Refueling question.
- Thread starter derg
- Start date
[ QUOTE ]
So why do the Navy the Air Force differ in refueling techniques? Wouldn't one universal method work best?
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the AF went with the boom method for refueling large bomber aircraft initially, as those planes didn't have the maneuverability to plug themselves into a Navy-style probe and drogue unit......unlike a fighter plane which doesn't have the same problem. AF standardized with the boom method for their fleet thereafter.
Could you imagine a B-52 or C-5 trying to plug itself into a basket that's gyrating around?
So why do the Navy the Air Force differ in refueling techniques? Wouldn't one universal method work best?
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the AF went with the boom method for refueling large bomber aircraft initially, as those planes didn't have the maneuverability to plug themselves into a Navy-style probe and drogue unit......unlike a fighter plane which doesn't have the same problem. AF standardized with the boom method for their fleet thereafter.
Could you imagine a B-52 or C-5 trying to plug itself into a basket that's gyrating around?
True. Especially with the upwash over the nose.
Here's something funny. I made a joke about the old SAC "Standpipe Fuel" to a former KC-135/Minot, ND pilot and he was like "That's classified, where did you read about that?!" I dunno, I guess you had to be there!
Here's something funny. I made a joke about the old SAC "Standpipe Fuel" to a former KC-135/Minot, ND pilot and he was like "That's classified, where did you read about that?!" I dunno, I guess you had to be there!
[ QUOTE ]
True. Especially with the upwash over the nose.
Here's something funny. I made a joke about the old SAC "Standpipe Fuel" to a former KC-135/Minot, ND pilot and he was like "That's classified, where did you read about that?!" I dunno, I guess you had to be there!
[/ QUOTE ]
There's a reason they're called Tanker TOADs.......it goes back to the old SAC nuke alert days.
True. Especially with the upwash over the nose.
Here's something funny. I made a joke about the old SAC "Standpipe Fuel" to a former KC-135/Minot, ND pilot and he was like "That's classified, where did you read about that?!" I dunno, I guess you had to be there!
[/ QUOTE ]
There's a reason they're called Tanker TOADs.......it goes back to the old SAC nuke alert days.
I figured the whole concept of giving a bomber all of your fuel so you could flame out was preposterous because a lot of the "buff" pilots had reservations about dropping the big 'b' and starting the big fireworks show to start with! So basically you're going to die to give an AC the option of starting the big game? Weird. But that's just me.
[ QUOTE ]
I figured the whole concept of giving a bomber all of your fuel so you could flame out was preposterous because a lot of the "buff" pilots had reservations about dropping the big 'b' and starting the big fireworks show to start with! So basically you're going to die to give an AC the option of starting the big game? Weird. But that's just me.
[/ QUOTE ]
You got it. Take Off And Die....TOAD.
I figured the whole concept of giving a bomber all of your fuel so you could flame out was preposterous because a lot of the "buff" pilots had reservations about dropping the big 'b' and starting the big fireworks show to start with! So basically you're going to die to give an AC the option of starting the big game? Weird. But that's just me.
[/ QUOTE ]
You got it. Take Off And Die....TOAD.
[ QUOTE ]
So why do the Navy the Air Force differ in refueling techniques? Wouldn't one universal method work best?
[/ QUOTE ]
A partial explanation may be as follows.
First; Refueling allows the receiver A/C to take off with larger amounts of weapons and or cargo. It also allows extended range/time operations.
The navy [small n] has a requirement for Tanker type A/C to be able to operate from Carriers.This in itself restricts the offload capibilities af the naval [small n] Tankers. Additionally, the amount of fuel needed to be offloaded to the "average" [naval [small n]/Marine] A/C is not that large.
The equipment, plus the extra crewmember required and the size of A/C required to house a Boom type refueling system makes that option a non-player.
The Air Force on the other hand requires a large offload capibility for bomber and Transport type A/C. A Boom type system allows a more rapid [larger fuel lines] refueling.
Rumour has it, that another limiting factor was that the [navy small n] was not able to find enough people with the intelligence level required to be Infilght Refueling Operators.
Further complicating the refueling problem was the fact that [navy small n] pilots were unable to fly formation with the precision required for Boom type refueling. [ It is a known fact that Air Force Pilots are much better Pilots] Therefore it was decided to use the Hose and Drogue method which allows [naval small n] pilots the freedom to refuel by flying in the sloppy manner they normally use.
P.S. I must add for the enlightenment of one of the boards more revered members, I refer of course to he who flys at night.
If it wasn't for Tanker Toads, you would be limited to 1.5 hr flights with 1 weapon. Making you a waste of time and money. So don't knock Toads.
So why do the Navy the Air Force differ in refueling techniques? Wouldn't one universal method work best?
[/ QUOTE ]
A partial explanation may be as follows.
First; Refueling allows the receiver A/C to take off with larger amounts of weapons and or cargo. It also allows extended range/time operations.
The navy [small n] has a requirement for Tanker type A/C to be able to operate from Carriers.This in itself restricts the offload capibilities af the naval [small n] Tankers. Additionally, the amount of fuel needed to be offloaded to the "average" [naval [small n]/Marine] A/C is not that large.
The equipment, plus the extra crewmember required and the size of A/C required to house a Boom type refueling system makes that option a non-player.
The Air Force on the other hand requires a large offload capibility for bomber and Transport type A/C. A Boom type system allows a more rapid [larger fuel lines] refueling.
Rumour has it, that another limiting factor was that the [navy small n] was not able to find enough people with the intelligence level required to be Infilght Refueling Operators.
Further complicating the refueling problem was the fact that [navy small n] pilots were unable to fly formation with the precision required for Boom type refueling. [ It is a known fact that Air Force Pilots are much better Pilots] Therefore it was decided to use the Hose and Drogue method which allows [naval small n] pilots the freedom to refuel by flying in the sloppy manner they normally use.
P.S. I must add for the enlightenment of one of the boards more revered members, I refer of course to he who flys at night.
If it wasn't for Tanker Toads, you would be limited to 1.5 hr flights with 1 weapon. Making you a waste of time and money. So don't knock Toads.
[ QUOTE ]
P.S. I must add for the enlightenment of one of the boards more revered members, I refer of course to he who flys at night.
If it wasn't for Tanker Toads, you would be limited to 1.5 hr flights with 1 weapon. Making you a waste of time and money. So don't knock Toads.
[/ QUOTE ]
Who's knocking TOADs? That's long been a term of affection, Mister....... that should be readily apparent. TOAD's, along with rescue folks, are ones that don't buy their own drinks at the bar, IMO. Been saved by the former more than once.....been lucky to not need the services of the latter so far.
P.S. I must add for the enlightenment of one of the boards more revered members, I refer of course to he who flys at night.
If it wasn't for Tanker Toads, you would be limited to 1.5 hr flights with 1 weapon. Making you a waste of time and money. So don't knock Toads.
[/ QUOTE ]
Who's knocking TOADs? That's long been a term of affection, Mister....... that should be readily apparent. TOAD's, along with rescue folks, are ones that don't buy their own drinks at the bar, IMO. Been saved by the former more than once.....been lucky to not need the services of the latter so far.
ShoreFly
Well-Known Member
Doug,
SHORT ANSWER: Weight and mission requirements.
LONG ANSWER:
The BOOM air refueling method outperforms the DROUGE method in most circumstances, however the Navy chooses to stay with the DROUGE method due to weight issues, the lack of need for upgrade, and of course…money.
The Air Force uses large tankers (KC-10, KC-135) to supply fuel to its fixed-wing fleet because it has a faster transfer capability (8000 - 3500PPM), it’s more reliable, and more easily controlled by the tanker. The DROUGE system can only transfer fuel at a rate of 4000-1500PPM. The added weight of the BOOM system is insignificant because these are large tankers, and the pros grossly outweigh the cons. Also, the primary wartime requirement for us is to offload a huge amount of fuel to the thirsty bombers/transports in a very short amount of time. This is on a global scale, and the missions sometime require secure, non-radio communication through the boom-interphone system, something you won’t get with the drogue, no matter what button you push. So…the AF sticks with the BOOM/RECEPTICAL system.
The primary reason the Navy chooses to keep the old DROUGE/PROBE system is due to weight. The Navy’s primary wartime aerial refueling mission is to provide intra-theater AR for its own unit’s fighters. In other words, the Navy’s tankers are small (S-3) aircraft that take off from the same aircraft carriers that the fighter/strike-packages launch from. Now, while the Navy would defiantly like the capabilities of the BOOM system, their tankers need to remain relatively small to launch from a carrier, and don’t have enough lift capability to launch with the added weight/aft CG of the BOOM system, and then provide a stable platform during AR operations. Also, the Navy fighter/bomber aircraft don’t need the gross amounts of fuel that the AF heavies require, so it’s not a huge issue.
As a side-note, the Air Force also uses the DROUGE system (HC/MC-130), but it’s for our CSAR/SOF helicopter aircraft, and the dreaded Osprey. Those damn rotor blades keep getting in the way!
SF
SHORT ANSWER: Weight and mission requirements.
LONG ANSWER:
The BOOM air refueling method outperforms the DROUGE method in most circumstances, however the Navy chooses to stay with the DROUGE method due to weight issues, the lack of need for upgrade, and of course…money.
The Air Force uses large tankers (KC-10, KC-135) to supply fuel to its fixed-wing fleet because it has a faster transfer capability (8000 - 3500PPM), it’s more reliable, and more easily controlled by the tanker. The DROUGE system can only transfer fuel at a rate of 4000-1500PPM. The added weight of the BOOM system is insignificant because these are large tankers, and the pros grossly outweigh the cons. Also, the primary wartime requirement for us is to offload a huge amount of fuel to the thirsty bombers/transports in a very short amount of time. This is on a global scale, and the missions sometime require secure, non-radio communication through the boom-interphone system, something you won’t get with the drogue, no matter what button you push. So…the AF sticks with the BOOM/RECEPTICAL system.
The primary reason the Navy chooses to keep the old DROUGE/PROBE system is due to weight. The Navy’s primary wartime aerial refueling mission is to provide intra-theater AR for its own unit’s fighters. In other words, the Navy’s tankers are small (S-3) aircraft that take off from the same aircraft carriers that the fighter/strike-packages launch from. Now, while the Navy would defiantly like the capabilities of the BOOM system, their tankers need to remain relatively small to launch from a carrier, and don’t have enough lift capability to launch with the added weight/aft CG of the BOOM system, and then provide a stable platform during AR operations. Also, the Navy fighter/bomber aircraft don’t need the gross amounts of fuel that the AF heavies require, so it’s not a huge issue.
As a side-note, the Air Force also uses the DROUGE system (HC/MC-130), but it’s for our CSAR/SOF helicopter aircraft, and the dreaded Osprey. Those damn rotor blades keep getting in the way!
SF
bullmastiff
New Member
[/ QUOTE ]
P.S. I must add for the enlightenment of one of the boards more revered members, I refer of course to he who flys at night.
If it wasn't for Tanker Toads, you would be limited to 1.5 hr flights with 1 weapon. Making you a waste of time and money. So don't knock Toads.
[/ QUOTE ]
NKAWTG
P.S. I must add for the enlightenment of one of the boards more revered members, I refer of course to he who flys at night.
If it wasn't for Tanker Toads, you would be limited to 1.5 hr flights with 1 weapon. Making you a waste of time and money. So don't knock Toads.
[/ QUOTE ]
NKAWTG
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
And that means NOBODY!!!
Sorry...I'm trying to let go....
it's been 4 years!
Sorry...I'm trying to let go....
[ QUOTE ]
LONG ANSWER:
The BOOM air refueling method outperforms the DROUGE method in most circumstances, however the Navy chooses to stay with the DROUGE method due to weight issues, the lack of need for upgrade, and of course…money.
The primary reason the Navy chooses to keep the old DROUGE/PROBE system is due to weight. In other words, the Navy’s tankers are small (S-3) aircraft that take off from the same aircraft carriers that the fighter/strike-packages launch from.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now that the S-3 is gone/going away... How do you like the sound of having F-18's being your tanker?
But we (the Navy) use tanking to extend on station times or to refuel to give you another chance to land in the event you didn't successfully land the last time... One of the tools/limitations we need to consider in building our air defense plan.... flight deck windows, etc.
[ QUOTE ]
As a side-note, the Air Force also uses the DROUGE system (HC/MC-130), but it’s for our CSAR/SOF helicopter aircraft, and the dreaded Osprey. Those damn rotor blades keep getting in the way!
SF
[/ QUOTE ]
The Marine Corps uses the KC-130 as an aerial refueller in its VMGR squadrons. We lost a CH-53E in our MEU when the refueling hose somehow got wrapped up in the main rotor a few years ago (well.. actually holy crapola... ten years ago.. it's been that long.? it seemed like yesterday.)
LONG ANSWER:
The BOOM air refueling method outperforms the DROUGE method in most circumstances, however the Navy chooses to stay with the DROUGE method due to weight issues, the lack of need for upgrade, and of course…money.
The primary reason the Navy chooses to keep the old DROUGE/PROBE system is due to weight. In other words, the Navy’s tankers are small (S-3) aircraft that take off from the same aircraft carriers that the fighter/strike-packages launch from.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now that the S-3 is gone/going away... How do you like the sound of having F-18's being your tanker?
But we (the Navy) use tanking to extend on station times or to refuel to give you another chance to land in the event you didn't successfully land the last time... One of the tools/limitations we need to consider in building our air defense plan.... flight deck windows, etc.
[ QUOTE ]
As a side-note, the Air Force also uses the DROUGE system (HC/MC-130), but it’s for our CSAR/SOF helicopter aircraft, and the dreaded Osprey. Those damn rotor blades keep getting in the way!
SF
[/ QUOTE ]
The Marine Corps uses the KC-130 as an aerial refueller in its VMGR squadrons. We lost a CH-53E in our MEU when the refueling hose somehow got wrapped up in the main rotor a few years ago (well.. actually holy crapola... ten years ago.. it's been that long.? it seemed like yesterday.)