It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lockheed unveils KC-Z concept

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Zaphod58

That right there is something of a problem for me. Maybe you can clear this up, at least a little bit...

They need an entire fleet of tankers as the current fleet are not exactly what you can call new, or even newish, at least the majority.

Generally speaking, tankers are kept out of harms way, as it is considered bad to have 'em shot down by the bad guys...why is stealth so seemingly necessary, especially as it cuts down dramatically on how many you can buy...?

Seems to me that stealth isn't the highest of prerequisites for a tanker fleet...

I stand ready to be educated


Well for the standard fleet no stealth isnt a req. But for sec ops or operations closer to enemy positions a stealthy tanker could be useful since you could fuel closer to the target.




posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

Surely, I can see a small squadron of 'em for SpecOps...makes sense.

OK, I can see a necessity for the purposes of common parts and such making the whole fleet stealthy...it just seems cost prohibitive to a degree.

'course, I thought that about the F35 at one point, too... ...and as I learned more, I changed my tune dramatically. Way too early in the process to be totally turned off on it. So I'll wait and see...



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 04:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

...and, yes, I am that wishy-washy!



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Stealth be ideal for getting assets across country where the country wont let you cross legally..Nice blended design,large plantform ideal for stabilty..Drogue be stealthier than boom?



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 05:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

The least stealthy part of the drogue is the pod itself. The hose and basket are tiny radar returns.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

In addition to flying the regular tanker mission, these will be designed for penetrating hostile airspace with a strike package, on Day One. The problem with the current tanker fleet is, using Iraq as an example, they have to stay either over Turkey, or Saudi/Kuwait to stay out of harms way. That means a strike package to Baghdad has to tank before crossing the border, then has to come back over the border. That limits their loiter time over the target and their ability to hit targets of opportunity.

If they had a tanker capable of going with them, they could go to an area in country, away from defenses, and tank. That's going to be huge for the F-22 and F-35.
edit on 1/12/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So they do intend to send them into harms way...

OK, I stand educated. Obviously if that's the intent, then stealth is a requirement. Still that niggling little doubt about it, but I'm willing to be larned.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

They always do to a degree, but usually not until well after we have air superiority. These are going in from the start. They're even talking about a limited strike capability.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah, I know they get as close as they can, of course. I didn't know, or failed to read it, that these are intended to go downtown with the opening salvo.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

If you see pictures of the KC-135A models in the late 80s, you'll see they're painted green on top and white on the bottom. Their genius idea for that was to go in low level and refuel both AFSOC and strike aircraft.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

There was a thump under my desk when I say this image.

That's one sexy aircraft.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That planform (minus the tail) bears a striking similarity to the Amarillo bird.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Most of these designs are going to bear a resemblance to each other. There are only a handful of ways to do it.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I was more surprised that even the leading edge angles line up, then again, I'm sure there's a reason, likely found on the RCS pole, for why there's so much convergent evolution in terms of leading edge angles, etc.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The tail is a nice throwback towards the Constellation. But I imagine that's just a cute gesture, no way that's the final aft section.
edit on 12-1-2017 by aholic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic

That twin tail has been around for LM for quite some time. They had it on their Speed Agile concept and was wind tunnel tested already.

www.wpafb.af.mil...

edit on 12-1-2017 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Its shape look like a transonic/supersonic tanker transport a sort of stealth b1-b.
edit on 13-1-2017 by darksidius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Like the aggressive sweep to the wings and fuselage. I predict well be seeing more of that in the future.

Plus the intakes in the engine look like something out of the pininfarina design firm. Sexy!!!!
edit on 13-1-2017 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Yeah they certainly do like that look.


But we've seen other BWB designs without it. And obviously that'd help for cross section. Wondering if they need extra stability with the boom down.

I'm also wondering with the exhaust right there how that'd perform running over the boom into the canopy of the receiving flight. Could be a pretty turbulent zone.


edit on 18-1-2017 by aholic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic

I'm guessing it is for the added control with the boom down and the two craft in close proximity.
I wonder if moving the boom from the aft section of the plane to a more belly or forward mounted position could eleviate any issues with exhaust turbulence since it will undoubtedly be a fly by wire boom. That way the boom could be theoretically stowed in a doored belly bay to retain its stealth in between refuelings. Just a guess though.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join