barney Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 was just wondering the different ideas/therories behind the navy and AF having different refuleing setups. like the probe or the basket. why not have them all the same so that they would be interchangeable. [ 08. August 2006, 18:02: Message edited by: Toro ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SuperStallionIP Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Because it doesn't work to have a huge refueling boom sticking out of a carrier-based KS-3, or when they used to have them, the KA-6. I would guess that is the main reason, just going off the common sense theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cbire880 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Well, everything used to be probe/drogue. The Air Force made the switch with the KC-97 then KC-135. Don't recall the rationale, but I read an article about the KC-135 being built b/c the B-52 couldn't slow down enough behind the KC-97. If I find the article, I'll post the reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clayton Bigsby Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 I'm just a fvckin' load, but I'd imagine the boom can give you double to triple the fluid flow rate than a probe/drogue setup, which is $$$ on a big plane like a C-5 or B-52 getting a complete fillup in 20 minutes rather than a couple hours... ...plus, in a big airplane, I assume it's much easier to get into receiver position and let the boomer worry about the plug, than to have to fly the entire fricken' airplane into a target 2 feet across that bounces around. And I've heard the Buff is a fistfull of airplane. Like I said, I'm just a load, but A/R doesn't look like it's exactly easy - my pilots look plenty busy. [ 08. August 2006, 21:06: Message edited by: Chuck Farleston ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneedro Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Chuck is right, you get more fuel flow through the boom than you do the hose. Other than that, I have no idea why there is a difference...then again, I am pretty drunk right now!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ill Destructor Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Funny thing about this board... no matter the day of the week, there is always someone posting and then qualifying their statement with "but I'm pretty drunk right now." That's simply awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACCBoomer Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Chuck wins the prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 I didn't think there was much difference. Regardless of USAF, USN, or USMC receiver...the Tanker guys will be equally late, at the wrong IP, or drag you through a CB. Relax Scooter, I am kidding NOKAWTG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter14 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Originally posted by ClearedHot: I didn't think there was much difference. Regardless of USAF, USN, or USMC receiver...the Tanker guys will be equally late, at the wrong IP, or drag you through a CB. Relax Scooter, I am kidding NOKAWTG Very nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest roy moore Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 I fly a tanker with the probe and drogue system. It has great flexibility. We refuel several versions of helos, v-22, and a host of USN/USMC fighters + foreign fighters. All of these platforms take less than 20 k per worst case. It goes quickly enough. In addition, we can refuel a section simultaneously. USN/USMC tactical doctrine is largely predicated on section ops. I believe the USAF employs division ops more regularly. These platforms and section requirements= success for my system. At our pump rate, we would take much too long to fuel a B52, C17, or anything larger than a C130. Even a 130 would take awhile if he wanted 50K. We are a 130 so that would nearly drain us. Until the USN/USMC needs to aerial refuel very large platforms, the british probe and drogue is more versatile for our ops. Most F, F/A, and AV platforms that we refuel have no challenge plugging. Helos are a bit different, but they still have operational success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slilock Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Originally posted by cbire880: Well, everything used to be probe/drogue. The Air Force made the switch with the KC-97 then KC-135. Don't recall the rationale, but I read an article about the KC-135 being built b/c the B-52 couldn't slow down enough behind the KC-97. If I find the article, I'll post the reasoning. The KC-135 was designed for the B-52. That's why they were under SAC together and even were based at the same bases back in the day (Fairchild). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slilock Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Originally posted by barney: was just wondering the different ideas/therories behind the navy and AF having different refuleing setups. like the probe or the basket. why not have them all the same so that they would be interchangeable. Because I don't want to spend hours refueling a C-5 or B-52 via Probe and Drouge. Also the Boom can be used to do reverse A/R and "adjust gross weight" aka dump fuel if need be. /KC-135 Boom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacky Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 I know alot of the Navy folks prefer the Omega tankers with their drogue setup vs the -135 with the iron maiden attached for stability reasons. They definitely do not have much love for their -18s as tankers since the noise level is near unbearable on such a short leash. Wacky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clayton Bigsby Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Brilliance on the navy's part to retire the KS-3 prematurely...But I guess it's nice to have one less type of aircraft to support on a carrier. Unbearable noise huh? Aren't there some buddy refuelling pods for fighters that have a "drop-down" feature? Kind of like a mini-boom, lowering down to put the basket another 10-12 feet below the tanker aircraft. I know I've seen it in old pictures...like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Originally posted by Chuck Farleston: Brilliance on the navy's part to retire the KS-3 prematurely...But I guess it's nice to have one less type of aircraft to support on a carrier. Unbearable noise huh? Aren't there some buddy refuelling pods for fighters that have a "drop-down" feature? Kind of like a mini-boom, lowering down to put the basket another 10-12 feet below the tanker aircraft. I know I've seen it in old pictures...like this Interesting thing about the F-105: They were both boom receptacle, as well as probe and drogue. Bisexual, if you will...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kcip2010 Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 the -135 probe & drogue transfers less than 1,000 ppm with one pump while the boom with 4 pumps running will do about 6,500 ppm. The biggest complaint about the "iron maiden" from our end is that the boomer can't log contacts with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PhantomII Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 Never knew that about the Thud. I can think of very few airplanes that could be refuelled either way. The F-4 is the only bird I can think of that's been produced in both probe and receptable equipped variants. Namely USAF Phantoms and those to foreign nations (outside of the UK's F-4K's & F-4M's) were all receptable equipped, while USN/USMC Rhinos had the probe. I believe Israeli F-4's are fitted with an externally mounted probe that's plumbed into the receptable...an interesting arrangement nontheless. I'm curious to hear more about Hornets (or Super Hornets rather) as tankers.....I never thought about the noise level being such an issue. Is it as bad as you say? How long is the leash coming out the back of the Super Bug? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now