Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
texl1649 wrote:Very frustrating to read the USAF basically calling for a KC-46 vs. a real competition. Silly.
Stitch wrote:Perhaps for long drags have additional KC-46 sortie as part of the group so the primary KC-46 can offload as much of their fuel as possible for the fighters and then get topped off from the secondary KC-46 to complete the trip themselves (somewhat similar to what the RAF did for Operation Black Buck).
LyleLanley wrote:You’re speaking of force extension, but although it’s a great idea for a large tanker to be force extended by a smaller one - e.g. a 135 dumping 125K into a KC-10 - it doesn’t make as much sense for two smaller tankers to do so; the other tanker might as well just take the formation ala an air bridge. The USAF is getting away from force extension, though, as the moving parts with multiple points of failure are less reliable than an air bridge concept.
Stitch wrote:So then they just send enough KC-46A to refuel the fighters while also allowing each KC-46 to fly the distance?
Or does the USAF have no choice but to buy ~50 A330MRTT to replace the KC-10A fleet, despite the comments from SecAF that they would prefer to not add another tanker model to the force?
LyleLanley wrote:Stitch wrote:So then they just send enough KC-46A to refuel the fighters while also allowing each KC-46 to fly the distance?
Or does the USAF have no choice but to buy ~50 A330MRTT to replace the KC-10A fleet, despite the comments from SecAF that they would prefer to not add another tanker model to the force?
Exactly. Or hand off the formation to another tanker whilst the original heads back, or have fewer receivers per tanker, etc. As much as I love the 10, they can do the job without her. The USAF dragged fighters across the oceans for 25 years before the 10 came around. It just won’t be as smart, easy, or efficient as the 10 could.
Making Coronets Great Again?
RobertoMugabe wrote:
Even recapitalizing the 10 fleet with the LMXT leaves Big Blue with an aging 135 fleet, no? Is there any merit to the idea of filling out the KC-46 fleet to cover current gaps in capability with some backstop for safety while Big Blue goes on developing a large, optionally manned, stealthier aircraft without adding another model to the fleet?
keesje wrote:I think a huge effort is going on behind the curtains to bring down USAF refuelling requirements, so also the KC46B can do the job.
Instead of the USAF objectively determining what are realistic global scenarios and requirements and calculate what lift is needed.
keesje wrote:I think a huge effort is going on behind the curtains to bring down USAF refuelling requirements, so also the KC46B can do the job.
Instead of the USAF objectively determining what are realistic global scenarios and requirements and calculate what lift is needed.
RJMAZ wrote:bigger heavy bomber and a superior/larger non-737 based AWAC. So the USAF is being forced to go with the inferior aircraft option because the Boeing refueling tanker is inadequate.
RJMAZ wrote:Definitely not the case. The days of big tankers are long gone. The bombers are getting much smaller and are requiring less fuel. The fighters are getting longer range and require fewer inflight refueling.
In 15 years time the NGAD and the B-21 would be able to perform as an example an entire mainland China attack without any needing tankers.
LyleLanley wrote:RJMAZ wrote:Definitely not the case. The days of big tankers are long gone. The bombers are getting much smaller and are requiring less fuel. The fighters are getting longer range and require fewer inflight refueling.
In 15 years time the NGAD and the B-21 would be able to perform as an example an entire mainland China attack without any needing tankers.
Pretty sure “the Bobs” at Scott would disagree with you, and they probably have better insight to our OPLANs as well as present/future capes.
In any case, the future being smaller bombers and fatter fighters may come true, but adding the tyranny of Pacific Ocean distance to the equation stretches things quite a bit.
I’m any case, China is roughly 3,000 miles wide. I have difficulty imagining, as you wrote, that NGAD will be able to span anywhere near that distance. In any case, no matter it’s range, you can guarantee both the B-21 and the NGAD would need a top-off before hitting landfall, and likely far, far before so. That will definitely require a tanker of some sort. One with a decent payload-at-range.
keesje wrote:Consider Boeing getting the tanker contract a done deal. Boeing #1 Customer, the Pentagon is getting worried about their long term options.
https://theaircurrent.com/industry-stra ... direction/
Capabilities, requirements and track record will be put aside for longer term strategic interest.
I think most people deep down see it makes sense.
Avatar2go wrote:There is no significant issue of quality or performance between the two candidates. The MRTT has proved itself and the KC-46 is proving itself. The vision system problems had to be rectified & settled, and they are now, they will be superior to the MRTT when rolled out next year. But both aircraft are suitable to the task, and either could serve well.
keesje wrote:
There a significant differences in capability, track record, quality and program risk moving forward. But other things are becoming more important.
Things could move faster now than we realize. But Washington (incl DoD) wants something back. Something long term.
texl1649 wrote:The USAF has had no problem with used aircraft as tankers (KC135’s, KC-10’s), in the past. This is another avenue to perhaps offer a lower cost point.
texl1649 wrote:As a thought exercise, LMT could probably get some converted A330’s from EFW, also: converted in the US, and then apply the LMXT modifications, instead of a new build aircraft.
texl1649 wrote:But other/707’s were converted from airline use for USAF applications (including E-8’s coming from Qantas), and of course the new AF1’s were not built for the USAF either.
Stitch wrote:It may all be a moot point, anyway, with the Secretary of the Air Force commenting over the past couple of months that the demand for a KC-10 class replacement (KC-Z) is so low it might not be worth going forward with it. USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. has also noted that the KC-46A could likely fill the role of KC-Z "with some tweaks".
The USAF is also evaluating their projected budget for the next decade and feel spending billions on developing a new, larger tanker (and then billions more on acquiring them over what an equivalent number of KC-46A buys would cost) might not be the best answer and just doing additional KC-46A buys for at least KC-Y and possibly KC-Z (should that program continue to be based on conventional manned airframes based on passenger models).
“So part of the question is, do we go straight to the KC-Z?” Brown said.
The last three heads of Air Mobility Command have speculated that the KC-Z might be a significant departure from the modified-airliner approach taken with the KC-135, KC-10, and, overseas, with the KC-30 and KC-767 tankers. They have speculated that it might possibly be a stealthy platform that could operate inside an enemy’s air defense zone.
Brown brushed that notion aside, however, saying the Next Generation Air Dominance family of systems, intended to operate inside an enemy integrated air defense system (IADS), will have “the range to go where it needs to go” and that an escort tanker is probably not needed. Brown specifically said, “I wouldn’t call [KC-Z] an escort tanker.”
Still, the Air Force is reassessing the KC-Z, which in initial plans would have replaced the KC-10 with a comparably sized tanker larger than the KC-135 or KC-46.
In the grand scheme of things, though, “I’d say a tanker’s a tanker, depending on how big it is, how much gas it carries, where it can go, where it can land,” Brown said. “And those are the things we do have to think about. And how you protect it, and what communications suite it has on it.”
The KC-Y and Z tankers would differ from the KC-46 in having “additional self-protection” capabilities and serve as a communication node, he noted.
bikerthai wrote:Wasn't the original KC-Z plan was a more futuristic approach that might even include BWB?
bt
bikerthai wrote:I hope the KC-Y competition get axed.
As a aero dweeb, I would love to see R&D money dumped into BWB work.
bt
texl1649 wrote:How much R/D would really be dropped into…developing either the KC-46 or A330 MRTT?
Hunter said the Air Force consulted with Boeing and Lockheed Martin on when they could deliver new tankers after Boeing finishes its current contract for 179 KC-46s. Boeing could produce an uprated KC-46 by 2032 and Lockheed could provide an “LMXT” tanker, based on the Airbus A330, by 2034. By that time, USAF doesn’t want to be buying traditional tankers anymore, Hunter said.
Revelation wrote:I know military procurement takes ages, but 9 or 11 years to upgrade existing aircraft?USAF sources indicate they want to stop buying "traditional tankers" before the time when LMXT could be available.Hunter said the Air Force consulted with Boeing and Lockheed Martin on when they could deliver new tankers after Boeing finishes its current contract for 179 KC-46s. Boeing could produce an uprated KC-46 by 2032 and Lockheed could provide an “LMXT” tanker, based on the Airbus A330, by 2034. By that time, USAF doesn’t want to be buying traditional tankers anymore, Hunter said.
Ref: https://www.airandspaceforces.com/usaf- ... th-future/
Stitch wrote:Makes sense, to me. The KC-46A is already in service and is continuing to mature as a platform and with the anti-air environment only becoming more deadly, moving to a Low Observable next generation tanker platform sounds like a prudent option. And if that program lags, the USAF can always just add more KC-46A in the interim.
ReverseFlow wrote:"Lockheed Martin’s LMXT will be the first tanker to deliver this capability to the U.S. Air Force and can do so by 2029."
morrisond wrote:It sounds like the Bridge Tanker will be cut to 75 frames which IMO makes the existing KC-46 the most likely candidate. Why waste money upgrading it when something stealthy is on the Horizon.
If it is 75 frames when does this take the 767 line too in terms of ending production?
https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2023/ ... er/383677/
Revelation wrote:morrisond wrote:It sounds like the Bridge Tanker will be cut to 75 frames which IMO makes the existing KC-46 the most likely candidate. Why waste money upgrading it when something stealthy is on the Horizon.
If it is 75 frames when does this take the 767 line too in terms of ending production?
https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2023/ ... er/383677/
Personally, I'm cynical enough to suggest this is all a ploy. Cut the order to 75 so you can justify bypassing the bidding process, rationalize it by saying this lets USAF get to the hypothetical clean-sheet "survivable" tanker earlier, but everyone involved realizes the hypothetical clean-sheet won't emerge in the required time frame, therefore Boeing gets a second follow-on order for 75 without competition because USAF needs to do "KC-135 recapitalization".
Personally I think this is a gravy train for Boeing for the rest of the 2020s and for the 2030s as well, 15/year just like clockwork, when the next largest tanker fleet in the world is 22 aircraft ( https://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraf ... -fleet.php ).
See also: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1468499&p=23707739#p23707739