Tactical Tanker

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, StoleIt said:

This seems like the dumbest idea yet. It still needs a decently long paved runway and for what offload? 15-20K? Seems like a way more complicated and expensive version of the Navy's buddy tanking for little gain.

I’m just suggesting unless you are willing to seriously reprogram money in the budget, looking for an affordable option for this gap filler platform needs to be considered.  

KC-390 comes in around $150+ million, serous money, but a lot of capability.  

A $50 mil jet with a $15 mil military modification (WAG but 30% seems reasonable) is a lot cheaper

The E-190 E2 is not a slouch in short field ops, not eye watering but not bad, probably could be tweaked.

https://www.flyingmag.com/embraer-e190-e2-jet-shows-short-field-prowess/

 

[Boomer6]

Let's not waste money on some tinker toy tanker that doesn't carry enough gas for a 4-ship and is built by a country that's rapidly cozying up to China. That last part alone is enough reason to not even consider it. 

How about we spend that money on protecting our tankers from a Pearl Harbor-esque attack from a semi truck full of drones.

Edited Tuesday at 03:40 AM by Boomer6

[Sua Sponte]

On 9/29/2025 at 6:43 AM, AC&W said:

I suspect you are aware the -46 will not be carrying 18 pallets ever, 10 is generous. ISUs are compatible, but commercial parts support is a pipe dream without acquisition reform.

Unless we have a robust and diverse tanker fleet, 473L pallet compatibility with tankers is not a relevant capability for us (unpopular opinion). Potentially relevant for our allies.

ISU-80/90s are not able to be loaded on a MRTT due to their height (taller than the cargo holds). Pallets compatibility is important due to AE’s using PSPs that are the same dimensions of a 463L pallet.  

[Sua Sponte]

9 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

I’m just suggesting unless you are willing to seriously reprogram money in the budget, looking for an affordable option for this gap filler platform needs to be considered.  

KC-390 comes in around $150+ million, serous money, but a lot of capability.  

A $50 mil jet with a $15 mil military modification (WAG but 30% seems reasonable) is a lot cheaper

The E-190 E2 is not a slouch in short field ops, not eye watering but not bad, probably could be tweaked.

https://www.flyingmag.com/embraer-e190-e2-jet-shows-short-field-prowess/

 

A 15-20K offload is not “a lot of capability.” It’s a partial offload to one F-15E with external tanks. 

[Clark Griswold]

A 15-20K offload is not “a lot of capability.” It’s a partial offload to one F-15E with external tanks. 

I get it and I don’t know what an E-190 or 175 tanker would actually be able to offload at 690 NM from launch, just a guess it would be better than that

Another point, just because a tactical tanker regardless of what platform it is or would be derived from might look like a small version of an existing big wing doesn’t mean it should be planned for just as a small version of it
That is it might be better optimized for UCAS AR, adhoc small AR as the ATO is executed and fallout ARs happen, post launch / pre recovery immediate top offs after said fighters get to ingress altitude, etc…

Yeah that’s just some conjecture but I think we got to start to imagine different conops


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clayton Bigsby]

15-20k is one hour of C-17 flight time also.  Obviously not the intended receiver, but again really not that much.

[Clark Griswold]

Just adding for more material to discuss on smaller tankers / transports
Bae 146 tanker
https://www.flightglobal.com/uk-says-no-thanks-to-bae-146-tanker/111331.article

Not selected but was interesting IMHO, the Bae 146 STA, side loading transport aircraft.
https://www.key.aero/article/why-bae-146-side-loading-tactical-airlifter-failed

 

 
 

[FourFans]

Just watched an interesting analysis by CappyArmy of current logistics in Ukraine that's rather thought provoking.  The way the Russians have devolved their logistics into inefficient yet effective small packages is the concept of "too ubiquitous to crush".  Obviously not the ideal we should go for, but it brings up a concept the USAF needs to think about.  I could see the benefit of a high number of small tankers (and airlifters) that are collocated with (or near) users all over the Pacific that denies China the ability to target them all, compared to  putting all our assets in to the Hickam/Guam/Okinawa basket that can are easily targeted and difficult to defend.  I think the airlifters are already prepping for that.  I don't feel the the refuelers doing the same.

When I taught at the AOC school, I was always stymied by the tanker mentality that focused almost completely on efficiency instead of effectiveness.  In Iraq and Afgh, you'd be labeled as a rogue tanker pilot if you relocated your orbit to sit over or near the TIC to facilitate the fight.  I know because I've spoken with enough of them.  One was even threatened with paperwork for "disobeying orders" afterwards...he was literally the airborne standby tanker with no scheduled receivers...mind blowing.

Our current air planners grew up with that rigidity and they now need to scrap efficiency and focus on effectiveness.  400 small tankers just might fit that bill.  Not a guaranteed solution, but worth a full analysis.  Unfortunately big blue's air planners have often proven far too inflexible and far to ready to scrap possible solutions because they aren't "efficient". 

More importantly, the USAF needs to produce tanker pilots that are willing and empowered to think outside of the box...but that's a discussion for another thread.

Edited 2 hours ago by FourFans

[brabus]

11 minutes ago, FourFans said:

One was even threatened with paperwork for "disobeying orders" afterwards

Those are the tanker dudes I love and respect. For the ones who would not move their location to better support TICs (especially really bad ones) or EPs/low fuel states, fuck you for being a gigantic pussy. For the young guys out there - do the right thing, deal with the man later. 

[StoleIt]

1 hour ago, FourFans said:

When I taught at the AOC school, I was always stymied by the tanker mentality that focused almost completely on efficiency instead of effectiveness.  In Iraq and Afgh, you'd be labeled as a rogue tanker pilot if you relocated your orbit to sit over or near the TIC to facilitate the fight.  I know because I've spoken with enough of them.  One was even threatened with paperwork for "disobeying orders" afterwards...he was literally the airborne standby tanker with no scheduled receivers...mind blowing.

That's crazy to me. Granted, I've been out the tanker for a decade now...but I was requesting kill boxes all the time or at least sitting in the corner of the track that was closest to my fighters. Only time I couldn't was when I'd have 3-4 different pairs of receivers rather than just be Viper/Dude/Hawg's private refueler for a couple hours.

Edited 1 hour ago by StoleIt