eyed

Northrop Grumman has been doing detailed design work that lays a path to air-launching its Lumberjack loitering one-way attack drone from Kratos’ stealthy XQ-58 Valkyrie uncrewed aircraft. Multiple crewed and uncrewed aircraft are being eyed as potential platforms for employing Lumberjack, which is already being tested in surface-launched modes and will have the ability to drop its own smaller precision munitions.

In a statement to TWZ today, Northrop Grumman confirmed that “Valkyrie is one of the multiple platforms we’re doing detailed design work for to ensure compatibility with Lumberjack” and that “Valkyrie is a good representation of a possible use case.” The XQ-58 is prominently featured in the Lumberjack product card available on Northrop Grumman’s website at the time of writing. It also depicts a Lumberjack launching a Hatchet miniature precision-guided glide bomb, which the company also produces, and that we will come back to later on.

Our own Howard Altman also recently had a chance to talk with Michael Bastin, Northrop Grumman’s director of programs for Lumberjack, to get a broader update on its ongoing development. The new one-way attacker was first unveiled in April at this year’s Modern Day Marine conference.

Since then, Lumber has “participated in both of the T-REX events this year. So, those are the technology, readiness, and experimentation events hosted by OUSD(R&E) [the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, also now referred to as the Office of the Undersecretary of War for Research and Engineering],” Bastin said. “Those are really valuable for us. We got a chance to get operators to look and engage with the system, [and] actually do an end-to-end simulated mission in a relevant type of environment with a lot of capabilities that people were looking for.”

At the T-REX events, Northrop Grumman also demonstrated Lumberjack’s “ability to launch from two different styles of [ground-based] launchers, the electric rail launcher and the pneumatic launcher,” both provided by other companies, he added. “We are launcher agnostic. So we don’t really develop the launchers ourselves. We just show up to the ride.”

Bastin declined to elaborate further on the mission scenarios and the capabilities demonstrated at the T-REX events. He also acknowledged that the same kinds of launchers could be employed in shipboard scenarios, but said that Northrop Grumman’s current focus in terms of the surface-launched mode is on ground-based applications.

When it comes to current plans for air-launched applications, “Lumberjack is the size, the length anyway, of the Small Diameter Bomb. So, we’re looking to be compatible with a wide variety of aircraft, [fixed-]wing and rotorcraft, manned and unmanned,” Bastin said. “Effectively, we’re looking at anything that could carry a Small Diameter Bomb.”

“We’re designing that [Lumberjack] for multiple BRUs. So, a couple different BRU installations are compatible against that sort of Small Diameter Bomb length,” he continued, using the U.S. military-standard abbreviation for Bomb Rack Unit. “We are working with two different customer communities right now, working through large plans and experimentation for next year. So that’s part of our flight test plan that we’re developing for next year.”

The GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) is a 250-pound-class precision-guided glide bomb that is just under six feet (1.8 meters) long. Northrop Grumman’s website says Lumberjack has a very similar form factor, but has a maximum gross weight of around 290 pounds.

Lumberjack’s weight is payload-dependent, which Northrop Grumman’s website says could include a “combination of kinetic and non-kinetic sub-munitions, or ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] sensors.” Without any payload or fuel for its small jet engine, the core system, with its composite material structure, only tips the scales at around 79 pounds, according to the product card.

How heavy a Lumberjack might be would also impact its range in both air and surface-launched modes. So far, Northrop Grumman has only said that the system is expected to be able to fly “several hundred” nautical miles. The company has also said that it will be able to cruise at around Mach 0.3 (some 230 knots) at an altitude of 20,000 feet.

“We have done testing with both kinetic and non-kinetic [payloads],” Bastin said. “Hatchet is certainly a candidate. It’s not the only type of kind of sub-munition that we’d be interested in being able to deploy. So, as I said, if customers come with whatever kinetic effect they want, as long as it fits on the center bay, we’re capable of integrating it.”

Hatchet is a roughly six-pound precision glide bomb that Northrop Grumman currently offers with one of three guidance options: a GPS-assisted inertial navigation system (INS), INS-only, and dual-mode GPS/INS and semi-active laser guidance. Versions that use GPS-assisted INS and INS-only can only be employed against static target coordinates. Laser guidance allows for the engagement of moving targets as long as they can be lazed either by the launching platform or another offboard source.

Each Hatchet has a three-pound high-explosive warhead, which Northrop Grumman claims is of an advanced type that is 50 to 80 percent as lethal as a 500-pound-class bomb, depending on the target type. Point-detonating, delayed, and air-bursting fuze options are available.

From the start, Hatchet has been presented as particularly well-suited as an armament option for drones because of its size. Multiple uncrewed aircraft have already been demonstrated as launch platforms for these munitions.

When it comes to munition options for Lumberjack, “there’s a variety [of other options] out there. I mean, everything from things like Hatchets to integrating existing artillery shells or custom kinetic effects,” Bastin noted. “So different customers have different interests in terms of what their target is and what their payload would want to be in terms of the kinetic effectiveness against their target.”

Lumberjack is being developed with modularity and adaptability, potentially even under field conditions, in mind. Another company, Palantir, is providing an artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) infused software backend to help with the rapid integration of now payloads and other capabilities, as well as help with “maintenance and reducing operator burden.”

In any configuration, Lumberjack already offers the ability to reach target areas at standoff distances. Its ability to launch unpowered gliding payloads like Hatchet, or even potentially small powered ones, only extended its operational reach. This would all be further magnified by pairing it with an aerial launch platform like the XQ-58. The Valkyrie has its own internal payload bay, said to be able to carry at least two SDB-sized stores, and can also carry payloads under its wings. Lumberjack’s range would also help keep the launching platform further away from threats. A full operational scenario might see a Valkyrie or similar launch platform use its own survivability to get close to an especially high-threat part of the battlespace before launching a Lumberjack, which then delivers munitions into the highest risk area. This could even involve taking out hostile air defense assets that threaten the launching aircraft.

Lumberjack can also make use of its range for other purposes, including launching kinetic or non-kinetic attacks on geographically separated targets during a single sortie, as well as just loitering in a particular area. Equipped with a stand-in jamming capability and/or sensor packages, the drones could be used to form temporary force protection picket lines, and do so rapidly.

There is also a cost factor, with Lumberjack’s design being focused on a low unit cost and producibility, with a heavy emphasis on commercial and modified commercial components. Another firm, ESAero, which specializes in rapid prototyping and rapid manufacturing, is also working with Northrop Grumman on this design.

“For every pallet that I would ship a fixed number of Small Diameter Bombs on, we can ship the same number of lumberjacks on, but each lumberjack performs multiple effects, multiple missions, and can go on multiple vehicles,” Bastin explained. “So it helps drive down that cost, as I said, within a Lumberjack, because we designed it with open architecture and a very modular center bay.”

Northrop Grumman previously told TWZ that it is targeting between a “cost per effect” of $75,000 to $100,000 for Lumberjack, somewhat nebulous figures that factor in things beyond basic unit price. It is also worth noting here that while Lumberjack is intended to be a one-way system when used operationally, work is being done to improve its recoverability when used in training. Being able to reuse the drones for training, as well as test and evaluation activities, would also offer cost advantages.

It’s interesting to note here that the XQ-58 is at the low end of the cost range for loyal wingman-type drones, also now commonly referred to as Collaborative Combat Aircraft. Kratos is separately continuing to expand and evolve its Valkyrie family as its customer base grows. The U.S. Marine Corps notably confirmed earlier this year that it is now actively pursuing an operational capability with these drones after years of experimental work with the design.

Lumberjack otherwise reflects a flurry of development, especially in the United States, of longer-range one-way attack munitions, as well as other systems that increasingly blur the lines between traditional drones and cruise missiles, as well as decoys.

If Northrop Grumman keeps to its current test schedule, we may get actual looks at Lumberjacks launched from XQ-58s and/or other aircraft in the coming year.

Contact the author: [email protected]

The U.S. Air Force is reportedly examining the possibility of fielding stealthy flying-wing aircraft that could serve as ‘arsenal planes’ loaded with air-to-air missiles. The broader concept is one that we have discussed in the past, including in relation to a version of the B-21 Raider stealth bomber. According to an article from Air & Space Forces Magazine, the Air Force is also considering other potential flying-wing platforms to fill this air-to-air role.

A senior Air Force official told Air & Space Forces Magazine that this kind of arsenal plane was being studied as part of the Air Force’s plans for how to deal with a high-intensity conflict fought with China in the Indo-Pacific region. The stealthy flying-wing aircraft would be armed with “dozens” of air-to-air missiles, the article states.

According to a former top Air Force official speaking to Air & Space Forces Magazine, “there wasn’t a compelling argument” for an air-to-air version of the B-21 in the past, even though it had been discussed. But the prospect of an air war with China and its rapidly evolving air combat capabilities seems to have changed that stance.

Currently, the study is still at an early stage, but it’s intriguing, to say the least, that the Air Force is looking at the possibility of engaging other manufacturers and employing different platforms than the B-21, which is now deep in flight test.

The same official told the publication that an arsenal plane of this kind would be one way of providing a supplement to or even taking the place of some of the Air Force’s new Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones it intends to press into service in the coming years. “There are other ways of achieving ‘affordable mass’ than darkening the skies with CCAs,” the official said.   

The basic operational scenario would involve the arsenal plane providing additional air-to-air ‘magazine depth’ for crewed fighters, such as the F-22, F-35, and the future F-47. The fighters would be responsible for detecting and designating targets, which would then be engaged by long-range missiles launched from the arsenal plane, operating at a standoff distance, a concept that we have been discussing for years. CCAs could also be added to the mix. It’s worth noting that a lack of larger numbers of air-to-air missiles in their jets is a top complaint of F-35 and F-22 crews. Smaller missiles optimized for internal carriage and with shorter ranges are in the works to help mitigate this issue.

There is no mention of whether the arsenal plane would be crewed or not, but the idea of an uncrewed or optionally crewed version of the B-21 has been part of that program from the outset. Furthermore, work has already been done on a possible complementary drone for the B-21, as you can read about here. While this was originally pitched as a bomber drone, such a design could equally lend itself to becoming an air-to-air arsenal plane.

It’s interesting, too, that the idea of an air-to-air role for the B-21 has come up in the past.

Back in 2019, Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Pleus, at that time the Director of Air and Cyber Operations for Pacific Air Forces (PACAF), discussed the possibility of a B-21 “that also has air-to-air capabilities” and can “work with the family of systems to defend itself, utilizing stealth…”

Even before those remarks, TWZ had explored how the new stealth bomber could serve in multiple roles, including in an air-to-air capacity, while Air Force officials had repeatedly alluded to its multi-function capabilities.

“Many of the B-21’s weapons, which will include everything from JDAMs, to Massive Ordnance Penetrators, to ultra long-range air-to-air missiles, will benefit from the Raider’s high perch,” TWZ wrote as long ago as 2017. “Even potentially lasers in the future will have more range due to this performance attribute.”

In December of last year, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin confirmed the service had not ruled out expanding the roles and missions of the B-21 as part of a reassessment of plans for its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) initiative, which led to the F-47.

The latest Air Force thinking also includes the option of using an airframe other than the B-21 to achieve the same air-to-air task. This is apparently based on concerns about Northrop Grumman’s capacity to build the baseline bomber in addition to a potential air-to-air-tasked spinoff. At the same time, a full-specification B-21 version would be a very expensive asset, and likely its level of sophistication would not be required for an arsenal plane role. A stripped-down model, with no sensors and less communications capabilities, as well as possibly no pilots and slightly degraded stealth could drop that price considerably while leveraging the B-21’s basic airframe.

The Air Force’s publicly stated plan has long been to buy at least 100 Raiders. However, as we have talked about in the past, there is the potential that the B-21 force could ultimately become significantly bigger. In the meantime, Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) has looked into the options for increasing B-21 production output, including the possibility of opening up another production facility.

Current estimates suggest that Northrop Grumman will be building 10 B-21s per year by the early 2030s. Even with funds to increase that output, it’s far from certain that there will be additional capacity for production of an air-to-air version as well.

Clearly, developing a new stealthy flying-wing arsenal plane from scratch would be a significant endeavor, although likely less costly than producing a high-end bomber for arsenal plane use. At the same time, a specialized design for the role could draw upon technologies developed not only for the B-21 but also for other advanced flying-wing programs, including ones in the classified realm.

While a dedicated air-to-air version of the B-21 might not find AFGSC favor, Raiders armed with air-to-air missiles for their own protection is another matter. This is underscored by evidence that PACOM has already included notional B-21s with air-to-air weapons in war games intended to learn about future campaigns fought against China.

Another option would be to expand (or include if it doesn’t have it already) air-to-air capability in the baseline B-21. Raiders with the option of employing air-to-air as well as air-to-ground weapons would ensure versatility, and these aircraft could even carry mixed load-outs if the mission required it. It should be noted, too, that the B-21 has a smaller weapons carriage capability than the current B-2 Spirit and, at least based on photos of the second aircraft, it lacks side bays for smaller weapons — this could change as development continues.

On the other hand, the B-21 is a very costly plane, and any weapons capacity given over to air-to-air munitions necessarily takes away from its primary bomber mission, something that AFGSC is unlikely to appreciate. It will also be tasked extremely heavily for its central strike role during a major conflict. So, if the B-21s were partially tasked with working as arsenal ships for fighters, more airframes would be needed, which could make taking on this role more agreeable to AFGSC.

In the meantime, there is apparently no shortage of long-range air-to-air missile programs that could yield suitable armament for an arsenal plane of this kind.

There are various very long-range air-to-air missile programs known to have been in the works in the United States, with more in the classified realm. The best known is the joint Air Force/Navy AIM-260, which will offer much greater range than the current AIM-120 AMRAAM, as well as other new and improved capabilities, but will put these in a missile with similar dimensions to the AIM-120. A Raider-sized aircraft could carry a huge number of AIM-260s.

At the same time, a platform the size of the B-21, or closer to its size, would also be capable of carrying outsized weapons beyond the scope of carriage by CCAs, or even crewed fighters, such as multi-stage air-to-air weapons. As for large, very long-range air-to-air missiles, one option very well-suited to the role would be the AIM-174, the air launched derivative of the surface-launched SM-6 missile. These are currently carried by U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets. Longer-ranged than any other air-to-air missile the U.S. military has ever fielded, it is also tailor-made for the Indo-Pacific theater, as you can see in the video below. Firing it at the direction of forward-operating fighters would very much fit the role of this new flying wing aircraft, which would be able to carry far more than fighters could.

Alternatively, instead of buying large flying wings each carrying dozens of missiles, the Air Force could acquire uncrewed combat air vehicles, or UCAVs, offering a longer range and better survivability than CCAs, as well as a far greater payload. The result would be a more survivable drone carrying a fighter-sized load of missiles. The apparent absence of UCAVs of any kind from Air Force plans is something we have discussed in detail before and have since followed up on.

If this option were to be pursued, it would go some way to address the limitations of a larger flying-wing platform carrying dozens of missiles at once. Simply put, those missiles can only be in one place at any given time. Buying more plentiful UCAVs would mean that they can be in many places at once, and losing a drone of this kind would be preferable to the Air Force losing many millions in the cost of a more exquisite flying wing platform and its missiles.

For its part, China is busily developing flying-wing drones, including stealthy UCAVs. Some of these drones are also notably large. Indeed, the latest of these may well even match this latest U.S. Air Force arsenal plane concept, at least by design, although we do not know its exact planned mission or stores configuration. Namely, this is a flying-wing drone with a ‘cranked kite’ planform, a bit smaller than a B-21, but likely with kinetic capabilities. Potentially, it could also be used in an air-to-air combat support role.

Other interesting parallels can be found between the new U.S. Air Force concept and naval programs for ‘arsenal ships.’ These vessels are intended to similarly increase magazine depth, lobbing air defense, land-attack, and anti-ship missiles in support of more conventional surface combatants. Some of these arsenal ships are also expected to operate uncrewed, while others will go to sea with a much-reduced crew complement.

Should the Air Force find funds for an air-to-air arsenal plane of whatever kind, the effect that would have on the CCA and other initiatives is unclear.

The statement that an unnamed senior Air Force official gave to Air & Space Forces Magazine suggests that a stealthy flying-wing aircraft armed with large numbers of air-to-air missiles could, to a degree, threaten CCA plans, although it could also be a very useful complement.

The CCA program, at least to begin with, is based around drones that can carry air-to-air missiles, meaning these drones can work closely with crewed aircraft, significantly extending their reach while enhancing lethality and survivability.

As it stands, the primary mission of the first increment of CCAs will be acting as flying ‘missile trucks’ supporting crewed combat jets, a fact reflected by the FQ (Fighter Drone) designations, for the General Atomics YFQ-42A and the Anduril YFQ-44A.

While CCAs would be expected to operate much closer to the enemy than an arsenal plane, they would not be able to carry anywhere near as many missiles — initially, just two AMRAAMs.

There are meanwhile efforts to extend the reach and flexibility of crewed fighters (and other platforms), including the LongShot drone, which is being developed specifically as an air-to-air ‘missile truck.’ The drone will carry the missiles forward to enhance the tactical lethality and especially the survivability of the launch platform. While it is planned to be cost-effective, the LongShot is not reusable, and each one will also carry just two missiles. At the same time, the LongShot could be an option to increase the reach of an arsenal plane, too.

Indeed, all of these smaller drones will have only a relatively limited weapons-carrying capacity. In this context, a larger stealthy flying-wing with capacious internal capacity becomes very compelling in terms of bringing the largest number of air-to-air missiles to bear against a numerically superior adversary, like China. Furthermore, depending on the degree of standoff range at which the arsenal plane could operate, it wouldn’t necessarily need the same degree of low observability as the B-21.

Also interesting is the timing of the new arsenal plane revelations, in terms of the F-47, which was always intended to be a spearhead of the Air Force’s future air superiority efforts, especially in the Indo-Pacific region.

While Boeing has started production of the first F-47 for the Air Force, with a first flight planned for 2028, there are questions about the final number of aircraft to be built and what they will cost, as well as its overall size (and capacity for weapons carriage).

The Air Force has said it plans to buy at least 185 F-47s, but potentially that figure might change going forward. There has also been discussion about the potential for multiple versions to be built in incremental developmental cycles. Meanwhile, with predictions that the F-47 might cost three times as much as the average F-35, this factor will very likely also play into acquisition plans.

Whatever the number of F-47s procured, the Air Force seems to consider that these, plus much larger quantities of F-35s and CCAs, might still not be enough to wrest air superiority from China over the vast distances of the Pacific, especially in any kind of prolonged campaign.

While it would come at a significant cost, a stealthy flying-wing aircraft packed with air-to-air missiles might just be one way of doing that.

Contact the author: [email protected]

A business jet converted into a tanker is among the options the U.S. Air Force has been considering as part of plans for a future aerial refueling ‘system of systems.’ The service is also still looking at stealthy designs and other options to meet its tanker needs going forward as the anti-air threat picture continues to expand and evolve.

“We are working on the Next Generation Air Refueling System, NGAS, as it’s effectively known. Put the finishing touches on that last year. And that was a really wide look at how we would do air refueling in the future,” Air Force Gen. John Lamontagne, head of Air Mobility Command (AMC), told TWZ and other outlets earlier this week. “When I say a wide look, looking at conventional tankers [as] we know it today, you know something like a [KC-]135 or KC-46 as is; something with a bunch of mission systems added to it, with a defense systems [sic], connectivity, intelligence and more; a business jet; a blended wing body; or a signature-managed [stealthy] tanker.”

“So, a pretty wide look at the effectiveness of those,” he added. “We still are looking at a pretty wide look.”

Lamontagne was speaking at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Air & Space Forces Association’s 2025 Air, Space, and Cyber Conference, at which TWZ was in attendance.

To provide some quick context, the Air Force currently has some 370 KC-135s and 96 KC-46s in its inventory. The service finished retiring its fleet of KC-10s last year. Under its existing contract with Boeing, the service expects to eventually receive 188 KC-46s, and it now has plans to acquire 75 more. What will eventually replace the last of the aging KC-135s, as well as fill the gap left by the departure of the KC-10s, remains to be seen. This is where NGAS, which continues to be described as a future family of capabilities, comes in.

Both the KC-135 and the KC-46 evolved parallel to or are based on full-size jet-powered transcontinental airliner designs, as was the now-retired KC-10. The KC-135 and KC-46 are also configured to refuel receivers primarily using the boom method, though they can also dispense gas via probe-and-drogue. The boom method is the Air Force’s preferred option when it comes to topping up the tanks on fixed-wing aircraft in mid-air.

A tanker converted from a business jet could offer a comparable cruising speed and service ceiling, but with lower operating and maintenance demands. It would also be able to take off and land from shorter runways and have more limited logistical needs, offering increased flexibility. The Air Force does currently envision future high-end operations centering on dispersed and distributed concepts of operations (CONOPS), collectively referred to as Agile Combat Employment (ACE), primarily to complicate enemy targeting cycles and reduce vulnerability. The U.S. Marine Corps has also been completely restructuring its forces around similar CONOPS in recent years.

At the same time, those comparative benefits come at the cost of maximum range and on-station time, and especially to the core of its entire reason for being — the total fuel available to offload to receivers. This could be offset to a degree by being able to fly from airstrips closer to operating areas. If the business jet-based tanker is itself able to refuel in mid-air, it could be utilized as one part of a multi-tier hub-and-spoke concept. Regardless, these aircraft will never be able to compete with offload capacity of the KC-135 or KC-46.

It’s also worth noting here that not every mission necessarily requires a full airliner-sized tanker. Business jet-based types could be used primarily to support more routine activities, especially in peacetime, like training and testing, and moving small numbers of fighters from point a to point b, freeing up larger tankers for more demanding operations. Simply not having to fly bigger tankers as often would also help reduce the wear and tear on those fleets.

Lower acquisition costs could also help the Air Force buy more business jet-based tankers. Depending on how they are configured, they could also be used as light transports when not needed for aerial refueling missions.

The idea of turning business jets into tankers is not new. At the Singapore Airshow in 2010, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) presented a concept for a boom-equipped tanker based on the Gulfstream G550, with a particular eye toward supporting training needs. An IAI brochure available at the show also reportedly depicted a hub-and-spoke refueling concept of operations, with the modified G550 acting as ‘spoke’ between a larger traditional tanker and tactical jets operating closer to the front lines.

The G550 is now out of production, but Gulfstream continues to produce other models that might serve as a starting point for new tankers. There are other options on the market, too. The Air Force and other branches of the U.S. military already operate multiple Gulfstream types, as well as members of the Bombardier Challenger family. This includes highly modified types in service to perform specialized missions, like the EA-37B Compass Call electronic warfare jet and the E-11A Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN). Smaller airliners, including current-generation variants of the Boeing 737, could offer additional options for conversion into aerial refueling platforms.

There may be other, more novel avenues, as well. As part of a design challenge in 2023, the Air Force itself produced a graphic showing a business jet as one option for carrying a potential platform-agnostic boom-equipped refueling system, which could also be small enough to be fit on a tactical jet like the F-15. The service has been exploring concepts in this general vein for years now, which could also feed into a future NGAS family of systems.

As Lamontagne noted at the Air, Space, and Cyber Conference earlier this week, the Air Force is still taking “a pretty wide look” at potential NGAS options. The need for any future tanker to be able to survive in more contested environments remains top of mind for the service. The possibility of acquiring a fleet of stealthy tankers, something TWZ has long highlighted the growing need for, remains very much on the table. Tankers, as well as other critical supporting assets, would be top targets in any future major conflict, such as a potential high-end fight against China in the Pacific. On top of this, the Air Force has been publicly warning that the threat ecosystem is only set to continue expanding in the coming years, and that it predicts there to be anti-air missiles with ranges of up to 1,000 miles by 2050.

“Really, at the end of the day, we are trying to upscale and change the equation on our survivability,” Lamontagne said at the roundtable. “We’ve got to be able to go into much higher threat environments. … and so how do we do that with both the force that we have and, potentially, a new platform?”

The cost of a future stealthy tanker remains a significant factor in work on NGAS.

“The Secretary of the Air Force approved another request out to industry that was sent out just a few weeks ago with a return from industry in just a couple of weeks, and that is really to help us better understand some cost estimates,” the AMC commander added. “When we did the first analysis of alternatives on NGAS last winter, I would say those cost estimates were really rough on what a signature-managed platform might look like.”

“Is it an F-35 level of exquisite stealth with a KC-135-size platform, or something in between? Tough to cost,” he continued. “So we got some really rough costs associated with that first analysis of alternatives. This is really, at its simplest, an attempt to refine those costs, go back out to industry, and figure out what’s in the realm of the possible at the right level of signature management, if we go down that road.”

Regardless, “we still know that … our current tanker force is not going to serve us well in a high threat environment,” Lamontagne stressed. “So, we’re either going to need a really long stick, right, weapons that can go a long way and keep the tanker out of the WEZ [weapons engagement zone], or we’re going to be able to need to go in there and not just survive, but thrive.”

The timeline for fielding any NGAS capabilities, especially new tankers, whether they are converted business jets, stealthy designs, or something else, is also unclear. The Air Force’s stated goal in the past has been to begin fielding next-generation aerial refueling platforms no later than 2040, and hopefully well before then.

It’s also important to point out here that U.S. military officials have been warning for years now already about strains on the Air Force’s existing tanker fleets and raising concerns about its capacity to meet even existing demands. This has been compounded in part by persistent technical issues and quality control problems with the KC-46. The Air Force, as well as the U.S. Navy, has been making increasing use of private contractors in recent years to bolster their ability to meet non-combat-related aerial refueling needs.

At least as of this week, “just about every option is on the table” to help meet the Air Force’s still evolving requirements for NGAS, according to Lamontagne.

Contact the author: [email protected]