Next-Generation Air-Refueling System (NGAS)

[basher54321]

Feb. 2, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak
The Air Force launched its search for the Next-Generation Air-Refueling System (NGAS), a stealthy tanker project intended to deliver its first aircraft around 2040, with a Jan. 31 request for information to industry. The new tanker is to be capable of surviving in contested airspace, but the service is open to all ideas about its size and performance.

Contractors are invited to submit ideas for the NGAS that will be considered in an Analysis of Alternatives getting underway in October, according to the announcement on SAM.gov. Responses to the RFI are due March 2.

The RFI marks the formal start of what has previously been called “KC-Z.” The KC-X program became the KC-46 now being acquired; the KC-Y has become the so-called “bridge tanker” still in definition, and KC-Z the Air Force now refers to as NGAS, or “increment three” of its three-phase tanker recapitalization effort.

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-f ... -for-2040/

[daswp]

I thought KC-Y was dead, and they were just going to buy additional KC-46's?

[Corsair1963]

Why not base the new Stealth Tanker on the B-21? This would go a long ways on driving down the cost. So, maybe we could actually afford the aircraft!


Plus, that lower price may make it affordable for export? As countries like Australia have already shown interest in the type....

[disconnectedradical]

Interestingly, NGAS is leading to an increase in KC-46 buys as well.

How a ‘priority’ on next-gen tankers paved the way for more Boeing KC-46s

WASHINGTON — A renewed emphasis on fielding next-gen air refueler by the mid-2030s has left Boeing’s KC-46 Pegasus as the only tanker that can readily meet the Air Force’s tanker needs, though supply chain and data rights issues could be a factor longterm, the service said in a new document.

The justification and approval (J&A) notice posted by the Air Force Oct. 2 recaps the service’s tumultuous plans for its air refueling fleet over the last few years, culminating in a decision this summer to order up to 75 more KC-46s. The J&A was required since the service is contracting with Boeing for more tankers without a competition.

The document says requests for information for the Air Force’s now-defunct KC-135 Tanker Recapitalization Program garnered a wide range of industry responses, including from a teamup of Lockheed Martin and Airbus up against Boeing. The Air Force said that based on industry replies, only Airbus and Boeing — after Lockheed backed out of its partnership with the European conglomerate — could “partially meet the draft requirements” outlined by the program, including that a solution should be ready to field by fiscal 2031.

But in early 2025, the Air Force changed course as “evolving global threats and competing DoD priorities” resulted in a next-gen tanker known as NGAS becoming a “priority.” In the process, the document says the Air Force found that for the original recapitalization program, both Boeing and Airbus would need “significant development” to meet requirements. The Air Force thus deemed the recap option unaffordable since it also needed to spend money to develop the NGAS platform.

So, the service ditched requirements for a new tanker effort and opted instead to use ones that already exist for the KC-46 until NGAS eventually comes online, the document says. That decision essentially cleared the way for Boeing, since the A330 MRTT Airbus was pitching would need “significant development to meet mandatory requirements.”

A key driver of the decision to use KC-46 requirements, according to the document, was time. The Air Force is currently replacing its aging KC-135 Stratotanker fleet with the KC-46, but Pegasus deliveries under an existing contract are set to conclude in 2030 — roughly six years before NGAS would be ready at the earliest. To keep replacing the KC-135 with newer refuelers, the Air Force needs a tanker that could fill that six-year gap, which the service says only the KC-46 can do.

Full article: https://breakingdefense.com/2025/10/how ... ng-kc-46s/

[hornetfinn]

Why not base the new Stealth Tanker on the B-21? This would go a long ways on driving down the cost. So, maybe we could actually afford the aircraft!


Plus, that lower price may make it affordable for export? As countries like Australia have already shown interest in the type....

It might drive down the cost of B-21 somewhat but would likely be a lot more expensive compared to regular tanker aircraft. I also think that B-21 would not be able to hold nearly as much fuel as dedicated tanker aircraft and would likely be a lot more expensive to operate. But it would also be a lot more survivable and difficult to detect, so it could potentially be used much closer to enemy when tanking other stealthy aircraft (although of course it would lose some stealth qualities while doing so). Not sure if that is worth the costs though and I'm sure this has been studied.

[wrightwing]

Why not base the new Stealth Tanker on the B-21? This would go a long ways on driving down the cost. So, maybe we could actually afford the aircraft!


Plus, that lower price may make it affordable for export? As countries like Australia have already shown interest in the type....

It might drive down the cost of B-21 somewhat but would likely be a lot more expensive compared to regular tanker aircraft. I also think that B-21 would not be able to hold nearly as much fuel as dedicated tanker aircraft and would likely be a lot more expensive to operate. But it would also be a lot more survivable and difficult to detect, so it could potentially be used much closer to enemy when tanking other stealthy aircraft (although of course it would lose some stealth qualities while doing so). Not sure if that is worth the costs though and I'm sure this has been studied.

It wouldn't necessarily need to hold as much fuel as a regular tanker, but it could probably hold 4x to 6x what an MQ-25 carries, and at much longer distances. Conventional tankers could orbit at safe distances, while B-21 based tankers could fly in non-permissive airspace (possibly unmanned). They could carry AAMs for self defense, as well.

[hornetfinn]

It wouldn't necessarily need to hold as much fuel as a regular tanker, but it could probably hold 4x to 6x what an MQ-25 carries, and at much longer distances. Conventional tankers could orbit at safe distances, while B-21 based tankers could fly in non-permissive airspace (possibly unmanned). They could carry AAMs for self defense, as well.

I totally agree with that and I can see the benefits that kind of tanker aircraft could bring. I also think that this is something that has been and will be studied and cost/benefit ratio is calculated and analyzed. Having both stealthy tankers and unstealthy tankers (and unmanned ones) sounds like a good plan but I have no idea about costs and stealthiness of tanking even when all aircraft involved are stealthy.

[forum1359]

B-21 is relatively small aircraft (when compared to KC-135, KC-10, KC-46)

lets assume B-21 fuel carry capacity
B-21 has ~ 36-40 tons of internal fuel
bomb bay can carry additional 8-10 tons of fuel
Total ~ 44-60 tons of Fuel
This is the max fuel capacity of the aircraft but, the fuel it can give to fighter jets at station would be much less.
cannot carry required amount of fuel to fully refuel lets say 9-15 fighter jets (like KC-135, KC-10, KC-46)

now we all can say that you don't need to fully refuel the fighter jet, partial refueling just to get back to base is more than enough
but same can be said for traditional aerial refueling aircrafts as well

I think Manned UnManned Teaming (MUM-T) is a great solution for this, Manned Aircraft is the brain/network node and
UnManned Aircrafts will acted as
1) Wingmen
2) Missile carriers
3) recon drones for ISTAR
4) In case of emergencies act as suicide drones to protect Manned Aircraft

for NGAS the main trade-off will be, at what range inside/from Enemy A2AD it should operate ?
and what amount of fuel its needs to offload to MUM-T ?