{"id":162921,"date":"2026-10-31T03:06:00","date_gmt":"2026-10-30T21:36:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aviationa2z.com\/?p=162921"},"modified":"2026-10-31T02:05:59","modified_gmt":"2026-10-30T20:35:59","slug":"us-air-force-eyes-250-blended-wing-tankers-to-counter-china-growing-threat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aviationa2z.com\/index.php\/2026\/10\/31\/us-air-force-eyes-250-blended-wing-tankers-to-counter-china-growing-threat\/","title":{"rendered":"Largest Air Force in the World Eyes 250 Blended-Wing Tankers to Counter China’s Growing Threat"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

WASHINGTON, D.C.-<\/strong> The Hudson Institute<\/a> released a report on October 27 that urges the US Air Force<\/a> to buy 250 medium blended-wing body (BWB) tankers. Its modeling shows the aircraft could refuel more than twice as many force packages as the KC-46A Pegasus<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The recommendation comes as the Air Force prepares to fly a BWB demonstrator in late 2027. The service must also balance future tanker plans against fighter and bomber modernization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Photo: JetZero<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Hudson Wants New Long-Range Tanker Fleet<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Timothy A. Walton, a senior fellow, and Shane Dennin, a research fellow, wrote the report<\/a> at Hudson\u2019s Center for Defense Concepts and Technology. It is titled Resilient Reach: Redesigning Aerial Refueling for Contested Global Operations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors find that US aerial refueling depends on \u201cvulnerable forward bases and medium-range tankers that could be neutralized.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Traditionally during conflicts, the Air Force has launched tankers from uncontested airfields relatively close to bomber and fighter strike objectives. The authors write that the vast distances of the Western Pacific and the long reach of China\u2019s missiles make that approach untenable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The report says the People\u2019s Liberation Army can already deliver thousands of munitions per day near China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By 2035, the report says, the PLA could potentially suppress large-scale, sustained tanker operations from forward airfields in the Western Pacific.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors add that suppressing \u201cthe forward and many of the intermediate airfields that tankers normally rely on\u201d would hobble critical US operations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They warn that losing the capability \u201ccould collapse US air operations and heavily contribute to US defeat in a war against the People\u2019s Republic of China.\u201d The report expects US and allied forces to thin the threat and keep tankers flying from some forward airfields.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Distance also drives fighter demand. Tankers that must stand off from threats force receiver aircraft to burn more fuel in transit and leave them little time on station.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In one Hudson model, a continuous 4-fighter combat air patrol needs 6 F-35As airborne at the shortest tanker distance, and 58 as the distance to the refueling control point grows. Tankers that approach to 300 nautical miles from the patrol need 14 fewer fighters airborne than tankers 600 nautical miles away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors conclude that the Air Force needs tankers that can launch from farther afield and carry more fuel to the fight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Boeing
Photo: By Andr\u00e9 Gerwing, CC BY-SA 4.0, https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/w\/index.php?curid=148947336<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Medium BWB VS KC-46A<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

BWB aircraft blur the line between wings and fuselage. The design is considered more aerodynamically efficient and has a large cabin and cargo space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The report concludes that a \u201cmedium BWB can refuel more than twice as many force packages or refuel force packages more than twice as far as the KC-46A.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It adds: \u201cAt longer-ranges and higher offloads, the medium BWB can deliver up to five times as many operationally relevant increments of fuel as the KC-46A.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hudson evaluated five designs: the KC-46A, the Airbus A330 MRTT+<\/a>, a medium-sized BWB, a medium-sized reduced signature design, and a collaborative tanker aircraft.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The last 2 would theoretically shuttle fuel from parent tankers such as the KC-46A at short-to-moderate distances. The KC-46A and A330 MRTT+ are medium-range, multirole designs. The medium BWB is a long-range, high-offload dedicated tanker.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tanker<\/th>Fuel capacity<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
Medium BWB (design target)<\/td>300,000 pounds<\/td><\/tr>
Airbus A330 MRTT+<\/td>245,000 pounds<\/td><\/tr>
KC-46A (maximum)<\/td>212,000 pounds<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The report says the KC-46A has performed well in recent operations but lacks the range, offload and survivability to sustain large-scale refueling across the Indo-Pacific.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It describes the A330<\/a> MRTT+ as slightly longer-range but facing similar constraints. Hudson also says a medium BWB\u2019s size, lighter weight and refueling-only design could make it cheaper to buy and operate than larger multirole tankers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hudson examined 32 short-, medium- and long-range vignettes in the Pacific, North America, Europe and the Middle East. In general, the medium BWB showed the greatest performance and cost improvement over the KC-46A. Key findings include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n