Military Air-To-Air Refueling Explained.
The US military uses 2 types of air-to-air refueling (AAR) equipment:
- "Flying Boom" - tanker prods a receptacle on the aircraft being refueled.
- "Probe and Drogue" - receiving aircraft prods a drogue basket on the end of a refueling hose trailed by the tanker.
The USAF uses the "flying boom" system on ageing KC-135 and KC-10 aircraft.
See the legacy aircraft here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-135_Stratotanker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Dougl...0_Extender
The KC-10A was due to be replaced by aircraft procured under the KC-X program and the more numerous KC-135 was due to be replaced by aircraft procured under 3 programs: KC-X, KC-Y and KC-Z over the next 20 to 30 years.
Of these 3 programs, only KC-X has a full requirement specified and an aircraft selected.
Under the KC-X program, the USAF was due to get the KC-45 - based on the Airbus A330 MRTT - similar to the Voyager aircraft now used by the Royal Air Force for AAR. Although the KC-45 won the original DoD competition 11 years ago, orders were cancelled due to an appeal by Boeing and "vested interest" in Washington.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS/Northrop_Grumman_KC-45
So the competition was re--run with changed parameters that favored Boeing. 11 years on, the Boeing built KC-46 is still not being rolled out into full service with the USAF - only a few have been delivered so far and deliveries halted twice already in 2019 due to a complete failure of the quality assurance measures at the manufacturer (such as tools and other loose items left beneath closed panels and found by the USAF after delivery).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus
The KC-10A will still be withdrawn ASAP - as soon as enough KC-46As have been delivered.
However, whether the original planned number of KC-46s will be ordered remains to be seen. The mix of planned KC-X / KC-Y / KC-Z [KC-Z probably being a "stealth" unmanned tanker] has yet to be determined.
Also, in my opinion, the huge recapitalization cost of the USAF tanker fleet may lead to a re-examination of all options - such a increased use of contractor owned / contractor operated capabilities (such as $TMPS) - for missions in non-hostile territory - through to contractor owned / military crewed - such as the entire Royal Air Force operation run by AirTanker.
In the interim, the USAF will be upgrading up to 400 of the remaining 1955-1965 manufactured KC-135s (out of 803 originally built including special mission variants) to Block 45 standard to remain in service until at least 2040. The program has already started and is due to run through to 2024 - this means yet any another shortfall in overall tanking capacity as a number of aircraft have to withdrawn from the front-line for modification at any given time.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14007/u...ss-cockpit
The USN and USMC use the "probe and drogue" system. The USN no longer has a dedicated fast tanker since the KA-6D was retired as a cost cutting measure some years ago.
Operationally, the USN uses F/A-18 fighters with an under wing refueling pod as tankers but their capacity is limited and it wasteful of the fatigue life of an ageing asset.
The USMC uses "slow" turboprop powered KC-130 tanker aircraft. If necessary, USAF flying boom tankers can have an adapter fitted to do AAR with "probe and drogue" receivers.
https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2015..._F-18E.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_KC-130
Given the ongoing USAF tanker fleet issues - which will persist to varying degrees for the next 20 to 30 years - anything that can be done to relieve USAF tankers - with an "probe and drogue" adapter - from having to be used to refuel USN / USMC is a cost-effective and necessary measure. This is where the contractors such as TristarAir LLC ($TMPS) and Omega come in.
The Royal Air Force uses the "probe & drogue" method of AAR. Over the last several years, it has been recapitalizing its' tanker fleet with a Private Finance Initiative that utilizes the state-of-the-art Voyager aircraft. This has allowed retirement of the disparate small fleets of ex-civil airliners previously used - the VC10 and the Tristar (some of which have been bought by $TMPS).
https://defpost.com/tempus-applied-solutions-...-aircraft/
TristarAir LLC ($TMPS) bought 6 ex-RAF Tristar tankers in 2018 - currently they plan to use 3 of the 6 aircraft as a spares source and the company is also an authorized spares manufacturer.
I do not anticipate that they will have any problems keeping the aircraft in service to win follow on contracts after 2024. In due course, the will be able to afford replacements - both off-the-shelf new (A330 MRTT or A400 MRTT) and ex-military (KC-135) - and also expand their operation.
Omega Air Refueling Services Tanker, has performed a similar role - to the one $TMPS will now be performing - for the USN, RAF, RAAF and RCAF since 2001 - so the business model is proven - with:
- 6,000 missions performed.
- 238 Million pounds of fuel transferred to 60,000 receiver aircraft.
- 99% mission completion rate.
Omega only has 2 x old Boeing 707 and one x DC-10 aircraft - so a much lesser capability than $TMPS has with 3 x Tristars AAR tankers formerly operated by the Royal Air Force.
http://www.omegaairrefueling.com/
Ex-Royal Air Force Tristar Tanker / Transport Aircraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_TriStar_(RAF)
It is worth noting that the $121.4M contract awarded to $TMPS (for 5 years) is 30% of the total awarded to Omega ($396M) over 12 years 2007 to 2018.
In my expert opinion - as a former full-career military aerospace officer - I believe that the US DoD will make increased use of contracted out AAR assets in future.
There are plenty of instances when military AAR tanker capability is required but the tanker crew do not have to be military - for instance:
- Routine AAR requalification sorties for fast-jet aircrew.
- Trials [as recently done by another contractor with the X-47].
- Cross-Atlantic or Pacific deployments in friendly airspace - the Tristar can also carry a mix of passengers and cargo pallets. For instance USMC F-35B deployments to operate on Royal Navy carriers and USMC F-35B deliveries to the Pacific Region.
- Delivery flights of military aircraft manufactured in the USA to overseas customers.
- Support to allied nations with aircraft test fleets permanently based in the USA (eg RAF F-35Bs at Edwards AFB).
- Support to allied nations attending exercises in the USA (such as RED FLAG at Nellis AFB),
All these activities are covered by the DoD contract on $TMPS - paid by hours flown / lbs fuel delivered booked via the USN.
The US military uses 2 types of air-to-air refueling (AAR) equipment:
- "Flying Boom" - tanker prods a receptacle on the aircraft being refueled.
- "Probe and Drogue" - receiving aircraft prods a drogue basket on the end of a refueling hose trailed by the tanker.
The USAF uses the "flying boom" system on ageing KC-135 and KC-10 aircraft.
See the legacy aircraft here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-135_Stratotanker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Dougl...0_Extender
The KC-10A was due to be replaced by aircraft procured under the KC-X program and the more numerous KC-135 was due to be replaced by aircraft procured under 3 programs: KC-X, KC-Y and KC-Z over the next 20 to 30 years.
Of these 3 programs, only KC-X has a full requirement specified and an aircraft selected.
Under the KC-X program, the USAF was due to get the KC-45 - based on the Airbus A330 MRTT - similar to the Voyager aircraft now used by the Royal Air Force for AAR. Although the KC-45 won the original DoD competition 11 years ago, orders were cancelled due to an appeal by Boeing and "vested interest" in Washington.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS/Northrop_Grumman_KC-45
So the competition was re--run with changed parameters that favored Boeing. 11 years on, the Boeing built KC-46 is still not being rolled out into full service with the USAF - only a few have been delivered so far and deliveries halted twice already in 2019 due to a complete failure of the quality assurance measures at the manufacturer (such as tools and other loose items left beneath closed panels and found by the USAF after delivery).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus
The KC-10A will still be withdrawn ASAP - as soon as enough KC-46As have been delivered.
However, whether the original planned number of KC-46s will be ordered remains to be seen. The mix of planned KC-X / KC-Y / KC-Z [KC-Z probably being a "stealth" unmanned tanker] has yet to be determined.
Also, in my opinion, the huge recapitalization cost of the USAF tanker fleet may lead to a re-examination of all options - such a increased use of contractor owned / contractor operated capabilities (such as $TMPS) - for missions in non-hostile territory - through to contractor owned / military crewed - such as the entire Royal Air Force operation run by AirTanker.
In the interim, the USAF will be upgrading up to 400 of the remaining 1955-1965 manufactured KC-135s (out of 803 originally built including special mission variants) to Block 45 standard to remain in service until at least 2040. The program has already started and is due to run through to 2024 - this means yet any another shortfall in overall tanking capacity as a number of aircraft have to withdrawn from the front-line for modification at any given time.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14007/u...ss-cockpit
The USN and USMC use the "probe and drogue" system. The USN no longer has a dedicated fast tanker since the KA-6D was retired as a cost cutting measure some years ago.
Operationally, the USN uses F/A-18 fighters with an under wing refueling pod as tankers but their capacity is limited and it wasteful of the fatigue life of an ageing asset.
The USMC uses "slow" turboprop powered KC-130 tanker aircraft. If necessary, USAF flying boom tankers can have an adapter fitted to do AAR with "probe and drogue" receivers.
https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2015..._F-18E.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_KC-130
Given the ongoing USAF tanker fleet issues - which will persist to varying degrees for the next 20 to 30 years - anything that can be done to relieve USAF tankers - with an "probe and drogue" adapter - from having to be used to refuel USN / USMC is a cost-effective and necessary measure. This is where the contractors such as TristarAir LLC ($TMPS) and Omega come in.
The Royal Air Force uses the "probe & drogue" method of AAR. Over the last several years, it has been recapitalizing its' tanker fleet with a Private Finance Initiative that utilizes the state-of-the-art Voyager aircraft. This has allowed retirement of the disparate small fleets of ex-civil airliners previously used - the VC10 and the Tristar (some of which have been bought by $TMPS).
https://defpost.com/tempus-applied-solutions-...-aircraft/
TristarAir LLC ($TMPS) bought 6 ex-RAF Tristar tankers in 2018 - currently they plan to use 3 of the 6 aircraft as a spares source and the company is also an authorized spares manufacturer.
I do not anticipate that they will have any problems keeping the aircraft in service to win follow on contracts after 2024. In due course, the will be able to afford replacements - both off-the-shelf new (A330 MRTT or A400 MRTT) and ex-military (KC-135) - and also expand their operation.
Omega Air Refueling Services Tanker, has performed a similar role - to the one $TMPS will now be performing - for the USN, RAF, RAAF and RCAF since 2001 - so the business model is proven - with:
- 6,000 missions performed.
- 238 Million pounds of fuel transferred to 60,000 receiver aircraft.
- 99% mission completion rate.
Omega only has 2 x old Boeing 707 and one x DC-10 aircraft - so a much lesser capability than $TMPS has with 3 x Tristars AAR tankers formerly operated by the Royal Air Force.
http://www.omegaairrefueling.com/
Ex-Royal Air Force Tristar Tanker / Transport Aircraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_TriStar_(RAF)
It is worth noting that the $121.4M contract awarded to $TMPS (for 5 years) is 30% of the total awarded to Omega ($396M) over 12 years 2007 to 2018.
In my expert opinion - as a former full-career military aerospace officer - I believe that the US DoD will make increased use of contracted out AAR assets in future.
There are plenty of instances when military AAR tanker capability is required but the tanker crew do not have to be military - for instance:
- Routine AAR requalification sorties for fast-jet aircrew.
- Trials [as recently done by another contractor with the X-47].
- Cross-Atlantic or Pacific deployments in friendly airspace - the Tristar can also carry a mix of passengers and cargo pallets. For instance USMC F-35B deployments to operate on Royal Navy carriers and USMC F-35B deliveries to the Pacific Region.
- Delivery flights of military aircraft manufactured in the USA to overseas customers.
- Support to allied nations with aircraft test fleets permanently based in the USA (eg RAF F-35Bs at Edwards AFB).
- Support to allied nations attending exercises in the USA (such as RED FLAG at Nellis AFB),
All these activities are covered by the DoD contract on $TMPS - paid by hours flown / lbs fuel delivered booked via the USN.
1
Tempus Applied Solutions Holdings, Inc. (TMPS) Stock Research Links
"Per Ardua Ad Astra" - "Through Adversity To The Stars"
A very apposite motto for those who trade successfully in the OTC market..
All posts are my opinion - trade at your own risk.
A very apposite motto for those who trade successfully in the OTC market..
All posts are my opinion - trade at your own risk.
