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

[Colonial-Marine]

I also spoke to a couple of young KC-46 and KC-135 crews at ARSAG about an NGAS/KC-Z platform and we were all in agreement this next-gen tanker should be a pure gas hauler and not a wonder-plane which which tanks, carries cargo and personnel, carry as much gas as possible without the other stuff.

I'd agree about the tankers being pure tankers, but might it be worthwhile to make a cargo variant using the same airframe? Might make a good replacement for some of the EC-130 variants out there to.

 

[Desertfox]

USAF could be looking at using it as a B-52 replacement as well...

 

[Scott Kenny]

Maybe it depends on the or a forward basing location?

USAF is talking about lean forward basing, flying out ground crews and gear to a base rather like how the Marines put together their floating aircraft Detachments. And that definitely suggests a tanker capable of hauling ground crew, tools, spares, and maybe even GSE if you end up flying off a 3km long stretch of straight road.

 

[donnage99]

Eye of the beholder I guess

I understand why the fuselage (needed length for USAF tanking requirement) but it looks like bodged cosmetic surgery attaching a fighter like fuselage to a flying wing design. Shape of the nose cone and the wing leading edge and vertical tails too....

But yeah, entirely subjective.

P.S. Also, please don't settle your wish for BWB with this monstrosity. Keep up the faith;DDD

 

[NeilChapman]

Personally, I'd rather see 2000 cheap drones with a new rocket assisted launch solution to 20k feet to increase range. Perhaps SpaceX could build a reusable, cheap, rocket assist system? This LM drawing looks crazy expensive.

Exquisite solutions are the nemesis of the USAF. CRG operations and “hot-pit refueling”, for the next peer conflict, is going to use C-130's. That's a hot production line. Build and buy more C-130's.

 

[SK2]

Exquisite solutions are the nemesis of the USAF. CRG operations and “hot-pit refueling”, for the next peer conflict, is going to use C-130's. That's a hot production line. Build and buy more C-130's.

And get shot down more in theatre, where both side got extra long range AAMs flying around? In the Pacific theatre you will need to assume the airfields in both First Island Chain and Second Island Chain to be affected, thus the USAF will need 6G long range fighters, and related stealth support craft to enter the theatre. Drones with long legs won't be cheap at all.

 

[4decaa]

How exactly might one hide a Refueling Boom on the back of such a stealthy refueling aircraft? Could it be possible to simply create a (albeit extremely elongated) bay and slap it on the underside of the protruding tail section?

 

[flateric]

Under door(s)? Shaping lower boom side along fuselage shape and retracting it in U-shaped cavern? Actually don't see engineering problem here.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Under door(s)? Shaping lower boom side along fuselage shape and retracting it in U-shaped cavern? Actually don't see engineering problem here.

You'd need long doors for the wings that fly the boom, but otherwise it's not a difficult thing at all. Just a giant tail hook, and we've been stealthing those since the F117.

 

[Hydroman]

Shape the boom similar to an RCS range pole.

 

[SteveO]

New Lockheed KC-Z concept looks a bit like a smaller Tempest/GCAP to me

 

[GTX]

Future Stealth Tanker Plans Tied To NGAD 6th Generation Fighter's Fate

Next-generation aerial refueling capabilities are also influencing USAF plans for a second tranche of Collaborative Combat Aircraft drones.

www.twz.com

 

[Hydroman]

I think a true LO or semi-LO NGAS is a ways off, cannot agree on a configuration they have to deal with cost and it has to be a pure gas hauler. I think we'll begin to see more unmanned for manned and unmanned refueling missions in the meantime. Boeing just released it's concept for a larger land-based MQ-25 tanker. Could be that CCA increment 2 which NG (i.e. their recent 437) and LM will putting a lot of effort into. Anduril and GA will not be flying off for CCA increment 1 until mid-next year apparently. For unmanned, got to have a larger platform to carry a reasonable fuel load.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think a true LO or semi-LO NGAS is a ways off, cannot agree on a configuration they have to deal with cost and it has to be a pure gas hauler. I think we'll begin to see more unmanned for manned and unmanned refueling missions in the meantime. Boeing just released it's concept for a larger land-based MQ-25 tanker. Could be that CCA increment 2 which NG (i.e. their recent 437) and LM will putting a lot of effort into. Anduril and GA will not be flying off for CCA increment 1 until mid-next year apparently. For unmanned, got to have a larger platform to carry a reasonable fuel load.

That larger MQ25 is only packing ~22000lbs of offloadable fuel (16k base MQ25, +40% claimed more due to new wings)

 

[raptor82]

New USAF Tanker Solicitation Shows Changing Acquisition Approach | Aviation Week Network

The U.S. Air Force is looking at a new acquisition approach for its future tanker.

aviationweek.com

The service on Sept. 13 released a controlled request for information (RFI) for the mission systems for its Next Generation Air-refueling System (NGAS) though the analysis of alternatives (AOA) for the overall airframe has not been completed. That AOA is expected by the end of the year.

Andrew Hunter, the service’s assistant secretary for acquisition, said issuing the RFI for mission systems this early is a different approach for the service. The Air Force wants to directly work with these companies, as opposed to having them as subcontractors to traditional prime companies that will build the air frame. This will help ensure the mission systems can be integrated across multiple platforms. There will be another RFI for air frame-producing companies after the AOA is complete.

 

[riggerrob]

You'd need long doors for the wings that fly the boom, but otherwise it's not a difficult thing at all. Just a giant tail hook, and we've been stealthing those since the F117.

How about folding the boom "wings" as you pull it into a small hole in the aft belly. Yes, this would require a large internal void, but would vastly simplify "stealthifying" hatch doors.

 

[Scott Kenny]

How about folding the boom "wings" as you pull it into a small hole in the aft belly. Yes, this would require a large internal void, but would vastly simplify "stealthifying" hatch doors.

Then you'd need to stealth the wing folds. Which has been done, of course, but I'm not sure how easy it is to maintain.

 

[riggerrob]

Then you'd need to stealth the wing folds. Which has been done, of course, but I'm not sure how easy it is to maintain.

I doubt if you could "stealthify" a USAF refueling boom.
Count yourself lucky if you can reduce the radar return from most of the airframe during transit to and from base to the refueling "circuit.:

 

[FighterJock]

Unless you could coat the entire boom in RAM and shape it in such a way that the radar returns would be reduced?

 

[TomcatViP]

RCS Pylons should inspire a solution. At the end, stealth is all about geometry with the source of a radar emission.

 

[Hydroman]

How about a flying boom nozzle. At the point of contact, deflect all the flight surfaces to make contact with the receptacle then let the receiver control relative position just like hose and drogue. Once the receiver is full, the tanker retracts the nozzle. Granted you will require a larger hose to handle the much high fuel flow but a larger stiffer hose may have some benefits, kind of like a semi-rigid boom. I'm a controls guys and thinking outside the box.

 

[NeilChapman]

And get shot down more in theatre, where both side got extra long range AAMs flying around? In the Pacific theatre you will need to assume the airfields in both First Island Chain and Second Island Chain to be affected,

The key to deterrence and superiority are the same. Production capacity and logistics.

thus the USAF will need 6G long range fighters, and related stealth support craft to enter the theatre. Drones with long legs won't be cheap at all.

CCAs for war can be built like Liberty Ships, short service life, expendable, high rate of production. An equivalent engine likely needs to be developed.

I would like to see them let contracts for the production system, with rapid iteration of the CCA. Focus on the machine that builds the machine. Show the world you can build and field hundreds, if not thousands, per month. That's your deterrence, production capacity and logistics.

 

[raptor82]

Skunk Works Shows New, Optionally Crewed Tanker Concept | Aviation Week Network

The image was unveiled this week at the Airlift/Tanker Association conference.

aviationweek.com

 

[donnage99]

Skunk Works' Latest Stealthy Tanker Concept Revealed

The USAF is firming up requirements for a stealthy tanker to fit with its Next Generation Air Dominance ecosystem, which could change dramatically due to cost.

www.twz.com

 

[jsport]

Next-gen stealth tanker may be unaffordable, Air Force secretary fears

A bow wave of modernizations — including the Air Force's desire to build a sixth-gen fighter and drone wingmen — has stretched its budget thin.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

Next-gen stealth tanker may be unaffordable, Air Force secretary fears

A bow wave of modernizations — including the Air Force's desire to build a sixth-gen fighter and drone wingmen — has stretched its budget thin.

www.defensenews.com

Can they afford to not have relatively LO tankers, so they're at least hard to find for S- and X-band fire-control radars on long or extreme range missiles?

 

[Rhinocrates]

Can they afford to not have relatively LO tankers, so they're at least hard to find for S- and X-band fire-control radars on long or extreme range missiles?

My guess is that an attributable 'adequate LO' unmanned vehicle might be the choice, possibly something like a scaled-up MQ-25.

(Very) arguably, what won WWII was the United States' production capacity and Russian resilience. If one depends on 'attributable' systems, then one has to assume the production capability to replace them. If such an attributable drone makes sense, can production lines churn out enough?

 

[jsport]

Can they afford to not have relatively LO tankers, so they're at least hard to find for S- and X-band fire-control radars on long or extreme range missiles?

..am for LO tankers, just plead for a multiple purpose craft. Tanker being only one configuration.

 

[TomcatViP]

A Pacific LO Tanker would need all it can get to be efficient and offer actionable performances across the vast space of the Pacific and sophisticated IADS. IMOHO, modesty is a paramount approach to the conceptual design. Let it be first what it really needs to be, on an affordable way, and then let's have a look at the accessory roles.

 

[bobbymike]

..am for LO tankers, just plead for a multiple purpose craft. Tanker being only one configuration.

Yes long range hypersonic strike platform comes to mind for me

 

[Forest Green]

Skunk Works Uncrewed NGAS Concept Gets New Attention

Lockheed Martin recently showed off a stealthy, uncrewed aerial tanker concept that the Air Force could consider for its NGAS program.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[Ozair]

Can they afford to not have relatively LO tankers, so they're at least hard to find for S- and X-band fire-control radars on long or extreme range missiles?

Maybe the solution is the MSDM?

Raytheon Wins $375M Contract For Miniature Self-Defense Missile For Jets

USAF aircraft are getting a new self-defense weapon able to shoot down surface-to-air missiles, allowing them to operate in contested airspace.

www.forbes.com

It isn't an ideal scenario, you'd much rather defeat the targeting cycle at the find fix stage, but this seems a viable option for a large platform like this. Could also see a custom built tanker having a set of self defence drones attached to it that could provide close in defence of the aircraft in those types of scenarios.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Maybe the solution is the MSDM?

Raytheon Wins $375M Contract For Miniature Self-Defense Missile For Jets

USAF aircraft are getting a new self-defense weapon able to shoot down surface-to-air missiles, allowing them to operate in contested airspace.

www.forbes.com

It isn't an ideal scenario, you'd much rather defeat the targeting cycle at the find fix stage, but this seems a viable option for a large platform like this. Could also see a custom built tanker having a set of self defence drones attached to it that could provide close in defence of the aircraft in those types of scenarios.

It's not one I like, as it means that you just need to expend enough XLRAAMs to exhaust the MSDM supply to take down the tanker.

 

[Ozair]

It's not one I like, as it means that you just need to expend enough XLRAAMs to exhaust the MSDM supply to take down the tanker.

Sure. Could easily be argued no matter the HVAA they all have to get used to the concept of now being within the threat.

I expect HVAA protection especially from the XLRAAM threat will require a full spectrum denial and the likely scenario is that each HVAA will be covered by a CCA of some sort as well as potentially equipped with their own MSDM, EW, DIRCM and maybe at some point proper DEW.
Consolation is the XLRAAM is a hell of a lot more expensive and a finite resource compared to MSDM and they will need some pre prep to go after those types of targets.

EDIT: Adding to the above, the latest concept from LM also appears to be unmanned. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...efueling-system-ngas.27900/page-7#post-725727

In that context then maybe the threat picture is less of a concern. No one wants to lose a tanker but for stand-in tanking unmanned might be the preferred option.

 

[bobbymike]

Huh?

Next-gen stealth tanker may be unaffordable, Air Force secretary fears

A bow wave of modernizations — including the Air Force's desire to build a sixth-gen fighter and drone wingmen — has stretched its budget thin.

www.defensenews.com

 

[TomcatViP]

..am for LO tankers, just plead for a multiple purpose craft. Tanker being only one configuration.

Reconsidering my earlier opinion, are you thinking at a dual B-52 role for the KC-Z? Something that can haul 200k lb of fuel might be good also for a twin set of rotary launchers. Just trading high alt of release for a closer reach.

 

[Ainen]

Huh?

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.

 

[jsport]

Reconsidering my earlier opinion, are you thinking at a dual B-52 role for the KC-Z? Something that can haul 200k lb of fuel might be good also for a twin set of rotary launchers. Just trading high alt of release for a closer reach.

As Ainen et al point out the cost of a multirole KC is high but the "c" does stand for Cargo which IMHO means wpns...must always highlight that air's main purpose is deliver on enough DMPIs to 'deter' throughout the spectrum from pre to post conflict. IMHO BUFF is still the primary detering craft.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I mean, I still think the US needs a small number of stealthy tactical airlifters for SOCOM work.

Which really means that the US needs an immense number of stealthy tactical airlifters and/or tankers, so that seeing one in a country doesn't mean anything other than "we have some Americans visiting the airport". Because otherwise, someone seeing the Stealth Herk makes it really obvious that shenanigans are in play.

 

[donnage99]

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.