Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Hammer

KC-46A Info

Recommended Posts

On 12/28/2018 at 2:20 PM, Guardian said:


Just pass gas and move stuff. I realize that’s an over simplification. But that doesn’t make it false.

A counter simplification- the closer the tanker is to the fight, the more effective the offensive aircraft (more time employing, less time getting gas).  The future of the tanker needs to be different then our past. Might not see a stealth tanker soon, but we need to start thinking that way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2018 at 10:40 AM, ThreeHoler said:

 


Supply chain logistics. The tail of the KC-10 supply chain is long and expensive to support 59 aircraft versus 400-some KC-135s.
 

 

I assume that, the fewer DC-10/MD-11 types flying in commercial service, the harder it gets to maintain the KC-10s?

Any idea what UPS and FedEx's plans are for retiring their fleets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A counter simplification- the closer the tanker is to the fight, the more effective the offensive aircraft (more time employing, less time getting gas).  The future of the tanker needs to be different then our past. Might not see a stealth tanker soon, but we need to start thinking that way...

Interesting thought but are you suggesting shooting AMRAAMs while waiting your turn to get gas while on an OCA sweep or a bomber dropping bombs while in contact? Or is that the pendulum to far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Guardian said:


Interesting thought but are you suggesting shooting AMRAAMs while waiting your turn to get gas while on an OCA sweep or a bomber dropping bombs while in contact? Or is that the pendulum to far?

Are we talking evolutionary or revolutionary? Not next year, but the technology is there (probably not to the extreme of your examples) to defend/hide/use a tanker in such environments... no need to refuel bombers that close as they typically have the legs. 

2 things to focus on - slow, long endurance (unmanned) and fast, short endurance.  Both are dramatically benefited by a tanker that can get close(r).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the idea of an LO tanker, does it need to have a long station time/large offload or could it be one AR event on ingress/egress for the strikers?

If large offload is not a requirement, enough to be useful but not nearly as much as a conventional tanker then the possibilities for one adapted from an existing LO design open up, IMO.  Thinking about 20k-40k offload at 500 NM from its launch or last AR event.

Now if it has a low(er) offload capability but LO to get close or inside the WEZ it could be a go between the LO strikers and the conventional tankers in standoff anchor tracks.  

Two ship of LO tankers doing yo-yo ops to the conventional tanker(s), one ingresses with the strikers, last top off then 1 returns to the anchor, 2 departs for a point in the WEZ or A2AD area for egress and/or to pass ELINT picked up as it orbits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the idea of an LO tanker, does it need to have a long station time/large offload or could it be one AR event on ingress/egress for the strikers?

If large offload is not a requirement, enough to be useful but not nearly as much as a conventional tanker then the possibilities for one adapted from an existing LO design open up, IMO.  Thinking about 20k-40k offload at 500 NM from its launch or last AR event.

Now if it has a low(er) offload capability but LO to get close or inside the WEZ it could be a go between the LO strikers and the conventional tankers in standoff anchor tracks.  

Two ship of LO tankers doing yo-yo ops to the conventional tanker(s), one ingresses with the strikers, last top off then 1 returns to the anchor, 2 departs for a point in the WEZ or A2AD area for egress and/or to pass ELINT picked up as it orbits.

I’d have to see some sort of presentation or mission planning, so that I could understand why better. Because it sounds like a really bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thought but are you suggesting shooting AMRAAMs while waiting your turn to get gas while on an OCA sweep or a bomber dropping bombs while in contact? Or is that the pendulum to far?


You think you’re being cute. But thinking along those lines is what we need (and some people are doing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LO tanker isn’t really worth the cost, unless it can also drop bombs, in which case it won’t be in AMC. That said, a tanker with defensive system and Link will be a requirement considering that every piece of an IADS is mobile and easy to hide. Since the timeline math really sucks for an OCA or strike guy that has to drive 30m each way to get gas, the tankers will have to be moved well inside their current zone of comfortability. ALR Low won’t be a thing. If we’re talking a no-shitter, losing tankers to enemy action will be disturbingly regular.

I’m not sure if current tanker communities are willing or able to plan or execute in that environment. They’re all great Americans and will find a way, but it’ll be painful at the very least.

I welcome spears that prove me wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LO tanker isn’t really worth the cost, unless it can also drop bombs, in which case it won’t be in AMC. That said, a tanker with defensive system and Link will be a requirement considering that every piece of an IADS is mobile and easy to hide. Since the timeline math really sucks for an OCA or strike guy that has to drive 30m each way to get gas, the tankers will have to be moved well inside their current zone of comfortability. ALR Low won’t be a thing. If we’re talking a no-shitter, losing tankers to enemy action will be disturbingly regular.
I’m not sure if current tanker communities are willing or able to plan or execute in that environment. They’re all great Americans and will find a way, but it’ll be painful at the very least.
I welcome spears that prove me wrong.


You’ll get no spears from me. People in the KC-10 freak the out about going secure or lights “out” or turning off ATC broadcast. I’d bet at least 4/5 can’t even use a bullseye correctly. And you want them to think about threats and mitigation?

Good people in the community but they are all fat dumb and happy burning holes in the sky. You’ll get no spears from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’d have to see some sort of presentation or mission planning, so that I could understand why better. Because it sounds like a really bad idea.

Copy
Not saying a middle man LO tanker with a small offload capacity is a great idea but I think it is likely the only financially feasible / lower technical risk option if the joint team decides it needs that kind of AR capability
You could build an LO tanker or LO tanker / bomber / arsenal plane from a B-2 / B-21 with an extra 6.9 billion in development costs that would more closely resemble a conventional tanker in offload and station time but I don’t see the money for that but a smaller less ambitious design from something like an A-12 or F-117 stretched model, maybe...
Still would be expensive for those LO “tactical “ tanker/bomber/arsenal platform and it would need to be multi-mission as the LO tanker role would diminish as the A2AD area shrinks as the threats are eliminated/suppressed and the conventional tankers can move closer to the FEBA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

You’ll get no spears from me. People in the KC-10 freak the out about going secure or lights “out” or turning off ATC broadcast. I’d bet at least 4/5 can’t even use a bullseye correctly. And you want them to think about threats and mitigation?

Good people in the community but they are all fat dumb and happy burning holes in the sky. You’ll get no spears from me.

 

Yeah, that’s what it seemed like when I was there. I don’t blame them too much, there’s a lot to learn to be the boss of an international wide-body by age 26. AC upgrade happens before anyone is truly experienced; everyone seemed scared shitless to do anything out of the norm and “get violated” by some 2nd world ATC, “combat” or not.

And then there’s this: https://mobile.twitter.com/Buzz6868/status/985033590466580481

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last few posts basically describes organic tanking that the carrier airwing already does. Granted, Navy organic tanking has typically been around the boat but it's also an option to push them forward with the strike package if needed.

In a larger peer-on-peer, the organic tanker could plug on the -135 or whatever, then push forward and be closer to the fight with the rest of the fighters/bombers. Now you have a fighter dude flying in a tanker role (apologies to the tanker dudes here) that also has a helluva lot better understanding of the tactics required to fight the opposing force. I realize that it would also take a ton of smaller jets to match the give capacity of a -135 or similar, but it's definitely an alternative to the traditional big wing tanker.

The difficulty is making a Hornet (or similar) in the 5-wet configuration LO, and I have yet to see anyone discuss turning the F-35 into a tanker, although I won't be surprised if someone in the Navy eventually tries it.

In the AF construct though, to my Navy brain, I can't see the fighter guys ever being willing to fly in an organic tanker role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bigred said:

The last few posts basically describes organic tanking that the carrier airwing already does. Granted, Navy organic tanking has typically been around the boat but it's also an option to push them forward with the strike package if needed.

In a larger peer-on-peer, the organic tanker could plug on the -135 or whatever, then push forward and be closer to the fight with the rest of the fighters/bombers. Now you have a fighter dude flying in a tanker role (apologies to the tanker dudes here) that also has a helluva lot better understanding of the tactics required to fight the opposing force. I realize that it would also take a ton of smaller jets to match the give capacity of a -135 or similar, but it's definitely an alternative to the traditional big wing tanker.

The difficulty is making a Hornet (or similar) in the 5-wet configuration LO, and I have yet to see anyone discuss turning the F-35 into a tanker, although I won't be surprised if someone in the Navy eventually tries it.

In the AF construct though, to my Navy brain, I can't see the fighter guys ever being willing to fly in an organic tanker role.

https://news.usni.org/2018/08/30/navy-picks-boeing-build-mq-25a-stingray-carrier-based-drone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought the Navy used little tankers because big ones don’t fit on the boat, and if the boat used jets that didn’t fit on the boat, they’d have a hard time justifying a boat altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The last few posts basically describes organic tanking that the carrier airwing already does. Granted, Navy organic tanking has typically been around the boat but it's also an option to push them forward with the strike package if needed.

In a larger peer-on-peer, the organic tanker could plug on the -135 or whatever, then push forward and be closer to the fight with the rest of the fighters/bombers. Now you have a fighter dude flying in a tanker role (apologies to the tanker dudes here) that also has a helluva lot better understanding of the tactics required to fight the opposing force. I realize that it would also take a ton of smaller jets to match the give capacity of a -135 or similar, but it's definitely an alternative to the traditional big wing tanker.

The difficulty is making a Hornet (or similar) in the 5-wet configuration LO, and I have yet to see anyone discuss turning the F-35 into a tanker, although I won't be surprised if someone in the Navy eventually tries it.

In the AF construct though, to my Navy brain, I can't see the fighter guys ever being willing to fly in an organic tanker role.

Yup.

If money were free flowing, I would want an LO version of the EKA-3B Skywarrior with more capes (A-A and A-G missiles for cross-cue shots, self-defense, ELINT, etc..). 

As to fighter dudes flying it I guess you mean exclusively, I can see that point but there have to be golden apples to reach for, I'd want it open to all communities.  If we want people who think tactically, operationally and when in higher positions take that attitude with them, we need more people to do missions directly performing kinetic ops or directly supporting kinetic ops (beyond traditional AR).

As it's A-A role, it would be purely defensive or supporting as an arsenal platform, supporting the strikers and if called for delivering PGMs, just my two cents being a graduate of IFF would not need be a requirement.

Just vaporware of a hypothetical medium weight Chinese LO bomber (H-18) but an approximation of what I think this platform would be:

plaaf+chinese+air+force+guess+this+is+called+H-18+medium-range+supersonic+stealth+bomber+using+two+high-thrust+turbofan+engine,+maximum+range+8000-9000+km,+maximum+combat+radius+of+3500-3700+km,+(3).jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2018 at 7:41 AM, Blue said:

I assume that, the fewer DC-10/MD-11 types flying in commercial service, the harder it gets to maintain the KC-10s?

Any idea what UPS and FedEx's plans are for retiring their fleets?

Stories of the MD-11s demise are greatly exaggerated. It is getting harder to support internationally but is still a very viable domestic freighter, especially on higher density routes (think SDF-DFW). It’s also really tough right now to get 767 or 777 production slots so even if brown and purple decide to replace the MDs tomorrow, it will be a while before they can be phased out. It’ll be around at least another decade. Probably longer if oil prices remain low. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Load up a gas station with weapons, what could go wrong?  The BONE-R is the best thing I’ve seen open source that might have a chance, tho the name...

Edited by matmacwc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, matmacwc said:

Load up a gas station with weapons, what could go wrong?  The BONE-R is the best thing I’ve seen open source that might have a chance, tho the name...

As a B-1 guy, I can't wait for the F-22 engines and AMRAAMs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pawnman said:

As a B-1 guy, I can't wait for the F-22 engines and AMRAAMs.

You’d be a missle truck, akin to a UAV with your weapons being controlled from another platform but it could work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, matmacwc said:

Load up a gas station with weapons, what could go wrong? 

You know, that's an argument that I have heard for a long time and completely disagree with. A lot of people in the tanker community also believe that for some reason as well. The Bone and Buff hold a crap ton of gas (~265K and ~312K, respectively), even compared to the legacy tankers (~200K for the -135 and ~340K for the -10), in addition to their weapons loadout. A large aircraft with weapons doesn't equate to a leaky gas can and a lit fuse.

Edit: Adding weapons decreases fuel capacity, but still, each bomber holds a lot of gas

The P-8 has both hard points and a bomb bay, and is a great model for future weapons employment methods for large aircraft. It is absolutely do-able for a platform like the KC-46 (sorry, C-46...).

Edited by jango220

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A missile truck with an assload of green stars on it.



Brings up an interesting question.. if Aircraft I fires the missile, and aircraft B guides it, who gets the kill/green star?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bronxbomber252 said:

 

 


Brings up an interesting question.. if Aircraft I fires the missile, and aircraft B guides it, who gets the kill/green star?

 

 

I kid you not, halfsies 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, that's an argument that I have heard for a long time and completely disagree with. A lot of people in the tanker community also believe that for some reason as well. The Bone and Buff hold a crap ton of gas (~265K and ~312K, respectively), even compared to the legacy tankers (~200K for the -135 and ~340K for the -10), in addition to their weapons loadout. A large aircraft with weapons doesn't equate to a leaky gas can and a lit fuse. The P-8 has both hard points and a bomb bay, and is a great model for future weapons employment methods for large aircraft. It is absolutely do-able for a platform like the KC-46 (sorry, C-46...). 

 

 2

 

What’s so less dangerous about a single engine fighter flying around with thousands of lbs of JP-8, munitions AND hydrazine (a super toxic/energetic fuel)

 

Not worried about leaking JP-8 getting lit off Air Force One movie style by a missile shot after it dropped off a rack at FL450 / 500 true

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×