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

 

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.

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.

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

Bombardier pitching the 8000 as platform for tanker

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

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...

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

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

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 October 19, 2025Oct 19 by Sua Sponte

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

Edited October 19, 2025Oct 19 by DirkDiggler

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

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 

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

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

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.  
 

News

https://theaviationist.com/2026/02/20/embraer-northrop-grumman-kc-390-tanker-boom/

On 9/29/2025 at 12:08 AM, AC&W said:

Without major acquisition reform, even with its challenges, the KC-46 is the better platform for boom AAR.

The KC-390 could potentially compete with the -130 for drogue AAR capes, but I'm not expert enough to compare and contrast it's cargo and AAR capes with the Herk.

A book was in development for the KC-390. Boeing is predatory and trying to block all efforts to engineer a new boom. Buying up all the surplus booms, even in airparks. Putting a boom on the 390 changes the tanker calculus and Boeing can't have that.

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

A book was in development for the KC-390. Boeing is predatory and trying to block all efforts to engineer a new boom. Buying up all the surplus booms, even in airparks. Putting a boom on the 390 changes the tanker calculus and Boeing can't have that.

Airbus has a boom, cut Boeing out of the equation

Boeing and Airbus both probably don't want Embraer to manufacture a boom. Teaming with Northrop is an interesting development.

I'm still not convinced the USAF would entertain the 390, jucie just not worth the squeeze (complex with limited offload). If money and manpower were not a factor the 390 would be a neat addition.

A boom 390 could be relevant to countries with smaller geography and inventories, and who could maximize the efficiency of reconfiguring the aircraft between boom and cargo; Portugal, Poland, Argentina, Chile, Greece, Romania are few that come to mind.

2 minutes ago, AC&W said:

Boeing and Airbus both probably don't want Embraer to manufacture a boom. Teaming with Northrop is an interesting development.

Northrop already has a flying wing boom.

2 minutes ago, AC&W said:

I'm still not convinced the USAF would entertain the 390, jucie just not worth the squeeze (complex with limited offload). If money and manpower were not a factor the 390 would be a neat addition.

Huh?

1. Same offload as a KC-135

2. Multi-speed range drogue for Helo/TiltRotor/Jet AR can refuel two aircraft at same time AND still has a boom for USAF AR.

3. Operates of 3,000' strips.

4. In war games run it COMPLETELY changed the dynamic of the fight.

   a. More gas on station for same number of platforms because it can operate forward and shuttle gas to the IP faster.

   b. 198 airfields in INDOPCOM forward that can handle big-wing tankers. 1,000 4,000 asphalt/dirt approved in same.

9 minutes ago, AC&W said:

A boom 390 could be relevant to countries with smaller geography and inventories, and who could maximize the efficiency of reconfiguring the aircraft between boom and cargo; Portugal, Poland, Argentina, Chile, Greece, Romania are few that come to mind.

You are 180 out my friend. USAF is trapped in a Stockholm syndrome of ideology. This biggest shortfall of this platform is we would get 2.5 for 1 and it would require more pilots.

I spent a year on this project including walking the fully digital production line in Brazil...zero paper used to make this plane, completely state of the art.

21 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Northrop already has a flying wing boom.

Huh?

1. Same offload as a KC-135

2. Multi-speed range drogue for Helo/TiltRotor/Jet AR can refuel two aircraft at same time AND still has a boom for USAF AR.

3. Operates of 3,000' strips.

4. In war games run it COMPLETELY changed the dynamic of the fight.

   a. More gas on station for same number of platforms because it can operate forward and shuttle gas to the IP faster.

   b. 198 airfields in INDOPCOM forward that can handle big-wing tankers. 1,000 4,000 asphalt/dirt approved in same.

You are 180 out my friend. USAF is trapped in a Stockholm syndrome of ideology. This biggest shortfall of this platform is we would get 2.5 for 1 and it would require more pilots.

I spent a year on this project including walking the fully digital production line in Brazil...zero paper used to make this plane, completely state of the art.

The biggest drawback is that this jet is 15 years, minimum, too late to the party if the timeline for us to use it in INDOPACOM is to be believed.

I'm sure all those capes you listed are possible, and eventually that jet might actually be able to do all of them. At some point it might actually be manufactured rapidly, at scale, and with enough parts required to sustain it.

The bros that went to work for Lockheed, Boeing, or X consulting company after the AF came to the squadrons and pitched the same BS for jets like the F-35, F-15EX, and T-7 etc.

32 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

The biggest drawback is that this jet is 15 years, minimum, too late to the party if the timeline for us to use it in INDOPACOM is to be believed.

This.

There are all of these great platforms, tech, new con ops but we just talk, kick the tires, say that’s cool and do the square root of shit differently than we’ve done for the past 30 years

2 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

The biggest drawback is that this jet is 15 years, minimum, too late to the party if the timeline for us to use it in INDOPACOM is to be believed.

The project was pitched to USAF (by me and a few others), three years ago. At that point the timelines were completely doable for the China fight.

2 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

I'm sure all those capes you listed are possible, and eventually that jet might actually be able to do all of them.

Cool story except the jet is ALREADY doing those things...at least with the variable speed drogue. (Brazilian Air Force (since 2019), Portuguese Air Force (2023), and Hungarian Air Force (2024). It was designed to refuel Helos which it has been doing since 2014, the variable speed drogue was certified two years ago, I think they started with F-5's. Regardless, it is now certified for a bunch of aircraft...Gripen completed a few months ago. The Northrop Boom is TRL 7 so mot of the risk is gone.

2 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

At some point it might actually be manufactured rapidly, at scale, and with enough parts required to sustain it.

It is already at scale and in service with the Brazilian Air Force (since 2019), Portuguese Air Force (2023), and Hungarian Air Force (2024). They make one per month, have the organic capability to make two per month. With investment, 10 per month...being fully digital means they are already postured for rapid production. Also, funny you mention the parts...Collins Avionics, the engines are the International Aero Engines (IAE) V2500-E5 right off the Airbus 320 CEO...a purposeful decision.

Also, kind of funny you mention timelines, Boeing was late delivering KC-46's and now deliveries are stopped because of major cracks. The RVS is broken and they openly admit they won't have a fix until 2027.

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

This.

There are all of these great platforms, tech, new con ops but we just talk, kick the tires, say that’s cool and do the square root of shit differently than we’ve done for the past 30 years

This and the fool me once meme are the reasons we are trapped in our own dogma. ZERO vision and willingness to try something different...now the tanker choads can just chew their cude...you got what you deserved...our at least what your masters think you deserved.

I've discussed it before but saw the same thing with the Wedgetail (which is better than a 60 year old E-3, but us still a flying tube of hot garbage). When we offered a far superior option with a brand new but proven radar, imported existing mission and data management systems from current ISR platforms with MILLIONS of flight hours and mounted on a Bombardier bizjet that could part up at FL 510...greatly changing the physics of the AMB world. We submitted HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of pages of tech data including detailed engineering reports from actual flights. As I recall there were 480 pages just on the certification of the "shapes" that would house the radar and other toys alone. We submitted the entire package and USAF responded ONE HOUR later - "not technically feasible." I am sure they did a detailed analysis of all the engineering and documentation in that hour. The NEXT DAY the gave Boeing a Sole-Source for E-7.

Not that is matters, but I like the idea of having a boom equipped 390, it's a cool aircraft. Realistically, I just don't see it happening.

I believe it's been mentioned that the 390 could be modified to carry more fuel. Correct me if I'm wrong but the currently fieldeid 390 can carry a maximum of 79,090 lbs of fuel (utilizing roll-on tanks in the cargo compartment).

79K is a capability, but still fairly short of our current big wing tankers.

What fuel load was it running in war games? If it was more than 80K than not sure the results were realistic.

32 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

...and now deliveries (KC-46) are stopped because of major cracks.

In the interest of facts, not championing the KC-46. Deliveries were briefly halted in early 2025, but they have resumed and delivered at least 10 since the stopage.