Dominant Logistics
KC-33A: Aerial Transport System
Another intriguing design proposal comes from the 1st Tactical Studies Group in the form of a KC-33A. This aircraft is based upon existing Boeing 747 aircraft and combines midair refueling capabilities with a reinforced upper deck that can carry vehicles, particularly light armor, such as the M113A3. A fold-out ramp would be carried in the nose of the aircraft to allow vehicles to drive on and off of the aircraft. Under the deck would be a set of tanks and pumps to allow the aircraft to refuel other aircraft or simply engage in very long-range missions. In this way, the KC-33A would serve well as a refueler but would also function as a strategic lift asset. To get the most out of this system, I propose adding another capability as well. Because the 747 airframe is rather robust anyways and the aircraft has substantial power, I suggest using it as the basis of an Aerial Towing System.
The ATS provides a means to transport large
numbers of fighters to any location in the world rapidly and efficiently. It is based upon the proven technology of using a
larger aircraft to tow smaller aircraft, the means with which gliders are currently
deployed and have been for years. The cornerstone of the ATS is the KC-33A Tanker. This platform would incorporate three transport
lines, one from each wing and a third from the tail of the fuselage. The transport lines would each include three
cables, one to support the weight being towed, the second being a fuel supply hose, and
the third a data line to transfer flight controls of towed fighters to the KC-33A. At the end of each transport line would be a clamp
for latching on to the tow strut of ATS-equipped fighters.
ATS-equipped fighters would have a tow-strut that
extends from the top of the fuselage behind the cockpit.
This strut would include a fuel probe similar to those used with drogue refueling
systems today as well as a data port for transferring flight controls. When not in use, the strut would fold down into
the top of the fuselage and would not cause any decrease in capabilities.
In action, the ATS-equipped fighter would approach
the transport line extended from a KC-33A in-flight.
The fuel probe on the fighter would engage the fuel supply line with proper
engagement triggering the clamp to latch on to the tow strut. With latching complete, flight controls of the
towed fighter would be transferred to the KC-33A and the fighter pilot could kick back and
rest for the duration of the flight.
Since the KC-33A would be in full control of the
fighter, it can adjust power levels and flight controls to adjust for changes in flight
conditions such as turbulence and changes in wind direction. Weather can change quite rapidly in the flight
time between the continental U.S. and the Middle East, for example, and the ATS accounts
for these changes.
The ATS could support virtually any type of fighter aircraft. As long as the fighter is ATS-equipped, it wouldn’t matter if it were an air-to-air fighter, an interceptor, a ground attack platform, or a light bomber. Another key benefit to this system is safety. If something goes wrong with the KC-33A, it can release the fighters under virtually any flight condition necessary. The KC-33A could also continue to function as a traditional tanker when not performing ATS duties. The existing refueling systems will already put a fuel boom on the aircraft so this platform would be able to refuel all existing U.S. military aircraft because Navy aircraft can use the drogue system included as part of ATS.
This design would fill a variety of roles for the
military:
While these changes will definitely increase the price tag over the current civilian model, the proposed KC-33 should have little difficulty coming in at a price well under $150 million and probably more on the lines of $120 million. Adding 200 of these to the air transport fleet would give the force unprecedented deployment flexibility at a cost of less than 10% of what we spend on defense in a single year.
References
http://www.oocities.org/cargo747airlift
http://www.g2mil.com/abnaircraftcarriers.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-x.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
From An Interested Lurker:
What
seems (to me) a more workable solution is a computer package that more
or less turns the aircraft into a very expensive drone. The aircraft would be
slaved to a large computer in the tanker's cargo section which would control
routine things like holding course and flying in formation. For precision guidance
the tanker would also have a some 'drone control stations' on board. Basically
stripped down simulators, the control stations allow (rested) human pilots to
bring the drones in for fuel. The drones might still be able to carry a human
pilot, but he wouldn't be essential and could take a nap if he wanted. The slave
computer package would be removable and would include a key/lock system to enable
it and to lock out the pilot controls. Once in theater the control stations and
the big comp could still be used for mission preparation. The big downside is that
such a system can probably only be used in fly-by-wire aircraft.
Come to think of it, if the drone can carry a pilot the system could also be
a very handy training aid. A trainee pilot could fly the standard version plane
with the teacher still being 'virtually' along for the ride.
My main problems about towing multiple aircraft are with
turbulence and
the fact that current fighters aren't designed to be towed in flight.
Any approach that we're looking at here is going to have its pluses and
minuses. Let's look at your proposal first and then we'll look at ATS. Your
expected downside really shouldn't be an issue as any aircraft with an autopilot
capability could be modified, so this really shouldn't be limited to fly-by-wire. It
can applied to all aircraft which is another big plus. The training benefits are
also important. The reason I go a bit further is that there are more gains that can
be had for minimal work in my opinion.
The primary advantages of the mothership/parasite concept are reduced fuel consumption and
reduced wear on the parasite aircraft. We're talking extreme ranges here - it would
be entirely different if we were in Europe but we aren't. Just to get to the Orient
is a 6000+ mile flight, that's a lot of miles for a fighter. With M/P you can take
the engines down to idle and this greatly increases all aspects of aircraft endurance.
The problem with conventional M/P designs is that it requires custom-tailored
aircraft with limited capabilities and you also have to use a dangerous method of docking
from underneath the aircraft. You're probably familiar with the docking problems of
the early designs as some aircraft were lost from uncontrolled collisions.
By towing the aircraft, you get rid of the dangerous docking issues but you also are now
free to use any type of aircraft with pretty much any sort of load. You won't always
get the gain of powering down to idle but you won't need to be at full throttle either and
the aircraft will always have a full fuel load. We're also no longer limited to a
custom mothership as just about any large aircraft could be easily modified to tow a
single small aircraft. This would mean that AWACS, Rivet Joint,
JSTARS, and most cargo and bomber
aircraft could each tow one aircraft while the custom KC-33A would pull three, or it
could pull two and use the centerline for refueling other large aircraft.
Another possibility would be to design a very large cruise missile around the fuselage of
the F-16. I'm talking a warhead in the area of 8000 to 10000 lbs with a max range of
around 1500 miles. With the right engine mods this could probably be bumped up to
around 2000 miles and we may even be able to modify the airframe enough for supercruise.
This would then be towed to a launch point either by long-range bombers or the ATS
mothership.
The technologies behind the concept really shouldn't be a problem - we're just combining
concepts that are already in use. There would obviously need to be some structural
mods to the towing aircraft and the parasites would need modification as well but this
could still be a forcewide system. It would also be pretty easy to incorporate your
training system idea into the design as all of the hardware necessary is already included.
The downsides are we wouldn't get the full benefits of M/P and we're looking at more
maintenance across the entire aircraft fleet. The main pluses are that every large
aircraft can now refuel every smaller fixed wing aircraft, long-range missions can bring
along appropriate escort, we get a modest decrease in operational costs, and we get some
new combat capabilities to boot. Plus we get the training and decreased pilot
workload advantages to boot.
I'm not too concerned about the turbulence factor because we fly aircraft in tight formations all the time and with the computer handling the flight, I'm figuring it should be okay. Current fighters may not be designed to be towed but we're also in the process of replacing most of the tactical aircraft fleet of the military and some of the designs out right now should be relatively easy to modify. For example, with the F-16, I'm figuring using the longer fuselage of the two seater version but instead of making it a two seater, the ATS hardware and structural reinforcements would reside where the rear seat would otherwise be located. Other designs would probably need greater modification but this F-16 mod would be easy to do and sufficient for getting the program off the ground. We could actually modify existing trainer aircraft and then incorporate the lessons learned into the new fighters being designed and built. To purchase a modified Boeing 747-400 plus modifying the trainers and running a good test program should cost no more than $1 billion to prove out and develop the capability. It might even be less depending on the costs of the 747 and even if ATS doesn't pan out, we can still use the aircraft for other purposes or even to go with something like your own proposal.