Refueling

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]

A recent computer-generated video from Boeing includes MQ-28 Ghost Bat drones with apparent receptacles on top of their fuselages to allow for aerial refueling from boom-equipped tankers. Mid-air refueling capability would extend the MQ-28’s reach and on-station time, but would also add complexity and cost to the design.

Boeing released the video in question, seen below, last week. It is primarily intended to tout the ability of the company’s new F-15EX Eagle II fighter to act as an airborne drone controller, a role the two-seat jet is well-suited to, as TWZ has been highlighting for years now. Boeing is now reportedly actively pitching MQ-28 to Poland in combination with a possible purchase of F-15EXs.

The Ghost Bat was first developed by Boeing’s subsidiary in Australia for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), but other customers, including the U.S. Navy, could be on the horizon. The U.S. Air Force has also made use of at least one MQ-28 in the past to support advanced uncrewed aircraft and autonomy development efforts.

As seen in screen captures from Boeing video at the top of this story and below, the MQ-28s are depicted with panel lines and markings on top of their fuselage that are consistent with receptacles for receiving fuel in mid-air via the boom method. The markings, in particular, are virtually identical to those seen on F-22 Raptors and F-35A Joint Strike Fighters.

The full scenario shown in the video involves the crews of the F-15EXs using the Ghost Bats as additional sensor nodes to help find and target a hostile air defense system. One of the Eagle IIs then launches an AGM-84H/K Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response (SLAM-ER) cruise missile, another Boeing product, to destroy the target.

In addition, the video presents the MQ-28s as each carrying a pair of AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) internally and being equipped with various sensors, including an infrared search and track system (IRST). At least two of the RAAF’s initial batch of MQ-28s have been seen equipped with an IRST sensor in the nose. In general, IRST sensors provide a valuable alternative and/or companion to radars, particularly when it comes to spotting and tracking stealthy aircraft and missiles. IRSTs are also immune to electronic warfare attacks and operate passively, meaning they don’t send signals that can alert an opponent to the fact that they have been detected and are being tracked. Drones with IRST sensors offer valuable additional passive forward sensor nodes that can hunt for threats and pass data to other platforms. For the MQ-28 (and other CCA-like drones) this would primarily be their controlling platform, which will often be operating to the rear of their locations.

It is interesting to note that real MQ-28s have similar, if not identical panels on top of the fuselage, but do not appear to have ever been seen with any markings pointing to it being linked to an aerial refueling capability. Whether or not Boeing has ever previously mentioned even the possibility of an aerial refueling capability for the Ghost Bat is unclear.

In response to queries from TWZ for more information about what is seen in the recent video, a Boeing spokesperson told us that “all I can share is that the video is conceptual in nature.”

Aerial refueling capability would extend the MQ-28’s overall range, which Boeing has said in the past is at least 2,300 miles (3,700 kilometers) on a single tank of gas. The ability to refuel in mid-air would also allow the drone to remain on station longer after arriving in a designated operating area. The uncrewed aircraft could break off to refuel and then return to station, or move to a different part of the battlespace, all without having to return to base first, as well.

Since a drone does not have a pilot that needs to drink, eat, sleep, and go relieve itself, aerial refueling capability could allow for a significant degree of additional persistence depending on the assigned mission. Airborne control of the drones could also be passed between crewed platforms rotating in and out of an operating area. All of this would open up new operational possibilities, as well as expand the number of potential launch and/or recovery locations, for air-to-air refueling-capable MQ-28s.

Australia, in particular, is present with challenges when it comes to projecting crewed or uncrewed airpower just by virtue of its location within the sprawling Indo-Pacific region. The “tyranny of distance” is a common refrain when discussing military operations in the Pacific, in general.

The RAAF would at least have a basic capacity to gas-up future MQ-28s with aerial refueling receptacles via its boom-equipped Airbus A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transports (MRTT), which are locally designated as KC-30As. Airbus has also notably been working on improvements to the core MRTT design to enable the safe refueling of uncrewed aircraft via the boom method.

MQ-28s with aerial refueling receptacles could also be of interest to other air arms with boom-equipped tankers. U.S. Air Force officials have talked about aerial refueling capability in the past in the context of the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drone program. Air-to-air refueling is notably seen as one way to help balance range and performance requirements.

All of this, in turn, has raised questions about how much more complex and costly it might be to add this capability to any CCA-type design. It has also prompted discussions about how fielding large fleets of aerial refueling-capable drones might impact already strained tanker fleets. The Air Force has separately been exploring novel options for increasing its overall aerial refueling capacity, including boom-equipped buddy refueling stores small enough for tactical jets like the F-15 to carry. An uncrewed aircraft like the MQ-28 would sip relatively small amounts of fuel compared to a medium or heavy crewed fighter, as well.

It’s also worth remembering here that providing organic defense for increasingly vulnerable, but critical tankers and other support aircraft has long been a mission envisioned for the MQ-28, as well as various other ‘loyal wingman’ type drones. Uncrewed aircraft that can be refueled in flight could help increase the persistence of that defensive screen. In other words, tankers and surveillance aircraft can bring their own uncrewed combat air patrol with them and control them directly.

If Boeing can alter the MQ-28 design, specifically, for refueling via boom, the Ghost Bat might also be adaptable to receiving fuel in mid-air via the probe-and-drogue method. This would increase the total number of potential tankers that could refuel MQ-28s. Boeing has previously shown a render of a derivative of the MQ-25 Stingray tanker drone, which it is developing for the U.S. Navy, with a refueling probe. The Navy has expressed a “strong interest” in the Ghost Bat, or a variant or derivative thereof, potentially for future carrier-based use. Boeing has pitched a carrier-capable version of the design at least to the United Kingdom in the past.

It is important to remember here that extensive work has been done in the unclassified realm to develop the technologies necessary for the refueling of drones via crewed tankers using the boom-and-receptacle and probe-and-drogue methods, including various real-world demonstrations. Drones refueling other drones, as well as other crewed aircraft, using probe-and-drogue systems, has also already been proven out by Boeing (through the MQ-25 program) and others. The possibility has been raised in the past that the U.S. military has actually fielded uncrewed aircraft capable of recieving fuel in mid-air, at least on a limited level in the classified realm, but this remains unconfirmed.

Boeing has otherwise been betting big on the MQ-28, including with major investments to expand its capacity to produce the drones in Australia. The RAAF has already received eight Ghost Bats in a Block 1 prototype configuration, and Boeing is on contract to deliver at least three more improved Block 2 types that are seen as a pathway to an operational capability. Australian officials have openly discussed the possibility of acquiring further MQ-28 variants down the line.

Just last week, Boeing announced a number of RAAF testing milestones it says were achieved before the end of June, including “autonomous behaviors and mission execution,” “multi-ship operations to provide combat mass,” and “data fusion and sharing data between multiple MQ-28 aircraft and transmission of that data to a crewed platform.” Back in June, Boeing had already disclosed a successful demonstration of the ability of RAAF personnel aboard an E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft to direct MQ-28s to engage an aerial threat. Once again, this could help pave the way for large support aircraft bringing along their own defensive drone patrols.

Boeing also said the MQ-28s built to date have now completed 150 hours of testing, with another 20,000+ hours of testing of the design in virtual environments.

“The RAAF set the task of proving the first four steps in the Air Combat chain for the MQ-28, and we have accomplished that sooner than anticipated,” Glen Ferguson, Boeing’s MQ-28 global program director, said in a statement today. “Completing this work early allows us to accelerate the next phases of development – engage and assess – with an air-to-air weapon shot planned for later this year or in early 2026.”

Exactly when the RAAF might begin flying MQ-28s in any configuration operationally is unclear. Australia’s National Security Committee is expected to make a decision about whether or not to proceed with additional Ghost Bat purchases before the end of the year, according to a report last week from Aviation Week.

Altogether, while the idea of an MQ-28 capable of being refueled in flight may just be a concept now, it could well prove to be an attractive addition to the still evolving Ghost Bat design.

Contact the author: [email protected]

U.S. Air Force Air Mobility Command (AMC) on Monday released the findings of investigations into three mishaps involving the troubled KC-46A Pegasus aerial refueling tanker that cost the service nearly $23 million. The incidents all involved nozzle binding, a situation in which the tanker’s refueling boom nozzle gets stuck or binds with the receiving aircraft’s receptacle. 

Two of the incidents occurred in 2022 and a third in 2024. A fourth mishap took place July 8, 2025 and is still being investigated, AMC stated. There were no fatalities, injuries, or civilian property damage in any of these mishaps.

The first of these nozzle binding mishaps took place on Oct. 15, 2022. A KC-46A Pegasus assigned to the 305th Air Mobility Wing and operated by the 2nd Air Refueling Squadron, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey and an F-15E Strike Eagle assigned to the 4th Fighter Wing and operated by the 335th Fighting Squadron, Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina, were conducting routine air refueling operations. 

“During the mishap, a nozzle binding accident occurred during a breakaway which resulted in the air-refueling boom (ARB) striking the tail section of the KC-46A,” AMC said in a statement.

The Accident Investigation Board (AIB) found that a “preponderance of the evidence” showed one cause for the mishap. 

“Due to a limitation of the Air Refueling Boom (ARB) control system,” the KC-46 boom operator “inadvertently placed a radial force on the ARB that caused the nozzle to become bound in the receiver’s receptacle,” according to the AIB. “As a result, the bound forces exceeded the structural limitations of the ARB and caused a rapid upward movement of the ARB when released, striking the tail cone” of the Pegasus.

In addition, two other factors “substantially contributed” to this incident.

The Pegasus pilot failed to notify either the plane’s boom operator or the Strike Eagle’s pilot about an “engine power reduction” on the refueler. 

“This action, combined with the known ARB stiffness limitation and the resulting high engine power setting on [the F-15E], resulted in “a rapid forward movement” of that jet relative to the Pegasus.

In addition, “due to a limitation of the automated boom control system, the ARB entered an uncontrollable state during its upward motion toward the aircraft tail, disabling the boom control laws which could have slowed the rate at which the ARB struck the tail cone, substantially contributing to the mishap,” according to Col. Chad Cisewski, who led this AIB.

The estimated damages to the aircraft were $8,307,257.93, according to AMC.

Less than a month later, on Nov. 7 2022, there was another nozzle binding incident while a KC-46A Pegasus assigned to the 305th Air Mobility Wing and operated by the 2nd Air Refueling Squadron was refueling a F-22A Raptor assigned to the 94th Fighter Squadron, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia. The flight was in support of a joint-force training exercise from Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida.

“During the second air refueling attempt of the sortie, the KC-46A experienced a nozzle binding event during a breakaway with the F-22A, which resulted in damage to the ARB nozzle,” AMC said in its statement. “The bound forces exceeded the structural limitations of the ARB nozzle, damaging the nozzle beyond repair.”

The AIB determined “by a preponderance of the evidence, one cause for this mishap,” the report stated. The boom operator “made manual control inputs to the ARB which caused a radial force to be applied to the ARB nozzle, causing it to become bound inside the receiver’s air refueling receptacle.”

As a result, “the bound forces exceeded the structural limitations of the ARB nozzle, damaging the nozzle beyond repair.”

Two other factors “substantially contributed to the mishap,” according to the AIB. The first was “the failure” of the Raptor’s pilot “to account for the KC-46A Stiff Boom characteristics, causing a rapid forward movement” of the fighter relative to the refueler. The stiff boom probem is a long-standing issue, which you can read more about here.

In addition, the boom operator was “unable to verify that the ARB nozzle was clear of [the Raptor’s] air refueling receptacle prior to making ARB control inputs, substantially contributing to the mishap.”

The mishap caused an estimated $103,295.12 in damages, AMC noted.

A third nozzle binding incident took place Aug. 21, 2024, when a KC-46A Pegasus assigned to the 22nd Air Refueling Wing and operated by the 931st Air Refueling Wing was refueling an F-15E assigned to the 366th Fighter Wing in support Operation Nobel Eagle, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) aerospace warning, control, and defense missions in North America. The aircraft were helping to enforce a temporary flight restriction related to a presidential visit. Then-President Joe Biden was reportedly vacationing in Santa Ynez, California at the time. The tanker and one of the fighters were forced to make emergency landings — the F-15E twice having to abort those recoveries before finally touching down at an alternative location. You can read more about that in our initial report here and listen to the audio below.

During the fourth air refueling attempt of the sortie, “the KC-46A experienced nozzle binding of the boom in the F-15E receptacle,” AMC explained. “Upon release, the boom rapidly flew upward, striking the bottom aft portion of the KC-46A, and violently oscillated left and right.”

The boom striking the aircraft and “ensuing forceful oscillations resulted in critical failure of the boom shaft structure, portions of which detached from the KC-46A in flight,” the command continued. “The KC-46A crew declared an in-flight emergency and returned to Travis AFB. Emergency response personnel met the crew upon arrival.”

The boom fell in an open field about 13 miles northeast of Santa Maria, California, with no injuries or fatalities reported, the AIB explained.

The AIB found, “by a preponderance of the evidence, that the cause of the mishap was the [boom operator’s] control inputs to the air refueling flight control system, resulting in an excessive fly-up rate of the boom, which struck the aircraft empennage and caused a critical failure of the boom shaft structure,” according to the report.

There were four other factors that “substantially contributed to the mishap,” the AIB board president ruled. 

• Excessive closure rate and instability of the Strike Eagle.
• The boom operator’s “attempted contact outside the standard [aerial refueling] envelope for the F-15E.
• The F-15E pilot’s “failure to recognize and initiate immediate breakaway procedures, which further delayed positive separation from the KC-46A,” and
• The boom operator’s “lack of knowledge on boom flight control logic and its effects on the boom flight control surfaces prevented the [boom operator] from recognizing the influence of Flight Control Stick (FCS) inputs and programmed boom limit functions during operations, especially during nozzle binding situations.”

The estimated damages to the aircraft were $14,381,303, according to AMC.

The Air Force did not release details about the July 9, 2025 incident. However, at the time, 2nd Lt. Samantha Bostick, Deputy Chief of Public Affairs for the 22nd Air Refueling Wing at McConnell Air Force Base, told us what happened.

“A KC-46A Pegasus from McConnell Air Force Base declared an In-flight Emergency July 8, while operating over the eastern United States, refueling F-22s,” she said. “The crew had to make the decision to land at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, N.C., and has landed safely there. The aircraft will remain there for the time being.”

You can listen below as the crew of the KC-46, callsign FELL 81 and serial number 17-46033, alerts the U.S. Navy’s Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility at Virginia Capes (FACSFAC VACAPES) about losing the boom. FACSFAC VACAPES is better known by its callsign, Giant Killer, and helps monitor for threats and otherwise manage the airspace off the east coast of the United States.

In general, KC-46s are no stranger to issues with their booms. The boom and the control system for it have been a source of serious and persistent technical issues for the Pegasus fleet for years now. A fix for the KC-46’s particularly troublesome remote vision system (RVS), which boom operators in the tanker’s main cabin use to perform their work, is now unlikely to be finished before summer 2027, roughly three years behind schedule, according to Defense News.

The nozzle binding issue is clearly a problem in many respects, not just in terms of the dangers posed by booms breaking away or impacting the receiver or the tanker’s airframe, but it also poses a real danger to those on the ground. Beyond that, the reliability of any type during critical missions is always a concern, as such a mishap could curtail a high-priority mission or the risk of it occurring requires extra increasingly precious tankers being assigned to those operations as a contingency. What we don’t know is how common this is in comparison to the KC-135 or the recently retired KC-10. Hopefully, we can get more clarity in this regard now that the findings of these mishaps are published.

We will update you when we find out more.

Contact the author: [email protected]

The Israeli Ministry of Defense has said it will seek to buy two more Boeing KC-46A Pegasus tankers from the United States, as it invests in its fleet of in-flight refueling tankers, heavily utilized in the recent campaign against Iran, as well as for other long-range combat missions and domestic ones. While Israel has already committed to buying four KC-46s, it currently relies on a dwindling fleet of veteran Boeing 707 tankers. The 12-day war against Iran earlier this year, in particular, led to questions about Israeli Air Force (IAF) aerial refueling capacity, and the U.S. government was forced to deny that it had provided additional tanker support for the operation.

“The fifth and sixth [KC-46] refueling aircraft will strengthen the IAF — the IDF’s long-range strategic arm — enabling it to reach distant theaters with greater force and scope,” said Maj. Gen. Amir Baram, director general of the Israeli Ministry of Defense, earlier this week.

Baram was announcing re-equipment plans that also include additional armored vehicles and first-person-view (FPV) drones. The KC-46 acquisition is set to move forward once approval has been granted by Israel’s Defense Procurement Ministerial Committee. Valued at a reported $500 million, the tanker deal will be funded through U.S. financial aid.

The “new aircraft will be equipped with Israeli systems and adapted to the Israeli Air Force’s operational requirements,” the Israeli Ministry of Defense added.

Ido Nehushtan, president of Boeing Israel, told Breaking Defense that the company “takes pride in its longstanding partnership with Israel, a relationship that dates back to the nation’s establishment. The KC-46A tanker aircraft will provide the world’s most advanced multi-mission aerial refueling capability to the IAF.”

Back in 2020, the U.S. State Department approved the potential sale of eight KC-46As to Israel, with the entire package having an estimated price tag of $2.4 billion.

“The United States is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability,” the U.S. Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) said at the time. “This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives.”

A year later, Israel formally approved plans for its first order of KC-46s. Israel reportedly also inquired about whether it could take delivery of its first pair of KC-46s from a lot the U.S. Air Force had already contracted Boeing to build. This would allow the IAF to get these aircraft earlier than would otherwise be possible.

Finally, in 2022, the U.S. Department of Defense awarded Boeing a $930-million contract for the first four KC-46s for Israel, with deliveries due before the end of 2026.

It’s unclear to what degree Israel’s procurement timeline for the KC-46 has been affected by the type’s well-publicized problems in U.S. service, but the move to increase the purchase signals confidence in the program and will be a boon for Boeing as it seeks further foreign sales for the type.

By the time the first IAF KC-46s arrive, they are expected to be fitted with the next-generation version of the critical Remote Vision System (RVS) that has proven so challenging to perfect. Ironically, the Israeli 707s that the KC-46 will replace have long used a locally developed RVS that has apparently proven very effective, and which you can read more about here and here.

Meanwhile, there’s no doubt that the IAF badly needs a successor for its 707 fleet, these aircraft being known locally as the Re’em (oryx in Hebrew).

Today’s Re’em fleet first entered service in 1979, with then-newer 707-300 airframes replacing previous 707-100s. These aircraft were acquired from commercial airlines before being modified locally for aerial refueling. The conversion was done by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). Additional airframes were acquired and upgraded to tankers as recently as the 2010s, but the most worn-out examples are already being retired.

In addition to aerial refueling, the IAF’s 707s have a critical role as a command-and-control station and communications node. The aircraft carries a satellite communications suite to provide critical, secure beyond-line-of-sight communications with appropriately equipped tactical aircraft like the F-15 and F-16, and command centers far away. This is also highly important for long-range strike operations. The reference to the KC-46 being fitted with “Israeli systems and adapted to the Israeli Air Force’s operational requirements” may well be a reference to similar C2 and communications modifications.

As of today, Israel is understood to have no more than seven 707 tankers in service, with satellite imagery of Nevatim Airbase dating from late last year showing five examples visible there.

This means that the Re’em is more valuable to the IAF than ever, especially for its long-range strike capabilities, a point underscored by recent Israeli operations in the Middle East.

As well as the campaign against Iran’s nuclear program, codenamed Operation Rising Lion, which involved round-trip flights of around 2,000 miles, the IAF has flown other high-profile long-range attacks against targets across the region, since Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack. This has included raids against Houthi targets in Yemen.

The demand for tanker capacity to support these operations, as well as other assignments and routine and training activities, led to speculation that the U.S. Air Force might be assisting Israel in this regard.

In the wake of the 12-day war with Iran, the U.S. Department of Defense issued a flat-out denial that it provided any such support for the IAF during the conflict.

A U.S. Air Force spokesperson stated the following in response to TWZ’s inquiry into the matter:

“The U.S. Air Force routinely conducts training operations alongside allies and partners within the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. The Israeli Air Force routinely participates in these exercises and operations at various levels; however, U.S. aerial refueling platforms do not conduct in-flight refueling operations with the IAF.”

There are still claims that the U.S. did in fact provide some tanking during the 12-Day War. Regardless, provided the USAF’s denial is fully accurate, it makes the IAF’s ability to sustain a high tempo of operations and achieve significant effects over such great distances all the more remarkable.

Meanwhile, it remains undeniable that the U.S. military has an unmatched ability to provide Israel with tanking capacity, if there were a plan to do so. With KC-46 deliveries continuing, and with the Pegasus looking to be on track for further U.S. orders, under what has been termed the ‘bridge tanker’ requirement, the aircraft is increasingly becoming the backbone of the U.S. Air Force’s tanker fleet.

With Israel now moving to grow its KC-46 orders, this should speed the process of retiring the fast-aging 707s and providing much-needed modernization for the Israeli Air Force’s aerial refueling capacity.

Contact the author: [email protected]