Jump to content

Tactical Tanker


Recommended Posts

Put a ball turret (manned of course) on that bad boy for the win!

I’ll settle for ejection seats but if it’s technically feasible/deployable a DE weapon for self defense would be second

If this presses forward with the strikers to some drop off that’s close or in the WEZ of something like PL-15, SA-5 or SA-400 some X percentage of the crew that fly it are unfortunately gonna need it sometime


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted it's been a hot minute since I've been a tanker toad...but I'd imagine a low observable tanker is a much more survivable way to get gas closer to the fight than going the route of a jet powered H/M/KC-130.

But with how much AMC is jerking itself off on the "ACE" acronym I guess it's hard to discount any idea, no matter how devoid of common sense, it appears.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool. A tanker that doesn’t mention fuel capacity probably has shitty fuel capacity. Can it land in more places than a KC-130? Does the boom or UARRSI exist yet? Does the JADC2 mesh network datalink it’ll carry exist yet? And when it does exist, what’s stopping literally any other airplane from carrying it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Cool.

Thanks

7 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

A tanker that doesn’t mention fuel capacity probably has shitty fuel capacity.

Incorrect, unless of course you think the offload of a KC-135 is shitty.

7 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Can it land in more places than a KC-130?

Same places, same CBR.  Once airborne it accelerates out to 400+ knots using the same motors as the A-320.

Also, in current state minus the boom the refueling envelope is 110 knots to 330 knots, so you can refuel a helo, a CV-22, an F-35B/C all in the same mission WITHOUT changing the basket.  Add the boom and it is a gas party for everyone.

7 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Does the boom or UARRSI exist yet?

This aircraft is actually a clean sheet design AS A TANKER so it is plumbed to both pass AND take gas.  Although the current setup up is for it to use probe and drogue when taking gas, the hard part (plumbin),  is done and was built into the the design from day one.  There is NOTHING cosmic about a installing a UARRSI.

The boom is the risk and the company is going to spend a lot of money to develop a boom.  Boeing in their desire to serve America....or should I say vendor lock DoD, has refused to share rights to their boom and has gone as far as to retrieve all their old booms from derelict KC-97s.  Fine with me considering the abortion they put on the KC-46.  By the way, the remote vision system was NOT a USAF requirement...that is all Boeing.

7 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Does the JADC2 mesh network datalink it’ll carry exist yet?

Parts of it yes...the rest when DoD stops being psychotic and comes up with an actual Fing plan.   The intent it for all the services to link together but every service is going a different direction.  I challenge you to read the Doctrine they recently published without throwing the document against the wall.  

7 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

And when it does exist

The minute they share an actual requirements document you will see a lot more focused effort to deliver boxes of knobs, until then everyone is running in a different direction.

7 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

what’s stopping literally any other airplane from carrying it?

Absolutely nothing, probably not on a fighter as the antennas and weight detract from that mission but that is not the point.  The point is if you have a tanker or other support aircraft in the airspace why not have a forward to node to enable to overall network.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry boss, disagree that money should be spent on this thing rather than buying more big tankers. How much offload would it have? It only weighs 58k, would it have enough fuel to fill up a 4-ship?

Portraying it as a JADC2 node is  airplane seller fluff that just doesn’t make sense when the hardware to enable it isn’t ready. And when it is, suddenly any airplane with electricity could install it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what kind of fuel can it carry/offload.

According to wiki (caveat emptor) in the current tanker version, the C-390 with Cobham AR systems can offload from a total 77k fuel capacity

I assume that aircraft and mission fuel then are not segregated and that same wiki page says the max fuel load is with three aux tanks is 77k

Just a WAG but after mods (adding equipment and getting rid of some not needed by deleting the cargo and paratrooper door/ramp mission systems) I think an instantaneous offload at launch of 65k seems reasonable

Another WAG but guessing 5k per hour on station (averaging gross weight over the mission to a fuel burn) seems reasonable basing it off A320 engines/weights/me jumpseating on the bus and comparing it’s numbers to to the mighty 737

So guessing you wanna land with an hour of gas: 5k
2 hours to/from station 1000 miles away: 10k plus 10k is 20k
1 hour orbit on station: 5k
So my guess is 35k at 1000 nm from launch refueling in the low 20s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Sorry boss, disagree that money should be spent on this thing rather than buying more big tankers. How much offload would it have? It only weighs 58k, would it have enough fuel to fill up a 4-ship?

You numbers and assumptions are way off.  AGAIN - offload equal to KC-135.

7 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Portraying it as a JADC2 node is  airplane seller fluff that just doesn’t make sense when the hardware to enable it isn’t ready. And when it is, suddenly any airplane with electricity could install it.

Sorry brother but again I disagree, I am guessing you don't know what is already out there.  The hardware does exist and already has a smaller form factor walked over from RJ.  The problem actually defaults to DoD which needs to define what other wave-forms/connectivity they want.

 

3 hours ago, Orbit said:

So what kind of fuel can it carry/offload.

Same offload as a KC-135

48 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:


According to wiki (caveat emptor) in the current tanker version, the C-390 with Cobham AR systems can offload from a total 77k fuel capacity

I assume that aircraft and mission fuel then are not segregated and that same wiki page says the max fuel load is with three aux tanks is 77k

Just a WAG but after mods (adding equipment and getting rid of some not needed by deleting the cargo and paratrooper door/ramp mission systems) I think an instantaneous offload at launch of 65k seems reasonable

Another WAG but guessing 5k per hour on station (averaging gross weight over the mission to a fuel burn) seems reasonable basing it off A320 engines/weights/me jumpseating on the bus and comparing it’s numbers to to the mighty 737

So guessing you wanna land with an hour of gas: 5k
2 hours to/from station 1000 miles away: 10k plus 10k is 20k
1 hour orbit on station: 5k
So my guess is 35k at 1000 nm from launch refueling in the low 20s

 

Wiki is not accurate and that was BEFORE the engineering effort to increase fuel capacity.  Your numbers are WAY low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wiki is not accurate and that was BEFORE the engineering effort to increase fuel capacity.  Your numbers are WAY low.

Good I’m glad I’m wrong as I think this worth it
Just bring conservative in my WAGs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, StoleIt said:

So how much fuel can it carry?

All in due time, for good reason that has only been communicated to USAF for now.  But again, at certain distances it has the same offload as a KC-135 while operating of a runway half in length and made of dirt.

9 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

CH are you selling these things? Or buying them?

Again in due time. 

9 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Are you talking about the Chameleon waveform?

There are numerous waveforms that already exist and again and this is certainly not the place to discuss the options.  I've taken exception to your "fluff" comments because I don't think you understand the current state of JADC2 (correct me if i am wrong).  JADC2 is conceptually a great idea, but to date that is all it has been is a concept VERY poorly defined by DoD.  Each service is running in a different direction with the Navy having the best concept and architecture so far (in my opinion).  USAF took a GIANT step in the right direction this week and named an RCO to lead the USAF portion of JADC2...maybe we will finally have some leadership that drives towards requirements rather than a continuous sketch of ideas on the white board. 

A couple of Key things about KC-390 from my vantage point prove it is not "fluff"

First, this is a clean sheet design tanker...from day one it was mean to be a tanker and that reflects in its basis DNA and certifications.  As such it is a fully digitized aircraft so integration of additional capabilities is far easier than legacy systems.  Second and most importantly, the airplane is has multiple data buses from the nose to the tail and from wingtip to wingtip that were integrated into the open system architecture, again, from day one.  As I hope you know integrating JADC2 capabilities is far more than simply adding power and to truly make them effective they should be integrated into the mission system.  Do I think there will be RORO solutions, of course, and those solutions will enable rapid development and fielding of emerging capes, but having the option to integrate with the aircraft mission system makes them a lot more than "Fluff."

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a spear at the KC-390, but it does not appear to be designed as a boom tanker from day one. 

What happens to the cargo door if you fit a boom to this aircraft?

Takeoff weights on an unimproved runway surface would severely, if not completely make it ineffective as a tanker.

Not an aero engineer, but I'm curious if the t-tail and high wings have any effect on the AAR boom envelope.

Edited by AC&W
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, AC&W said:

Not a spear at the KC-390, but it does not appear to be designed as a boom tanker from day one. 

What happens to the cargo door if you fit a boom to this aircraft?

Takeoff weights on an unimproved runway surface would severely, if not completely make it ineffective as a tanker.

Not an aero engineer, but I'm curious if the t-tail and high wings have any effect on the AAR envelope.

Not a spear at all and a great point.  That is in my opinion the highest point of risk in the project.  KC-Z is projected to happen around 2030, the same time frame Elon Musk plans to have orbiting refueling stations.  Despite the worst efforts of Boeing and Airbus I think if Musk can solve that engineering problem, the same can be said of developing a new boom.

The boom is planned to be integrated into the door structure which will allow for mission configuration changes.

You are absolutely INCORRECT on the about your runway surface/weight assumptions.  I don't think most people realize this airplane exists and is in service by three nations as an austere tanker today.  At current max weight the aircraft is certified for 14 passes at a CBR of 4.

The T Tail actually helps with the AAR Envelope.  Current envelope for the drogue system is 110 Knots to 330 Knots allowing a single platform to refuel any current probe and drogue system out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, jice said:

What do these words mean?

Ultimately one successful landing of a fatbodied tanker on dirt by a UPT 2.5 co-pilot (or robot substitute per AMC dreams) 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting.

Also, originally the KC-Z was supposed to be the KC-10 (large) replacement while the KC-X & Y were supposed to be the KC-135 replacement. So I wonder if Big Blue gave up on an actual -10 replacement and is just going to settle on 3x -46's for every 1x -10 on a coronet from now on.

Edited by StoleIt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, StoleIt said:

Interesting.

Also, originally the KC-Z was supposed to be the KC-10 (large) replacement while the KC-X & Y were supposed to be the KC-135 replacement. So I wonder if Big Blue gave up on an actual -10 replacement and is just going to settle on 3x -46's for every 1x -10 on a coronet from now on.

That works fine until you've got three Pacific coronets going on at the same time and there's nowhere to park. 

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...