Steve Trimble, Brian Everstine Will the LMXT’s 28% fuel volume advantage over the Boeing KC-46 be decisive in the USAF Bridge Tanker competition?
Steve Trimble, Brian Everstine
Lockheed Martin’s opening bid for the Bridge Tanker prizes fuel capacity and networking capability but downplays cargo volume. Credit: Lockheed Martin
Fifty-nine thousand pounds has emerged as a possibly deal-breaking difference in a brewing competition between the Boeing KC-46 and the newly unveiled Lockheed Martin LMXT tanker proposal for the U.S. Air Force’s Bridge Tanker contract.
The LMXT, a new version of the Airbus A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT), will be designed to carry up to 271,000 lb. of fuel, which is 26,000 lb. more than the baseline version of the widebody refueler now in service with 13 operators, Lockheed has confirmed exclusively to Aviation Week.
Its competitor, the KC-46, is designed now to carry 212,000 lb. of fuel at most, leaving a 59,000-lb. gap in onboard fuel capacity compared to the LMXT. Lockheed’s proposed fuel capacity comes before the Air Force has defined the requirements for the Bridge Tanker. As such, Boeing says it is premature to discuss any changes to the fuel capacity on the KC-46.
The question is how the refueling capacity difference will be weighed in the Air Force’s pending acquisition strategy for the Bridge Tanker.
A decade ago, the KC-46 won the KC-X contract despite a narrower, 33,000-lb. fuel volume gap with the A330 MRTT. In 2011, however, the Air Force’s decision was driven by the lowest-price, technically acceptable offer. Only if the competing KC-X bids came within 1% on price would the Air Force consider other factors such as fuel capacity. Boeing’s aggressive bid came at a price 10% lower than the Airbus proposal, so the difference in fuel volume played no role in the final decision.
Implied in Lockheed’s decision to double down on the LMXT’s fuel volume advantage is a belief that the Air Force will use a different formula for the evaluation of the Bridge Tanker proposals. Under a set of undisclosed assumptions by Lockheed, the LMXT could deliver 122,000 lb. of fuel at 2,000 nm range with a 2-hr. loiter window, which the company says is 61% greater than its assessment of the KC-46’s fuel offload at range capability.
“Fuel offload at range is more important than ever,” says Tony Frese, Lockheed’s vice president of business development for air mobility and maritime missions. “As the customer starts to look at their requirements, what we’re presenting to them is: ‘Take a hard look at [fuel volume] because I think this is going to be most important to you.’ So we’ll see how they want to evaluate that.”
The final evaluation could still be 2-3 years away, but the requirements and acquisition strategy must be finalized soon.
The Air Force wants to achieve initial operational capability for the Bridge Tanker program in 2030, with production aircraft deliveries beginning a year before. If flight tests of the engineering and manufacturing development program begin at least two years earlier, in 2027, the Air Force would need to select the winning bidder for the Bridge Tanker no later than 2024. In that case, the Air Force may need to release a request for proposals in 2023 or perhaps even by late 2022.
The fuel volume disparity—a single LMXT could carry the weight of 1.5 empty KC-46s in fuel—tops a growing list of differences between the two commercial aircraft derivative designs.
As a smaller aircraft built on an existing final assembly line, the KC-46A should cost less to build than the larger LMXT, which will require the added expense of establishing a new final assembly line and modification center in the U.S. Lockheed acknowledges the inherent pressure to beat the KC-46 on price but points to other factors that could swing the Bridge Tanker competition to favor its proposal.
“Yes, we know this is a bigger aircraft. We understand that, and everything that comes with it,” Frese says. “So what we’re trying to make sure [the Air Force] understands is, if you had a product like this in your inventory, these are the kinds of capabilities you can have, and you can get them at much lower risk than if you were starting off from scratch. So it’s a value play for the Air Force, and we think it’s the right value.”
In other performance categories, Boeing may own a clear advantage over the LMXT. The KC-46, for example, is designed with a cargo door on the main deck, allowing it to carry 18 463L-size pallets. The LMXT design, like the A330 MRTT, includes no cargo door for the main deck. All palletized cargo must be carried in the belly, which is limited to holding six 463L pallets. If the Air Force requires additional palletized cargo volume for the Bridge Tanker, Lockheed can leverage the main cargo door developed for the commercial A330-200 freighter, but it would need to be modified to meet military airworthiness regulations.
That basic difference in cargo capacity has not stopped 13 operators from selecting the A330 MRTT over the KC-46 as a tanker, and Lockheed is betting the Air Force will take a similar view.
“What we’ve done with the LMXT is we said, ‘Well, is that really what you want, Air Force? Because you’ve got the KC-46 with significant cargo capability already. You have C-17s. You have other airlift,’” Frese says. “What we’re recommending is: Just make sure that’s really what you want because we’re going to offer you some additional capabilities you don’t have.”
Another contrast between the Bridge Tanker and KC-X competitions is a fundamental difference in the Air Force’s view of the tanker fleet’s mission. The primary mission—inflight refueling—remains the same, but the changing nature of conflict could impose new roles on tankers. As a fleet dedicated to circling persistently in a safe area, the Bridge Tanker is expected to be a critical node in an emerging battlefield network. A tanker topping off a strike package may simultaneously be providing a data-networking link among a ship, satellite and stealth bomber. How well each bidder supports this Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) concept could become a key discriminator in the Bridge Tanker evaluation.
The LMXT design includes an integrated networking and command-and-control capability. In the absence of cargo on the main deck, the currently proposed LMXT has plenty of space. A portion of the main deck will be occupied by 50 airline-style seats and two lavatories. Eight stretchers and two intensive care unit stations are also provided for medical evacuation missions. But a portion of the LMXT cabin also can be dedicated to supporting the JADC2 mission.
Lockheed has proposed inserting three JADC2 mission stations on the main deck. Each station would be equipped with Lockheed’s Omniview operating picture, which consolidates data feeds from several networks into a comprehensive display. The data feeds would be assembled from data link arrays integrated into the aircraft, rather than inside wing-mounted pods, Frese says.
In some areas, Lockheed is not deviating from the baseline design of the A330 MRTT for the LMXT configuration. The A330 MRTT Remote Vision System—including a high-definition, color, 3D panoramic display—will control the LMXT’s refueling boom and monitor the probe-and-drogue refueling systems. As Airbus certifies the A330 MRTT for automated air-to-air refueling in daylight and nighttime operations—scheduled for 2022 and 2023, respectively—those capabilities will be included on the LMXT, Frese says.
The Advanced Refueling Boom System and wing aerial refueling pods in service now with the A330 MRTT also form the basis of the LMXT configuration, he confirms.
But Lockheed still has several decisions to make about the LMXT program.
Airbus has a final assembly line for the A330 in Toulouse and a completion and delivery center in Tianjin, China. Neither is suitable for an aircraft that Lockheed says will be “made in America for America by Americans.”
A nationwide search is underway to identify locations where Airbus can assemble the commercial A330 for the Bridge Tanker and where Lockheed could convert those aircraft into military tankers. Airbus assembles A320-family commercial aircraft in Mobile, Alabama, but other sites will be considered to build the A330s if the LMXT wins the Bridge Tanker contract, Frese says. Likewise, Lockheed will select a separate site to perform the conversions plus another location for final paint and delivery.
Two engine options will be offered for the LMXT, Frese says. With the Pratt & Whitney PW4062 already powering the KC-46, Lockheed is considering the GE Aviation CF6 and Rolls-Royce Trent 700 for the LMXT propulsion system. The latter engine is built in the UK, so Rolls would need to establish a U.S. final assembly site to supply the LMXT, Frese says.
