Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Avatar2go wrote:VMCA787 wrote:Apparently, the USAF has decided on the use of a BWB for the next Cargo/Tanker aircraft.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-f ... t-by-2027/
Important to note this is a research effort that is charged with reducing the USAF climate footprint. One way to do that is with BWB designs. This project is developing an experimental prototype, to gain experience and test results for the type.
It is very far removed from the notion of a USAF operational tanker or cargo aircraft. It's possible that if the prototype is successful, development could continue toward a production aircraft. But we are at least a decade out from anything like that.
Not really sure why this gets hyped so much in the press. The USAF looks at many prototype designs, the majority don't become operational aircraft. It will be awhile before we know about this one.
par13del wrote:So in this case rather than follow the civilian market they are going to lead?
Cool
VMCA787 wrote:Apparently, the USAF has decided on the use of a BWB for the next Cargo/Tanker aircraft.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-f ... t-by-2027/
bikerthai wrote:They have to start somewhere.
If we believe future airlines will also go to BWB then this is a good a start as any for full scale R&D work.
scbriml wrote:What if we don't believe it?
bikerthai wrote:par13del wrote:So in this case rather than follow the civilian market they are going to lead?
Cool
Happened before.
The KC-135 preceded the 707 and the 747 fell out of the cargo competition with the C-5.
bt
RJMAZ wrote:Will the future Loyal Wingman drones use boom or probe refueling?
I think probe and drogue has advantages for smaller aircraft. Obviously in terms of a small emergency tanker it is easier to fit a drogue refueling system than a boom. An automated boom appears to be a big and expensive challenge.
I wonder if the USAF has recently considered fitting refuel probes? The F-35 has the ability of both systems. The NGAD could easily have both.
Instead of the USAF developing and buying dedicated unmanned tankers with a boom it wmcould be easier buy a large fleet of MQ-25 tankers and fit probes to the F-35A fleet.
Most if Europe uses probe and drogue. The KC-46 can refuel two fighters at once using the drogue so it slightly offsets the lower refueling rate. Loyal Wingman drones might be what pushes the USAF fighters to use prove and drogue.
JayinKitsap wrote:A KC-46 could be the mother ship for say 2 to 4 MQ-25 alongside, after the -25's consume or deliver their fuel they refuel via the boom before flying 400 miles ahead of the distance the KC-46 is safe at.
bikerthai wrote:And at the forward position, you want the refueling to be as fast as posible to reduce the time span of vulnerability.
RJMAZ wrote:The biggest issue with the boom is the tanker has to be very large.
bikerthai wrote:RJMAZ wrote:The biggest issue with the boom is the tanker has to be very large.
The large boom was probably originally designed for large bombers.
For tactical (fighters and wingmen) wonder if they can redesign for a shorter boom?
It would require massive R&D spending though.
bt
par13del wrote:bikerthai wrote:RJMAZ wrote:The biggest issue with the boom is the tanker has to be very large.
The large boom was probably originally designed for large bombers.
For tactical (fighters and wingmen) wonder if they can redesign for a shorter boom?
It would require massive R&D spending though.
bt
Amazing that digital technology can be used for new a/c to speed design / production / delivery but for something like a new and smaller boom just for fighters the OEM would probably charge billions for R&D.
The things that make you say hhhmmmm....
texl1649 wrote:The thing is the USAF has an unbroken track record of tanker procurement failures going back over 50 years now.
texl1649 wrote:The thing is the USAF has an unbroken track record of tanker procurement failures going back over 50 years now.
LyleLanley wrote:Can you elaborate on why you think this? If you'd said 20 I'd understand, but >50? I'd say the KC-10 was a pretty damn successful acquisition - 16 originally planned, 60 actually purchased. Reengining the KC-135 (twice!) was also successful use of the jet's very low hours.
Newark727 wrote:
Tangent, but I didn't realize the KC-135's hours were considered low. I don't really have a basis for comparison, but it seems a little surprising, given that it seems like nearly everything else needs tanker gas and they've all been at work since the 1960s. Was it just a lot of airframes built to spread out the flying hours over? Not an expert at all of course, it just made me curious.
Newark727 wrote:Tangent, but I didn't realize the KC-135's hours were considered low. I don't really have a basis for comparison, but it seems a little surprising, given that it seems like nearly everything else needs tanker gas and they've all been at work since the 1960s. Was it just a lot of airframes built to spread out the flying hours over? Not an expert at all of course, it just made me curious.
Avatar2go wrote:Newark727 wrote:
Tangent, but I didn't realize the KC-135's hours were considered low. I don't really have a basis for comparison, but it seems a little surprising, given that it seems like nearly everything else needs tanker gas and they've all been at work since the 1960s. Was it just a lot of airframes built to spread out the flying hours over? Not an expert at all of course, it just made me curious.
Two reasons: first since they are commercial jets, they are designed for nearly 10 times the hours of most military aircraft, while flying about as often.
Second is that they receive regular inspection and remediation to extend their lives, during heavy maintenance checks & overhauls. That involves the latest non-destructive testing technologies, that weren't envisioned when they were built.
Also the USAF has a teardown program to evaluate every part of the KC-135, and establish a statistical life for that part in the fleet. Then the parts are replaced before they fail. Some are also upgraded with better components and technology.
End result is that they aren't allowed to get into a state that would force retirement. They receive whatever repairs they need.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0410tankers/
https://www.aviationpros.com/engines-co ... e-aircraft
Spacepope wrote:The KC-135 is not and never was a commercial jet.
bikerthai wrote:Spacepope wrote:The KC-135 is not and never was a commercial jet.
True the KC-135 has a slightly smaller fuselage. But basically the design and construction is pretty much the same.
bt
zanl188 wrote:Have you never seen one up close?
zanl188 wrote:doublers around the aft fuselage
Spacepope wrote:The KC-135 is not and never was a commercial jet.
bikerthai wrote:
Commercial airlines do the same. They may just be better at touch up and make it looks good.
bt
RJMAZ wrote:DigitalSea wrote:Why on Earth would the USAF need a B-21 tanker?
Because the KC-46 will get shot down and you've lost 3 crew.
DigitalSea wrote:RJMAZ wrote:DigitalSea wrote:Why on Earth would the USAF need a B-21 tanker?
Because the KC-46 will get shot down and you've lost 3 crew.
B-21 or not, explain how you're going to pull off air-to-air refueling in a contested environment without being detected, lol come on...
RJMAZ wrote:DigitalSea wrote:RJMAZ wrote:Because the KC-46 will get shot down and you've lost 3 crew.
B-21 or not, explain how you're going to pull off air-to-air refueling in a contested environment without being detected, lol come on...
Please explain how stealth aircraft survive once their weapon bays doors open...
So you would rather the KC-46 shot down and 3 lives lost?
TWA772LR wrote:With the B2 still being a larger aircraft than the B21, maybe they can make it be a stealth tanker after retired from bomber service? They still have plenty of time to develop such a program and have feedstock available. Plus a larger (I assume) bomb bay for a longer, telescopic boom. They can also make the bomb bay stealthy as part of the retrofit.
Crazier things have happened. Like modern engines and glass cockpits for the B52, KC135, and C5 which even had it's wing structure replaced.
TWA772LR wrote:With the B2 still being a larger aircraft than the B21, maybe they can make it be a stealth tanker after retired from bomber service?
RJMAZ wrote:Please explain how stealth aircraft survive once their weapon bays doors open...
Vintage wrote:I don't know if I'm right on this but I can visualize an F-35 going inverted nose up 20°,
bikerthai wrote:From above:You would also need some sort of ejector for the weapon, unless you can do an arch to lob or drop the plane away from the missile as opposed to the other way around.
"while pulling the nose down to 20° below the horizon at about 2Gs