bikerthai wrote:

Well, without the cargo requirement, there goes one of the reason why the A330 was chosen ove the KC-46 for many Air Forces.

Curious though, how much weight can be saved by not having a cargo floor?
bt

It does seem like a lot of empty airframe to carry around for just fuel... Like a flying bag of Lays.
It would seem a waste not to sacrifice a few tonnes of fuel to add some very decent cargo capacity.

The 330F (the OEM version) weighs about 110T when empty. If Airbus says their proposed tanker can carry 123T of fuel, that means that they expect it to weigh 110T as well with no provision for carrying cargo.
If the USAF can do away with a rigid partition (just a 9g net), the elevated nose gear and a motorized pallet loading system, the cargo floor and door should only add a handful of tons.

Oh well. The USAF knows what it needs better than anyone.

Francoflier wrote:

the cargo floor and door should only add a handful of tons.

But would add more than a fist full of $.

bt

SQ22 wrote:

According to this interview with Airbus Defence & Space Executive Michael Schoellhorn there is no requirement to carry personnel or cargo, hence no cargo door but more fuel capacity:

Schoellhorn also touched on differences between the LXMT and current MRTT. One difference is that the USAF appears to have no requirement for the jet to carry cargo or personnel, it is a pure tanker.

Lockheed has said that the LXMT will have 123t (271,000lb) of fuel capacity – 12t more than the MRTT. This is 27t greater than that of the KC-46.

Airbus defence boss: only LMXT meets KC-Y requirements

Of course things can change.

This is just the same LM/Airbus campaign to influence the requirements. The USAF hasn't released the RFP yet, how can Airbus know the USAF has no requirement for cargo or personnel?

The requirements for Bridge Tanker are currently being defined and the necessary capabilities will be incorporated into the final Request for Proposal once it is validated through the Department of Defense’s joint staffing process. The Air Force plans to release the final RFP by the end of 2022.

https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2660947/air-force-releases-bridge-tanker-sources-sought-announcement/

Do we know what the MTOW will be.

I wondered if any of the A330neo developments now allowing 251T MTOW can be applied to the 332ceo frame on which the MRTT is built. Cost should be minimal and spread over a large order.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Do we know what the MTOW will be.

I wondered if any of the A330neo developments now allowing 251T MTOW can be applied to the 332ceo frame on which the MRTT is built. Cost should be minimal and spread over a large order.

I doubt the CEO will ever be certified to 251T.
The 242T CEO version, on the other hand, could be offered as part of LM's proposal. However, as noted above, no one knows yet what the USAF's requirements will be.

For now, the 123T fuel load LM/Airbus is mentioning seems to indicate that they'll stick to the 233T WV.

Does somebody know if there will be changes to the tanker procurement seeing the threats from Russia and China getting more attention on the political agenda?

JonesNL wrote:

Does somebody know if there will be changes to the tanker procurement seeing the threats from Russia and China getting more attention on the political agenda?

An air and land war in eastern Europe would be something the KC-46A could handle.

A trans-oceanic war with China is why LM and Airbus are pushing the LMXT.

JonesNL wrote:

Does somebody know if there will be changes to the tanker procurement seeing the threats from Russia and China getting more attention on the political agenda?

Changes? No, the final specs aren’t public yet.

Francoflier wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Well, without the cargo requirement, there goes one of the reason why the A330 was chosen ove the KC-46 for many Air Forces.

Curious though, how much weight can be saved by not having a cargo floor?
bt

It does seem like a lot of empty airframe to carry around for just fuel... Like a flying bag of Lays.
It would seem a waste not to sacrifice a few tonnes of fuel to add some very decent cargo capacity.

The 330F (the OEM version) weighs about 110T when empty. If Airbus says their proposed tanker can carry 123T of fuel, that means that they expect it to weigh 110T as well with no provision for carrying cargo.
If the USAF can do away with a rigid partition (just a 9g net), the elevated nose gear and a motorized pallet loading system, the cargo floor and door should only add a handful of tons.

Oh well. The USAF knows what it needs better than anyone.

The latest rendering (as per Aviation Week) does not even show a cargo door, just to save weight they say.

If they really build the plane without a cargo door, I'm gonna be looking side-eye.

kitplane01 wrote:

If they really build the plane without a cargo door, I'm gonna be looking side-eye.

Why? Every one is saying that the USAF don't use tankers to cary cargo. They have C-17s and the civilian transport, and the KC-46 in a pinch.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

If they really build the plane without a cargo door, I'm gonna be looking side-eye.

Why? Every one is saying that the USAF don't use tankers to cary cargo. They have C-17s and the civilian transport, and the KC-46 in a pinch.

bt

Because for a tiny bit of weight you get a large increase in flexibility. Also, a KC-46 should be much more economical than a C-17, and much longer ranged than C-130. It's got a unique payload/range/money position that ought to be often useful, especially for palleted cargo (which I'd told is the majority of cargo). We're not talking about running four antique engines and putting hours on the worlds oldest fly airframe

Didn't tankers carry freight during the gulf wars?

kitplane01 wrote:

Because for a tiny bit of weight you get a large increase in flexibility. Also, a KC-46 should be much more economical than a C-17, and much longer ranged than C-130.

And this cheaper option can carry more tonnage than than the KC-Y without adding any more weight.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... air-fleet/

We will have to wait for the final spec. With the on coming budget crunch for back-filling the Ukrainian war, I doubt they will have luck adding any more requirements that's going to increase costs.

bt

kitplane01 wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

If they really build the plane without a cargo door, I'm gonna be looking side-eye.

Why? Every one is saying that the USAF don't use tankers to cary cargo. They have C-17s and the civilian transport, and the KC-46 in a pinch.

bt

Because for a tiny bit of weight you get a large increase in flexibility. Also, a KC-46 should be much more economical than a C-17, and much longer ranged than C-130. It's got a unique payload/range/money position that ought to be often useful, especially for palleted cargo (which I'd told is the majority of cargo). We're not talking about running four antique engines and putting hours on the worlds oldest fly airframe

Didn't tankers carry freight during the gulf wars?

I think in the second gulf war more so, but the first one was just ‘some’ contribution by KC-10’s as I understand it.

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display ... with-less/

“ The C-141 was called the "workhorse" of Desert Shield/Desert Storm, according to the USTRANSCOM document. It flew 8,536 strategic airlift missions, followed by the C-5 with 3,770; the KC-10 with 379 and the C-9 with 209. The C-141 and C-5 accounted for 361,147 tons, or 66 percent of the cargo airlifted in support of the Gulf War.”

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/sto ... t-records/

Even without addressing the future prospects of flying tactical aircraft across the pacific theoretically, the applications/flexibility of the KC-10 with it’s cargo door have been very beneficial to saving USAF taskings of other ‘gray tail’ aircraft to support such movements. It’s not all pallets vs. pax, but the flexibility which is invaluable, imho. I’d like to think the USAF would agree, but would be curious to hear from others.

https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/NEWS-ARTI ... n-forward/

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Because for a tiny bit of weight you get a large increase in flexibility. Also, a KC-46 should be much more economical than a C-17, and much longer ranged than C-130.

And this cheaper option can carry more tonnage than than the KC-Y without adding any more weight.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... air-fleet/

We will have to wait for the final spec. With the on coming budget crunch for back-filling the Ukrainian war, I doubt they will have luck adding any more requirements that's going to increase costs.

bt

Did they activate the "must carry" part of the CRAF? I thought they were reluctant to do so, but my memory is not perfect.

The always available lower deck standard 463-L NATO military pallets / civil LD3 capability of the MRTT seems such (45t), that air forces found the main deck cargo door/ capacity option unnecessary / costly.

You may be right keesje, but the USAF has not deemed any option as too costly/cheap enough yet. Also, the USAF doesn’t use civil LD3/pallets, so I don’t think that is a proper counter-balance. Lockheed/Airbus’ choice is just a bit perplexing on this. I am guessing they add it back in at some point.

Lockheed has a lot of advantages to offer with all of that space, there’s no reason to marginalize it.

The LMXT / MRTT can carry standard 463-L NATO military pallets lower deck.

The KC-46 cannot, it’s lower deck is smaller & occupied by fuel tanks. Hence the KC46s cargo main deck/ door.

keesje wrote:

The LMXT / MRTT can carry standard 463-L NATO military pallets lower deck.

The KC-46 cannot, it’s lower deck is smaller & occupied by fuel tanks. Hence the KC46s cargo main deck/ door.

This is a key point lost on many. ^^

Use the heavy-density transports for troops and bulk cargo, and load up the LMXT's with palletized cargo when they deploy overseas. It could do both at the same time fairly well, while the KC46 can't really "haul cargo" and still maintain a significant refueling or ferry capability.

With the fall out of Ukraine conflict, I see more and more a favorable lean toward the LMXT.

Boeing will get more P-8A and CH-47 sales to Europe and congress can reciprocate with the KX-Y as pay back for a unified NATO.

But that is only from a PR stand point. The requirements side have to be satisfied first.

bt

A review of the operational use of tankers during the Ukraine crisis could also be interesting.....how much tanker time is / was needed for fighter drags and being on station for patrols. Tankers have assigned areas of operations, would a larger tanker serve multiple adjacent area's due to its greater offload capacity or use multiple smaller tankers with only one assigned area? The greater capacity can also mean one tanker staying on station much longer, how does that affect turn around time for missions?

I was wondering if the USAF could demand a NEO variant of MRTT due increased threats as it would have even greater range and lifting capacity, but a much higher price off course...

JonesNL wrote:

I was wondering if the USAF could demand a NEO variant of MRTT due increased threats as it would have even greater range and lifting capacity, but a much higher price off course...

I think GENX engines under the LMXT tanker would be a win-win for everybody in terms of fuel consumption, environmental impact and 40 years maintenance scheduling.
Apart from making the tanker more capable. But the focus seems to be on short term (purchase) costs.. I'm sure GE would be willing to invest, but no doubt Boeing lawyers, congress members would do their utmost to block such an "unfair" situation.

Of course GENX could be fitted to a KC46 variant too.. maybe a 763F sized aircraft with 764 wings, landing gear and MTOW. And most importantly, more space for fuel.

keesje wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

I was wondering if the USAF could demand a NEO variant of MRTT due increased threats as it would have even greater range and lifting capacity, but a much higher price off course...

I think GENX engines under the LMXT tanker would be a win-win for everybody in terms of fuel consumption, environmental impact and 40 years maintenance scheduling.
Apart from making the tanker more capable. But the focus seems to be on short term (purchase) costs.. I'm sure GE would be willing to invest, but no doubt Boeing lawyers, congress members would do their utmost to block such an "unfair" situation.

Of course GENX could be fitted to a KC46 variant too.. maybe a 763F sized aircraft with 764 wings, landing gear and MTOW. And most importantly, more space for fuel.

Boeing is not the Washington & Pentagon darling as it used to be. Maybe the best solution is to dual source as the crew delivery tender of NASA. Especially seeing the threat of China becoming greater with every year...

The USAF, par for the course, would probably prefer the ancient PW4000 option, just because.

The USAF has no use for next gen engines.
Fuel burn is a secondary concern to serviceability and reliability for military applications. The new gen engines are more efficient but at the cost of being heavier, more expensive to purchase and more expensive to maintain. They really only make sense in an airline environment where they are expected to be burning fuel for over 12 hours a day every day, in which case the fuel burn difference compensates for the added costs. It is usually not the case for tankers.

That said, the PW is really not the best option on the 330 IMO... I'd go with GE or RR.

Oh I absolutely agree francoflier, but the USAF loves them some P4000 series as per the C-17/KC-46.

Sorry, I was more commenting on Kesje's post.
As for the PW4000, it would do the job just fine and since the USAF has plenty of operational experience with it and is committed to it for a while with the KC-46, it would indeed likely be the best choice for them. At the end of the day, all three options are quite mature and trouble free engines.

keesje wrote:

I think GENX engines under the LMXT tanker would be a win-win for everybody in terms of fuel consumption, environmental impact and 40 years maintenance scheduling.
Apart from making the tanker more capable. But the focus seems to be on short term (purchase) costs.. I'm sure GE would be willing to invest, but no doubt Boeing lawyers, congress members would do their utmost to block such an "unfair" situation.

Of course GENX could be fitted to a KC46 variant too.. maybe a 763F sized aircraft with 764 wings, landing gear and MTOW. And most importantly, more space for fuel.

Somewhat confused here, the LMXT will be based on the A330, are you now claiming that the USA GenX engine is the superior engine or is this "mindset" only to push the purchase?

PW100 wrote:

And Paris still expects some (serious) compensation (from USA) for the 50 billion dollar aussie submarine deal loss . . .

100 or so tankers could put some salve on that wound.

bt

Well recent events might have brought the US and EU closer on the milifary and geopolitical front again. Airbus tanker and some A400M's for the US and new strategic transport from the US for the EU. viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1467371

Efficiency in scale and R&D and reinforces the trans-Atlantic bond. Get it done boy's.

It really depends on the RFP requirements, it may be for another batch of tankers that the current KC-46 or the A330 MRTT can compete on. I recall the A332 & A333 have options for PW, RR, or GE engines. If the KC-46 stays with PW, the Lockmart would need to be either RR or GE, but the engine would need to be produced in the US (Buy American requires 50% domestic content).

If the RFP requires more fuel offload, or longer dwell time that would force the MRTT to be based on the 338 or 339, and the KC-46 to be upgraded to the 764F (maybe a shrink provided the tail is big enough). That gives 20% added flight time for the fuel used by the tanker, the added 19 tons of MTOW trimmed by the heavier engines probably provides 30,000 lb of added fuel that can be delivered.

Lots of the upgrades of the 767 such as shielding etc could easily be ported over to the 764F, can't imagine all of these shielding things can be done on a composite hull plane, so only the A330, B767, and B777 are candidates for this. The 777 is far too large.

One thing that has not gone into the tankers that I expected is adding capability like the E-7 (possibly lighter level). The more surveilance units in the air the better for information.

Another possible program that will soon be needed is a drone mothership. The US Air Force is far behind the curve in the unmanned aircraft arena, possibly too early to go for that now but the tanker RFP should allocate for that future capability.

I agree that Boeing is not DOD's Golden Child at the moment, if they were the Air Force would find a way to go single source on the KC-Y. At the same time Lockheed's shine is less now, I recall that the F-35 full rate production decision has been delayed again, it still has a bunch of items needing resolution.

It's a different market compared to a near decade ago, Leonardo won the Navy training helo, the FREMM was the parent design for the US frigate, and a EU design is the parent for the Polar Cutter. I think the joint work for the F-35 opened up the whole DOD market to the countries that are the partners on the F-35, not just US anymore.

I can't see the US having any serious interest in the A-400, they have scads of C-130's and over 200 C-17's which cover on both sides of this. Priorites are fighters, bombers, drones, missiles, and hypersonic weapons. Once those are covered the piggy bank is quite empty. The Air Force in 15 to 20 years will work on its next transport.

JayinKitsap wrote:

, can't imagine all of these shielding things can be done on a composite hull plane,

Are you implying the B-2 and F-32 are not shielded?

The lightning protection mesh will provide some shielding up to certain frequency. But yes it may be more difficult but not impossible.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Boeing is not DOD's Golden Child at the moment,

I'd say only for the Air Force and only for the KC-46. I suspect the Navy loved the P-8A program and is chomping at the bit for the MQ-25. The F-15X and the T-7A are more or less on track and the Army have no problems with the Helos.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

, can't imagine all of these shielding things can be done on a composite hull plane,

Are you implying the B-2 and F-32 are not shielded?

The lightning protection mesh will provide some shielding up to certain frequency. But yes it may be more difficult but not impossible.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Boeing is not DOD's Golden Child at the moment,

I'd say only for the Air Force and only for the KC-46. I suspect the Navy loved the P-8A program and is chomping at the bit for the MQ-25. The F-15X and the T-7A are more or less on track and the Army have no problems with the Helos.

bt

I am sure they shielded all of the things that need shielding, with stealth being radar transparent is good. All of the electronics must be well EM shielded, in particular any aircraft certified to carry those things not mentioned.

I recall that both the P-8A and KC-46 have thicker skins and have extensive bonding to obtain the desired protection.

Agree, only the KC-46 is the problem child with DOD, Starliner is not winning awards either. The P-8A and the MQ-25 both look like winners, the F-15ex is already in service even though there are just 2, and the T-7A may be the equivelent of the Datsun 240Z, a hot rod that is actually affordable.

JayinKitsap wrote:

I am sure they shielded all of the things that need shielding, with stealth being radar transparent is good. All of the electronics must be well EM shielded, in particular any aircraft certified to carry thos

You forgot the most important shielding aspect. That's the EMI/EMP shielding for the occupant.

To me EMI and EMP is like black magic. I know that carbon fiber have some shielding effects, but to which level and which type, I have no clue.

bt

Francoflier wrote:

The USAF has no use for next gen engines.
Fuel burn is a secondary concern to serviceability and reliability for military applications. The new gen engines are more efficient but at the cost of being heavier, more expensive to purchase and more expensive to maintain. They really only make sense in an airline environment where they are expected to be burning fuel for over 12 hours a day every day, in which case the fuel burn difference compensates for the added costs. It is usually not the case for tankers.

That said, the PW is really not the best option on the 330 IMO... I'd go with GE or RR.

You can buy a new engine of new design
You can buy a new engine of old design.

Why do you think the new design costs more to maintain? Almost always, newer engines can stay longer on wing, and have fewer parts (or at least fewer turbine blades/stages).

It would be really strange if Rolls Royce made newer designs that needed more maintenance.

Maybe the DoD will wait a little, to see if the 777X achieve its certification?

If range and cargo becomes a priority, a 777X tanker would be a competitor of A330 Neo Mrtt.

bikerthai wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

I am sure they shielded all of the things that need shielding, with stealth being radar transparent is good. All of the electronics must be well EM shielded, in particular any aircraft certified to carry thos

You forgot the most important shielding aspect. That's the EMI/EMP shielding for the occupant.

To me EMI and EMP is like black magic. I know that carbon fiber have some shielding effects, but to which level and which type, I have no clue.

bt

If you're hit by an EMP, you'd feel nothing and have no effects. Biology really is not effected by EMP (unless you go stand in a large microwave).
One shields electronics, not people.

"There is no evidence that EMP is a physical threat to humans."
https://www.atomicarchive.com/science/effects/emp.html

"An EMP isn’t likely to affect the average human body. Humans are not very good conductors of electricity and are generally resistant to any effects from an EMP. ... These studies show that it’s possible you’ll be suffering some negative effects within the first 12 hours after an EMP event. However, it is worth noting that in the majority of these studies, the level of microwave radiation exposure during testing is extremely high. Likely much higher than what you’d experience in an EMP from a nuclear blast or solar flare."
https://www.superprepper.com/emp-effects-on-humans/

kitplane01 wrote:

If you're hit by an EMP, you'd feel nothing and have no effects.

Like I said, all that is black magic to me.

All I know is they tell us to not walk in front of the airplane when the nose radar is on.

bt

TaromA380 wrote:

Maybe the DoD will wait a little, to see if the 777X achieve its certification?

If range and cargo becomes a priority, a 777X tanker would be a competitor of A330 Neo Mrtt.

Absolutely not, even if the 777X enters commercial service, that has nothing to do with an entirely new tanker program. Boeing is $3 BILLION + over budget (not to mention time delays) just retrofitting a 767 design.

This procurement program needs to happen "now" - they're showing the DoD real working aircraft and features. They wouldn't touch a 777 tanker with a 10' pole. The only reason the A330 is being discussed is because the MRTT has been highly successful for quite a while already.

The tanker wars are sure heating up again I guess. A lot of back and forth in this article. LMXT side;

"Larry Gallogly, director of Lockheed Martin’s LMXT campaign team, described the aircraft as a different but complementary capability to KC-46, a larger strategic tanker that has greater range and offload than Boeing’s aerial refueler.

“Air Force leadership made it very clear that priority No. 1 for KC-Y is fuel offload at strategic ranges,” Gallogly explained. “Everything about LMXT’s configuration is about maximizing fuel offload.”

To meet what Gallogly contended is the Air Force’s top desire, LMXT prioritizes fuel over cargo, adding 25,000 pounds of gas over and above what the A330 MRTT carries. Stored in LMXT’s lower cargo hold area, the extra fuel gives the new tanker a total fuel capacity of 271,700 pounds, according to Lockheed. That is roughly 60,000 pounds more fuel capacity than the KC-46A and 69,000 pounds more than the KC-135, but nearly 70,000 pounds less than the KC-10.

The Hudson Institute study considered the importance of offload capacity in multiple ways, including outlining conflict scenarios with China in the Indo-Pacific and Russia in Europe. In a conflict scenario with China, the U.S. tanker fleet would currently be limited to operating from 11 to 12 airfields, most of which would be vulnerable to conventional and hypersonic missiles and stealth fighters like China’s long-range J-20, the study concluded.

Refueling fighters, bombers and transport aircraft beyond the range of Chinese weapons would require operating at 2,000 to 2,500 nautical miles from target areas. As one illustration of the difference in offload capacity between LMXT and a KC-46-based bridge tanker, Walton considered a hypothetical mission in which tankers are required to support B-1B bombers launching from Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, to strike targets in the Taiwan Strait, requiring tankers to refuel the bombers twice on the mission’s outbound leg and once more on the return.

“You could support this mission with 23 LMXTs,” Walton says. “It would take 32 KC-46s. It would require a little more ramp space for LMXTs but require a third less tankers. There are significant benefits in being able to operate with fewer tankers and it costs less.”"

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... ueling-gap

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

If you're hit by an EMP, you'd feel nothing and have no effects.

Like I said, all that is black magic to me.

All I know is they tell us to not walk in front of the airplane when the nose radar is on.

bt

You were taught good black magic.

Amana introduced the microwave oven "The Radar Range" to keep the plant busy as the Korean War died down. I found that the F-14 radar APG-71 had an average power draw of 500W but peak of 10,000W. That's for a so so radar of long ago. To get resolution at distance the radars are high wattage.

The following link has a chart for this radar, I can't find what is the radar wattage here, but the hazard zone is 1,278 feet. Yikes.

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-fighter-jet ... -the-radar.

So the F-15ex pulls in for gas and either forgets or needs to have its megawatt radarrange on, so the cage provides a full spectrum radiowave shielding, also the lighting cage, and the EMP. It's tricky stuff, I've had to do cages in buildings on ground back 25 years ago with TEMPEST and their rules conflict with the grounding tree concept with no loops in the system. I can't imagine the effort needed to ensure riveted aluminum sheets and fasteners are properly electrically bonded together and will remain that way through 25 years of corrosion, vibration, static electricity, etc. Left a blender blade set in a microwave once, it had really cool electric sparks everywhere, caught the box on fire in like 3 seconds.

JayinKitsap wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

If you're hit by an EMP, you'd feel nothing and have no effects.

Like I said, all that is black magic to me.

All I know is they tell us to not walk in front of the airplane when the nose radar is on.

bt

You were taught good black magic.

Amana introduced the microwave oven "The Radar Range" to keep the plant busy as the Korean War died down. I found that the F-14 radar APG-71 had an average power draw of 500W but peak of 10,000W. That's for a so so radar of long ago. To get resolution at distance the radars are high wattage.

The following link has a chart for this radar, I can't find what is the radar wattage here, but the hazard zone is 1,278 feet. Yikes.

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-fighter-jet ... -the-radar.

So the F-15ex pulls in for gas and either forgets or needs to have its megawatt radarrange on, so the cage provides a full spectrum radiowave shielding, also the lighting cage, and the EMP. It's tricky stuff, I've had to do cages in buildings on ground back 25 years ago with TEMPEST and their rules conflict with the grounding tree concept with no loops in the system. I can't imagine the effort needed to ensure riveted aluminum sheets and fasteners are properly electrically bonded together and will remain that way through 25 years of corrosion, vibration, static electricity, etc. Left a blender blade set in a microwave once, it had really cool electric sparks everywhere, caught the box on fire in like 3 seconds.

Sustained hit by a broadcasting radar is bad. A nuclear EMP is a different thing.

texl1649 wrote:

The tanker wars are sure heating up again I guess. A lot of back and forth in this article. LMXT side;

"Larry Gallogly, director of Lockheed Martin’s LMXT campaign team, described the aircraft as a different but complementary capability to KC-46, a larger strategic tanker that has greater range and offload than Boeing’s aerial refueler.

“Air Force leadership made it very clear that priority No. 1 for KC-Y is fuel offload at strategic ranges,” Gallogly explained. “Everything about LMXT’s configuration is about maximizing fuel offload.”

To meet what Gallogly contended is the Air Force’s top desire, LMXT prioritizes fuel over cargo, adding 25,000 pounds of gas over and above what the A330 MRTT carries. Stored in LMXT’s lower cargo hold area, the extra fuel gives the new tanker a total fuel capacity of 271,700 pounds, according to Lockheed. That is roughly 60,000 pounds more fuel capacity than the KC-46A and 69,000 pounds more than the KC-135, but nearly 70,000 pounds less than the KC-10.

The Hudson Institute study considered the importance of offload capacity in multiple ways, including outlining conflict scenarios with China in the Indo-Pacific and Russia in Europe. In a conflict scenario with China, the U.S. tanker fleet would currently be limited to operating from 11 to 12 airfields, most of which would be vulnerable to conventional and hypersonic missiles and stealth fighters like China’s long-range J-20, the study concluded.

Refueling fighters, bombers and transport aircraft beyond the range of Chinese weapons would require operating at 2,000 to 2,500 nautical miles from target areas. As one illustration of the difference in offload capacity between LMXT and a KC-46-based bridge tanker, Walton considered a hypothetical mission in which tankers are required to support B-1B bombers launching from Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, to strike targets in the Taiwan Strait, requiring tankers to refuel the bombers twice on the mission’s outbound leg and once more on the return.

“You could support this mission with 23 LMXTs,” Walton says. “It would take 32 KC-46s. It would require a little more ramp space for LMXTs but require a third less tankers. There are significant benefits in being able to operate with fewer tankers and it costs less.”"

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... ueling-gap

Max fuel offload at Extended range? If only there were 59 Extenders available which were designed for that very type of mission, and could be easily updated to last for decades more at a fraction of a new fleet’s expense and time!

Really glad the AF was serious about cutting down on the number of tanker fleets.

Buckeyetech wrote:

USAF doesn't have much of an appetite for another airframe in their inventory.

They'd rather add a couple dozens E-7A. While not a new airframe per se, they only have a couple of 737 in their fleet.

https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2022/ ... ss/363679/

bt

In terms of AWACs platforms, they don't really have another option (the E-767 was just an E-3 in a 767 instead of a 707 and I would expect the E-7 is a more advanced and capable platform).

As for LMXT, if all you want to do is carry a lot of fuel for offload, just put main-deck tanks on a KC-46A (call it the KC-46B).

Stitch wrote:

As for LMXT, if all you want to do is carry a lot of fuel for offload, just put main-deck tanks on a KC-46A (call it the KC-46B).

MGTOW is 415K and average operating weight is ~ 205K. Unless those main-deck fuel tanks are empty that’s not gonna work.

I was going to ask, aren't they pushing max weight already if they just fill all of the lower lobe with aux tanks?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

I was going to ask, aren't they pushing max weight already if they just fill all of the lower lobe with aux tanks?

bt

Bingo. The jet is gross weight limited, not fuel volume limited. The cargo floor, if you wanna call it that, is already weak enough as it is, and the cargo handling system is only ~ 1-1.5K of weight.

That orange can’t be squeezed anymore.