Back to news

December 16, 2019 | International, Land

The US Air Force needs more tankers. Does the defense industry have the answer?

By: Valerie Insinna

SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill. — With no end in sight to the demand on the tanker fleet, the U.S. Air Force is actively seeking agreements with defense contractors for aerial refueling services.

On Dec. 17, Air Mobility Command will hold an industry day at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, in the hopes of better understanding how it can contract for commercial air refueling services to supplement tanking missions performed by the Air Force's KC-135s, KC-10s and KC-46s.

“We do think that this is an opportunity that needs to be pursued,” Lt. Gen. Jon Thomas, the command's deputy chief, said during an exclusive interview with Defense News on Dec. 10. “If we can find a viable, clear path with industry, we should do it.”

The Air Force believes there are a certain set of aerial-refueling missions conducted in a uncontested environment that could provide a predictable stream of business, Thomas said. Through the industry day, the service is hoping to better understand how companies might be able to fulfill those requirements.

“There are several providers ... that would propose that they have their own tanker that's already flying and doing great work for other air forces,” he said. “That's fascinating to us. There's another vendor that has procured boom-equipped tankers from a foreign air force that is a proven capability. There are some others that may be doing the same thing with a different foreign air force. So I would say that they're out there and they're committing to the idea that if the Air Force is serious, we're serious about this, too.”

There are a number of parameters that industry would have to address, such as meeting the Air Force's aircraft certification standards and the Federal Aviation Administration's demands for refueling in U.S. airspace.

Companies must also be able to refuel aircraft using a boom — a requirement that may hinder certain tankers that use a probe and drogue for refueling.

“Right now, all commercial aerial refueling services are drogue only. It has to be a boom aircraft for the U.S. Air Force to be able to really leverage it in any meaningful way,” Thomas said.

Although Thomas declined to talk about specific vendors that could provide air refueling services, Lockheed Martin and Airbus — which joined forces in 2018 to pitch a fee-for-service model for Airbus's A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport — have been vocal about courting the U.S. Air Force as a customer.

Michele Evans, head of Lockheed's aeronautics business, told reporters in June that the companies are in discussions with the U.S. military about A330 sales, leasing or a fee-for service construct, and that U.S. Transportation Command in particular showed interest.

“We've really been able to show them what we think is capable, feasible,” she said. “You can never have enough tanking capability. As you look at the challenges of the battlespace and the threat and capabilities, having to be standoff farther and farther, it's a great opportunity for them to go revisit their capabilities versus capacity.”

Still, Evans acknowledged there is much to be determined, including the exact nature of the business partnership between Airbus and Lockheed, should a contract emerge, and how the company would structure a fee-for-service contract with the Air Force or other potential customers. One possible construct would involve associating a cost for each gallon of fuel delivered.

If the Air Force decides not to move forward with purchasing aerial refueling services, it still has a number of options for augmenting the tanker force.

In the near term, Air Mobility Command can retain some KC-135s that were slated to be divested as the KC-46 comes online, Thomas said. In March, Transportation Command chief Gen. Stephen Lyons told Congress that the Air Force was considering keeping as many as 28 KC-135s. The Air Force is currently debating 14 KC-135s as part of the fiscal 2021 budget, Thomas said.

“We'll see how the president's budget goes over. I really hope that it will allow us to retain some additional capacity. I don't know if it will,” he said. “But that's our first lever that we can pull."

Another option is increasing the KC-46 program of record, which currently stands at 179 tankers. However, Boeing is still in the process of making extensive changes to the aircraft's remote vision system, which the aircraft uses for refueling, and Air Mobility Command won't be able to consider a production increase until those fixes are made, Thomas said.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/12/13/the-air-force-needs-more-tankers-could-the-defense-industry-have-the-answer/

On the same subject

  • Opinion: Can The Pentagon Spend More Smartly?

    August 10, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    Opinion: Can The Pentagon Spend More Smartly?

    House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (left) spoke to Ranking Member Mac Thornberry during a hearing in July. Credit: Greg Nash/Getty Images I am surprised by the vigorous hand-wringing this summer over the prospects for defense spending in a Democratic-dominated government beginning in January 2021. There's every indication that the... https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/budget-policy-operations/opinion-can-pentagon-spend-more-smartly

  • Nexter prepares the future of battle tank armament

    April 19, 2021 | International, Land

    Nexter prepares the future of battle tank armament

    This breakthrough weapon represents a major contribution by the French industry to achieve at the end of a cooperative development: a new common solution for France and Germany enhancing the...

  • Heavy robotic combat vehicles put to test in the Colorado mountains

    August 10, 2020 | International, Land

    Heavy robotic combat vehicles put to test in the Colorado mountains

    By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army grappled with the challenge of incorporating heavy robotic combat vehicles into its formations during a monthlong experiment at Fort Carson, Colorado, coming away with a clearer path to bringing robots into the fold. Still, the service is years away from ground robots seamlessly fitting in with units. The Army has been evaluating the performance and possible utility of heavy RCVs for more than a year through the use of robotic versions of M113 armored personnel carriers, but the experiment at Camp Red Devil on Fort Carson is the most complex to date. “We're taking a lot of technology, we're experimenting and this experiment was 100 percent successful,” Brig. Gen. Ross Coffman, who is in charge of the Army's combat vehicle modernization efforts, told reporters in an Aug. 6 briefing. “The whole purpose was to learn where the technology is now and how we think we want to fight with it in the future.” Coffman said that doesn't mean all of the technology was successful or that everything performed perfectly. “Some [technology] knocked our socks off, and some we've got a little bit of work to do. But that is why we do these things, so we can do it at small scales, so we can learn, save money and then make decisions of how we want to fight in the future.” Going the distance In part, the Army is tackling a physics problem as well as a technology challenge involving the distance between the robot and the controller, Coffman said. But the service has found companies that can create waveforms to get the required megabytes per second to extend the range in the most challenging environments like dense forested areas, he added. During the experimentation, Coffman said, the Army tested the waveforms. “We went after them with [electronic warfare], we saw they were self-correcting, so that if they're on one band, they can switch to another,” he said, “so we have a really good idea of what is in the realm of the possible today.” The service was also able to almost double the range between controller and robot using the waveforms available, he explained. “If you could extend the battlefield up to 2 kilometers with a robot, then that means that you can make decisions before your enemy came, and it gives you that trade space of decisions faster and more effectively against the enemy.” The Army was also very pleased with the interface for the crew. The soldiers were able to located themselves and the robots, communicate among themselves, and see the graphics that “just absolutely blows us away,” Coffman said. The software between the robot and control vehicle — a Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle — “while not perfect, performed better than we thought it would,” Coffman said. The software also allowed the robot move in front of the control vehicle by roughly 80-1,000 meters as well as identify hotspots and enemy locations. “I didn't know how that was going to work,” Coffman said. “There were some challenges that we had, like getting exact granularity at distance, but the ability that we could identify hotspots and enemy positions I thought was absolutely exceptional.” As a side experiment, the Army also tested a robotic version of the Stryker Dragoon infantry combat vehicle, which is equipped with a 30mm cannon and uses the same software and hardware in control vehicles, Coffman noted. The experiment included live fire. In the heavy RCV surrogates, the target recognition worked while stationary, but part of the challenge the Army is tackling is how to do that on the move while passing information to a gunner, he added. Work on stabilizing the system for multiple terrains also needs performed, but that was indicative of using clunky, old M113s and turning them into robots rather than having a purpose-built vehicle like the RCV Medium and RCV Light. The Army awarded contracts to a Textron and Howe & Howe team to build the RCV-M, and a QinetiQ North America and Pratt & Miller team to build the light version late last year and early this year. Those are being built now. Training on the system also proved to be much easier than anticipated. Coffman said he asked how long the operators need to train, and was surprised to hear they need roughly 30 minutes to learn. “I thought it was going to take them days, but our soldiers are so amazing and they grew up in this environment of gaming.” What's the Army's next step? Now that the first major experiment is done, the Army plans to build up to a company-level operation in the first quarter of fiscal 2022 at Fort Hood, Texas. The experiment will also include four medium RCV prototypes and four light RCVs. While the experimentation at Fort Carson was focused on cavalry operations where the robots served more in a scout mission and proved they could be effective in a reconnaissance and security role, the experiment in FY22 will move the robots into more of an “attack and defend” role, according to Coffman. A new radio will be added to increase range as well as a tethered UAV and more leap-ahead target recognition capability that uses algorithms trained on synthetic data that is “truly cutting-edge,” Coffman said. After each of these experiments, he added, the Army reaches a decision point where it decides how to proceed, whether that is more experimentation or a fielding decision. “We have enough information tactically and technically that I believe we can move forward to the second experiment,” he noted. Following the second experiment, the Army will reach a decision point in FY23 on whether to move the effort into an official program of record. Once that is decided, an acquisition strategy would be identified if the decision is to move forward, according to Coffman. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/08/07/heavy-robotic-combat-vehicles-put-to-test-in-the-colorado-mountains/

All news