AMC-More tankers and transports needed

The head of the Air Mobility Command said that due to increased threats from peer opponents, the US needs more tankers and transports. Currently the objective for tankers is 479 aircraft, but it's thought that was a floor figure, not an upper figure. They're starting to add in attrition figures for the first time, which will drive that number up. The only question is, how much of an attrition figure do they add in.

A study being done by the Air Force is looking at various defenses and things that can be done to protect existing aircraft. These could range from DIRCM countermeasures, to systems designed to alter radar signatures in real time. The results of the study are expected to be released next month, and should prove to be a rather interesting read.

breakingdefense.com...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
The head of the Air Mobility Command said that due to increased threats from peer opponents, the US needs more tankers and transports. Currently the objective for tankers is 479 aircraft, but it's thought that was a floor figure, not an upper figure. They're starting to add in attrition figures for the first time, which will drive that number up. The only question is, how much of an attrition figure do they add in.

A study being done by the Air Force is looking at various defenses and things that can be done to protect existing aircraft. These could range from DIRCM countermeasures, to systems designed to alter radar signatures in real time. The results of the study are expected to be released next month, and should prove to be a rather interesting read.

breakingdefense.com...

Considering neither tanker has any Active or passive defense systems...I understand the reasons high-power ECM and flares plus lots of jetfuel isnt the greatest and stealth tankers are still decades away. I think we have ~400 kc-135s in total between active/reserve/guard and ~60 KC-10s between Active and reserve. If those number are correct we need a hell of a lot of KC-46s that only have infrared defense systems or massive upgrades to the current tankers we have.

More and more the failures of procurement keeping biting the USAF in the ass.

a reply to: Pyle

The KC-135 has a bolt on LAIRCM system built by Northrop. They were testing it several years ago on a National Guard -135. It only takes a couple days of maintenance to install the mount for it, and about two hours to install the system itself. They simply don't have it in large numbers yet.




There are currently 59 KC-10s, and 414 KC-135s as of May 2014. The current plan is 179 KC-46s under KC-X, with a similar number under KC-Y, which they'll probably just add more KC-46s now with the plan to skip straight to KC-Z.

My answer is Sidewinders..If they can fit them on Nimrods they can fit them on tankers..

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Pyle

The KC-135 has a bolt on LAIRCM system built by Northrop. They were testing it several years ago on a National Guard -135. It only takes a couple days of maintenance to install the mount for it, and about two hours to install the system itself. They simply don't have it in large numbers yet.

There are currently 59 KC-10s, and 414 KC-135s as of May 2014. The current plan is 179 KC-46s under KC-X, with a similar number under KC-Y, which they'll probably just add more KC-46s now with the plan to skip straight to KC-Z.

I had not heard much about them testing LAIRCM for tankers but nice to see they are looking that way. And is the KC-Z the blended wing body concepts that keep floating around?

a reply to: Pyle

KC-Z is supposed to be a classified LO tanker. They haven't finalized any kind of requirements yet. They're predicting a hybrid/blended wing design though.

Goddamn...them's some dukes.

originally posted by: Blackfinger
My answer is Sidewinders..If they can fit them on Nimrods they can fit them on tankers..

Just hang a few largeish smoke rockets with a small xband emitter in the nose. A lot cheaper and gets you about the same result.