Forum: Air Power

I'm at a loss as to where to put this topic. Some weeks back, it came up on a thread that perhaps a few B-2s should be converted into tankers in order to counter the old RAND scenario in which US tactical airpower was easily circumvented by the simple expedient of destroying the AWACS and tankers that American assets rely on. While that thesis was based on some wide assumptions regarding Chinese and Russian capability, the vulnerability is real, though not so bad as this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF7fLmIS ... ideo_title Rolling Eyes

Converting B-2s into tankers is impractical, especially since there are only 20 of them in service, but a LO tanker would remove some of the disadvantages (real or perceived) that many ascribe to the F-22/F-35. Submitted for your consideration is the following as a possible solution to the problem. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 820cb2b07a

Of course, it's only being plugged as a transport for now. I doubt anyone in politics wants to deal with tankers again any time soon, but a platform like this offers a lot of possibilities.

F-16.net Sponsor

I was thinking the same thing with a few additions. Not only could it be a penetrating tanker, but also a LO AWACS. Before you get all "what's the point of an AWACS if it's LO (or vice-versa) hear me out.

The AWACS version could fill three roles, AWACS, ISR (think LO JSTAR), and standoff jammer in multiple bands (think really big NGJ). If it detects unfriendlys getting too close, it has the option of "hiding in the shadows", which the current AWACS do not.

Side note: Since it's C-130 size with much better STOL, could it do COD?

I actually posted on the possibility of further enhancing a spec-ops VLO tanker capability out of a few B-2s, a few years back. I'm sure it had been conceived somewhere years before, but at the time I brought it up at least, I thought it seemed like an interesting concept worth studying... As a counter-point, I'd agree with others that 10-12 truly strategic, modern-capable B-2s were too few to procure years back and that the fleet was cut short. But to modernize say, 3-4 B-2s to an added capability to do strategic special-ops VLO tanking as an 'added' capability on-demand, seems like a no-brainer?

geogen wrote:

I actually posted on the possibility of further enhancing a spec-ops VLO tanker capability out of a few B-2s, a few years back. I'm sure it had been conceived somewhere years before, but at the time I brought it up at least, I thought it seemed like an interesting concept worth studying... As a counter-point, I'd agree with others that 10-12 truly strategic, modern-capable B-2s were too few to procure years back and that the fleet was cut short. But to modernize say, 3-4 B-2s to an added capability to do strategic special-ops VLO tanking as an 'added' capability on-demand, seems like a no-brainer?

3-4 special ops B-2s (insertion, surveillance, tanking) might sound like a good idea on the surface, but the airframe is high-maintenance and ill suited for adaptations beyond carrying weapons (which it is VERY good at). The re-configurable internal volume just isn't there. Besides, 3-4 copies is too few to be operationally useful, even for special occasions.

What's needed is a platform designed from the start with the robustness and volume characterized by transport aircraft. Also, a low-observable tanker does not have to possess the same level of stealth as the B-2 because it does not need to penetrate far into contested airspace (if at all). It only needs to remain undetected at a distance to avoid fighter attack.

By denying long-range detection of IFR assets, a lot of the new 'AWACS-killer' munitions would be rendered useless. It's really something I'd like to see. The question is: could this be a modularly-configurable support aircraft able to either roll modules on and off (squadron-level conversion) or refit modules with some work (depot level)? Consider the value of a LO Rivet Joint replacement also able to take on just about any electronic or kinetic support mission.

Interesting insights and concepts, 1st503rd. I'd be curious as to your thinking in general on more tactical level 'buddy-tanking' as a secondary option, to reduce the profile of tankers and better 'hide' tanking capabilities within tactical bases too(?), instead of ferrying in big aircraft with their separate logistics et al.

One concept I've seen conjectured on which seemed interesting, was to convert some AMARG F-16s (say, 40-50 a/c) to an F-16XL airframe configuration (e.g., add a couple LO 600 gal tanks) with the primary intention to perform 'probe and drogue' style Buddy-tanking? Maybe even chop the vertical tail stab, as envisioned apparently with the 'F-16X' concept? Update with modern FCS software, etc. Perhaps $100-150m upgrade per airframe including R&D? 15-20 yr service life? It would seem expensive, but perhaps this could actually be a doable interim tactical option and be affordable at a fraction of any other 'hypothetical' wish-list stealth tankers to be developed and take over, 20 yrs from now?

geogen wrote:

One concept I've seen conjectured on which seemed interesting, was to convert some AMARG F-16s (say, 40-50 a/c) to an F-16XL airframe configuration (e.g., add a couple LO 600 gal tanks) with the primary intention to perform 'probe and drogue' style Buddy-tanking? Maybe even chop the vertical tail stab, as envisioned apparently with the 'F-16X' concept? Update with modern FCS software, etc. Perhaps $100-150m upgrade per airframe including R&D? 15-20 yr service life? It would seem expensive, but perhaps this could actually be a doable interim tactical option and be affordable at a fraction of any other 'hypothetical' wish-list stealth tankers to be developed and take over, 20 yrs from now?

Exactly how many USAF aircraft have to be converted to probe and drogue refueling? Good luck convincing them to do that. Lot of institutional inertia to overcome there.

Fair enough... although might be more envisioned for UCAV and F-16 block 60, I mean the F-35C at least, or for CTOL variant if they receive a future CFT? Shrug

geogen wrote:

Fair enough... although might be more envisioned for UCAV and F-16 block 60, I mean the F-35C at least, or for CTOL variant if they receive a future CFT? Shrug

The F-35C will probably be used as a tanker sooner or later, and most air forces use probe and drogue refueling if they have a choice. As an interesting aside, read Neil Sheehan's "A Fiery Peace in a Cold War" to get the inside story on why the USAF is stuck with the boom method. pg. 162-166

Forum: Air Power

Stealth Tanker? The Speed Agile Concept