Re: Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue


Ed Rasimus wrote:
[snipped all good points]

With a modern force that relies on speed, stealth, economy of force,
and long-range projection of power it would be an unusual decision
indeed to return to 1950's technology and start dragging hoses around
behind aircraft again.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"modern force", that would include refueling
Remotely Piloted Vehicles, though I don't
know if that's been done(?), checked,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_refueling
anyone know?

It also says a boom can be converted to
hose operations but NOT the other way
around.
So with 3 booms, one centerline and two
in wing tip pods, everybody's happy until
drogue is phased out if it ever is.
That could be done when the boom method
is computerized, which eliminates the boom
operator, enabling smaller carrier based a/c
to use a boom from a single seat tanker.

Tactically, an RPV able to be refuelled has
a unlimited endurance, and if over a hostile
region can fly back to a safer location to
the refueler, in safer air space.
Stealthy RPV's hanging over an aggressor
or potential aggressor would certainly be
confounding and a good deterrent and
would cost more to shoot down than the
RPV is worth, especially if some RPV's
were specifically cheap decoys.
Strategically having that ability is a peace
tool.

When Ed uses the phrase "modern force"
electronics in 10-20 years needs to be
considered, considering the physics of
airframes and engines is very nearly peaked,
electronics control and cheap recon intel will
likely become a decisive factor.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

.

Relevant Pages