Tactical Tanker

[ThreeHoler]

It's funny because when the C-17 program was struggling, there was talk of just buying 200 more KC-10s to have more tanker and cargo capacity, at the expense of airdrop and austere fields.

The original plan was 120 KC-10s. Congress cut the buy in half.

[SurelySerious]

Congress cut the buy in half.

Standard.

[Clark Griswold]

But what is the requirement exactly?

Probably just a bit classified... but are looking to have more booms or more gas on-station?  Those are not necessarily contradictory (considering limited resources not just financial but basing capability) but seem to compete with each other somewhat, the right mix is somewhere in between the extremes.

My druthers even though I've mused about adapting / developing tankers from larger or different platforms this (tactical tanker) is about not just distributed basing but distributed risk, on the ground and in the air.  In the air in that it gives some tolerance for attrition when inevitably some will become combat losses.

[ClearedHot]

8 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

But what is the requirement exactly?

Probably just a bit classified... but are looking to have more booms or more gas on-station?  Those are not necessarily contradictory (considering limited resources not just financial but basing capability) but seem to compete with each other somewhat, the right mix is somewhere in between the extremes.

My druthers even though I've mused about adapting / developing tankers from larger or different platforms this (tactical tanker) is about not just distributed basing but distributed risk, on the ground and in the air.  In the air in that it gives some tolerance for attrition when inevitably some will become combat losses.

Great question and one that hasn't been answered yet.  In AMC's defense they do appear to be adapting to Mini's new emphasis of "lethality."  Go back to last year when KC-Y was first suggested, that program flowed out of a CONOP study that showed a shortage in the number of tankers given to effectively service our toughest CONOPs (read INDOPACOM).  That program identified the need for 300 more tankers...kind of staggering that we have let it get to that point but when you retire KC-135's, retire the KC-10 and the KC-36 is YEARS behind schedule you may have trouble executing your highest demand CONOP.  KC-Y was written to address that gap but from a legacy CONOP employment perspective, likely the reason it died so quickly.

Here is the major issue in my uniformed attack pilot mentality.  AMC is a very corporate big blue organization, the largest consumer of jet fuel in the world, as such for many years they approach tanker contracts from a cost to provide a pound of gas on station.  I get it...economies of scale is a valid point to consider but this is combat and the economies of scale model comes at the expense of combat capability.  This methodology leads to ever bigger tankers that carry a massive payload of gas very efficiently.  The problem with this model in PACOM is that it relies on large bases (runways), that must be protected.  Specific to INDOPACOM we have settled on a fortress Guam strategy that is unsmart.  If this goes hot over Taiwan Guam is going to eat 1,000 TBMs with sub 3 meter accuracy, to think a few patriot batteries are going to save the runway, the aircraft, the infrastructure is complete lunacy. 

Agile Combat Employment and austere operations has been talked about for several years but the only real action taken in the past few years is to harden and lengthen the runway at Tinian....wonderful, that is a bit northeast of Guam and now they can eat a bunch of TBMs as well.  What is needed is an approach that dilutes the Chinese advantage in TMBs and increases the ability to present survivable gas where needed.  Switching to a strategy that flips the calculus back on the Chinese means your requirements and criteria should be centered on combat capability rather than economies of scale.

It appears USAF/AMC have decided to focus all attention on KC-Z with a family of systems approach which I applaud.  Yes we need big wing tankers to provide large offloads, we also need blended wing LO tankers that can enable our 5th and 6th gen fighters as well as the B-2 and B-21.  I think we also need a tactical tanker that provides flexibility and options.  The ability to provide large amounts of gas from MULTIPLE approach axis without relying on large runways has a HUGE strategic benefit.  Now that USAF/AMC have settled on KC-Y, I expect exercises, studies and experimentation that will test these ideas and shape requirements for the RFP that will come in a few years.

[Clark Griswold]

6 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Great question and one that hasn't been answered yet.  In AMC's defense they do appear to be adapting to Mini's new emphasis of "lethality."  Go back to last year when KC-Y was first suggested, that program flowed out of a CONOP study that showed a shortage in the number of tankers given to effectively service our toughest CONOPs (read INDOPACOM).  That program identified the need for 300 more tankers...kind of staggering that we have let it get to that point but when you retire KC-135's, retire the KC-10 and the KC-36 is YEARS behind schedule you may have trouble executing your highest demand CONOP.  KC-Y was written to address that gap but from a legacy CONOP employment perspective, likely the reason it died so quickly.

Here is the major issue in my uniformed attack pilot mentality.  AMC is a very corporate big blue organization, the largest consumer of jet fuel in the world, as such for many years they approach tanker contracts from a cost to provide a pound of gas on station.  I get it...economies of scale is a valid point to consider but this is combat and the economies of scale model comes at the expense of combat capability.  This methodology leads to ever bigger tankers that carry a massive payload of gas very efficiently.  The problem with this model in PACOM is that it relies on large bases (runways), that must be protected.  Specific to INDOPACOM we have settled on a fortress Guam strategy that is unsmart.  If this goes hot over Taiwan Guam is going to eat 1,000 TBMs with sub 3 meter accuracy, to think a few patriot batteries are going to save the runway, the aircraft, the infrastructure is complete lunacy. 

Agile Combat Employment and austere operations has been talked about for several years but the only real action taken in the past few years is to harden and lengthen the runway at Tinian....wonderful, that is a bit northeast of Guam and now they can eat a bunch of TBMs as well.  What is needed is an approach that dilutes the Chinese advantage in TMBs and increases the ability to present survivable gas where needed.  Switching to a strategy that flips the calculus back on the Chinese means your requirements and criteria should be centered on combat capability rather than economies of scale.

It appears USAF/AMC have decided to focus all attention on KC-Z with a family of systems approach which I applaud.  Yes we need big wing tankers to provide large offloads, we also need blended wing LO tankers that can enable our 5th and 6th gen fighters as well as the B-2 and B-21.  I think we also need a tactical tanker that provides flexibility and options.  The ability to provide large amounts of gas from MULTIPLE approach axis without relying on large runways has a HUGE strategic benefit.  Now that USAF/AMC have settled on KC-Y, I expect exercises, studies and experimentation that will test these ideas and shape requirements for the RFP that will come in a few years.

They (AMC) might not be the organization to figure this (tactical tanker out then).  

Rhetorical questions, when does mobility end and tactical begin?  When are you enabling the fight and then really a part of it?

Based on my experience with AMC, 4.5 years flying the mighty 135 tanker with a short TDY at TACC a long time ago, I'm not sure an organization that is operational but not steeped in the culture of direct combat is the right one.  That's not a swipe at AMC or anyone in AMC impugning their character, courage or ability but as you said they see the world differently. 

They have a huge volume of routine, priority and contingency missions going on all at once all the time so in order to fulfill as much as they can on the to do list, the cost of doing business is very much front and center to them.

If you're an organization that is culturally built around preparing for the big one, a big fight with all your forces or most of them brought to bear quickly to win the fight, the long term is not as important, I need to win this sprint, I'll worry about the costs later.

Splitting off part of the Air Mobility mission set and giving ACC is responsibility for Tactical Air Refueling and defining for AMC Air Refueling's responsibilities as Theater and Strategic could be a COA.  Or it could be the road to hell, IDK...

Anyway, not sure if I got my point across and I would worry that if it (tactical tanker) got put into the ACC basket, it would get put on the back burner with resources siphoned off and executed poorly like other red headed step children in ACC.  

Anyway, another vaporware pic for the thread, the Israeli Smart Tactical Tanker 

IAI Reveals Tanker Proposal | Defense News: Aviation International News (ainonline.com)

G550 based tanker, could operate out of 4000' dirt strip without issue I think with some mods like the PC-24

We need a fly off and two different designs 

[StrikeOut312]

Tankers are already 2nd class citizens in AMC. I'd hate to see what happens to us in ACC.

If Mini's matra of "Win or Die" takes hold and there's a cultural shift within AMC to win wars vice career building via Phoenix programs and SURF padding, the enterprise will come around.

Or maybe put the right tanker guys in ACC and give them some money...

[McJay Pilot]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Splitting off part of the Air Mobility mission set and giving ACC is responsibility for Tactical Air Refueling and defining for AMC Air Refueling's responsibilities as Theater and Strategic could be a COA.  Or it could be the road to hell, IDK...

 

He speaks of SAC, MAC and TAC! 
 

Quickly, to the alert birds!!

[Lawman]

He speaks of SAC, MAC and TAC! 
 
Quickly, to the alert birds!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

[Clark Griswold]

Question CH reference the first article at the beginning of this thread of wonder
Is there any formal RFP / RFI for this concept?
Is this gonna windup being another Scorpion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[charlie141]

Tankers are already 2nd class citizens in AMC. I'd hate to see what happens to us in ACC.
If Mini's matra of "Win or Die" takes hold and there's a cultural shift within AMC to win wars vice career building via Phoenix programs and SURF padding, the enterprise will come around.
Or maybe put the right tanker guys in ACC and give them some money...

I’m an old MAC/AMC pilot that got to fly KC-135s as well; love the idea of the tactical tanker. Let’s just do the acquisition better than this —> https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/10/07/supply-chain-woes-delay-kc-46-refueling-vision-system-upgrade-to-2025/


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[ClearedHot]

12 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Question CH reference the first article at the beginning of this thread of wonder
Is there any formal RFP / RFI for this concept?

There was a formal RFI for KC-Y and posturing by USAF and AMC to just buy more legacy tankers.  That COA hit a brick wall in August and they now plan to focus on KC-Z.  My guess is that a lot of key USAF leadership changed including Mini.  The new leadership wants to disrupt and by shifting to KC-Z they work towards a family of systems that better addresses the present and future needs.  That shift is reflected in plans to conduct an AOA in 2024 which will focus on and accelerate KC-Z.

13 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Is this gonna windup being another Scorpion?

Anything is possible but my guess is no.  The advocacy for Scorpion and LAE came from an insurgency inside USAF.  The only reason we had the multiple rounds of "experimentation" was congressional insistence from people like John McCain.  The USAF strategy was obvious, string it along and wait out McCain and they did.  Despite funding and planning for 300 aircraft, USAF managed a few on the margins that they now want to give away.   Tankers are different, they not only enable the big shiny toys like F-22/F-35/B-2 and the future golden watches like B-21/NGAD, but they are absolutely essential in the INDOCPACOM CONOP.  Keep in mind the INDOPACOM CONOP has been USAF's battle cry for funding for the last 15 years.  Now that everyone in the building believes we will scrap with China by a certain date, you will see more and more of the budget lean into that effort.

[Blue]

22 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Question CH reference the first article at the beginning of this thread of wonder
Is there any formal RFP / RFI for this concept?
Is this gonna windup being another Scorpion?

Somewhat related, and taking from the article at the beginning of the thread:

Quote

The tanker effort is part of the company’s desire to be a “trusted disruptor” among defense firms. In August, U.S. Special Operations said it would buy up to 75 small turboprops that L3Harris, the sixth largest U.S. defense firm, will turn into attack planes.

“It kind of ties into our strategy [of] identifying gaps, trying to get ahead of the budget process, if you will, and think differently,” Kubasik said.

L3Harris and Embraer seems to be a strange pair-up.  Safe to say that the L3/Embraer combination is a result of the planned Boeing / Embraer partnership falling apart in the wake of Covid?  As late as Nov 2019, Boeing was touting their work to jointly develop new markets for the C-390.  Seems logical that, had the twin challenges of Covid and the Max not occurred, it would be the Boeing / Embraer KC-390?  Assumedly taking advantage of Boeing's refueling boom technology?

Curious what L3 has next up their sleeve.

[ClearedHot]

14 hours ago, Blue said:

As late as Nov 2019, Boeing was touting their work to jointly develop new markets for the C-390.  Seems logical that, had the twin challenges of Covid and the Max not occurred, it would be the Boeing / Embraer KC-390?  Assumedly taking advantage of Boeing's refueling boom technology?

In my opinion Boeing would not help put a boom on the KC-390 because it would be a direct threat to selling more big wing tankers.

14 hours ago, Blue said:

Curious what L3 has next up their sleeve.

Right off their Agile Tanker Webpage

"Includes advanced boom and resilient, open mission system to support JADC2 requirements"

 

[ATIS]

Targeting pod is a nice touch. I’m sure there is a pallet of hate you can roll out the back/side on someone’s .ppt slide somewhere. As someone already mentioned, where does tactical and strategic/enabling/mobility mesh or separate?  
ex: AFSOC MC’s and USMC Harvest Hawk. 
 

Interesting discussion here IRT Agile, big wing Vs “other” tanker assets. Navy guy here learning still. 

I was fortunate enough to cruise with an Airwing of legacy platforms that could go forward and execute with organic tanking only. I then watched that degrade until one day sitting on the flight deck I look up at the Big-Wing above Mom knowing without her, we can’t execute the plan I had on my knee board. 
 

ATIS 

[Majestik Møøse]

9 hours ago, ATIS said:

Targeting pod is a nice touch. I’m sure there is a pallet of hate you can roll out the back/side on someone’s .ppt slide somewhere. As someone already mentioned, where does tactical and strategic/enabling/mobility mesh or separate?  
ex: AFSOC MC’s and USMC Harvest Hawk. 
 

Interesting discussion here IRT Agile, big wing Vs “other” tanker assets. Navy guy here learning still. 

I was fortunate enough to cruise with an Airwing of legacy platforms that could go forward and execute with organic tanking only. I then watched that degrade until one day sitting on the flight deck I look up at the Big-Wing above Mom knowing without her, we can’t execute the plan I had on my knee board. 
 

ATIS 

I’m slightly wondering if the Navy would try to pick up the boneyarded KC-10s

[uhhello]

1 hour ago, Majestik Møøse said:

I’m slightly wondering if the Navy would try to pick up the boneyarded KC-10s

Anyone know what status they are being stored in?

[MC5Wes]

26 minutes ago, uhhello said:

Anyone know what status they are being stored in?

Can’t they just sell them to Omega?

http://www.omegaairrefueling.com/omega-air-takes-delivery-of-royal-netherlands-air-force-kdc-10/

 

[Clark Griswold]

On 10/8/2022 at 4:58 PM, Blue said:

Somewhat related, and taking from the article at the beginning of the thread:

L3Harris and Embraer seems to be a strange pair-up.  Safe to say that the L3/Embraer combination is a result of the planned Boeing / Embraer partnership falling apart in the wake of Covid?  As late as Nov 2019, Boeing was touting their work to jointly develop new markets for the C-390.  Seems logical that, had the twin challenges of Covid and the Max not occurred, it would be the Boeing / Embraer KC-390?  Assumedly taking advantage of Boeing's refueling boom technology?

Curious what L3 has next up their sleeve.

Same as to curious but basically I'm of the opinion that we've gotten to complacent lately, disruption is a good thing

 

[ThreeHoler]

Anyone know what status they are being stored in?

Last I remember reading:
9 in 2000.
50 in 1000.

50 will be up for sale. Multiple buyers lined up. Something something AMC contract air refueling.

[Clayton Bigsby]

As a former LM, i'd like to point out adding a boom to the back end of a cargo aircraft isn't trivial.  Assuming it's a two-piece door like the C-17 and C-130 (ramp and cargo door), yeah theoretically you could add it to the cargo door, which opens up and into the upper fuselage; but obviously you'd have to have the fuel lines, necessary hydraulics/control wires etc. attached via flexible lines to the door, and still have enough clearance for the door to retract up against roof of the aft fuselage.  I can't speak to the -130, but on the -17 that's not a whole lot of clearance up there, and the door is already used for ramp toe, cargo gate bar, roller tray and centerline seat stowages, along with other small items like the engine core hydraulic hand pump (if Mx actually put it away where it goes, and hasn't been lazy and left it strapped down on the cargo floor somewhere), engine covers, etc.  And once the door is open, how far does the boom attachment protrusion stick down?  You've now lost a bunch of vertical clearance for pallets, or vehicles driving up and over the ramp crest (which is why mil cargo aircraft have upward-bulged rear fuselages, so tall items like an 18-wheeler trailer or a Chinook helicopter or whatever have upwards room to clear when going across the ramp crest).

The ramp, well on the -17 it's used as a loading and lifting surface (up to 40,000 lbs, and 4 pallet spots in Logistics bias, two in ADS), and there isn't much room to work with.  The ramp is obviously intended to go down to the ground so if you somehow had a boom hanging off the bottom of it, it wouldn't be able to do that anymore, and even if it strictly went to horizontal for pallets only there still isn't a lot of clearance underneath, like 3 feet, plus you have the boom sticking out however far behind meaning a k-loader likely can't drive up to the back of the ramp for cargo transfer.  Also you'd lose a point of ground egress as the ramp blowdown is somewhat negated now.

Underneath the belly, between the mains yeah I suppose that's a possibility, it's just a low ground clearance (2-3 feet) as cargo planes typically sit low so they can be unloaded at truck bed height, unless you want to do a bunch of hydraulic jackscrew variable-height bullshit like a C-5 and then wonder why the fucker breaks all the time.

The C-97 had a bomb-bay style cargo loading door at the aft fuselage, which looks like steep sketchy shit for loading vehicles, and for the KC-97s the boom pod and boom mount was a plug that went in, in lieu of those doors.

Point of all this is I'd imagine the -390 is really similar to the -17 and -130, and I think the A400M is as well.  Mil airlift moved away from the 4-5 door system of petal and bulkhead doors like in the -141, FRED, An-124 and Il-76 for a reason (and it's not like those would help in this situation), and other than manufacturer's concept art I don't think anyone has ever really put a boom on the back of a mil airlifter.  It's not a casual undertaking, and I think once you've done that it's kind of a one-way street, hard to imagine it still being an effective airlifter anymore even if it's a secondary ability.

Now that's all for the traditional boom grafted onto the aircraft approach.  If you could have the whole tanker setup be a substantial palletized system, with the boom extending out through the cargo door/ramp opening and then down, and able to be entirely sucked back in to close those doors, that could work.  But now you're depressurizing every time you give someone gas.

[Lawman]

As a former LM, i'd like to point out adding a boom to the back end of a cargo aircraft isn't trivial.  Assuming it's a two-piece door like the C-17 and C-130 (ramp and cargo door), yeah theoretically you could add it to the cargo door, which opens up and into the upper fuselage; but obviously you'd have to have the fuel lines, necessary hydraulics/control wires etc. attached via flexible lines to the door, and still have enough clearance for the door to retract up against roof of the aft fuselage.  I can't speak to the -130, but on the -17 that's not a whole lot of clearance up there, and the door is already used for ramp toe, cargo gate bar, roller tray and centerline seat stowages, along with other small items like the engine core hydraulic hand pump (if Mx actually put it away where it goes, and hasn't been lazy and left it strapped down on the cargo floor somewhere), engine covers, etc.  And once the door is open, how far does the boom attachment protrusion stick down?  You've now lost a bunch of vertical clearance for pallets, or vehicles driving up and over the ramp crest (which is why mil cargo aircraft have upward-bulged rear fuselages, so tall items like an 18-wheeler trailer or a Chinook helicopter or whatever have upwards room to clear when going across the ramp crest).
The ramp, well on the -17 it's used as a loading and lifting surface (up to 40,000 lbs, and 4 pallet spots in Logistics bias, two in ADS), and there isn't much room to work with.  The ramp is obviously intended to go down to the ground so if you somehow had a boom hanging off the bottom of it, it wouldn't be able to do that anymore, and even if it strictly went to horizontal for pallets only there still isn't a lot of clearance underneath, like 3 feet, plus you have the boom sticking out however far behind meaning a k-loader likely can't drive up to the back of the ramp for cargo transfer.  Also you'd lose a point of ground egress as the ramp blowdown is somewhat negated now.
Underneath the belly, between the mains yeah I suppose that's a possibility, it's just a low ground clearance (2-3 feet) as cargo planes typically sit low so they can be unloaded at truck bed height, unless you want to do a bunch of hydraulic jackscrew variable-height bullshit like a C-5 and then wonder why the er breaks all the time.
The C-97 had a bomb-bay style cargo loading door at the aft fuselage, which looks like steep sketchy shit for loading vehicles, and for the KC-97s the boom pod and boom mount was a plug that went in, in lieu of those doors.
Point of all this is I'd imagine the -390 is really similar to the -17 and -130, and I think the A400M is as well.  Mil airlift moved away from the 4-5 door system of petal and bulkhead doors like in the -141, FRED, An-124 and Il-76 for a reason (and it's not like those would help in this situation), and other than manufacturer's concept art I don't think anyone has ever really put a boom on the back of a mil airlifter.  It's not a casual undertaking, and I think once you've done that it's kind of a one-way street, hard to imagine it still being an effective airlifter anymore even if it's a secondary ability.
Now that's all for the traditional boom grafted onto the aircraft approach.  If you could have the whole tanker setup be a substantial palletized system, with the boom extending out through the cargo door/ramp opening and then down, and able to be entirely sucked back in to close those doors, that could work.  But now you're depressurizing every time you give someone gas.

See this… this was informative to the nature of the problems.

And yes to your last point some sort of roll on, “this is now a tanker!” Module like system was kind of what I was thinking.

Essentially it’s what we do with a Chinook or 53 when we outfit it to be a flying FARP, we just know that outside of Osprey there isn’t clean air to drag a drogue in. Osprey there is… the question is whether the juice is worth the squeeze taking its already defined roles and adding a trick to it. Probably is, but that’s because right now an Amphib has no organic tanker, and a hell of a lot of fuel pass requirements if they want to use those F35s. But it’s a conscious decision to take that heavy lift asset and make it a gas station. It isn’t taken lightly because it’s value doing anything else is lost.


I’m just curious if the idea is we need in an INDOPACOM type fight gonna need big numbers of fuel to push stuff but also need it to be able to deploy to austere locations to avoid being targeted…. Ok well here is a big ass airplane that can carry a lot and land in some places a 135/10/46 wouldn’t dream…. Maybe it’s an idea worth pursuing so let’s do the math on a reasons why it won’t work with a list of challenges to overcome. Or maybe we look in a filing cabinet and find a white paper somebody did kinda like sticking Harms on a Fulcrum.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Majestik Møøse]

On 10/10/2022 at 6:39 AM, ThreeHoler said:

 

Last I remember reading:
9 in 2000.
50 in 1000.

50 will be up for sale. Multiple buyers lined up. Something something AMC contract air refueling.

 

Contracting out essential combat capabilities will be the death of us. Contractors don’t have ALR.

[Swizzle]

57 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Contracting out essential combat capabilities will be the death of us. Contractors don’t have ALR.

You’re right…they have a price…and borrowing at these bond interest rates will kill us too!

[ThreeHoler]

Contracting out essential combat capabilities will be the death of us. Contractors don’t have ALR.

Correcting my numbers: 49 for sale. 1 went to Dover for their museum.

AMC is enamored of the Navy’s contract AR model where Omega does most of their training/CONUS refueling.