USAF Tanker Competition saga

I just can't believe it... goddam Airbus tanker is back.

I suggest USAF call it "the Airbus Boomerang tanker". Indeed, the more they throw it away - the more it come back hitting them, in the face and in the jaw. :p:p:p
How many years ? 2001 ? two decades ?

EDIT - that forum software has just proposed some old threads, related. Clever girl.

2007, 2008... see attached screen copy. Another irony, thanks this forum.

THIRTEEN YEARS - June, 18 2008.

Another irony is that Airbus imagined the Alabama, Mobile plan for its tanker with NORTHROP - and now its LOCKHEED which proposes that Airbus tanker, as a bridge one.

There are so many ironies in that story... !

And then imagine if the Airbus "bridge" tanker manage to screw that unfortunate KC-46 Pegasus, for example if the latter never manage to solve the present issues in a reasonable way (you don't think Boeing can be THAT bad ? how about not only Pegasus, but also CTS-100 Starliner ?)

I think Boeing leadership would have kittens !
 

Attachments

  • Sans titre.png
    Sans titre.png
    17.9 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
I've commented on LO tankers before. If your tanker orbits are compromised by free-ranging enemy anti-air you need to go home and think about your life.

Sigh. Presumably it has to radiate something or else the recipient won't find it, rendering it all moot. If the recipient is a barn-door B-52H or C-5M, that might also render it moot.
 
what is the best fix for refueling aircraft that doesn't make the system
a sitting duck.
 
Opportunistic Minnow said:
Sigh. Presumably it has to radiate something or else the recipient won't find it, rendering it all moot. If the recipient is a barn-door B-52H or C-5M, that might also render it moot.
Click to expand...

A B-52 isn't the same as NGAD. The former might not benefit from a RCS optimized tanker but a latter might as it may allow more frequent, and closer to the threat tanking opportunities. No reason that you can't have some sort of survivable or hard to track directional comms. The tanker would need to be survivable, not have the LO of a B-21 that must penetrate IADS (it would have to merely deny long range targeting or make the job of finding it a lot harder (not necc. impossible).
 
muttly said:
what is the best fix for refueling aircraft that doesn't make the system
a sitting duck.
Click to expand...

UCAVs kicked out of a bomber, longer ranged fighters, and possibly laser point defense systems. But of course any one of those is expensive, let alone all of them.
 
Why not rebuilding the B-2 into a stealth tanker?You'd probably get 60t offload fuel at 1000nm and a doublet of refueling boom with that large airframe.
 
TomcatViP said:
Why not rebuilding the B-2 into a stealth tanker?You'd probably get 60t offload fuel at 1000nm and a doublet of refueling boom with that large airframe.
Click to expand...
Do you mean two booms? I'd hate to see how that would interfere with the control surfaces.

@bring_it_on I just think a tanker is an inherently "non-survivable" role. The effort of making one LO is rendered completely superfluous if the recipient is not LO and there are going to be non-LO platforms that need tanking up in the USAF inventory for some years yet.

It is not hard to envisage a (simplistic for the sake of conversation) scenario where a non-radiating, IRST-equipped enemy fighter follows a recipient to the tanker and erm...boom. Yes, you could mandate only LO recipients for LO tankers. Oh, for such an organized conflict!

Economies of scale come to mind also. Converted airliners (or airliner derivatives) must surely be cheaper than these bespoke aircraft. I would prefer 20 KC-330s to 8 KC-Zs in my inventory.

Not trying to convince you of anything, just outlining my thoughts.
 
Opportunistic Minnow said:
@bring_it_on I just think a tanker is an inherently "non-survivable" role. The effort of making one LO is rendered completely superfluous if the recipient is not LO and there are going to be non-LO platforms that need tanking up in the USAF inventory for some years yet.
Click to expand...

That, IMHO, is not a very compelling reason not to look into it. The penetrating force will comprise of the F-35A, B-21, NGAD and probably a couple of more types between 2030 and 2050s. You're talking about 1000-1500 F-35's (min), 100+ B-21's and a few hundred NGAD's. That's a substantial penetrating fleet that could benefit from a lot more survivable tanker that would allow them to extend their range and performance at range. For the rest of the fleet that may not benefit as much (I agree with that) you have the hundreds of KC-46 and KCY tankers. I mean the USAF will need ( KC-46 and beyond) 300-500 new tanker aircraft over the next few decades, so not hard to imagine that a small fraction of that (perhaps 50-80) could be a lot more survivable than the remaining force. It would be interesting to see what a survivable tanker that isn't burdened with secondary requirements looks like. There is certainly a case to be made for a wings worth to support the substantial LO fleet that by itself will be larger than many partner AF's.
 
The B-21 might be a better place to start for such a platform. The fuel offload probably wouldn't be great, but it would be an off the shelf airframe with a lot of internal room. We don't know the range of the aircraft yet but it presumably is in the same range roughly as a B-2, which is probably close enough for the small number of situations where this is relevant. When we talk about tanker vulnerability we are only talking about China and Russia; all other global operations can use regular tankers, as can units in peacetime. Wartime tanking against a peer opponent is a pretty niche role to fill.
 
It seems to me you have a choice; either an LO tanker to refuel your LO attack fleet close to the combat zone, or you stick with non-LO tankers, in which case your LO attack aircraft need the fuel capacity to give them the range to reach the combat zone unrefuelled . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 
Its a force multiplier. Non survivable tankers would require protection from the USAF, USN or allies. That means fighters that are going to have to do this which themselves would use up some of that fuel. Perhaps they could have an unmanned escort aircraft but that too will be costly. On the flip side, maintaining a small survivable fleet (need not be B-21 level of stealth but some combination of signature optimization and EW) would not only allow it to get closer to where it is needed, but also make the opponent dedicate more resources towards finding and targeting it which imposes costs. It gets closer and keeps the enemy busy trying to find it, all the while allowing your most capable aircraft to stay in the fight longer. Best to make something like this unmanned.
 
The biggest stumbling block is likely an AF leadership which would have to dedicate double digit billions in RDT&E cost to such a non combat platform when that could go towards a new fighter, bomber, or weapon. It's the same thing that may end up slowing ABMS down in a platform centric air-force. KC-X is fixed cost so a fixed KC-46 would be delivered to the USAF on cost by 2023 (hopefully). KY-Y likewise would be fixed cost with either KC-46 (which would be fully fleshed out by then) or LMXT which is also a largely developed product. Seems they have a decade to pour some RDT&E funds towards a KC-Z and draw up a clean sheet tanker like the Navy is doing with MQ-25. But that would mean carving out spending that you can dedicate to a new fighter, bomber, bomb or missile.
 
Last edited:
And what about using an MQ-25 or something similarly stealthy to make the liaison b/w the larger tanker and the penetrating force?
The complexity stand around automatic boom refueling, something some have claimed already to have achieved.
 
TomcatViP said:
Why not rebuilding the B-2 into a stealth tanker?You'd probably get 60t offload fuel at 1000nm and a doublet of refueling boom with that large airframe.
Click to expand...
Good idea ! Alternately: a huge buddy-buddy refueling pack in the bomb bay of an unmodified B-2.

Alas there are only 19 of of them left (AFAIK ?!) and they are damn insanely expensive to fly.

Still it would be a glorious end of career for the B-2: pioneering low observable tankers !
 
@Archibald : A penetrative tanker force is a silver bullet that won't need much training on their dedicated platform. They can be dual crew, maintaining their proficiency on a regular airframe but trained also to fly the stealth platform.
 
A3R system qualified for F-16. Next in the line will be the F-15.

Amador told Defense News that the A3R system will be an option for new-build MRTTs and as an upgrade for existing operators, with the only significant piece of hardware being a computer needed for high-resolution image processing of video feeds from cameras monitoring the boom.

Several existing and future operators of the A330 have shown interest in the A3R system, according to Amador, who noted that any receiver aircraft that uses the boom and receptacle refueling method can be qualified for the system.
Click to expand...
www.defensenews.com

Airbus completes midair automatic refueling trials with Singapore’s F-16, preps for tests with F-15

The A3R system automatically flies the boom and maintains alignment between the boom tip and the receiver receptacle with an accuracy of a couple of centimeters.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
Last edited:
Why is there a new tanker program when KC-46s are just entering service?
 
Josh_TN said:
Why is there a new tanker program when KC-46s are just entering service?
Click to expand...

I think the KC-46 might not be around for as long as the KC-135 and the USAF want to start designing the future tanker right now so at least there is going to be a follow on tanker to replace the KC-46 when the time comes.
 
This isn't procurement of a new tanker aircraft. Rather it is a modernization plan for the KC-46 and KC-135 to improve survivability and networking, as well as implement more autonomous capabilities.
 
TomcatViP said:
A new tanker program:

www.airforcemag.com

Air Force Initiates New Next-Gen Tanker 'Family' With Request for Information | Air & Space Forces 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 www.airforcemag.com
Click to expand...
Among the capabilities tankers will need are:
  • connectivity: “resilient line of sight (LOS) and beyond line of sight (BLOS) airborne connectivity with the future Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) environment”
  • open architecture design, federated systems & data streams;
  • Alternative forms of positioning, navigation and timing (PNT)
Tankers will also have to have “enhanced survivability and mission effectiveness, increased situational awareness that enhances situational understanding, on-board electronic warfare (EW)/electronic attack (EA) and … interoperability with off-board Autonomous Collaborative Platforms.”
Click to expand...

Finding new roles for an in-demand and shrinking tanker fleet
 
isayyo2 said:
TomcatViP said:
A new tanker program:

www.airforcemag.com

Air Force Initiates New Next-Gen Tanker 'Family' With Request for Information | Air & Space Forces 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 www.airforcemag.com
Click to expand...
Among the capabilities tankers will need are:
  • connectivity: “resilient line of sight (LOS) and beyond line of sight (BLOS) airborne connectivity with the future Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) environment”
  • open architecture design, federated systems & data streams;
  • Alternative forms of positioning, navigation and timing (PNT)
Tankers will also have to have “enhanced survivability and mission effectiveness, increased situational awareness that enhances situational understanding, on-board electronic warfare (EW)/electronic attack (EA) and … interoperability with off-board Autonomous Collaborative Platforms.”
Click to expand...

Finding new roles for an in-demand and shrinking tanker fleet
Click to expand...
The EW is for primarily self defense. The KC-46 already has a RWR and networking capabilities via Link 16, and there is a roll on networking kit for the KC-10 and KC-135.These systems may take the form of pods or could be a more significant modification, probably both.

The reality is that a lot of the kinds of operations the USAF is looking at will place their tankers uncomfortably close to the threat, and the aircraft need to be able to survive there. The KC-46 gets partway there,but it was explicitly designed for a medium threat environment composed mostly of medium range SAMs and fourth generation aircraft. Being able to survive against double digit SAMs and fifth generation aircraft requires a dramatic increase in capability.

This also makes the tanker an excellent platform for acting as a network node for ABMS, which is also included in this solicitation.
 
KC-Y is probably dead, USAF too pregnant with KC-46. KC-Z, this will be interesting but way out there, possibly Speed Agile, BWB, other?
 
TomcatViP said:
Airbus homework: More fuel offload at range* + outer wings pylons for datalink or sensors

¨Considering LM will take EMP level to Mil-Std 3023 (20db)

*it equals today that of the KC-46
Click to expand...
KC-46 c.93 tonnes. A330 MRTT today c.111 tonnes.
 
@Jackonicko : At mission range, both can offload the same amount of fuel. The A330 airframe is slower at cruise, heavier and probably a bit more draggy.

Hence more of its carried fuel is for its own consumption. This is why LM want to increase the mass fraction of fuel to give a positive delta regarding the KC-46. However, Boeing maintains that it can match this increase in a lighter weight package (because, again, having less mass, less drag, and being faster at cruise...).

At the end, if the mission profile stays the same,
it's even more advantageous for the USAF to keep their KC-46 and move toward a block upgrade since fleet cost will be impacted favorably.
LM & Airbus have to disrupt the end objectives one way or another if they want to win. The extended range was one way of doing it but sadly not enough. They need to push the envelope (not the one under the table, obviously) even further, that it'd be with range, embedded systems, basing facilities, cost or whatever I don't know.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom