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

Attachments

  • 20230125_004610.jpg
    20230125_004610.jpg
    182 KB · Views: 390
  • 20230125_004736.jpg
    20230125_004736.jpg
    230.8 KB · Views: 170
  • 20230125_004740.jpg
    20230125_004740.jpg
    266.5 KB · Views: 168
  • 20230125_004854.jpg
    20230125_004854.jpg
    159 KB · Views: 265
TomcatViP said:
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.
Click to expand...
"Obvious environmental reasons"? I don't remember ever hearing about any environmental problems around N.S. Savannah. Reactor design has improved since she was built and operated.

I do agree that LTA vehicles have the potential to transport heavy loads into otherwise inaccessible areas. Back in the 1970s, I know there were studies of all-metal nuclear-powered rigid airships. IIRC, there was even a technothriller. about the clash between one of those operated by the US and a Soviet aircraft carrier. I believe the title was Clash of Titans and is not to be confused with the novelization of The Clash of Titans movie.
 
I always thought you could do a KB-2 with the existing airframes, the RH weapons bay can take an auxiliary fuel tank and you could put a deployable drouge system in the other one. It might be possible, too, to put a deployable boom system in there. I could see the drobue and hose coated with RAM to reduce signature and I imagine it would be equally easy to coat a boom.
 
Anyone have any ideascwhy the windows are so massive? I'm not convinced there's any real design behind them
 
red admiral said:
Anyone have any ideascwhy the windows are so massive? I'm not convinced there's any real design behind them
Click to expand...
Read above, the Boeing engineers or reps said they were just notional. But they would be great for sight seeing!
 
An interesting take on functions of a tanker. In this case, inter and intra-theater transport w C-17 sized cargo.

Also interesting that DARPA wants the plane capable of flying to 10k ft. Tanker mission?

DARPA Awards Contracts for Long-Range ‘Liberty Lifter’ Flying Boat Design - USNI News

The Pentagon’s emerging technologies research arm awarded two aviation companies contracts to develop seaplanes that would fly less than 100 feet off the ground and carry 90 tons of cargo more than 6,500 nautical miles, the Department of Defense announced Wednesday. General Atomics, working with...
news.usni.org
 
td_07 said:
Appears that no one got a lower rear view of the Boeing concept, sadly
Click to expand...
Quite possibly that was intentional, to hide whatever features of the proposed probe system that Boeing wants to keep concealed for now.
 
VTOLicious said:
2023, a new attempt...
View: https://twitter.com/AvWeekGuy/status/1617946061179609088?t=y-Fx8nsooIZbxfK5B0JfLg&s=19
Click to expand...
Seems like a much stealthyer design then lockheeds proposal.
 
Usually tankers carry cargo as well. I didn't see anything about the lift requirement.

Are they planning on separating the two functions for a the a2ad solution?
 
sferrin said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh, they're never canceled anymore. They just make very, very few copies at very, very high prices.

See: 21 B-1's, and fewer than 200 F-22's, and 3 Seawolf subs, and only 3 Zumwalt destroyers, etc etc etc.
 
I still don't get why the Airforce is even pursuing this program. I would imagine that it would make more sense to procure some "stealthy" refueling drones that could rotate in and out of combat zones between bases and other tankers. I would also imagine they could operate out of smaller runways, or potentially have better range/capacity. I imagine that the Airforce is looking into using these as communication platforms as well, as they've already begun tests on a KC-135, but wouldn't that make more sense on a drone? I also don't understand why one would need to fly tankers into an enemy AD bubble. I'm aware that China potentially taking islands or moving fleets could create large AD bubbles, but surely not big enough to warrant the use of a tanker within said bubbles?


Perhaps I've missed something?
 
It could be a derivative of the NGAD platform..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A covert NGAD programme funded as KC-Z maybe?
 
Or some other program that is buried deep in the black world to hide behind the KC-Z, certainly if the latest Lockheed design is anything to go by.
 
I can see it being a drone mothership and communications platform with perhaps the option as being used as a tanker. I think that would explain why there is such an emphasis on "stealthiness", and could also be the result of the USAF's recent testing of tankers in the previously stated roles. A KC-135 is set to be modified as a drone mothership relatively soon, unless that program got binned, and another KC-135 is already flying about as a test platform for a modular communication node.
 
Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
I still don't get why the Airforce is even pursuing this program. I would imagine that it would make more sense to procure some "stealthy" refueling drones that could rotate in and out of combat zones between bases and other tankers. I would also imagine they could operate out of smaller runways, or potentially have better range/capacity. I imagine that the Airforce is looking into using these as communication platforms as well, as they've already begun tests on a KC-135, but wouldn't that make more sense on a drone? I also don't understand why one would need to fly tankers into an enemy AD bubble. I'm aware that China potentially taking islands or moving fleets could create large AD bubbles, but surely not big enough to warrant the use of a tanker within said bubbles?


Perhaps I've missed something?
Click to expand...
SAM bubbles on the order of 200nmi radius (or more, SM6 has gotten hits in excess of 500km). Means your tankers are operating right at the ragged edge of the SAM envelope and may need to get firmly inside it to catch a damaged plane.

Plus I suspect someone may finally be pushing a stealthy C130 replacement.
 
Lockheed had this concept and one other on a rolling video in their booth at ARSAG 2024, which actually looked better than this one but could not get a photo of it unfortunately. It had more of a blended fuselage/wing and a really tall, spaced v-tail, it did not look like any of the previous Speed Agile concepts. NG is also looking at NGAS/KC-Z but no concepts as of yet to my knowledge.
 
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.
 
Hydroman said:
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.
Click to expand...
That may be a tough sell unless it's only ~C130 weight. It's really useful to be able to send the squadron or detachment maintenance people out on the tanker dragging the fighters, along with a set of tools and basic spares.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That may be a tough sell unless it's only ~C130 weight. It's really useful to be able to send the squadron or detachment maintenance people out on the tanker dragging the fighters, along with a set of tools and basic spares.
Click to expand...
Maybe it depends on the or a forward basing location?
 


Write your reply...

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom