body. (GEPC-01: Hybrid Wing Body): http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/MASM17

For those with AIAA ARC access I've attached some thumbnails of the abstracts.

Thanks marauder.
Am I correct to understand that such a Hybrid Wing Body is designed with efficiency and not with low radar signature or other "stealth" in mind?
With its big fans clearly visible a military version would not be a true stealth type but may (far more by coincidence than design) happen to have a appreciably lower signature than the conventional layout we are all familiar with.
Further to other contributors comments above this particular design wouldn't be looking to penetrate an peer opponent's airspace anytime soon.

This looks more like a semi-stealthy cargo proposal that was put out last year.

 

[NeilChapman]

It may have been posted elsewhere, but Lockheed had (practically) an entire session at AIAA Aerospace Sciences this
year devoted to the Hybrid Wing Body. (GEPC-01: Hybrid Wing Body): http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/MASM17

For those with AIAA ARC access I've attached some thumbnails of the abstracts.

Thanks marauder.
Am I correct to understand that such a Hybrid Wing Body is designed with efficiency and not with low radar signature or other "stealth" in mind?
With its big fans clearly visible a military version would not be a true stealth type but may (far more by coincidence than design) happen to have a appreciably lower signature than the conventional layout we are all familiar with.
Further to other contributors comments above this particular design wouldn't be looking to penetrate an peer opponent's airspace anytime soon.

I agree with you. The LO intra-theater transport requirement is different than a stealthy aerial tanker. Wouldn't expect that transport to penetrate airspace to intercept a 5th gen strike package for aerial refueling. Would expect it to ferry in fuel, munitions etc to a FARP in a high threat environment though.

 

[autoeac]

Why not use the new B20 as a buddy tanker as navy F18s do. Hang a fuel tank on it to argument the fuel capacity with some sort of fueling system. Might not have to even develop a new version.

 

[TomS]

Because boom refuelling isn't something that you can easily just bolt on. A hose reel is easy to put in an external pod, but the boom (and operator) takes a lot more work to integrate into the aircraft.

 

[NeilChapman]

Why not use the new B20 as a buddy tanker as navy F18s do. Hang a fuel tank on it to argument the fuel capacity with some sort of fueling system. Might not have to even develop a new version.

Because boom refuelling isn't something that you can easily just bolt on. A hose reel is easy to put in an external pod, but the boom (and operator) takes a lot more work to integrate into the aircraft.

To the first point, it would not be necessary or advantageous to hang a fuel tank on a a B-21 to create a buddy-tanker for several reasons.
1. It's likely they will carry 100-150k lbs of fuel internally already - extra load not necessary.
- This jet could top-off from traditional tankers then carry fuel close, or into hostile airspace while participating as a sensor if not a shooter.
3. Hanging tanks (even conformal) would make it less stealthy, add dev time and certainly more cost.
4. It's likely being built around a specific bomb load, (est. ~30k lbs) and adding significant fuel load is likely to change performance characteristics.

Some questions would be...

Is it worth it? What is the radar risk of having two big jets in close proximity vs losing national assets & pilots to jets w/o fuel?
Is this risk acceptable inside hostile airspace, within 500 miles of hostile airspace?
Can a telescoping or folding boom system be developed that would fit in a bomb bay?
Does the B-21 have one or two bomb bays? If two, would it be possible to carry some defensive/offensive load as well as a tanking mission?
Is refueling automation at a point where a boom operator wouldn't be required on the B-21?
Is this an case for an unmanned B-21 mission profile?
Regardless of all the above, this jet would still need a very long runway. In an restrictive environment, is that available?
What would it cost to complete the above analysis?


They are interesting questions.

 

[VTOLicious]

The stealth tanker isn't all that new of an idea, this strike tanker wind tunnel test is from the airforce in 2005.
Sentinel

Hey Sentinel, can you provide the source document of the picture?

BR Michael

 

[flateric]

Hey Sentinel, can you provide the source document of the picture?
BR Michael

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,215.msg225147.html#msg225147

 

[VTOLicious]

Hey Sentinel, can you provide the source document of the picture?
BR Michael

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,215.msg225147.html#msg225147

Thank you Flateric!

 

[Flyaway]

Next-gen tanker must be survivable, not stealthy

The US Air Force’s KC-Z tanker may not be stealthy, but should be persistent and able to change its waveform signature management, according to the service’s head of air mobility command.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/next-gen-tanker-must-be-survivable-not-stealthy-434772/

Isn't waveform management actually a more radical solution than standard stealthy design features.

 

[Flyaway]

Military Blended-Wing Body Variant Is Step Closer To Reality

The future development of Boeing’s blended-wing-body (BWB) configuration depends entirely on its suitability for carrying cargo, and in the case of a military tanker-transport in particular, its ability to perform airdrop missions. Key to this capability is an innovative cargo door that Boeing has designed to open like a clamshell in the trailing edge. However, it was unclear what effect such a radical door design opening in midair might have on the airflow around the trailing ...

http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/military-blended-wing-body-variant-step-closer-reality

 

[Airplane]

Money would be better spent on an aircraft like a VLO F-108 with very long range and with a long range follow on to AMRAAM... Something like Meteor. Money would also be better spent on VLO conventional ALCMs for Raiders and Bones. Money would be better spent on 140 to.200 Raiders.

And why the hell aren't we developing stealthy drop tanks? Material tech has come a long way, so its not impossible. I am ignorant of the F35s gun pod, but it appears it could be stealthy.

In this instance I think they are going overboard. Need more and better teeth instead of a gold plated tail.

 

[Flyaway]

Money would be better spent on an aircraft like a VLO F-108 with very long range and with a long range follow on to AMRAAM... Something like Meteor. Money would also be better spent on VLO conventional ALCMs for Raiders and Bones. Money would be better spent on 140 to.200 Raiders.

And why the hell aren't we developing stealthy drop tanks? Material tech has come a long way, so its not impossible. I am ignorant of the F35s gun pod, but it appears it could be stealthy.

In this instance I think they are going overboard. Need more and better teeth instead of a gold plated tail.

What's the point of developing stealthy fighters and attack craft like we are now unless we develop similarly stealthy support craft. At the moment conventional tankers are not operable over heavily contested airspace, therefore limiting the range of the more stealthy aircraft.

 

[Airplane]

Money would be better spent on an aircraft like a VLO F-108 with very long range and with a long range follow on to AMRAAM... Something like Meteor. Money would also be better spent on VLO conventional ALCMs for Raiders and Bones. Money would be better spent on 140 to.200 Raiders.

And why the hell aren't we developing stealthy drop tanks? Material tech has come a long way, so its not impossible. I am ignorant of the F35s gun pod, but it appears it could be stealthy.

In this instance I think they are going overboard. Need more and better teeth instead of a gold plated tail.

What's the point of developing stealthy fighters and attack craft like we are now unless we develop similarly stealthy support craft. At the moment conventional tankers are not operable over heavily contested airspace, therefore limiting the range of the more stealthy aircraft.

I thought it was obvious that is the exact opposite I was expressing . F-108 was a very long ranged escort for the Valkyrie. Why would anyone think it was similar to a tanker dependent F14 or Eagle!? We have never had an aircraft like the Rapier and the only thing close was the YF-12 which as you know was a very long legged plane. In the case of the Raider, I guarantee its got long legs.... Where in my post did I reccomend carrying on with tanker dependent planes??? More Raiders and a very long ranged air superiority platform with aams longer ranged than today. Where is that continuing on as we do today?

The idea of tanking up inside hot airspace to refuel a flight of Lightenings is prone to disaster. First of all the two most vulnerable events for a fighter are sitting in the ground and being refueled and unable to maneuver.

In fact the whole idea of the stealth tanker is as you say to continue on building tanker dependent platforms. So why do YOU want to not build long ranged platforms that are not tanker dependent?

 

[kaiserd]

Money would be better spent on an aircraft like a VLO F-108 with very long range and with a long range follow on to AMRAAM... Something like Meteor. Money would also be better spent on VLO conventional ALCMs for Raiders and Bones. Money would be better spent on 140 to.200 Raiders.

And why the hell aren't we developing stealthy drop tanks? Material tech has come a long way, so its not impossible. I am ignorant of the F35s gun pod, but it appears it could be stealthy.

In this instance I think they are going overboard. Need more and better teeth instead of a gold plated tail.

What's the point of developing stealthy fighters and attack craft like we are now unless we develop similarly stealthy support craft. At the moment conventional tankers are not operable over heavily contested airspace, therefore limiting the range of the more stealthy aircraft.

I thought it was obvious that is the exact opposite I was expressing . F-108 was a very long ranged escort for the Valkyrie. Why would anyone think it was similar to a tanker dependent F14 or Eagle!? We have never had an aircraft like the Rapier and the only thing close was the YF-12 which as you know was a very long legged plane. In the case of the Raider, I guarantee its got long legs.... Where in my post did I reccomend carrying on with tanker dependent planes??? More Raiders and a very long ranged air superiority platform with aams longer ranged than today. Where is that continuing on as we do today?

The idea of tanking up inside hot airspace to refuel a flight of Lightenings is prone to disaster. First of all the two most vulnerable events for a fighter are sitting in the ground and being refueled and unable to maneuver.

In fact the whole idea of the stealth tanker is as you say to continue on building tanker dependent platforms. So why do YOU want to not build long ranged platforms that are not tanker dependent?

To be accurate neither the F-108 or the YF-12 were intended as long escort fighters. They were (relatively) long range interceptors intended to shoot down large bombers from long range with a forerunner of the Phoenix missile. As it neared cancellation the F-108 was also pitched as an escort for the Valkeryie but it (particularly its weapons) would not have been particularly well suited to to that role and tangling with its Soviet opposite numbers. Anyway it lacked the range to actually escort the Valkeryie (not the F-108s fault as a very different aircraft intended for a different role.
Essentially the same story with the YF-12 (faster and longer legged than a F-108 but even more unsuited to an escort fighter role.)

 

[Flyaway]

USAF explores cloaking device for tankers

The US Air Force will next month unveil the results of a study into survivability gaps on its fleet of tankers and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, the service’s head of Air Mobility Command (AMC) says.

AMC chief Gen Carlton Everhart has previously discussed a "cloaking" capability for the USAF’s next-generation KC-Z tanker, which would allow the aircraft to fend off adversaries by manipulating its radar signature. This process would involve taking radiant energy from a radar and diffusing it to disguise a tanker or airlifter's outline, he says.

Speaking at the Air Force Association's annual convention, Everhart says: “It’s not as simple as I think it is. If you get one electron out, you just identified yourself to the adversary.”

Everhart has not commented on whether the USAF will release a request for information linked to the so-called cloaking capability, but confirms that he discussed the concept with industry on the floor of the Air, Space and Cyber conference.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-explores-cloaking-device-for-tankers-441299/

 

[Grey Havoc]

A deception jammer in other words.

 

[Flyaway]

In relation to the above article.

tephen Trimble @FG_STrim
I can only guess Gen Everhart is talking about plasma stealth//USAF explores cloaking device for tankers

https://mobile.twitter.com/FG_STrim/status/910485936378712064

 

[Trident]

Sounds more like active cancellation to me, actually.

 

[flateric]

...

 

[hesham]

Just dreams,who will do this ?.

 

[Triton]

Do you have information about this concept?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Do you have information about this concept?

Associated thread is missing or off limits for some reason.

 

[Flyaway]

I am also wondering why this has been moved out of the Aerospace forum when this is in relation to the KC-Z tanker requirement.

 

[flateric]

KC-Z already build or what?

 

[elmayerle]

Sounds obvious to me - There is a very simple way of having a stealth tanker. Just put some fuel tanks in a Northrop B-2A bomb bays, and use the Navy probe-and-drogue system (no need for a fixed boom)
According to Wikipedia,

The B-2 is capable of carrying 40,000 lb (18,000 kg) of ordnance

Not a lot of fuel, but well enough for a F-35 or even a F-22.

One weapons bay of the B-2 is plumbed for an auxilary tank. Install refueling system of choice (IMHO, it's easier to do a LO probe and drogue system, but I could see a LO boom, too) and you're ready to go. You could even make both modular. If you want a dedicated aircraft, the boom operator could be placed in the unused third seat position.

 

[elmayerle]

Sounds obvious to me - There is a very simple way of having a stealth tanker. Just put some fuel tanks in a Northrop B-2A bomb bays, and use the Navy probe-and-drogue system (no need for a fixed boom)

And retrofit every F-22 and USAF F-35 with a probe instead of (or in addition to) a receptacle. Suddenly not so trivial a process.

Well, at a cost of weight and system complexity, you could add a dual refueling capability to the F-35A. The territory used for the probe on the F-35B and F-35C is left clear on the F-35A for commonality of systems installations.