WASHINGTON — Russia is emerging as one of the few early economic beneficiaries of the war with Iran, as disruptions to energy infrastructure drive up demand for Russian exports and the world casts its gaze to the Middle East and away from Moscow’s war in Ukraine.
The U.S. and its European counterparts slapped severe sanctions on Russia in March 2022, barely a month into Russian President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The effect was a stranglehold on Russia’s exports, depriving Putin’s war effort of at least $500 billion, experts say. But over the last week, as President Trump’s war in the Middle East choked energy markets worldwide, the White House began easing its restrictions on Moscow.
“It is traitorous conduct for you to help Russia,” California Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) said on X, demanding the Trump administration reverse course. “Russia is giving intelligence info to Iran that helps Iran target American forces.”
Crude droplets rained over Tehran after Israeli airstrikes decimated oil depots, draping the Iranian capital in a dense smog. Iranian counterattacks have also targeted refineries and oil fields in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Crude oil prices have surged, and traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has all but ceased, sending energy importers in search of alternate sources.
Those spikes are giving Russia, one of the world’s largest oil and gas exporters, a rare advantage. After spending a decade as the world’s most sanctioned nation over his aggression in Ukraine, Putin is finally starting to regain some leverage in global markets.
“In the current economic situation, if we refocus now on those markets that need increased supplies, we can gain a foothold there,” Putin said at a meeting at the Kremlin on Monday, according to Russian state media. “It’s important for Russian energy companies to take advantage of the current situation.”
On March 4, the Treasury Department issued a temporary 30-day waiver allowing Indian refiners to purchase Russian oil. The appeal by the Trump administration was described as a way to ease demand for Mideast oil, but was criticized as a reversal of sanctions placed against Putin meant to deny him the capital needed to fund his occupation of eastern Ukraine.
Now, Moscow is poised to press that advantage further, after Trump said Monday he will further lift sanctions on oil-producing countries to ease the trade friction and reintroduce additional oil and gas supplies. The only countries with U.S. oil sanctions are Russia, Iran and Venezuela.
“So, we have sanctions on some countries. We’re going to take those sanctions off until this straightens out,” Trump said at a news conference at his golf club in Doral, Fla. “Then, who knows, maybe we won’t have to put them on — they’ll be so much peace.”
Trump’s announcement followed an unscheduled hourlong call with Putin about the situation in the Middle East.
The war has also set the stage for Russia to make gains in Ukraine, as hostilities draw the global spotlight away from Kyiv and its struggle to hold back the bigger Russian army. U.S.-brokered talks between the two adversaries have been sidelined as Washington shifts focus to its war in Iran.
“At the moment, the partners’ priority and all attention are focused on the situation around Iran,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on X. “We see that the Russians are now trying to manipulate the situation in the Middle East and the Gulf region to the benefit of their aggression.”
Putin is unlikely to intervene militarily on Iran’s behalf, according to Robert English, an international foreign policy expert at USC. Instead, Putin is expected to play his position carefully, reap the economic rewards, and keep focused firmly on Ukraine at a time when key air defense systems are diverted from Ukraine to the Persian Gulf.
“Russia is winning the Iran-U.S.-Israel war, at least so far. Oil and natural gas prices have soared, filling Putin’s Ukraine war chest,” he said. “Russia is gathering forces for a big spring offensive in Eastern Ukraine, and it’s not even front-page news.”
Ukraine has dispatched drone interceptors and ordered its anti-drone experts to pivot from their war with Russia to help Western allies help intercept Iranian attacks. Zelensky’s allegiance may not pay off, English said.
“When will Ukraine see the benefits of helping the U.S. with anti-drone technology? No time soon, apparently,” he said.
Even several weeks of interruption in Gulf energy supplies could bring the largest windfall to Russia, the Associated Press reported, citing energy analysts.
The economic turmoil caused by the war has exposed vulnerabilities in Europe’s energy system, particularly its lingering dependence on Russian fuel.
Despite sanctions, the European Union remains a major purchaser of Russian natural gas and crude oil. Russian gas accounted for approximately 19% of E.U. gas imports in 2025. Allied Europeans have agreed to completely stop importing Russian liquefied natural gas, oil and pipeline gas by late 2027.
Putin expressed no desire Monday to rescue the European market now that U.S.-Israeli escalations and Iranian retaliation have choked oil production and shipping. The Russian president instead proposed to divert volumes away from the European market “to more promising areas” like the Asia-Pacific region, Slovakia and Hungary, which he said were “reliable counterparties.”
European leaders have been criticized for being “stunned, sidelined, and disunited” since hostilities began in late February. Excluded from the initial military planning by the U.S. and Israel, Europe entered the conflict with gas storage at only 30% capacity, the lowest levels in years. Instead of bold action, English said, European leaders have quarreled over internal divisions and rivalries.
“Sky-high energy prices are the underlying cause of many of these frictions, as Europe struggles now more than ever to find affordable alternatives to the cheap Russian petroleum,” English said.
Antonio Costa, president of the European Council, told European leaders in Brussels on Tuesday that rising energy prices and the world’s shifting attention risk strengthening the Kremlin at a critical moment in the war in Ukraine.
“So far, there is only one winner in this war,” Costa said. “Russia.”
WASHINGTON — President Trump, his Treasury secretary and his choice to lead the Federal Reserve believe they can coax the U.S. economy back to a boom reminiscent of the 1990s.
They are putting their faith in artificial intelligence to duplicate what happened when another technology arrived during the Clinton era: the internet. Back then, the American economy surged as businesses became more productive, unemployment tumbled and inflation remained in check.
Trump expresses confidence that his nominee to become Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, can unleash an economic bonanza by jettisoning what the president sees as the central bank’s hidebound reluctance to slash interest rates.
Many economists are skeptical.
The world looks a lot different today than it did when the Spice Girls ruled radio and “Titanic’’ dominated the box office. And the story the Trump team is telling — that a visionary Fed chair, Alan Greenspan, fueled the 1990s boom by keeping interest rates low — is incomplete at best.
“The administration is offering a rather distorted version of what actually happened in the 1990s,’’ economist Dario Perkins of TS Lombard said in a commentary.
Nonetheless, the Trump administration believes history can repeat itself. All that’s been missing, Trump says, is a Fed chair with Greenspan’s foresightedness.
AI’s influence over interest rates
Trump has repeatedly attacked current Fed chief Jerome H. Powell, whose term as chair ends in May, for his caution in lowering rates while inflation hovers above the central bank’s 2% target. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on social media in January that the president sought to replace Powell with someone with “an open, Greenspan-like mind.”
“Our nation can see productivity boom like we did in the ’90s when we are not encumbered by a Federal Reserve which throws the brakes on,’’ Bessent wrote.
On Jan. 30, Trump said he was picking Warsh.
In speeches and writings, Warsh has argued that AI-driven improvements in productivity could justify lower interest rates.
These views align with Trump’s desires for Fed rate cuts but mark a break with Warsh’s past as an inflation hawk.
In the aftermath of the 2007-09 Great Recession, Warsh — then a Fed governor — objected to some of the central bank’s efforts to help the struggling economy by pushing down rates even though unemployment exceeded 9%. He warned then, wrongly, that inflation would soon accelerate.
At issue now are gains in productivity and the possibility that AI will make them bigger — much bigger.
To economists, productivity improvements are almost magical. When companies roll out new machines or technology, their workers can become more efficient and produce more stuff per hour. That enables firms to earn more and to raise employees’ pay without raising prices. In short: Surging productivity can drive economic growth without spurring inflation.
Greenspan and the internet
In the mid-1990s, Greenspan was contending with a strange set of economic circumstances: Wages were rising but inflation wasn’t heating up.
Big productivity gains might have explained things, but government data showed no sign of them. Other Fed policymakers worried that surging wages and tame inflation couldn’t coexist and that higher prices were coming. They wanted to raise interest rates.
But Greenspan suspected that the official productivity numbers were missing something. For one thing, they didn’t jibe with the amazing tales of efficiency improvements the Fed was hearing from companies investing in computers and turning to the internet.
So he ordered his lieutenants to dig through decades of productivity numbers. The official statistics they assembled told an implausible story: Services firms — including retailers and legal practices — had supposedly seen productivity fall over the years, despite intense competitive pressure and massive investments in technology.
Greenspan didn’t believe it. He persuaded his Fed colleagues that the government’s numbers were wrong and were understating productivity. They agreed in September 1996 to hold off on raising rates.
The economy took flight.
Tardily, productivity advances began to show up in the official data. Overall, American economic growth surpassed 4% every year from 1997 through 2000, something it would do again only once in the next quarter century. The unemployment rate plunged to 3.8% in April 2000, the lowest in three decades. Inflation stayed in its cage, coming in below 2% — later the Fed’s official target — for 17 straight months in 1997-99.
History repeats itself … maybe?
American productivity looked strong in the second and third quarters of 2025, and some economists attribute the improvements to the early adoption of AI; they see bigger gains and stronger economic growth ahead.
Others aren’t so sure.
Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at consulting firm RSM, wrote that the 2025 productivity improvements “are not because of artificial intelligence’’ but reflect investments in automation that companies made when they couldn’t find enough workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. “Those investments are starting to pay off,’’ Brusuelas wrote.
Economist Martin Baily, senior fellow emeritus at the Brookings Institution, believes it will take time for AI to have a big effect on the way companies do business and on the nation’s productivity.
“Companies don’t change that fast,” said Baily, chair of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors during the boom era. “It’s expensive to change. It’s risky to change. The managers don’t necessarily understand the new technology that well. So they have to learn how to use it. They have to train their staff. All that stuff takes a long time.’’
A productivity boom can raise the economy’s speed limit — how fast it can grow without pushing prices higher. But it might not justify lower interest rates, Fed Gov. Michael Barr said in a speech last month.
Businesses will borrow to invest in AI, putting upward pressure on interest rates. Likewise, American workers and their families probably would save less and borrow more in anticipation of higher wages, the payoff for being more productive; that would put still more pressure on rates to rise.
Bottom line, Barr said: “The AI boom is unlikely to be a reason for lowering policy rates.’’
Even Greenspan’s Fed eventually came to the same conclusion, reversing course and starting to raise its benchmark rate in mid-1999, taking it from 4.75% to 6.5% in less than a year. (The rate Trump complains about now is around 3.6%.)
“Warsh and Bessent talk only about the dovish 1995/96 version of Greenspan; they overlook the hawkish 1999/2000 variant,’’ Perkins wrote.
Then and now
Many of Warsh’s potential future colleagues on the Fed’s interest-rate setting committee see the late-1990s experience differently than he does, setting up what could be a clash at the central bank if the Senate confirms Warsh as chair.
Austan Goolsbee, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, said last week that “the analogy to the late ‘90s is a little harder for me to understand.” Greenspan’s insight was that productivity gains meant the Fed could hold off on raising rates, not that it should slash them, Goolsbee noted.
“It wasn’t, ‘Should we cut rates because productivity growth is higher?’” he said.
The economic backdrop that awaits Warsh is also far less friendly than the one Greenspan enjoyed.
Greenspan was avoiding rate hikes at a time when the usually profligate U.S. government was running rare budget surpluses and didn’t need to borrow so desperately. Now, after a series of spending hikes and tax cuts, deficits are piling up year after year, and the Congressional Budget Office expects federal debt to hit a historic high of 120% of America’s gross domestic product by 2035.
Nor was productivity the only thing controlling inflation in the 1990s. Countries were lowering tariffs and dismantling trade barriers. Immigration was surging.
Now, due largely to Trump’s policies, notably his sweeping taxes on imports and his crackdown on immigration, the world is much different. “Trade barriers are going up,’’ Perkins wrote. “Globalization has given way to de-globalization.’’
“That benign era is clearly behind us,’’ said Michael Pearce, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics.
Wiseman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Christopher Rugaber contributed to this report.
Economists are cautiously optimistic that advances in artificial intelligence could boost productivity across major economies, potentially helping governments manage soaring debt. Debt levels in most rich nations already exceed 100% of GDP and are projected to rise further due to ageing populations, higher defence spending, climate commitments, and rising interest payments.
U.S. policymakers, in particular, see AI as a potential driver to lift post-2008 productivity and free workers for higher-value tasks. Yet experts warn that even a strong AI-driven growth surge would not fully offset the structural pressures on public finances.
AI’s Potential Impact on Public Debt
The OECD and economists working with Reuters estimate that a productivity boost from AI could lower projected debt in OECD countries by up to 10 percentage points by 2036. That would reduce the expected rise from roughly 150% of GDP to around 140%, still sharply higher than current levels of approximately 110%.
In the U.S., best-case scenarios suggest debt could rise to 120% of GDP over the next decade instead of 100%, with one economist projecting little change. The key variables include whether AI creates more jobs than it displaces, whether firms pass productivity gains to workers via wages, and how governments manage spending.
Demographics and Limits
Demographics remain a central constraint. Ageing populations and entitlements tied to them are the root causes of long-term debt growth. Economists note that even with a productivity surge, labour shortages and slower immigration could offset AI gains. Countries like Italy and Japan may see smaller benefits from AI due to lower adoption rates and smaller sectors that can leverage the technology.
Fiscal Uncertainty
AI could raise government revenues through higher productivity and wages, but the effect is uncertain. If automation primarily benefits profits and capital rather than labour, fiscal gains could be limited. Additionally, public spending may rise alongside growth, dampening potential debt relief. Social security and other entitlement programs, indexed to wages, will continue to pressure budgets regardless of AI-driven efficiency.
Interest rates and debt servicing costs add another layer of uncertainty. Economists warn that recessions or financial shocks could prevent AI-driven productivity gains from providing timely relief.
Analysis
AI offers a potential “breathing room” for overstretched economies, buying time for governments to tackle structural deficits. Even if growth rises to 3% in the U.S. through 2040 above Federal Reserve expectations it will not solve fundamental fiscal challenges.
Economists stress that AI is a supplement, not a replacement, for fiscal reform. Rising productivity may help governments manage debt growth more sustainably, but without structural policy adjustments addressing demographics, entitlement programs, and spending priorities, the debt trajectory remains precarious.
Ultimately, while AI could improve efficiency and output, it is unlikely to carry the heavy lifting required to stabilize public finances on its own.
Artificial intelligence could deliver the productivity surge policymakers have been hoping for since the global financial crisis. But even if it does, economists caution that faster growth will not be enough to solve the mounting debt burdens weighing on advanced economies.
Public debt already exceeds 100% of GDP across most rich nations and is projected to rise further as ageing populations strain pension and healthcare systems, interest bills climb and governments ramp up defence and climate spending. Against that backdrop, AI is increasingly being framed as a potential fiscal lifeline.
The reality is more complicated.
Productivity: The “Magic” Ingredient-With Limits
Economists broadly agree that sustained productivity growth can dramatically improve fiscal dynamics. Higher output boosts tax revenues without raising tax rates, makes existing debt easier to service and reassures bond investors worried about long-term solvency.
At the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), modelling suggests that if AI meaningfully raises labour productivity and if employment also expands public debt across member countries could be about 10 percentage points lower by the mid-2030s than otherwise projected. Even then, debt would still climb to roughly 150% of GDP on current trajectories, up from around 110% today.
In the United States, best-case projections from several economists suggest debt could rise more gradually, to roughly 120% of GDP over the next decade rather than accelerating more sharply. But that still represents historically elevated levels.
As one economist put it, productivity is “like magic” for fiscal sustainability yet today’s debt challenges are too large for productivity gains alone to offset.
Demographics: The Structural Headwind
The fundamental constraint is demographic.
Ageing populations mean fewer workers supporting more retirees, pushing up pension and healthcare costs. In the United States, Social Security alone accounts for roughly one-fifth of federal spending, and benefits are indexed to wages. If AI lifts wages, it may simultaneously increase future benefit obligations.
Slowing immigration in some countries, particularly the U.S., compounds the issue by limiting labour force growth. If AI boosts output per worker but the total number of workers stagnates or declines, overall fiscal relief may be limited.
In short, AI may buy time but it does not reverse the demographic arithmetic driving long-term deficits.
Growth vs. Interest Rates: A Delicate Balance
For debt sustainability, what matters is not just growth, but the relationship between growth and borrowing costs.
If AI-driven productivity pushes economic growth above interest rates for a sustained period, governments can stabilise or even reduce debt ratios more easily. But if faster growth also lifts real interest rates for example, because higher productivity raises returns on capital then debt servicing costs could rise in parallel.
This debate is already unfolding among policymakers at the Federal Reserve, where officials are assessing whether AI could permanently raise the economy’s potential growth rate.
Bond markets will be decisive. Since the pandemic, investors have shown a willingness to punish governments perceived as fiscally profligate. Higher yields can quickly offset any growth dividend from technological gains.
Employment and Wages: The Distribution Question
Much depends on how AI reshapes labour markets.
If AI complements workers and creates new categories of employment, tax revenues may rise meaningfully. But if automation displaces workers faster than new jobs are created, or if profits accrue disproportionately to capital rather than labour, fiscal gains could disappoint.
Capital income is often taxed more lightly than wages. A productivity boom concentrated in corporate profits rather than payrolls may widen inequality without generating proportionate public revenue.
On the spending side, governments might benefit from efficiency gains in public administration. Yet history suggests higher growth can also lead to higher spending demands from infrastructure upgrades to social transfers.
No Substitute for Fiscal Reform
Even in optimistic scenarios where AI lifts U.S. growth closer to 3% annually for an extended period, debt ratios are projected to stabilise at elevated levels rather than return to pre-crisis norms.
In pessimistic scenarios where AI disappoints or a recession strikes before productivity gains materialise debt trajectories could worsen significantly, potentially reaching levels that trigger market instability.
The consensus among economists is clear: AI can ease fiscal pressure, but it cannot substitute for structural reforms. Addressing entitlement sustainability, improving tax efficiency and managing spending priorities remain central.
A Race Against Time
There is also a sequencing risk. If financial markets grow nervous about fiscal trajectories before AI-driven gains are realised, borrowing costs could spike. In that case, the productivity dividend may arrive too late to calm bond investors.
Technological revolutions historically take time to diffuse across economies. Infrastructure, regulation, workforce training and corporate adoption all shape how quickly productivity benefits materialise.
For debt-laden economies, the gamble is that AI’s boost will be large, broad-based and timely. That is possible but far from guaranteed.
AI may help governments breathe easier. It will not absolve them of the harder political choices required to put public finances on a sustainable path.
Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy.
Newly teamed-up Northrop Grumman and Embraer are hoping that a boom refueling system-equipped version of the latter’s KC-390 Millennium twin jet engine tanker-transport will catch the eye of the U.S. Air Force. The two companies say the KC-390’s size and other attributes make it ideally suited to kinds of ‘agile’ distributed operations the Air Force sees as essential for success in future conflict, especially one in the Pacific against China. This is exactly the case TWZ laid out in detail when the concept for a version of this aircraft fitted with a boom first emerged four years ago.
TWZ‘s Jamie Hunter spoke with representatives from Northrop Grumman and Embraer about current plans for the boom-equipped KC-390 on the show floor at the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) annual Warfare Symposium. The two firms first announced their new partnership on this aircraft last week. Embraer had originally unveiled this version of the KC-390 together with L3Harris, but the latter was no longer involved in the project, at least at a high level, by October 2024.
A KC-390 seen at Northrop Grumman’s facility in Melbourne, Florida, last week for an event. Northrop Grumman
“We are excited to announce the partnership to get started on the development of this capability, because we believe it’s a significant advantage to our U.S. Air Force, as well as our international allies,” Craig Woolston, Vice President and General Manager of Research and Advanced Design within Northrop Grumman’s Aeronautics Systems sector, said at the Warfare Symposium. “Partnering our advanced manufacturing and experience in the past in this domain with a proven design, modern capability, we think is a differentiator in this mobility space.”
“With the KC-390, the boom is adding a capability to the refueling capability that is already there with the probe-and-drogue system,” Frederico Lemos, Chief Commercial Officer for Defense and Security International Business at Embraer, also said. “So, adding that capability, and the target is to maintain the multi-mission capability, to bring the KC-390 even more … Agile Combat Employment type of capability, [and be] able to perform all of these missions in a distributed, dispersed operation type of employment.”
Lemos also said his company is committed to investing in a U.S. production facility for the KC-390, but said those plans, including the choice of location, are still to be finalized. Melbourne, Florida, has been raised as one possibility. Embraer and Northrop Grumman both have facilities already, and they held an event there last week to unveil their partnership.
Agile Combat Employment (ACE) is the term the U.S. Air Force currently uses to describe a set of concepts for distributed and disaggregated operations. ACE is focused heavily on short notice and otherwise irregular deployments, often to remote, austere, or otherwise non-traditional locales. We will come back to this later on.
Visualizing ACE
Development of the Millennium dates back to the early 2000s, originally just as a medium-sized jet-powered transport aircraft called the C-390 capable of operating from short and improvised runways. The ability to refuel receivers via the probe-and-drogue method was subsequently added to the design, resulting in its current “KC” designation. The aircraft can itself be refueled using this method via a probe that extends out from the front end of the fuselage above the cockpit. The KC-390 is loosely comparable in size and other respects to the turboprop-powered C-130 Hercules.
Further KC-390 versions configured for maritime patrol, electronic warfare, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions are also now in development. Millennium variants are in service today in Brazil, Portugal, and Hungary, with a number of other countries set to begin operating the aircraft in the coming years.
Embraer | C-390 Millennium: Innovation, Performance and Reliability
The U.S. Air Force’s preferred aerial refueling method is the boom, and it is used by the vast majority of its aircraft. L3Harris had previously talked about several options for integrating a boom onto the KC-390, including ones involving remote operation, broadly akin to what is found on the KC-46, or more direct operator control, as is the case on the KC-135. On KC-390s currently configured for probe-and-drogue refueling, an operator manages those systems from a station in the cockpit.
“We’re starting that development. We’re exploring the trade space of what is the best solution,” Northrop Grumman’s Woolston said when asked for more details about the boom integration plan. “I’ll say those decisions haven’t been made. Like I said, it’s a trade space to explore.”
Woolston did highlight a particular focus on “autonomous boom” capabilities to help “rapidly integrate with whatever aircraft or system we’re refueling,” but didn’t elaborate further. This may refer to more automated boom capabilities, which Boeing and Airbus have also developed, which can help speed up the refueling process, increase safety margins, and reduce operator strain. The future development and fielding of new aerial refueling-capable air combat drones will also benefit from, if not require, these kinds of capabilities.
Boeing KC-46A Tanker Refuels Military Aircraft Using 3D
Airbus achieves world’s first fully automatic refuelling contacts
“You know the [KC-]390 is a full fly-by-wire airplane, low-workload for the crew,” Embraer’s Lemos noted. “We already have a third position in the cockpit that is there, has access to all the information that comes in and out of the airplane. Helps today with their refueling missions, monitoring the cameras … , good situational awareness of what’s happening.”
Overall, the boom integration depends “on what multi-mission capabilities we want to retain on the KC-390,” according to Woolston.
“We already have additional tanks on the [KC-]390. They are roll-on, roll-out. They are the same size as a pallet, standard 463 pallet,” Lemos added. “So you can combine additional tanks with cargo and with passengers. That’s a big advantage in terms of flexibility, in terms of employment. And you can use the fuel of [sic] those tanks to fly further or to offload the fuel for a receiver. So the moment you connect those tanks to the airplane, it’s an integral fuel system, you can use that fuel the best way you see fit.”
Lemos also stressed that retaining the KC-390’s existing capabilities in the boom-equipped version means the aircraft will still be able to operate from short and/or unimproved runways.
All of this underscores how a version of the KC-390 with a boom could fit into an ACE scenario just like TWZ previously explored in-depth. As we wrote back in 2022:
“Overall, a KC-390 would provide a significantly smaller footprint than that of a traditional boom-equipped tanker, allowing it to work out of tighter airfields. L3Harris says that the boom-equipped KC-390 itself will still be capable of receiving fuel in flight. However, the model at the Air & Space Force Association Conference shows that it will have a boom receptacle above the cockpit instead the standard type’s refueling probe. Paired with its own refueling boom and the ability to carry out ground refueling operations for other aircraft, the KC-390 will be able to provide ACE deployments with a critical fuel lifeline, not just in the air, but also on the ground, and do so at significantly extended ranges.”
“With its own aerial refueling capability, an Air Force KC-390 could fly out to refuel from a larger tanker, such as a KC-46, and then return that fuel to austere airfields to be used by combat aircraft. Currently, only the service’s special operations-configured M/HC-130s can do that and they do not have a boom of their own so they cannot also provide fuel to Air Force receptacle-equipped aircraft, which accounts for nearly all of the force’s fleet. Basically, the KC-390 could allow for true ‘hub and spoke’ tanker operations, including from austere areas, during a major conflict. This could be especially attractive for refueling tactical aircraft, like fighters and eventually drones, from forward locales. Once again, currently, the Air Force doesn’t have a solution for this problem, which could make the KC-390 very attractive.”
“There are also the multi-role capabilities this aircraft provides, being able to move cargo and personnel to far-flung locations at jet speeds. Once again, this would support a hub-and-spoke concept of operations across a vast theater like the Pacific.”
…
“As noted earlier, the ACE concept will become especially prevalent as the United States continues to keep a pulse on China and any corresponding developments in the Pacific. Considering the sheer size of the region, maintaining the flexibility to disperse aircraft and other assets in less condensed groups will not only ensure widespread U.S. presence, but also prevent adversaries like China from targeting and taking out large amounts of aircraft and other capabilities by attacking just a handful of installations. It also greatly complicates the enemy’s own defensive strategy.”
Another rendering of a boom-equipped KC-390. Embraer
As an additional point, in the scenarios described above, KC-390s could refuel fighters right after takeoff from austere airstrips. Those tactical jets could, in turn, launch with lower gross weights to help get safely airborne from shorter runways. Part of the initial fuel load could also be traded for more munitions while retaining sufficiently low weight. Topping off after takeoff, as well as being able to refuel closer to a forward operating location on the way back from a mission, would give those fighters greater overall operational reach.
The KC-390’s capabilities could be further expanded by the use of podded and/or roll-on/roll-off communications, electronic warfare, and other capabilities. The U.S. Air Force’s Air Mobility Command (AMC) is already heavily investing in new networking and self-protection systems that can be added to tankers and airlifters, as necessary.
Beyond supporting the ACE construct, KC-390s could just help provide the Air Force with valuable added tanker capacity in general, including to help meet day-to-day training and other non-combat requirements. AMC has previously raised the possibility of acquiring a business jet-based tanker, which could also act as a similar gap-filler. U.S. military officials have been sounding the alarm for years now about the strain on existing tanker fleets and raising concerns about their capacity to meet even existing demands, let alone what would be required for a major sustained conflict.
A KC-135, at right, prepares to link up with a KC-46, at left, during a test. USAF
For some time now, the Air Force has been working to refine requirements for what it is currently calling the Next-Generation Air Refueling System (NGAS). The NGAS plan could include new stealth tankers, as well as other types of aircraft and new capabilities for existing types. The service has said in the past that it hopes to see elements of NGAS begin to enter operational service by 2040, if not much sooner.
One concept for a stealth tanker that Lockheed Martin’s famed Skunk Works advanced projects division has presented in recent years. Lockheed Martin Skunk Works
“I cannot have a 90-year-old tanker refueling a B-21 [Raider stealth bomber],” Lt. Gen. Rebecca Sonkiss, head of AMC, separately told TWZ and other outlets at a roundtable yesterday on the sidelines of the AFA Warfare Symposium. “If you do math, as we reach end of programs for things, that’s reality, right? I cannot have that. I must recap[italize] the tanker force.”
“There is also an element of that, that is the NGAS portion of it, which is a more specific problem set within the theater to be able to ensure that we deliver lethality, effectively and survivably,” she continued, noting that the Air Force is also looking to acquire additional KC-46s.
“They’ve put some money in to maintain that NGAS AOA [analysis of alternatives], and they’re working through [it] right now,” Sonkiss added. “I don’t think they’ve solidified the final pathway to NGAS, and I really don’t want to comment on the half work on that space.”
An analysis of alternatives is a process that the U.S. military uses to assess available options and further refine requirements for further weapon systems and other capabilities.
Another Skunk Works stealth tanker concept. Lockheed Martin Skunk Works
“Of course, we’re open to a family [of] systems,” Lt. Gen. Sonkiss also said. “It has to fit in with the greater Air Force scheme maneuver of what do those platforms need? And then we make the NGAS platform get after that portion.”
“How far do they need to get into the threat ring?” she added, noting that there could be various avenues to providing more protection for aircraft operating in more contested environments. “And that’s what that NGAS piece is going to work through.”
It should be made clear here that there is no expectation that a boom-equipped KC-390 would be a single ‘silver bullet’ solution to the NGAS question. Aviation Week reported last week that Northrop Grumman is presenting it as just one part of a three-tiered proposal for NGAS that also includes a larger blended wing body design and a smaller tanker drone. Northrop Grumman has so far declined to confirm or deny that it is making this multi-part pitch. The company is already partnered with JetZero on a project to build a blended wing body demonstrator for the Air Force that could be configured as a tanker and/or a cargo aircraft, which you can read more about here.
A rendering of JetZero’s blended wing body design configured as an aerial refueling tanker. JetZero
“The reaction we’ve gotten here at AFA has been very positive,” Northrop Grumman’s Woolston told us when asked about current Air Force interest in the boom-equipped KC-390, specifically.
“We are now starting to have that dialog,” he also said when asked about whether there had been any formal meetings with representatives from AMC or other Air Force officials.
“I haven’t really looked at that,” Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink had told TWZ and other outlets in response to a direct question about whether the KC-390 might have a future in his service’s tanker plans at another roundtable yesterday at the AFA Warfare Symposium.
A boom-equipped KC-390 could also be of interest to non-U.S. air arms that operate aircraft with the ability to refuel via this method. Aircraft built, at least in part, in the United States by an American firm could also open doors to acquiring them through a U.S. government foreign assistance mechanism.
Overall, it remains to be seen how the new partnership between Northrop Grumman and Embraer proceeds now, as well as how the Air Force’s vision for NGAS evolves. Still, as TWZ explored in detail four years ago, a new ‘agile tanker’ like boom-equipped KC-390 would seem to slot right into the operational scenarios the Air Force is now planning around, especially when it comes to a future conflict in the Pacific.
