Re: Northrop Grumman/EADS Win USAF Tanker Award

"Jughead" <whatsit@xxxxxx> wrote...

From what I can see, the EADS offering is longer and wider and is more
efficient. This translates to fewer aircraft needed to launch to refuel
more receiver aircraft.

Not necessarily the case...

In many situations when refueling tactical (fighter) airplanes, the number of
hoses in the air is more limiting than the total fuel offload. With boom-type
refueling, the KC-whatever will still only be able to refuel 1 at a time, and
with probe & drogue the limit will likely be 2. Also, the boom-type receivers
cannot "buddy tank" and pass gas to others.

I was heavily involved in the refueling planning for Operation Earnest Will
(escorting ships through the Strait of Hormuz) back in the 80s. Hoses were
certainly more limiting there than total offload. I'd rather have the tanker
fuel in 3 airplanes than 2...


The KC-30 can also carry 32 463-L pallets vs the
KC-767's 19. That's a LOT more pallet-carrying capacity for a single
aircraft if you ask me.

Replacing fuel with cargo restricts the amount of offload fuel, which can be a
significant limiting factor in squadron deployment and/or transoceanic flights.
Dedicated cargo airplanes may make more sense in some cases, and more hoses in
the air increases reliability and flexibility.


The only thing the 767 seems to really have over it
is cheaper production costs and 100% American-made. Even then, I'm sure the
higher production cost of the A330 would likely be more than made up for in
total fuel/cargo delivery costs over the long run.

Unfortunately, the military has become more and more subject to the overriding
concerns of beancounters over tactical value. While cost certainly is a major
consideration, whether a billion dollars over 40 years is worth the tactical
disadvantage is a serious concern as well...


.

Relevant Pages

  • Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue
    ... Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: ... Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue ... Modifications have been made to many of these tanker aircraft (KC-135s ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue
    ... Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: ... Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue ... Modifications have been made to many of these tanker aircraft (KC-135s ...
    (rec.aviation.military.naval)
  • Re: Northrop Grumman/EADS Win USAF Tanker Award
    ... This translates to fewer aircraft needed to launch to ... In many situations when refueling tactical (fighter) airplanes, ... rather have the tanker fuel in 3 airplanes than 2... ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: Tanker Debate: Medium, Large, or Both?
    ... aircraft to operate from a carrier very well, and buddy tanking goes by the ... boom aircraft, and outfit a big chunk of them with pod-mounted hose/drogue ... I've got to wonder if probe & drogue is feasible for large aircraft ... Hose and drogue refueling is perfectly doable for large a/c. ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: Gurps traveller refuelling question
    ... planet in space? ... Because you needed to get to the fuel. ... This made it possible to control a section of space without having to patrol every square inch. ... What about comet refueling or Kuiper belt refueling? ...
    (rec.games.frp.gurps)