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

[SK2]

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.

When I saw this image, my first thought was what @Scott Kenny said:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/usaf-us-navy-6th-generation-fighter-programs-f-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs-news.3536/post-711366

With it's shape and wings, it will be way more than a tanker, if not commanding CCAs and getting a dozen of AIM-174B in it's rotary launcher

 

[Scott Kenny]

When I saw this image, my first thought was what @Scott Kenny said:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/usaf-us-navy-6th-generation-fighter-programs-f-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs-news.3536/post-711366

With it's shape and wings, it will be way more than a tanker, if not commanding CCAs and getting a dozen of AIM-174B in it's rotary launcher

You mean my idea about NGAD being the size of an F111, at 100+klbs?

I'd still rather have a stealthy tanker take over from the C130s as the tactical airlifter...

 

[SK2]

What I suggest was the KC-Z displayed by Skunk Works was actually NGAD instead, as it fits the shape, together with your idea of super size fighter

 

[Stargazer]

"A stealthy Next-Generation Air-refueling System (NGAS), shown here in a conceptual illustration, remains an aspirational answer to long-term needs. USAF seems unsettled on a near-term solution."

Source: Air & Space Forces, Nov. 2024


(JetZero illustration)

 

[FighterJock]

I like the look of the current stealthy next generation Air-refueling system concept Stargazer, one problem though is with the engines why not bury the engines into the fuselage B-2 like and stop the radar bouncing back from the turbines?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Cost considerations one assumes.

 

[Moose]

I like the look of the current stealthy next generation Air-refueling system concept Stargazer, one problem though is with the engines why not bury the engines into the fuselage B-2 like and stop the radar bouncing back from the turbines?

Cost, NGAS cost control is going to require pretty tight decision-making. JetZero's pitch is derived from their commercial concept and commercial operators want engines that have unrestricted airflow (for efficiency) and are easy for maintenance crews to access. So USAF would have to pay for all the changes needed to bury the engines, on top of paying for the cost of making it a tanker/airlift platform in the first place. It's probably not worth it anyway, the BWB would have reduced signature compared to a tube+wing airframe, which would allow it to operate closer to enemy air defenses, but it's not really a "stealth" airframe.

 

[FighterJock]

That is a pity about that Moose and Grey Havoc, but if they are serious about cost cutting then there is no alternative.

 

[Kat Tsun]

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.

The tanker is more important since it's the only way JSF and Raptor can fight in the Pacific tbf.

 

[TomcatViP]

Jet zero is not stealthy. It's at best an attempt to hijack other work.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Jet zero is not stealthy. It's at best an attempt to hijack other work.

It's a hell of a lot lower Observability than a KC-46!

 

[TomcatViP]

Show me the curves.

 

[donnage99]

Jet zero is not stealthy. It's at best an attempt to hijack other work.

hijack whose work?

 

[TomcatViP]

Boeing?

 

[donnage99]

Boeing?

Those guys at jet zero WERE the Boeing, and prior, Mcdonnell Douglas guys pioneering the BWB efforts. Not all of them obviously because of the passage of time, but it's quite unfair to say they hijack works that they themselves were key members of.

 

[TomcatViP]

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

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

* Remind me those European startups that after years of existence and funds raising still promote their professionalism by referring their manager's older employers such as Tesla or SpaceX...

 

[donnage99]

Yes correct. It's not the same design from back at McDonnell Douglas days. However, many changes (IP reasons) and improvements were made going from that to current Jet zero design. I don't think they would ever attempt to do any RCS works themselves. Most likely the goal for them is to fly a demonstrator then partner up with a large company (most likely northrop) for further refinement and RCS reduction if requirements are there if USAF gives the next greenlight

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'd definitely want to partner with either LockMart or NG to do the stealth work!