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

[sferrin]

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.

The had both on the F-101 and F-105 so. . .

 

[elmayerle]

F-105D and F-105F/G only, IIRC. The earlier F-105's had just probe and drogue; there's even, again IIRC, a picture of one F-105A doing a buddy refueling of a F-105B using an interesting centerline pod with a boom dropping down to deploy the drogue clear of the tanker aircraft.

 

[AeroFranz]

Correct. The refueling pod has an interesting 'knee' joint to extend the length of the boom and achieve greater separation.

 

[Flyaway]

KC-Z already build or what?

What’s that got to do with it?

 

[flateric]

KC-Z already build or what?

What’s that got to do with it?

 

[Flyaway]

KC-Z already build or what?

What’s that got to do with it?

Well perhaps if you’d bothered pointing that in your original post rather than being needlessly snarky I might have realised.

 

[royabulgaf]

I think two things are going on here- First, some sort of active stealth system that might require a large aircraft to carry. Second, this aircraft is not going over or near contested territory. The stealt just has to be good enough to seem like something else.

 

[Flyaway]

New Stealth Tanker Model Is Touted By Air Force Research Lab At Aviation Conference

It’s apparently a variation on the ‘Speed Agile’ concept.

Here's Guy Norris’s original Tweet with the model.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AvWeekGuy/status/1012369504993710080

Sounds like there could be a special operations transport variant.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21864/new-stealth-tanker-model-is-touted-by-air-force-research-lab-at-aviation-conference

 

[litzj]

From my pure prediction, if US combine laser weapon w/ 6th generation fighter and stealth tanker,

the new 6th gen. fighter could have unlimited magazine because laser only requires power or fuel to use.

 

[quellish]

From my pure prediction, if US combine laser weapon w/ 6th generation fighter and stealth tanker,

the new 6th gen. fighter could have unlimited magazine because laser only requires power or fuel to use.

....unless it gets cloudy.

 

[Silencer1]

....unless it gets cloudy.
[/quote]

Same for IR guided missile. I wonder if aiming of cannon depends of direct view of pilot on target?

 

[FighterJock]

....unless it gets cloudy.

Same for IR guided missile. I wonder if aiming of cannon depends of direct view of pilot on target?
[/quote]

What about the newer Imaging Infrared guided missiles? Would they be affected too?

 

[Pioneer]

Looks cool but too expensive. Sometimes I wonder if there's somebody who's sole function is to come up with ways that guarantee program cancellation.

I'm hearing you sferrin 5/5

Its kinda ironic IMO that the United States has so eagerly and openly promoted the importance of the Force Multiplier aspect of their airborne refuelling and AEW assets to its potential (and inevitable) adversaries, that they've become the focus and principle targets of any serious and intelligent aggressor! I really don't get the Pentagon's logic!!!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Stargazer]

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

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

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

...

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

That's because the height of the image was still incorrect. By applying a vertical reduction of 75% it looks about right. Applied some gamma correction to make more details apparent.

 

[Flyaway]

Skunk Works Talks Stealthy Aircraft Option For KC-Z

 

[Flyaway]

The Air Force is mapping out the unprecedented capabilities it will need in a next-generation tanker, laying out an aggressive timeline for the “KC-Z” while it is only just getting the KC-46 to operational status. It’s not expected at this point that the KC-Z will be stealthy, however.

Air Mobility Command boss Gen. Maryanne Miller said it will take a year to identify the capabilities it wants in the future tanker, a process that is beginning right now. These requirements will be driven by the threat, as laid out in the National Defense Strategy and USAF’s Next Generation Air Dominance future fighter system. “We’ll have a tanker that supports” NGAD, she said, though she said it’s too early to say what exactly what will mean; whether, for example, the future tanker will be autonomous.

“Our priority right now is going to be the KC-Z,” she said.

While the specific requirements aren’t set, Miller said it looks for now as if stealth won’t be a requirement for KC-Z. While the tanker may need to get closer to the fight, no one knows how to keep a tanker stealthy once it deploys its refueling boom, so that feature isn’t likely to be required, she observed. Alternately, AMC is looking at a Navy study suggesting a “mother tanker:” a larger tanker that refuels smaller aircraft, which then go forward to refuel other platforms. However, she also called this prospect unlikely.

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/March%202019/Air-Mobility-Command-Looks-to-Future-Tanker-as-it-Begins-to-Receive-KC-46s-.aspx

 

[bobbymike]

Skunk Works Looks to Bridge Tanker, KC-Z, and Lighter-Than-Air | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Lockheed Martin Skunk Works is planning ahead for the Air Force's long-term tanker recapitalization program, including a stealthy KC-Z tanker.

www.airforcemag.com

 

[Archibald]

A lighter than air tanker ??!!! Steampunk intensifies...

 

[TomS]

A lighter than air tanker ??!!! Steampunk intensifies...

There are three different programs discussed in that article:

1. the bridge tanker (an A330 version)
2. a KC-Z "stealth" tanker (unknown)
3. the P791 lighter-than-air cargo airship (not a tanker)

No chance of an LTA tanker (Stealth notwithstanding). It it would be far too slow to refuel fixed-wing jets.

Edit: added notes for clarity

 

[yasotay]

I suspect that the LTA is being considered as a TRANSCOM heavy lift capability from the picture associated with the Air Force Magazine article. Although those are going to be BIG LTAs to move the amount of stuff that is needed.

 

[TomcatViP]

Are they really much faster than any ship can be? If the point is to transfer heavy equipments and large loads of fuel from shores to shore, wouldn't ships remain more efficient?
We do not have today large nuclear powered cargo ships for obvious environmental reasons. That does not mean that tomorrow, on the onset of a new large war, they won't be relevant...
Imagine the Evergreen with an Aircraft carrier Nuclear engine.

 

[TomS]

Are they really much faster than any ship can be? If the point is to transfer heavy equipments and large loads of fuel from shores to shore, wouldn't ships remain more efficient?
We do not have today large nuclear powered cargo ships for obvious environmental reasons. That does not mean that tomorrow, on the onset of a new large war, they won't be relevant...
Imagine the Evergreen with an Aircraft carrier Nuclear engine.

The aim of the P791 isn't to compete with cargo ships. It's to fly cargo into remote areas without good road access and airstrips for less cost than helicopters and more capacity than typical bush freighters. It's designed to carry about 20 tons of cargo.

 

[TomcatViP]

My bad. A gross error of scale.

 

[jsport]

Air Force Initiates New Next-Gen Tanker 'Family' With Request for Information - Air Force Magazine

The Air Force has pounded another nail into the idea of a bridge tanker with the launch of the Advanced Aerial Refueling Family of Systems.

www.airforcemag.com

 

[publiusr]

What about a boom that extends from a wing past the vortices with a clock-like rotating head? The stealth tanker would be between radar and the asset being fueled-hiding even a non-stealth fighter?

 

[taildragger]

The Air Force is mapping out the unprecedented capabilities it will need in a next-generation tanker, laying out an aggressive timeline for the “KC-Z” while it is only just getting the KC-46 to operational status. It’s not expected at this point that the KC-Z will be stealthy, however.

Air Mobility Command boss Gen. Maryanne Miller said it will take a year to identify the capabilities it wants in the future tanker, a process that is beginning right now. These requirements will be driven by the threat, as laid out in the National Defense Strategy and USAF’s Next Generation Air Dominance future fighter system. “We’ll have a tanker that supports” NGAD, she said, though she said it’s too early to say what exactly what will mean; whether, for example, the future tanker will be autonomous.

“Our priority right now is going to be the KC-Z,” she said.

While the specific requirements aren’t set, Miller said it looks for now as if stealth won’t be a requirement for KC-Z. While the tanker may need to get closer to the fight, no one knows how to keep a tanker stealthy once it deploys its refueling boom, so that feature isn’t likely to be required, she observed. Alternately, AMC is looking at a Navy study suggesting a “mother tanker:” a larger tanker that refuels smaller aircraft, which then go forward to refuel other platforms. However, she also called this prospect unlikely.

Air Mobility Command Looks to Future Tanker as it Begins to Receive KC-46s | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Air Force is mapping out the unprecedented capabilities it will need in a next-generation tanker, laying out an aggressive timeline for the “KC-Z” while it is only just getting the KC-46 to operational status.

www.airforcemag.com

I wonder the USAF is looking at the MQ-25 for their tanker role. One reason that tankers are typically built on airliner-sized platforms is efficient use of costly crews. Once they're taken out of the equation, a larger number of smaller, stealthier tankers might make sense. There are obvious cons to this idea:
- Unlike present tankers, the MQ-25 has no potential as a transport. If tankers are expected to operate in higher-threat airspace in the future, maybe if makes sense to separate the roles.
- The MQ-25 is probably unable to carry a flying boom system. This would probably make it unsuitable for refueling large aircraft, but that's probably not the mission where stealth and attritability is most required. Tactical aircraft could be relatively easily fitted with probe receivers.

 

[Sundog]

I don't know if this is related or a separate program, but this just popped up at AvWeek.
USAF Poised To Issue BWB Tanker-Transport Solicitation

 

[yasotay]

The Air Force is mapping out the unprecedented capabilities it will need in a next-generation tanker, laying out an aggressive timeline for the “KC-Z” while it is only just getting the KC-46 to operational status. It’s not expected at this point that the KC-Z will be stealthy, however.

Air Mobility Command boss Gen. Maryanne Miller said it will take a year to identify the capabilities it wants in the future tanker, a process that is beginning right now. These requirements will be driven by the threat, as laid out in the National Defense Strategy and USAF’s Next Generation Air Dominance future fighter system. “We’ll have a tanker that supports” NGAD, she said, though she said it’s too early to say what exactly what will mean; whether, for example, the future tanker will be autonomous.

“Our priority right now is going to be the KC-Z,” she said.

While the specific requirements aren’t set, Miller said it looks for now as if stealth won’t be a requirement for KC-Z. While the tanker may need to get closer to the fight, no one knows how to keep a tanker stealthy once it deploys its refueling boom, so that feature isn’t likely to be required, she observed. Alternately, AMC is looking at a Navy study suggesting a “mother tanker:” a larger tanker that refuels smaller aircraft, which then go forward to refuel other platforms. However, she also called this prospect unlikely.

Air Mobility Command Looks to Future Tanker as it Begins to Receive KC-46s | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Air Force is mapping out the unprecedented capabilities it will need in a next-generation tanker, laying out an aggressive timeline for the “KC-Z” while it is only just getting the KC-46 to operational status.

www.airforcemag.com

I wonder the USAF is looking at the MQ-25 for their tanker role. One reason that tankers are typically built on airliner-sized platforms is efficient use of costly crews. Once they're taken out of the equation, a larger number of smaller, stealthier tankers might make sense. There are obvious cons to this idea:
- Unlike present tankers, the MQ-25 has no potential as a transport. If tankers are expected to operate in higher-threat airspace in the future, maybe if makes sense to separate the roles.
- The MQ-25 is probably unable to carry a flying boom system. This would probably make it unsuitable for refueling large aircraft, but that's probably not the mission where stealth and attritability is most required. Tactical aircraft could be relatively easily fitted with probe receivers.

I agree that for high threat environments smaller UAV refuel platforms might be desirable, but there is some battle calculus that has to be done. At what point are the refuel drones burning more gas than they are giving to support the combat zone? What is their flexibility to remain in/near the zone on call for platforms. If one aircraft consumes more than planned fuel, is their a ready reserve? This tends to make me think that large refuel aircraft will still find their way into the fight as they likely give more mission flexibility in some of the likely situations. I suspect they will be further back than previously used, and will be more festooned with means to protect themselves from incoming threats.

Large refuel platforms will always have a secondary logistics capacity I think, but would defer to someone more knowledgeable on this. As such, making them as hard to find as they move critical supplies in a more and more unforgiving war zone is likely one of the key requirements.

USAF might also argue that this is one way they are meeting the US government mandate for the DoD to address global warming.

 

[dan_inbox]

At what point are the refuel drones burning more gas than they are giving to support the combat zone? What is their flexibility to remain in/near the zone on call for platforms. If one aircraft consumes more than planned fuel, is their a ready reserve?

Isn't this precisely the case for stealthy, efficient, attritable drones, rather hulking airliner-derivatives?

 

[taildragger]

At what point are the refuel drones burning more gas than they are giving to support the combat zone? What is their flexibility to remain in/near the zone on call for platforms. If one aircraft consumes more than planned fuel, is their a ready reserve?

Isn't this precisely the case for stealthy, efficient, attritable drones, rather hulking airliner-derivatives?

I'm not sure we can assume that the MQ-25 burns more fuel / gallon delivered than a large airliner-derived tanker. All of the hardware associated with aircrew (cockpit, pressurization, environmental controls, redundancies for safety, coffee machines) and cargo (big fuselage, doors, cargo floor) have a big cost in weight and fuel consumption.
A drone could well be more efficient despite it's smaller size.

 

[iverson]

At what point are the refuel drones burning more gas than they are giving to support the combat zone? What is their flexibility to remain in/near the zone on call for platforms. If one aircraft consumes more than planned fuel, is their a ready reserve?

Isn't this precisely the case for stealthy, efficient, attritable drones, rather hulking airliner-derivatives?

I'm not sure we can assume that the MQ-25 burns more fuel / gallon delivered than a large airliner-derived tanker. All of the hardware associated with aircrew (cockpit, pressurization, environmental controls, redundancies for safety, coffee machines) and cargo (big fuselage, doors, cargo floor) have a big cost in weight and fuel consumption.
A drone could well be more efficient despite it's smaller size.

It seems to me that tankers are based on large commercial air frames because of the square-cube law. Smaller air frames have higher surface area to volume ratios--and thus higher cost, drag, and weight per unit payload--compared to larger air frames.

Hence the limited usefulness of the buddy tanker concept (another aircraft of the same type carrying fuel for its companion ). A buddy tanker requires two aircraft in order to give one a range less than double the range of either on its own. A single larger aircraft with greater range or two mission aircraft with a large tanker would seem to be a better solution in almost all cases.

 

[yasotay]

Since the MQ-25 is smaller it carries less fuel. So it might be able to refuel two aircraft for a long mission(?) So you need half as many MQ-25 for a strike mission to fly. If you need fuel on return as well you have to launch as manyMQ-25 as strike aircraft. Conversely a large tanker has a larger quantity of fuel for the mission so one(?) aircraft for the strike package maybe. Not my area of expertise, but I am not sure I am sold that swarms of robot aircraft are the solution to all things.

 

[taildragger]

"It seems to me that tankers are based on large commercial air frames because of the square-cube law. Smaller air frames have higher surface area to volume ratios--and thus higher cost, drag, and weight per unit payload--compared to larger air frames."

The cube square law doesn't really apply. The MQ-25's surface area is wrapped around fuel and systems that are essential to the tanker role, the surface area of any tanker/transport derived from an airliner is wrapped around a cabin and lower fuselage sized for 100+ passengers plus cargo.
Also, arguments about efficiency lose steam if the tanker becomes a target. Big, fuel efficient and destroyed with one shot isn't a bargain.
Anyway, my point was that there are factors pushing in either direction and I don't think spitballing without the relevant numbers (and I don't think that the relevant MQ-25 numbers are public) is of much value.

 

[yasotay]

LOL -"spitballing without the relevant numbers" Is what we do here.

 

[bobbymike]

I don't know if this is related or a separate program, but this just popped up at AvWeek.
USAF Poised To Issue BWB Tanker-Transport Solicitation

I’ve always been a fan of BWB designs for tankers, transport and a future arsenal ship (especially the latter). Purpose built to carry very large long range strike weapons as it loiters far outside fighter/SAM range.

 

[yasotay]

Fuel efficient, high(er) speed are critical as many of the USAF airbases that might remain operational in an unfortunate turn of events are over half a day away.

 

[taildragger]

I don't know if this is related or a separate program, but this just popped up at AvWeek.
USAF Poised To Issue BWB Tanker-Transport Solicitation

I’ve always been a fan of BWB designs for tankers, transport and a future arsenal ship (especially the latter). Purpose built to carry very large long range strike weapons as it loiters far outside fighter/SAM range.

One interesting thing about the report is that the USAF is expected to require bids to include commercialization plans, meaning, I think, that the bidder is expected to spread costs across a related commercial program. This is explained as being inspired by the relationship between the Dash 80/707 and KC-135 programs, which I had always thought was just a Boeing business strategy rather than something the USAF had a role in (other than agreeing to the accounting details, of course).
I hope that Boeing is pulling the strings here because otherwise it suggests that the USAF is attempting to direct the future course of airliner/commercial freighter development - which I doubt they are competent to do. Airbus is probably a non-starter and I wouldn't think that Northrop Grumman or Lockheed Martin are itching to enter or reenter the commercial airframe business. So maybe this is a Boeing initiative, which suggests that Boeing believes that BWB (rather than Transonic Trussed Wing or other alternatives) is the future.

 

[donnage99]

...

 

[yasotay]

Well I wish the USAF Inc., the best of luck. I say this as they are trying to figure out how to pay for all the other programs. Bridge tanker, maybe. The swoopy ones, not betting on those. Hopefully I am wrong.
Then they will want it to drop hordes of LRASM like the CB-17 and CB-130.

 

[fightingirish]

Boeing unveils a new stealthy tanker / cargo concept.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1617946330718154754

View: https://twitter.com/beverstine/status/1617946330718154754?t=yibAn5h7-59Lc7yrzOmW6A&s=19

https://twitter.com/x/status/1617946061179609088

View: https://twitter.com/AvWeekGuy/status/1617946061179609088?t=eupOMfwA3t98PSqg9lR0OQ&s=19