DAYTON, Ohio — The U.S. Air Force expects to release its formal request for information for a KC-135 tanker recapitalization in September, which can pave the best way for an official acquisition strategy for this system it previously known as a “bridge tanker.”
In a roundtable discussion with reporters on the service’s Life Cycle Industry Days event in Dayton, Ohio, the deputy program executive officer for mobility aircraft, Scott Boyd, outlined the force’s plan for the subsequent two stages in a significant overhaul of its tanker fleet.
But, Boyd cautioned, much stays undecided over learn how to eventually field a sophisticated refueling aircraft it now calls the next-generation aerial refueling system, or NGAS.
The Air Force originally referred to its two final stages as KC-Y, or the bridge tanker, and KC-Z, following its procurement in recent times of the KC-46. Those three modernization stages are to interchange the service’s legacy KC-135 Stratotanker fleet.
The Air Force initially had loose plans for KC-Z to reach within the 2040s. The service originally planned to purchase about 150 tankers as an interim step until then — possibly more KC-46s, although Lockheed Martin is pitching its LMXT strategic tanker, based on Airbus’ A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport, as a substitute.
Nevertheless, in March the Air Force shifted course on its future tanker modernization effort. Top leaders announced plans to hurry up the acquisition of its most advanced future tanker, which was redubbed NGAS, to the mid- to late-2030s, and to chop in half the variety of interim tankers it could buy.
Top service officials worry China’s advancing air capabilities will make it increasingly difficult for existing tankers to survive in highly contested airspace, and that a more advanced, survivable refueling aircraft capable of operate in combat zones might want to hit the fleet before anticipated. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said in March that NGAS would require a brand new design, not derived from a business aircraft, and that a blended wing design is a possibility for its body.
During Monday’s roundtable, Boyd stressed the service’s acquisition strategy isn’t set in stone.
“Doesn’t matter what any person, senior leader, otherwise has said: We don’t know what our acquisition strategy is,” Boyd said. “We’ve engaged with Congress on that as well to attempt to clarify that we still don’t know what our strategy is.”
But Boyd said the Air Force is working through a process on joint capabilities, integration and development with the intention to get the ultimate requirements for the interim tanker approved by the Pentagon.
That ought to be finished by the top of September, he said, and the Air Force expects to release the request for information around the identical time or shortly afterward, including what requirements the Air Force wants from industry.
“That can be the primary time anyone in industry has seen the formal Air Force requirement and might have a probability to reply,” Boyd said. “All the pieces we’ve done prior to this, with engaging with industry, has been based on draft documents, draft requirements, ideas of necessities. That’s why that’s form of a milestone event, to finally engage with an actual requirement.”
Industry will then reply to the Air Force’s solicitation with data including estimates on how quickly an organization could deliver an aircraft if chosen, Boyd said. The Air Force will then use all that information from industry to complete its business case evaluation and decide on its long-awaited acquisition strategy.
Boyd said the Air Force expects to have its strategy finalized and approved across the third quarter of fiscal 2024. He noted the service is leaving that window for finalizing the strategy as wide as possible because there are potential unknown aspects.
Top Air Force leaders, resembling Kendall and acquisition chief Andrew Hunter, have repeatedly suggested the service might forgo a contest for this wave of tanker recapitalizations and as an alternative go straight to purchasing more KC-46A Pegusus tankers from Boeing.
Boyd said Monday that the Air Force needs to review market research, evaluate feedback it collects from industry and complete a business case evaluation. All those steps will occur regardless of what path the Air Force takes, he explained, and the service will consider all life cycle costs as a part of this business case evaluation.
The Air Force’s requirements for the recapitalization won’t make a KC-46 selection a foregone conclusion, Boyd said, but it’s going to remain to be seen whether the market research shows a viable competitor exists, aside from the KC-46.
He suggested Kendall’s and Hunter’s remarks reflect a recognition that the necessities going into the interim tanker recapitalization’s process “will not be revolutionary” and don’t require a brand new aircraft.
“Once they recognize that, I believe that form of helps influence how they talk in regards to the program,” Boyd said. “It will possibly be potentially satisfied by the [KC-46], but we still need to do our due diligence.”
Boyd noted he has not felt pressure from lawmakers or elsewhere throughout the Air Force to shift course on the recapitalization.
He also said the name change didn’t represent “some dramatic shift” within the Air Force’s approach, but largely reflected the accelerated timeline for tanker modernization.
The Air Force continues to be determining what NGAS can be, Boyd said. In early fiscal 2024, he added, the Air Force will start its formal evaluation of alternatives, which is anticipated to provide recommendations on what can be needed to satisfy the service’s goals for NGAS. The service believes it could field an NGAS tanker as early as 2035, he noted.
Though the service has dramatically accelerated its NGAS schedule, Boyd explained, it’s going to still need the KC-135 recapitalization as an interim step.
Hanging over the method is the service’s decision to slash the variety of purchased interim tankers to 75. And, Boyd said, it stays to be seen whether the Air Force will strike the correct balance between that reduced buy and when NGAS might actually arrive.
“If we find yourself getting 2035 mistaken, then perhaps we got the amount of what we would have liked [on KC-135 modernization] mistaken,” Boyd said. “That’s everyone’s concern — Air Force has that very same concern, Congress has that concern, industry definitely has that concern.”
Stephen Losey is the air warfare reporter for Defense News. He previously covered leadership and personnel issues at Air Force Times, and the Pentagon, special operations and air warfare at Military.com. He has traveled to the Middle East to cover U.S. Air Force operations.