Tactical Tanker

[Clark Griswold]

6 hours ago, AC&W said:

Israeli boom operators are gonna love the KC-46 remote vision system compared to what they currently have, haha.  

My guess is they will replace immediately what doesn’t work as well as something they might have that works better

 

[Sua Sponte]

9 hours ago, AC&W said:

I think a combination of poor contract requirements, and Boeing intentionally delivering a product in need of an immediate upgrades is the recipe. Its a feature, not a bug.

The upgrade Boeing has for the KC-46 vision system is phenomenal, they just need the cash stream to flow in.

RVS 2.0 also includes a framework for autonomous AR.

[AC&W]

6 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

My guess is they will replace immediately what doesn’t work as well as something they might have that works better

 

Concur. The vision system on their 707 tanker is well ahead of it's time.

[Lawman]

My guess is they will replace immediately what doesn’t work as well as something they might have that works better
 

I see you’ve Boeing’ed before…

“Hey guys here’s version 6… massive improvements and upgrades over 4… sorry about taking away the ability to enroute RNAV.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

Bombardier pitching the 8000 as platform for tanker

https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircraft-propulsion/bombardier-pitches-global-vip-transport-tanker-usaf
 

[StoleIt]

44 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Bombardier pitching the 8000 as platform for tanker

https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircraft-propulsion/bombardier-pitches-global-vip-transport-tanker-usaf
 

Paywall.

But, of topic, I'm curious what VIP aircraft it is aiming to replace...

[Clark Griswold]

Paywall.
But, of topic, I'm curious what VIP aircraft it is aiming to replace...

Yeah I should’ve caveated that
I guess the C-37 is what they wanna replace / supplement
My druthers… a new large cabin jet converted for mil use needs to be the basis for a tanker, arsenal, awacs, medivac, vip transport
I think a small airliner would work better for all that but just my two cents


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

Yeah I should’ve caveated that
I guess the C-37 is what they wanna replace / supplement
My druthers… a new large cabin jet converted for mil use needs to be the basis for a tanker, arsenal, awacs, medivac, vip transport
I think a small airliner would work better for all that but just my two cents


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we’re serious about disaggregating formations to provide for Survivability, it would make loads more sense to start using things that can be hidden more easily than an airliner sized aircraft.

Let alone discuss what that buys in flexibility of ramp space.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

If we’re serious about disaggregating formations to provide for Survivability, it would make loads more sense to start using things that can be hidden more easily than an airliner sized aircraft.

Let alone discuss what that buys in flexibility of ramp space.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Curious how you aerial refuel bombers, airlift, and consolidate into other tankers without being an airliner sized aircraft and still having the ability to give a 40K+ offload?

Edited Sunday at 10:30 PM by Sua Sponte

[DirkDiggler]

AF is currently progged to buy Bombardier bizjets to replace C-146 NSav.

Edited Sunday at 10:22 PM by DirkDiggler

[Lawman]

Curious how you aerial refuel bombers, airlift, and consolidate into other tankers without being an airliner sized aircraft and still having the ability to give a 40K+ offload?

Curious how you missed the rest of the mission sets listed that we currently do with 707 or similar massive footprint aircraft.

Yeah having one boom to rule them all or a massive grey tail disgorging masses of equipment is great, it also means you need a Ramp the size of multiple football fields and buildings that can be seen from space. In an age of democratized information collection, near real time targeting, and the proliferation of ways to go kinetic from ballistic missiles to things that fit in a back pack, maybe having a giant grey airplane isn’t the sole way we should be fighting.

If an opponent like China is willing to get caught sticking stuff in our critical infrastructure that can only serve as a lever to pull in a big war fight, does anybody honestly believe they would avoid hitting things like Honolulu or JBLM with a sleeper capability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

18 hours ago, Lawman said:

If we’re serious about disaggregating formations to provide for Survivability, it would make loads more sense to start using things that can be hidden more easily than an airliner sized aircraft.
Let alone discuss what that buys in flexibility of ramp space.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

True but ultimately there is a required minimum size of platform to deliver the gas, cargo, magazine depth, etc… to be operationally relevant 

What is that sweet spot?  
Enough capability to enable or assist a large strike platform or basic formation of strike platforms 

Enough performance to egress when threatened without taxing the overall force in terms of DCA

Enough range to operate from a reasonably safe distance and still provide effects

Right now I think you’re probably looking at a large business jet or small airliner unless you can modify an in production military aircraft.

Money doesn’t grow on trees so IF this was going to happen the biz jet is probably the most likely 

Proven operational history, high mounted rear engines and decent short field performance (weight and temp considerations factored) but if we want to bring Air Mobility missions into the fight, closer to the fights, then this kinda takes us back to the stealth or signature managed tanker air lifter idea.

Good concept minus the VTOL nonsense 

About 130 sized, ramp, probably reasonable RCS, but with enough wing to not need a minimum of 7000’ to operate 

Honestly this would be our answer to China’s J-36 but we would be combining tanker, transport, bomber/arsenal, patrol/strike into one platform 

[Clark Griswold]

If we’re serious about disaggregating formations to provide for Survivability, it would make loads more sense to start using things that can be hidden more easily than an airliner sized aircraft.

Let alone discuss what that buys in flexibility of ramp space.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

One more thing on your comment, legit question for discussion not passive aggressive but in the Indo Pacom environment operating just outside the first island chain are small(er) systems really relevant given the distances, persistence on station, harsh marine environment, etc…?
Small conventional systems equal small effects maybe the platforms will remain in traditional sizes but really just employ a lot more small attritable weapons/drones/etc…
That case we will just have to mitigate and prepare for the targeting of those platforms


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

One more thing on your comment, legit question for discussion not passive aggressive but in the Indo Pacom environment operating just outside the first island chain are small(er) systems really relevant given the distances, persistence on station, harsh marine environment, etc…?
Small conventional systems equal small effects maybe the platforms will remain in traditional sizes but really just employ a lot more small attritable weapons/drones/etc…
That case we will just have to mitigate and prepare for the targeting of those platforms


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think if we’re being honest we need to put ore emphasis and red team for expected attrition, at levels that would be very uncomfortable to the last few decades leaders. So we need more of all things, but particularly a shift towards a deeper roster of enablers to the ratio of final effects. Silver bullets are going to be a losing proposition.

And there won’t be a one piece solution to this, it’s probably a package of assembled capabilities at a linear/ladder of positional input points to put an effect at a final point. Ways that we cheapen that is munitions/effects that can go further on their own, ways of executing denial to the opponent targeting cycle *especially on ground* and probably a big wings with booms/cargo space that feeds smaller wings that feeds to those forward logistics and extended mission platforms/ISR/strikers operating at distance. And we need to harden the F out of sanctuary points for those things that simply can’t hidden and have executable Survivability moves when conflict looks likely.

Army and Navy is facing a similar issue in how to mass from assumed (key word) sanctuary to the point of where it’s useful in a world of cheap prevalent precision fires and threats.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

11 hours ago, Lawman said:

I think if we’re being honest we need to put ore emphasis and red team for expected attrition, at levels that would be very uncomfortable to the last few decades leaders. So we need more of all things, but particularly a shift towards a deeper roster of enablers to the ratio of final effects. Silver bullets are going to be a losing proposition.

And there won’t be a one piece solution to this, it’s probably a package of assembled capabilities at a linear/ladder of positional input points to put an effect at a final point. Ways that we cheapen that is munitions/effects that can go further on their own, ways of executing denial to the opponent targeting cycle *especially on ground* and probably a big wings with booms/cargo space that feeds smaller wings that feeds to those forward logistics and extended mission platforms/ISR/strikers operating at distance. And we need to harden the F out of sanctuary points for those things that simply can’t hidden and have executable Survivability moves when conflict looks likely.

Army and Navy is facing a similar issue in how to mass from assumed (key word) sanctuary to the point of where it’s useful in a world of cheap prevalent precision fires and threats.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Concur

The strategic enablers to the operational enablers to the ubiquitous tactical platforms saturating the battle space.

Tactical tanker really should be part of a broader acquisition effort by the AF IMHO under the ACE umbrella.

Tactical Force Concept

All ACE capable Fighter - UCAS - Tanker/Airlifter - SHORAD.