Given the 2035 timescale for NGAS, the USAF is now looking, unsurprisingly, at towards of the MQ-25 Stingray as the required stealthy combat tanker. (I can see a larger version not limited by carrier ops or based on the B-21, biggest issue is a stealthy boom)
A BWB is an interesting concept but, realistically, even after the JetZero* demonstrator has been built and done years of trials, how many years do you think it would take to hold competitions for a replacement for the KC-46 (or a need) and then build, test and get one into service?
And even there is it a priority over the need for a system that can deliver to island strips or places without, or with denied, runways across the Pacific island chains?
More likely is the prospect for a C-5 and then C-17 NGAL program.
*
https://aviationweek.com/defense-spa...nded-wing-body
https://aviationweek.com/defense-spa...ers-airlifters
What The U.S. Air Force Wants For Its Next-Gen Tankers And Airlifters
The Air Force has started an analysis of alternatives for what it calls the Next-Generation Air Refueling System (NGAS) to come online in the 2030s following the acquisition of Boeing KC-46s and to replace the remainder of its Boeing KC-135s. Subsequent to that will be the Next-Generation Airlift (NGAL) program to replace Boeing C-17s and Lockheed Martin C-5s.….
Gen. Mike Minihan, commander of Air Mobility Command, says these studies show that a series of aircraft—from the small and exquisite to the large and simple—will be needed. “I think there’s an absolute, mandatory need to look at the problem in terms of a system as opposed to just one thing that has to do everything,” Minihan says.….
Amid the command’s massive Mobility Guardian exercise in the Pacific, Minihan laid out for Aviation Week his vision for the setup of the NGAS. He sees three roles for refuelers.
The first, and the bulk of the refueling mission, would be done in very permissive environments—exercises at home and refueling fighters off the coast of California, for example. This could be performed by a typical, commercial-based tanker such as the KC-135s and KC-46s.
The second would be closer to a fight in the Pacific. These aircraft would need to be more survivable and have improved connectivity to communicate with the combat fleet. This would be similar to the upgraded KC-46s, following block upgrades and other enhancements, he says.
Last would be an entirely new type of tanker that is small, survivable and able to operate in the same areas as fighters. “For the high-end stuff that needs to go into the scariest part of the weapon engagement zones, that doesn’t need to be everything,” Minihan says. “That can be a small fleet of very capable aircraft that can be a bucket brigade—that can be the exquisite gas that needs to be [sent] forward so the kinetic team can be successful.”
For this, Minihan wants the mobility forces to take advantage of the Air Force work on its Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter, the Northrop Grumman B-21 bomber and the new plan for uncrewed Collaborative Combat Aircraft. Much money has been spent on these, so Minihan asks: “What of that can I bring into my fleet now and take advantage of?”
Additionally, Minihan points to the MQ-25 Stingray tanker Boeing is developing for the U.S. Navy to be carrier-based and take on the Boeing F/A-18s’ refueling mission.
“It’s not hard for me to imagine that the MQ could get gas, give gas,” he says. “I could put it on station 2 mi. off my right wing, put it on a holding pattern 50 mi. behind me, or I could send it forward 200 mi. into a highly contested environment and have the automation for a person in the loop to make an orchestra of all that.”
The NGAL, which is likely to be renamed the Next-Generation Airlift System, should have a similar approach. The Air Force needs new ways of delivering cargo in a high-threat environment, where traditional airlifters such as the Lockheed C-130 and C-17 would not survive.
It is a question of not only “‘Can I get cargo forward into a high-threat environment?’ but also: ‘Can I get cargo forward to a maneuvering unit that doesn’t have a runway from which I can operate?’” he says. “Does it have to be manned? Can it be unmanned? Does it have to be 10,000 lb. or 5,000 lb.? Can I do vertical lift? Can I do it on an airship [or] a slow-moving low-altitude blimp? There’s a lot of opportunity when it comes to how you approach that.”
Minihan says the command is closely following ongoing experiments such as the Defense Innovation Unit’s blended wing body demonstrator program and DARPA’s Speed and Runway Independent Technologies and Liberty Lifter demonstrator. He says he also has been meeting with the Air Force Research Laboratory on designs that have not been announced. …..