USAF Tanker - No Bid Northrop or EADs
- Thread starter AKPilot
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
Im glad you enjoyed bagotville. My oldest brother was posted there a number of times. He worked on Genies for a bit then went on to the ArgusBack to the point,
It would seem to me that the best solution might be to by some KC-767s in the interim, and press forward with the Boeing Blended wing/body for a true next gen tanker. I'm not sure of the aerodynamics but a boom about 1/4 way inboard from each wing tip should keep the fighters out of the wing tip vortices
and allow refueling 2 fighters at once. You would need 2 boomers, but hey E-3s are cheap!
The benefits could be great. A paradigm shift if large, subsonic aircraft design and a new tanker that the Airforce can use for the next 50 years.
It would seem to me that the best solution might be to by some KC-767s in the interim, and press forward with the Boeing Blended wing/body for a true next gen tanker. I'm not sure of the aerodynamics but a boom about 1/4 way inboard from each wing tip should keep the fighters out of the wing tip vortices
and allow refueling 2 fighters at once. You would need 2 boomers, but hey E-3s are cheap!
The benefits could be great. A paradigm shift if large, subsonic aircraft design and a new tanker that the Airforce can use for the next 50 years.
Viperfixr
Born Again Rocketeer
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,474
- Reaction score
- 73
Rumor control: General Atomics is working on a UAV tanker concept...
For those that object to a UAV tanker, would it be an emotional reaction? What if it could really do a better job?
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,734
- Reaction score
- 1,383
I've probably got as much time behind a tanker as the next guy and I'd say emotion has nothing to do with it........ a stable platform that is on time is the key. OH, and no cowboy boom operators.....
powderburner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 7,398
- Reaction score
- 15
An unmanned platform could get closer to the playground if needed without risking loss of a crew. (The operating crew back at the base would get a pretty good chewing out if they lost a $NNN million acft, though.)
Theoretically, a computer-controlled FCS should be able to fly a straighter course during the hookup, or even compensate automatically for any minor wandering that the receiver might do. You could even tie in an auto throttle control to better match airspeed as the fuel transfers (and the receiver's AOA changes). Lotsa good things that could be designed in.
Just cross your fingers that those tanker electronic controls don't ever crap out, or experience the "blue screen of death"
Similar threads
