Off-station refueling, including in-flight

[brabus]

Tree Holer--I hope you are kidding

I don't think he is. A few weeks ago at night the BO (-135) kept extending the boom for "ready for contact" so I kept moving in from pre-contact (sorry, astern...gay), then he'd get on the radio and tell me to return to pre-contact. This happened with everyone in the flight at least twice. WTF dude! Then my favorite radio pile-on is, "Viper 3, cleared to contact." No fucking shit, I just finished and this is EMCON 2. And yes, I got asked for my 5 digit tail number over IC at night with my lineup card buried at the bottom of a stack of mission materials. Unfortunately I have seen this act on many occassions, so I think 3 holer is right on...a lot of tanker crews either have no idea what EMCON 2 means or they're just sloppy and don't give a shit.

That said, thanks to all the awesome tanker crews I have worked with who followed EMCON 2 and actually did things to help us out (i.e. get out of the wx without me having to ask, being flexible with dragging us to where I wanted...yes, I've had crews refuse to leave the track, even though its in the middle of our airspace). Don't want to make it sound like all my tanking experience has been bad, because it has not.

[jrobe]

ARMS is the enlisted career field that updates the system you mentioned. They work at the ops desks in the SQs so they track the AFTO781/other misc record keeping paperwork.

I Thought 1CA's was the career field and ARMS is a system...and then there are SARM-ist, HARM-ist......what ever I'll log it off again.

[Homestar]

Probably could have used the opportunity to mentor a KC-135 boom on EMCON then. If you were refueling stateside against a tanker formation, most likely the tanker briefed EMCON 1 for their formation due to training.

Not sure what the EMCON problem is with asking for your tail # on boom interphone. I think we've established here that it's a necessary evil for the tanker. I'd say that nearly all the time the boom would prefer interphone and attempts contact on it, but it's either is too weak and unreadable or not turned on (I have no idea how the F-16 switches to boom interphone).

[brabus]

Probably could have used the opportunity to mentor a KC-135 boom on EMCON then. If you were refueling stateside against a tanker formation, most likely the tanker briefed EMCON 1 for their formation due to training.

It wasn't stateside and the BO was on a checkride, so I figured let his examiner do the evaluating/mentoring. Not to mention I had other shit going on the other radio and didn't have time to mentor a BO. It was just a single tanker and EMCON 2 was definitely supposed to be in effect. The tail number thing was an unrelated comment to this specific occurrence, just related to the overall thread.

[ThreeHoler]

Homestar,

Can you pass on to your bros that even if they brief EMCON 1 for the formation, if no one ever tells the receiver...they're going to expect EMCON 2. So, when that magical phone call happens between the tanker and the receiver unit...it should be passed that the tanker is planning something different than normal.

FYI -- KC-10s still use EMCON 2 when doing formation AAR.

[Homestar]

I'm temporarily out of the community, but I'll be sure to pass it on.

I'm personally a fan of keeping my radio quiet unless my receiver joins on the wrong tanker.

It was just a single tanker and EMCON 2 was definitely supposed to be in effect.

Fair enough.

[Majestik Møøse]

I still don't understand why we can't just assign gas to the receiver's EOG or EFS and be done with it. Every fighter in the desert is based at 1 of 2 places. The Navy planes all fly off the same damn boat. Looking up a tail number will just bring up the fighter's stateside squadron; they don't pay for the gas anyway, right?

-135 guys can go ahead and use the totalizer; in the long run the ±500 lbs will average out just fine. KC-10 guys know the offload to ±100 lbs.

[BQZip01]

I'm "just" a dumb backseater, but why the hell does it matter which jet took on 14K of fuel and which one took on 22K in a formation? The unit (sts) will get charged either way. So just make a note that 36K was offloaded to STUKA69 flight and carry on. Reduce the paperwork required inflight and it'll make everyone happy.

As for "well, what if lead doesn't show", well guess what boys and girls, that's what updates are for. There's little reason that our respective command posts couldn't relay the info via HF (most of the time those guys spend WAY too much time doing absolutely nothing; give 'em something to do on shift).

[StoleIt]

-135 guys can go ahead and use the totalizer; in the long run the ±500 lbs will average out just fine. KC-10 guys know the offload to ±100 lbs.

That would be great if the totalizer was only 500lbs off. It is generally more along the lines of 5k off. On my last sortie with a working totalizer the grand 7k offload had the totalizer reading 3k. That's fairly normal.

Seriously, the thing is worthless. And 90% of the time it's INOP anyway.

Edited December 24, 2011 by StoleIt

[JarheadBoom]

The BO DEMANDS it be said over the radio before he even knows whether he will be able to see it when the jet pulls up to the boom.

That's just wrong. Not you, but the douchebooms that do that.

EDIT (with a slight thread drift): I won't speak for the other community, but the current AMC Stan/Eval BO in my community has Q3'd booms for less egregious shit than this. I don't understand how this is still happening...

I ALWAYS waited until the receiver was in contact or at Astern and relayed the Tail #'s to the co-pilot.

Same here (but substitute FE for CP) - I don't ask unless I REALLY can't see it, and I use boom interphone as much as possible.

I am a little ignorant about this whole issue but I am fukcing amazed that with all the technology at Air Force's finger tips there is no better way to do this. The exxon speedpass is more efficient than anything the Air Force can come up with.

That's the RFID technology that myself and others have mentioned repeatedly as a solution in this thread. Pretty sure it was mentioned a bunch of times in the previous thread as well.

So are Navy and USMC bureau numbers used or do they use their sq number in front of the jet.?

BuNo is the only thing I need from a USN/USMC receiver. Everything else that some of them like to throw out on the radio is useless to me.

I think many BOs just wait to get it until they can see it or ask for it over the intercom for night/NVG refeuling.

As it should be.

I am only talking to the guys who get fired up and adamant about how they run the refueling and the rcvr must pass the tail #s no matter what because that's the way it must be done.

Fucking douchebooms...

Good luck with that. Most tanker crews in both airplanes don't know the difference between EMCON 1 and 2.

And judging by the number of receivers that I've heard fuck it up on operational missions, not many of them know either.

I'm "just" a dumb backseater, but why the hell does it matter which jet took on 14K of fuel and which one took on 22K in a formation? The unit (sts) will get charged either way. So just make a note that 36K was offloaded to STUKA69 flight and carry on. Reduce the paperwork required inflight and it'll make everyone happy.

Daddy Mac said a few pages back that it matters greatly to DLA which specific jet took what specific offload. Which answers the same question I'd had for most of my career as a BO... but no one was ever able to answer, beyond "it's what's required by the AFI/TO/ATP-56".

But on the flip side of the coin... thinking back to doing FARP training in the other service, I don't ever recall getting BuNos from the Hueys/Cobras we'd give gas to. Or, for that matter, vehicle numbers for Humvees/LAVs/tanks. Interesting...

Seems to me that the crowning achievement would be to get DLA to relent on their demand for knowing which tail took how much gas during AR. It shouldn't be hard to differentiate - the WRDCO gets his info for AR offloads from AMCART anyway (take a guess what the "AR" in AMCART stands for...).

Edited December 24, 2011 by JarheadBoom

[Guest]

Great post.

[GreasySideUp]

If there is no accurate way to account for the fuel, instead of trying to make the broken system work, as a staffer you need to take back to your boss the inefficiencies of the current system, the impossibility of what he is asking with all the reasons stated and a suggestion for an entirely new process. It starts like this - "Sir, what exactly is the boss looking for here? I think this is out of our lane and unnecessary. It will create numbers that are impossible to measure and try to implement a false fix to a broken system using data that is irrelevant and inaccurate. The accountability that they are looking for is in the office of A3xx and A5xx"

When you get told to do it anyways, when you submit your TMT package be HONEST with what you are gathering, the inaccuracies of what they are trying to do and how the process is incorrect. When you present it to higher HQ, don't gloss over the inefficiencies in other departments. Generals listen to staffers when making decisions - don't try to make them happy, use your time to elevate broken processes and have suggestions to make things better.

1st and foremost, if congress is trying to equate accurate fuel accountability into conservation/flying hours realize there is no correlation in a fighter. Fuel has absolutely nothing to do with flying hours in the fighter community. The RAP tasking message is where you need to look. Looking at stateside Continuation Training missions, aerial refueling helps me to more efficiently meet RAP by getting 2 counters on a single sortie but the accurate accountability of fuel has little to do with that. Depending on the mission, I can empty my tank in 7 minutes or as long as 2 hours. 2 hours sounds like I am max conserving, but the 7 minute sortie may be a much more efficient use of the fuel on a given day and often is the only way to meet RAP.

I fly my fighter as efficiently as possible. I use TO climb speeds in between sets, max range to and from the airspace, and max endure when sorting problems. I manage my fuel to cover a VUL and the required Average Sortie Duration is generally within 3 minutes. Taking away tanker gas is going to increase the ASD - I will spend an extra 3o minutes to RTB and refuel to get the same number of sorties requiring more gas and time on the jets to get the same thing done, but that is as far as it needs to go for accountability.

Our new RAP message just came out and it is as lean as ever. With the groundings of fighter platforms over the last few years, simulator training is not a valid substitute and I fly less as a fighter pilot than several 3rd world nations.

I digress...

The only accurate measurement of the fuel we get is at the pump. This is when the tanker gets his gas from the truck. After that, it really shouldn't matter where it goes or who pays for it. It certainly doesn't equate to how I use it. Back to the car analogy, one step further. I own 3 cars, two bikes, a riding lawn mower, push mower and several gasoline powered tools. I take my truck to the pump with 5 - five gallon jugs and fill them all up to take back to the house. I know that I bought exactly 25 gallons. When I get back home, that gas is used very differently depending on the time of year. This week my leaf blower used way more gas than it did in the summer. In the summer, my lawn mower took the brunt of the gas. I know my lawn mower has a 1.2 gallon tank with a very rough fuel gauge. My Weed Whacker has no gauge and I probably spill more than I actually use. If I start pouring gas from the can into a partially full tank, use that mower until it is empty and do the same with all the other tools, it makes zero sense to try and figure out what amount each tool used and try and make that number match to the initial 25 gallons. I know that I got the job done and my yard looks nice, at the end of the year it took 75 gallons to accomplish that task based on my initial receipt from the pump. If you take away gas money next year because my inaccurate math only added to 70 gallons even though I took 75 gallons from the pump - a few weeks of the year my yard won't get mowed. I can not be any more efficient, or accurate because of limitations of the system. Further more I need what I need to get the job done, accounting has little to do with that. I know I used 75 gallons, it shouldn't matter if the numbers don't add up.

In short, if you are looking to cut flying hours even more than the abysmally low amount we already have you need to get out from under the preadator's microscope and take a look at the big picture. Fighters cost 7k to 50k per hour to operate depending on type and which chart you look at (It doesn't matter, pick one or the other.) We'll say 10k/hr for easy math. BFM is one thing I have to accomplish. This sortie has an ASD of .7 and will get me an average of 4 sets per flight. To make it easy and unclassified generic, we'll say it takes 10k of gas from start up to shut down to get those 4 sets. If I have a tanker, with an additional 5k of gas I can get another 4 sets(an additional sortie) and it will only take another .3 of time on the jet. At the end of the day for 2 sorties it will either cost $14k or 10k for the flight hours and take 1.4 hours or 1 hour to accomplish the exact same thing. It will take 20k of gas or 15k of gas for those same sorties. With a tanker, it is much more efficient.

The question you need to answer, if we are operating at the 50k/hr number with limited airframes where total hours on the jet will be a problem in a few years - is it cheaper to get new tankers and refuel during CT sorties to maximize the few flying hours we do have and save the hours on the extremely expensive fighters to allow them to operate longer into the future or is it more cost effective to have fewer tankers and spend the majority of the fighter's life transiting to and from the airspace. With the latter, RAP still has to be met but we will outrun the life of the now 100 to 400+ mil/copy jet exponentially sooner.

Cutting with a surgeon's knife over the accountability of a couple gallons of gas is aiming at completely the wrong target. Finding the cost benefit analysis of tanking should be relatively easy. Either it is more efficient to meet RAP over the life of the airframe including x% of tanker cost/sortie or it isn't. Gas amounts the tanker provides or accounts for is irrelevant in meeting RAP/determining flying hours. When you build those new tankers put an RFID chip, an accurate fuel gauge and a pair of binoculars so the boom can read the tail numbers to make everyone happy.

As a side note, it always cracks me up when I ask the boom for his tail number first when I hook up to interphone.

Edited December 24, 2011 by GreasySideUp

[Notch]

If there is no accurate way to account for the fuel, instead of trying to make the broken system work, as a staffer you need to take back to your boss the inefficiencies of the current system, the impossibility of what he is asking with all the reasons stated and a suggestion for an entirely new process. It starts like this - "Sir, what exactly is the boss looking for here? I think this is out of our lane and unnecessary. It will create numbers that are impossible to measure and try to implement a false fix to a broken system using data that is irrelevant and inaccurate. The accountability that they are looking for is in the office of A3xx and A5xx"

When you get told to do it anyways, when you submit your TMT package be HONEST with what you are gathering, the inaccuracies of what they are trying to do and how the process is incorrect. When you present it to higher HQ, don't gloss over the inefficiencies in other departments. Generals listen to staffers when making decisions - don't try to make them happy, use your time to elevate broken processes and have suggestions to make things better.

1st and foremost, if congress is trying to equate accurate fuel accountability into conservation/flying hours realize there is no correlation in a fighter. Fuel has absolutely nothing to do with flying hours in the fighter community. The RAP tasking message is where you need to look. Looking at stateside Continuation Training missions, aerial refueling helps me to more efficiently meet RAP by getting 2 counters on a single sortie but the accurate accountability of fuel has little to do with that. Depending on the mission, I can empty my tank in 7 minutes or as long as 2 hours. 2 hours sounds like I am max conserving, but the 7 minute sortie may be a much more efficient use of the fuel on a given day and often is the only way to meet RAP.

I fly my fighter as efficiently as possible. I use TO climb speeds in between sets, max range to and from the airspace, and max endure when sorting problems. I manage my fuel to cover a VUL and the required Average Sortie Duration is generally within 3 minutes. Taking away tanker gas is going to increase the ASD - I will spend an extra 3o minutes to RTB and refuel to get the same number of sorties requiring more gas and time on the jets to get the same thing done, but that is as far as it needs to go for accountability.

Our new RAP message just came out and it is as lean as ever. With the groundings of fighter platforms over the last few years, simulator training is not a valid substitute and I fly less as a fighter pilot than several 3rd world nations.

I digress...

The only accurate measurement of the fuel we get is at the pump. This is when the tanker gets his gas from the truck. After that, it really shouldn't matter where it goes or who pays for it. It certainly doesn't equate to how I use it. Back to the car analogy, one step further. I own 3 cars, two bikes, a riding lawn mower, push mower and several gasoline powered tools. I take my truck to the pump with 5 - five gallon jugs and fill them all up to take back to the house. I know that I bought exactly 25 gallons. When I get back home, that gas is used very differently depending on the time of year. This week my leaf blower used way more gas than it did in the summer. In the summer, my lawn mower took the brunt of the gas. I know my lawn mower has a 1.2 gallon tank with a very rough fuel gauge. My Weed Whacker has no gauge and I probably spill more than I actually use. If I start pouring gas from the can into a partially full tank, use that mower until it is empty and do the same with all the other tools, it makes zero sense to try and figure out what amount each tool used and try and make that number match to the initial 25 gallons. I know that I got the job done and my yard looks nice, at the end of the year it took 75 gallons to accomplish that task based on my initial receipt from the pump. If you take away gas money next year because my inaccurate math only added to 70 gallons even though I took 75 gallons from the pump - a few weeks of the year my yard won't get mowed. I can not be any more efficient, or accurate because of limitations of the system. Further more I need what I need to get the job done, accounting has little to do with that. I know I used 75 gallons, it shouldn't matter if the numbers don't add up.

In short, if you are looking to cut flying hours even more than the abysmally low amount we already have you need to get out from under the preadator's microscope and take a look at the big picture. Fighters cost 7k to 50k per hour to operate depending on type and which chart you look at (It doesn't matter, pick one or the other.) We'll say 10k/hr for easy math. BFM is one thing I have to accomplish. This sortie has an ASD of .7 and will get me an average of 4 sets per flight. To make it easy and unclassified generic, we'll say it takes 10k of gas from start up to shut down to get those 4 sets. If I have a tanker, with an additional 5k of gas I can get another 4 sets(an additional sortie) and it will only take another .3 of time on the jet. At the end of the day for 2 sorties it will either cost $14k or 10k for the flight hours and take 1.4 hours or 1 hour to accomplish the exact same thing. It will take 20k of gas or 15k of gas for those same sorties. With a tanker, it is much more efficient.

The question you need to answer, if we are operating at the 50k/hr number with limited airframes where total hours on the jet will be a problem in a few years - is it cheaper to get new tankers and refuel during CT sorties to maximize the few flying hours we do have and save the hours on the extremely expensive fighters to allow them to operate longer into the future or is it more cost effective to have fewer tankers and spend the majority of the fighter's life transiting to and from the airspace. With the latter, RAP still has to be met but we will outrun the life of the now 100 to 400+ mil/copy jet exponentially sooner.

Cutting with a surgeon's knife over the accountability of a couple gallons of gas is aiming at completely the wrong target. Finding the cost benefit analysis of tanking should be relatively easy. Either it is more efficient to meet RAP over the life of the airframe including x% of tanker cost/sortie or it isn't. Gas amounts the tanker provides or accounts for is irrelevant in meeting RAP/determining flying hours. When you build those new tankers put an RFID chip, an accurate fuel gauge and a pair of binoculars so the boom can read the tail numbers to make everyone happy.

As a side note, it always cracks me up when I ask the boom for his tail number first when I hook up to interphone.

The only thing you forgot to mention here is that the tanker uses gas too...

The -135 burns about (give or take...the lighter it is the less it is) 10K an hour. If you put a tanker in an anchor for fighter support for 3 hours (assuming a pre and post VUL tank) you just burned 30K of fuel plus the required offload for the fighter flight.

You now have to include the cost of the tanker in your equation too...If you do the long division on that, it might actually be cheaper to fly more fighter sorties without a tanker.

[stick]

<snip>

DM, I don't know how to solve the tail # battle. Sorry. I do know those who play lead roles often far underestimate the effort involved in playing support roles.

Thanks for explaining why most heavies always want our tail but the fighter guys never asked for it.

As a shout out to the boomers, just realize sometimes their window looks something like this if they got deiced or anti-iced out of that cold place with tankers. My boom worked from that small opening in the bottom right corner and never said a word. I'm glad he didn't show me the window until after our frag was complete.

[FallingOsh]

The unit (sts) will get charged either way.

Does the jet's home unit get charged or does it come out of the EFS?

I ask because of rainbow squadrons.

[Guest]

I do know those who play lead roles often far underestimate the effort involved in playing support roles.

I get it. Totally get it. I'm asking for reciprocating understanding of what the guy on the other end of the boom is going through and why it just always as simple as spitting out a tail number, especially when I believe we could come up with a better system that would negate the need for it.

As a shout out to the boomers, just realize sometimes their window looks something like this if they got deiced or anti-iced out of that cold place with tankers. My boom worked from that small opening in the bottom right corner and never said a word. I'm glad he didn't show me the window until after our frag was complete.

Respect to the vast majority of the boomers (and tanker crews) I ever dealt with. In fact, they agreed with me then and now.

Nothing better than quick flow and EMCON 3/4 across a steady boom on tanker willing to cross the fence, turn off all his lights and drop down to 10K AGL with no flinch on a self plug at night on the goggles...all without a word said on the radio. That's something everyone involved can be proud of.

My only issue is with the guys who go hardover on why we absolutely must do it the fucked up way we do it now and why we just can't find a way to make it better and easier for everyone.

[skinny]

Update on the RFID tags. Words from EDW is that despite the failure of the ground test they proceeded to flight test. In both cases they were unable to get a good scan and the program was terminated. Great idea in theory but didn't pan out in practice.

[SurelySerious]

Update on the RFID tags. Words from EDW is that despite the failure of the ground test they proceeded to flight test. In both cases they were unable to get a good scan and the program was terminated. Great idea in theory but didn't pan out in practice.

That sucks, they can get it to read a passing vehicle on a highway, but not an airplane sitting feet away for a couple minutes. Wonder if they tried a Bluetooth based device; should still be small, light, and cheap.

[Guest]

Update on the RFID tags. Words from EDW is that despite the failure of the ground test they proceeded to flight test. In both cases they were unable to get a good scan and the program was terminated. Great idea in theory but didn't pan out in practice.

I don't believe that. I've seen it work in circumstances more challenging than what this problem represents.

[JarheadBoom]

Update on the RFID tags. Words from EDW is that despite the failure of the ground test they proceeded to flight test. In both cases they were unable to get a good scan and the program was terminated. Great idea in theory but didn't pan out in practice.

My EZ-Pass has been scanned 4x/day, at least 5 days/week, since the program started in PA in '99-00. I've NEVER had it not register the toll (even zipping through the express lanes at 70mph), and it's only been replaced once in 11 years.

Unless Big Blue went with the worst possible vendor for the hardware/software, or it was a shitty installation, I find it hard to believe that they couldn't get RFID to work in an an application that has a low rate of closure and plenty of dwell time.

** For those who don't know, EZ-Pass is an RFID-based toll collection system for toll roads/bridges.

[Champ Kind]

...Big Blue went with the worst possible vendor for the hardware/software, or it was a shitty installation....

And this surprises you?

[BQZip01]

Yeah...I call bullshit on that test. RFID is a mature technology that should EASILY be able to work in this situation. That's not to say that I advocate using it (anything you can't turn to EMCON is a problem, militarily speaking).

Edited January 2, 2012 by BQZip01

[JarheadBoom]

And this surprises you?

[sigh]

Not really...

That's not to say that I advocate using it (anything you can't turn to EMCON is a problem, militarily speaking).

Simple solution - the receiver-side RFID hardware is not powered unless/until the AR system is powered.

[SurelySerious]

Simple solution - the receiver-side RFID hardware is not powered unless/until the AR system is powered.

If it's the active, or even better powered passive (emits when interrogated) kind, then you're right, EMCON would be easy