Re: Northrop Grumman/EADS Win USAF Tanker Award

"John Weiss" <jrweiss98155NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:4rmdnY82T8ksZ1fanZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx:

"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...

This is easily the best "opinion" I've seen thus far on why the 767 would
have been a better choice. We've all seen plenty of ambiguous "Airbus
sucks" type posts already. Whatever the case, point well taken!

But FWIW, the KC-30 will have what is essentially a MPRS system included
(wing drogue pods). If anything, fighter aircraft (if not others as well)
can always be modded to be hose-and-drogue receiver capable later. I
would imagine this is exactly why the Brits are so known for using the
hose-and-drogue system on their aircraft.

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.

Quite often, the trans-oceanic flights include helping fighters to make
it across without stopping. How many heavies have you seen that need help
getting across the pond? Not even C-130E's need help getting across. When
we're only talking about giving 5,000-10,000lbs of gas to a 4-ship of
fighters along the way, I'm less likely to believe that adding more cargo
is going to be as much of a concern as many might think. Also, with all
that cargo-carrying capacity, a KC-45 unit might well be capable of self-
supporting their own deployment without the need of assistance from C-5's
and/or C-17's (which already are high in demand).
.

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: 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: Northrop Grumman/EADS Win USAF Tanker Award
    ... This translates to fewer aircraft needed to launch to refuel ... In many situations when refueling tactical airplanes, ... hoses in the air is more limiting than the total fuel offload. ... is cheaper production costs and 100% American-made. ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: Missing the Tigershark
    ... The mass production cheap fighter proposed in the 1980s was a no-go ... Actually you are thinking Tiger II not F-20 b/c its first flight was in ... contenders for an FMS aircraft. ... are so good that they deter the threat and you don't have to use them. ...
    (rec.aviation.military)