Air Force Could Pursue Stealthy Aerial-Refueling Tanker

Attachments

  • 20230125_004610.jpg
    20230125_004610.jpg
    182 KB · Views: 193
  • 20230125_004736.jpg
    20230125_004736.jpg
    230.8 KB · Views: 93
  • 20230125_004740.jpg
    20230125_004740.jpg
    266.5 KB · Views: 93
  • 20230125_004854.jpg
    20230125_004854.jpg
    159 KB · Views: 169
Meh! Still needs a big fat mile long runway at a big fat airfield. Not that anyone would target those. :rolleyes:
 
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?

news.usni.org

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 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.
 
...
 

Attachments

  • Capabilites Icons 1.png
    Capabilites Icons 1.png
    712.5 KB · Views: 50
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?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom