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.