What requirements would you propose for KCX?

Question

Warren D has fielded a Question concerning an interim tanker/transport for Air Mobility Command, U. S. Air Force. The Boeing KC-135 has performed the Strategic Tanker mission since 1954; although the McDonnellDouglas KC-10 was purchased as a KC-135 replacement, the KC-10 was found to have certain shortcomings. The best solution appears at this time to be development of a new aircraft, to be termed KCX.

A new issue appearing in the 1990's, that was not a factor in the KC-135 and KC-10 development programs, is the need for low radar and infrared observability--both the KC-135 and KC-10 are sitting ducks for SAM systems that would be unable to lock up either the USAF/Northrop Grumman B-2A bombardment aircraft or the USAF/Lockheed Martin F-22A tactical pursuit/attack aircraft.

What should KCX be capable of, quantity-wise?

Warren D: I concur on full daisy-chain refuelling capability--the KC-10 is a step in the right direction, as it can be topped off by another tanker via the Boeing-compatible receptacle in the upper forward fuselage. A good include for KCX.

Yahoos: Extrapolating from Warren D's Answer, a top speed in the Mach 0.92 ballpark and 40,000' service ceiling appear reasonable, but I have yet to see proposals on fuel tonnage and other aspects of configuration. Let's have 'em!

Aloisius resurrexit: Appears a reasonable acquisition schedule, but no data about how much fuel (in terms of tonnage) each aircraft should carry, neither other hard facts that would dictate the size of each aircraft in the KCX program.

Addendum to Warren D: I concur on multiple refuelling stations--as I understand its design, the KC-10 could be fitted with a Flight Refuelling Ltd. hose-and-drogue on each wing, much as the Marines did on their deliberately low-and-slow (on account of their helicopters) KC-130's. For KCX, hardpoints should be designed into the wing for the hose reels, something I consider achievable without compromising the installation for the Boeing fuel boom(s?) in the lower aft fuselage or the Boeing receptacle in the upper forward fuselage.

Answer 1

The first USAF tanker to be used for refueling was the KB-29, which had a comparatively short operational life before it was replaced by the KC-97, a refueling variant of the C-97 transport which was developed from Boeing's Stratocruiser airliner. The KC-97 was replaced by the KC-135 starting in the mid-1950's. It had proven too slow for the mission, which then was primarily refueling SAC bombers.

As the KC-97 was phased out of SAC the aircraft were given to the Air National Guard, first as transports and specialized rescue aircraft and later as tankers. The ANG made an important adaptation to the design: They added two J47 jet engines under the wings for additional power. This additional power did two things for the old tanker. First, it boosted its speed and allowed it to refuel more different types of aircraft than it could before. Second, it increased the safe takeoff weight for the KC-97. Lesson: It is difficult to overpower a tanker.

In operational use the KC-135 was always a little dicey on a heavy takeoff. Any loss of power on one engine was enough to abort a takeoff. The Stratotanker was underpowered until the later turbofan modifications, which came relatively late in the life of the KC-135. Lesson: On a tanker more power is better.

So I favor a four-engine design. This could be done with a new design or by adapting an existing two-engine design, such as the Boeing 787, to four engines. I like the 787 because of its use of composites in the structure. This should help with the radar visibility problem you cite, along with active electronic countermeasures.

With a tanker you need speed, range and capacity. In the early days of the C-5A, the first strategic airlift aircraft capable of being refueled in flight, it took two KC-135s to top the C-5 off. One KC-10 could do that task from the outset.

Another requirement should be that the tanker should include a refueling receptacle so it could be refueled itself. This is chiefly for endurance and range, but also as a safety provision. The majority of KC-135s don't have a refueling receptacle. All KC-10s have them.

Something neither the KC-135 or KC-10 have is multiple refueling stations--which would be probe and drogue hoses. I'd like the new tanker to have three such stations along with the standard flying boom--and if multiple booms can be developed that should also be explored.

Any tanker design is going to probably have to compromise some of the requirements. We might want to look into more than one tanker--possibly adapting the C-17 as a KC-17, although I don't see this as a total solution. It would help the current C-17 program, however, to allow more airframes to be purchased, thus lowering the airframe cost per unit.

Variants on the Boeing 747 or a larger Airbus design are worth looking into, but any design that is foreign or contains major components that are of foreign manufacture needs to be procured with licensing protections that would allow the entire airframe to be built by U.S manufacturers if needed. Interestingly enough, many of the major components of the 767 are of foreign manufacture, including Canada and Japan. You cannot get away from this issue!

Good question and great follow-on to mine.

Answer 2

i think of that the expectancies of a "psychological assessment" could be slightly unrealistic. It takes extra beneficial than a pair classes with a psychologist to make any style of prognosis or perhaps something like the MMPI isn't inevitably a robust diagnostic gadget. i do no longer think of requiring some style of assessment is inevitably a undesirable concern, yet i do no longer think of it fairly is going to do what another posters anticipate it to do. i might prefer to work out extra positioned up-placement persist with up. it fairly is exceptionally plenty a given for many worldwide adoptions, yet i replaced into greatly surprised to learn the way little positioned up-placement persist with up is done in enjoyed ones and a few foster-adoptions.