Helicopter in-flight re-fuelling

[alfred_the_great]

Is there a specific reason why UK Military helicopters don't do this, but US Military helicopters do?

[tradewind]

Here is a clue :E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO0sRWCf9k4

[NutLoose]

Oddly enough I watched this yesterday, some better none helicopter ones..

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ckOaHGMEQ68

[kintyred]

In a word 'cost'.

The Chinook purphase of the Mk 3 is probably the classic case study of this. The idea of increasing the available cabin space by not having to use internal extended range tanks is a good idea. Unfortunately the price you pay for increasing the size of your external tanks is that you need more power to hover and for the Chinook this reduces the All Up Mass, and therefore payload by about a ton. The US use their Chinooks by getting them airborne with a modest fuel load and then topping it up by Air to Air refuelling. The UK didn't buy the refuelling probe probably because of the extra expense of fitting C130s to perform the A2A refuelling. Even had the MK 3 not had the issues it did, the reduced payload alone would almost certainly have precluded its use by SF for long range operations.
Incidently I never understood why SF simply didn't buy bespoke internal fuel tanks that covered the cabin floor to a depth of 18", leaving nearly 5' headroom.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Reworded....you ain't got enough Fixed Wing Aircraft to carry out the mission.

You have too few Helicopter AAR capable Delivery Aircraft and to provide the coverage you would need would tie up too many of too few aircraft.

Sad really, but that is the nature of Budget Cuts and having far too few Resources to draw from. It is a simple question of priorities driven by the reality of tight budgets and a failure to see the need for a fully capable Military.

Ask yourself why you have no MPA capability?

Did the Submarine Threat disappear?

[P6 Driver]

Does the RN still perform HIFR from the deck of a ship to a helicopter, or has that stopped?

[ShyTorque]

The budget cuts began in 1957 and haven't really recovered since. The most recent reason was them that coined the phrase "The Peace Dividend".

I must admit, I haven't noticed much peace breaking out anywhere recently.

[chinook240]

Both the original Chinook Mk 3 and Merlin Mk 3 were fitted for AAR.

[chopper2004]

IIRC, the CAE run Merlin sim at the MSHATF in sunny Oxon had a program written in for AAR missions?

I asked the question during one of our few meetings held there over a decade ago,

Now it does not seem relevant as they have gone to the Senior Service.

Cheers

[chopper2004]

And this first,

Cheers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkayWPUCniY

[BEagle]

Boudreaux Bob wrote:
You have too few Helicopter AAR capable Delivery Aircraft

That's incorrect. The RAF has no AAR platforms capable of refuelling a helicopter. The Atlas certainly could, but guess what - the RAF hasn't included a tanker role requirement for the Atlas :ugh:

[Faithless]

The answer is plain and simple. The Government is ****e at what is does and that includes ****e procurement.:ugh:

[melmothtw]

Am I right in thinking that part of the reason is that the UK does not have a mission set that requires AAR for a helicopter? Most of those nations that do perform rotary AAR (thinking the US and Italy mainly) do so for personnel recovery, or combat search and rescue, which is a mission that the UK has decided it doesn't need.

[BEagle]

At one ARSAG we had an excellent presentation about an AAR-supported SAR mission way out in the Atlantic successfully carried out by the US with its UK-based Jolly Greens supported by C-130 AAR. Well beyond the range of a land-based Sea King.

Of course a Nimrod could have dropped survival aids, but certainly couldn't have done much more apart from acting as on-scene co-ordinator.

Surely the RAF must have thought about Atlas-supported Chinook operations? If not, why on earth not?

[P6 Driver]

The focus here seems to have moved to concentrate on AAR rather than the OP's question about HIFR, which can be different...

[Evalu8ter]

There's no articulated or funded requirement. The Mk3 Chinook came with full AAR capability but most of it was ripped out during the 'reversion' programme. The Chinook retains the ability to fit up to 3 internal fuel tanks which, if fitted to a Mk3, give you (theoretically) about 12 tons of gas - enough for 10 hours or so....fine for ferrying or carrying a small load a long way! You can also FARP from the C130 and, if cleared, C17, not forgetting that the T45 and T26 have both got Chinook compatible deck (as have several RFAs). There's always a trade between floor space, range and refuel options.

So, whilst it is a limitation not having AAR capability, there are other options available. Isn't the lack of Atlas kit more a reflection on the exclusivity clauses in the FSTA contract?

P6 - IFR/AAR have become, it seems, interchangeable. I don't think the OP means HIFR....and yes, the RN still do it (as did RAF Sea Kings I believe).

[Courtney Mil]

Because it's not natural.

[alfred_the_great]

For clarification - I meant what is being termed AAR, rather than establishing the 20ft hover and getting some fuel from the Flight Deck.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Beags,

You mean not one single RAF C-130 has that ability (AAR Helicopters)?

If so....then the situation is far worse than i imagined.

As small as the USMC C-130 fleet is, they maintain a very good capability for that task.

[D-IFF_ident]

Maybe there's no HAAR capability for UK military helicopters because nobody has specified a requirement for the capability?

Possibly because all the UK military helicopters can fly unrefuelled from the East coast of the UK to the West coast of the UK, whereas none of the US military helicopters can fly unrefueled from the East coast of the US to the West coast of the US.

[BEagle]

Boudreaux Bob wrote:
You mean not one single RAF C-130 has that ability (AAR Helicopters)?

Correct......:mad:

Courtney Mil, nothing about helicopters is natural!

[ShyTorque]

Courtney Mil, nothing about helicopters is natural!

Which is why helicopter pilots have naturally superior skills to compensate.... ;)

[ACW418]

So helicopter pilots are unnatural. Hmmm!

ACW

[27mm]

Chopper dudes are weirdos, as is anyone who flies in an aircraft where the wings are flying faster than the fuselage......

[KenV]

Primarily because RAF has zero helicopter AAR tankers. The drogue/basket for helicopters is quite different than the one for fixed wing aircraft and RAF has none. What tanker capability RAF has is dedicated to fixed wing AAR. And I'm not certain but I think all of RAF's tankers are jets, so they can't go slow enough to refuel a helo anyway. RAF's A400 could go slow enough to do the job, but the A400s delivered to RAF do not include wing refuel pods. The UK Parliament appears to be loathe to fund any kind of helo AAR capability.

Interestingly, US Coast Guard (which belongs to Homeland Security and not DoD) has C-130 tankers and AAR capable SH-60s for long range SAR duties. So it's not necessarily a military-only requirement/need.

[KenV]

Possibly because all the UK military helicopters can fly unrefuelled from the East coast of the UK to the West coast of the UK, whereas none of the US military helicopters can fly unrefueled from the East coast of the US to the West coast of the US.
Possible, but it would seen doubtful. It would be a LOT cheaper and easier to simply land and refuel on a CONUS helo cross country flight than to hit a tanker. CONUS helo tanking is done mostly for training, not for range. But for long overwater flights (or long flights over hostile territory) AAR is pretty much a necessity. It's why the US Coast Guard has C-130 tankers and AAR capable SH-60s to enable long-range SAR.

[sandiego89]

It's why the US Coast Guard has C-130 tankers and AAR capable SH-60s to enable long-range SAR.

Correction Ken, the US Coast Guard C-130's are NOT equipped to pass fuel in flight, nor are the USCG MH-60's equipped to recieve fuel in flight. No pods/hoses on the C-130's, no probe on the 60's.

Originally known as the HH-60, but redesignated as MH-60. Has commanality with Navy SH-60's and was technically an add on to a Navy contract, but the Coast Guard has never had SH-60's.

There are a few cases where AAR would be great, and some still pitch to add a probe to the USCG 60's, but it has not come to pass.

Some versions of the H-60 have a probe, most notably CSAR and special forces versions, but not US Coast Guard versions.

[sandiego89]

The Atlas certainly could, but guess what - the RAF hasn't included a tanker role requirement for the Atlas :ugh:

Do I recall correctly that those clever folks that wrote the UK tanker deal get it expressly written that the A-400 in UK would NOT have the abilty to pass fuel?

Seems they feared cancellation/reduced orders for Voyager if the A-400 was a competetor.

Clever lawyers on ther part- very shortsighted of the MoD to sign it. Shamefull. The UK got hosed (pun intended) on that deal.

[KenV]

Correction Ken, the US Coast Guard C-130's are NOT equipped to pass fuel in flight, nor are the USCG MH-60's equipped to recieve fuel in flight. No pods/hoses on the C-130's, no probe on the 60's.


You are of course correct. I had in mind the Air National Guard long range SAR teams which include a KC-130 and MH-60s and ascribed that capability to USCG. My bad.

[StuartP]

But for long overwater flights (or long flights over hostile territory) AAR is pretty much a necessity.

There's your answer. The RAF's helicopters were designed/procured to move stuff around the UK and northern Europe, not to make long flights over water or hostile territory. Granted it didn't quite work out like that...

If the USAF/USMC's entire intended theatre of operations fitted between Boston and Cincinnati would they need/have AAR capability ?

[melmothtw]

Do I recall correctly that those clever folks that wrote the UK tanker deal get it expressly written that the A-400 in UK would NOT have the abilty to pass fuel?

Seems they feared cancellation/reduced orders for Voyager if the A-400 was a competetor.

Clever lawyers on ther part- very shortsighted of the MoD to sign it. Shamefull. The UK got hosed (pun intended) on that deal.

Not as I understand it. To my knowledge, the MoD's PFI contract is with AirTanker and not the Voyager. AirTanker can use the A400M, if it so wishes. Speaking to folks in the know, the option of AirTanker operating one A400M in the Falklands to free up the Voyager is something that has been considered, but I don't know what came of it.

[Al-bert]

At one ARSAG we had an excellent presentation about an AAR-supported SAR mission way out in the Atlantic successfully carried out by the US with its UK-based Jolly Greens supported by C-130 AAR. Well beyond the range of a land-based Sea King.

If it's the one I was involved in Beags, not strictly true!
Two Brawdy cabs (moi captain of R190) sat at Shannon as the casualty had come into range but were ordered to remain on the ground so that the UK based JG's and C130, which had taken rather a long time to get there but nonetheless had Presidential approval, overflew us in a fine display of capability. We could have been at the casualty a good hour or so before them. Don't believe all that you are told in official presentations!

[Boudreaux Bob]

he RAF's helicopters were designed/procured to move stuff around the UK and northern Europe, not to make long flights over water or hostile territory. Granted it didn't quite work out like that...

The RAF then reacted to the change in Operational needs by doing ..... nothing?

[FJ2ME]

Correct that AirTanker contract is not to provide Voyager, but to provide AAR capability, however, its my understanding that the contract DOES preclude the UK from using any other domestic source for its AAR. So RAF-owned and operated A400M is not allowed to dispense AAR as that would be a breach of the contract (ie monopoly) that AirTanker were clever enough to negotiate. Yes we could use A400M refueling, but AirTanker would have to provide it. Knowing how good we traditionally are with these contracts, that would probably involve us giving AirTanker a brand new Grizzly for free and then paying them to lease it back.......:ugh:

[chopper2004]

The Italians do not have AAR for their existing S-61R 'Pelican' like their retied M/HH-3E Jolly Green Giants. Their CSAR framework was the above and AB212 and now equipped with AW HH-139 and will equip with the HH-101 Ceasar (my pix from Farnborough) and probably the AW149 as it achieved Italian MoD certification on the first day of the show.

I think rather than each Farnborough when AW has exhibited either a RAF or a Danish Merlin with an IFR probe - for marketing purposes, I think the AMI are going to go with AAR.

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/AW101_CSAR_4_zpsb5a352e4.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/AW101_CSAR_0_zps278a6cd2.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/AW101_CSAR_2_zps020ea8e5.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/AW101_CSAR_3_zps5f4898c8.jpg

Cheers

[chopper2004]

In my neck of the woods, the local Pave Hawk unit did a rescue out this side of the Atlantic, 5/6 years ago (saw pair fly past my old office in Midlands heading west)

Saw them do touch n'go at the Hall earlier this year, hopefulyl they'll get re equipped with the Whiskey model in 10 odd years. Heres my capture of the action.

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_2176_zps50e5b06a.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_2178_zps99877fc9.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_2192_zps17b5572d.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_2194_zps57324f6f.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_2197_zps7bd49db2.jpg

[SUPER JOLLY GREEN]

Beags posted the following:
"At one ARSAG we had an excellent presentation about an AAR-supported SAR mission way out in the Atlantic successfully carried out by the US with its UK-based Jolly Greens supported by C-130 AAR. Well beyond the range of a land-based Sea King."

Al-bert then posted the following:
"If it's the one I was involved in Beags, not strictly true!
Two Brawdy cabs (moi captain of R190) sat at Shannon as the casualty had come into range but were ordered to remain on the ground so that the UK based JG's and C130, which had taken rather a long time to get there but nonetheless had Presidential approval, overflew us in a fine display of capability. We could have been at the casualty a good hour or so before them. Don't believe all that you are told in official presentations!"

Well Al-bert, below are details of all the long-range SAR's that the USAF have completed using UK-based Pave Lows, Combat Shadows and Pave Hawks so take your pick of the last two HH-60 missions.

14 Jan 1989 - "Yarrawonga", 240 miles west of Ireland, 2 x MH-53, 2 x MC-130, 32 saves.

21 May 1998 - Russian Trawler, 200 miles south west of Iceland, 2 x HH-60, 1 x MC-130, 1 save.

21 May 2002 - "Persuader", 500 miles south west of Lands End, 2 x MH-53, 2 x MC-130, 2 saves.

10 Dec 2008 - "MV Anna Rickmers", 460 miles offshore, 2 x HH-60, 1 x MC-130, 1 save.

26 Jun 2009 - "Pascha", 700 miles west of Ireland, 2 x HH-60, 1 x MC-130, 1 save.

Maybe they had taken "rather a long time to get there" but refueling a Helicopter in-flight is a highly dangerous and complicated activity. Have you tried it? How long would it have taken you, in your limited-range Helicopter, to fly a 920 or 1400 mile round trip into the North Atlantic and where would you have refueled?

Was the grand plan really to transfer the casualty from the HH-60 to your cab once the Jolly Greens were within range of your aircraft?

"We could have been at the casualty a good hour or so before them"

Really?! Could have been where? Rather than protesting that you could have done it better, give credit where credit is due and ask yourself why the UK has never exploited the enviable and unique capability to refuel a Helicopter in-flight.

[Just This Once...]

RAF Merlin Mk3 AAR vs Italian KC-130J:

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh71/vicky10_photos/YK6R01751.jpg

[melmothtw]

Conducted in 2008 as part of trials for the USAF CSAR-X bid, if I recall correctly.

[TwoStep]

SJG: Are they still offering to do the same mission now they have the Ospreys or will it still fall to the Pave Hawks?

[Boudreaux Bob]

It is nice of the US DOD to provide the UK with Long Range SAR service even at the risk of offending a few of their hosts by doing do.

We have to admit the one thing a few Brits really are not good at is eating Humble Pie.....especially if it involves some Spam.

The fact Long Range SAR is a secondary Mission for the USAF as their primary duties are CSAR and SpecOps work.

What we all have to remember is we are all on the same side in this and our Military have different capabilities and sharing those when needed is what it is all about.

I take my Hat off to all the SAR crews no matter what Uniform they wear or what Aircraft they fly. They all do great work.

[SUPER JOLLY GREEN]

TwoStep asked: Are they still offering to do the same mission now they have the Ospreys or will it still fall to the Pave Hawks?


The default setting will routinely be the 56th RQS and their HH-60G Pave Hawks refueled in-flight by the 67th SOS and their MC-130J Commando II's (with the MC-130 refueled in-flight by 100th ARW KC-135). But, just like the Mighty Pave Low before them, if it was an urgent mission that required a high-speed air refuelable asset, the 7th SOS CV-22B could be deployed from Mildenhall drawing embedded PJ's from the 321st STS.


SJG

[Al-bert]

SJG & BB

why so defensive? I wasn't knocking Spam (your word) at all - merely replying to BEAG's assertion that 'we' couldn't. It was the Yarrawonga incidentally, well within Sea King HAR3 range at 240 nm. If I was knocking anything, which I wasn't, it would be the folk on the ground who plan these things. Hats off to all you guys who fly now! :ok:

There, feeling better now? :E (And I love all sorts of pie BB)

[nimbev]

SJG

I believe AAR supported events went back well before Jan '89. I was involved in one such night operation in July '83 NW of Ireland. Two helos, a C130 tanker out of Keflavik and our Nimrod providing top cover/comms/navigational assistance. A Spanish fisherman had severed his foot and been taken onboard a Soviet fish factory. One helo illuminated the scene while the other did the lift. The JG couldn't speak to the ship so had to pass all comms through us. Pure navigational instructions ie turn port/starboard, increase/decrease speed were straight forward; trying to ensure that the Russian crew packed the severed foot in ice and ensured that it was with the casualty when he was lifted was another matter. After the lift we had to provided navigational and ATC assistance to both helos, one to Benbecula the other to Prestwick as they both had a combination of comms and nav failures. All in all a very interesting sortie. Also an example of when having top cover can be useful!

[SUPER JOLLY GREEN]

Al-bert,


This thread is about Helicopter in-flight refueling and UK Forces STILL can't do it!


You reckon that your two Sea Kings could have flown out to the Yarrawonga and back (480nm) with enough time on station to winch sixteen guys into each cabin?! It's probably a good job they sent the Mighty Pave Low, otherwise they would have been winching you and your guys out of the drink too.


Quotes like: "taken rather a long time to get there" and "We could have been at the casualty a good hour or so before them" sounds like someone who was p1ssed off that he was sat at Shannon TUBMIN and had missed the show.


I don't blame you for knocking the folk on the ground who plan these things, they had two valuable assets sat at Shannon for nothing.


Incidentally, four weeks ago today I flew as an observer on a couple of CV-22 flights out of Mildenhall. During the evening flight we refueled twice off a 67th SOS MC-130J. Pitch black, NVG, no lights, minimal radio chatter - that's pure skill and those guys have balls of steel!


nimbev - very interesting! Did the Jolly Greens fly from Keflavik or Woodbridge?


Yes, top cover is essential. All, except the most recent, long range SAR's I previously listed were supported by the sadly missed Nimrod.


SJG

[Al-bert]

Super Jolly G - I know that we could have Jolly, we frequently approached 600nm round trips - but who gives a f@ck, it was along time ago and sure as hell I don't care now, nor do I care much that the UK doesn't have AAR - get over yourself please!:ugh:

[nimbev]

SJG

Sorry, it was a long time ago, but I have always assumed the Jolly Green came from Woodbridge. I know the C130 came from Kef, at least that is where he went after AAR.

[BEagle]

SUPER JOLLY GREEN wrote: This thread is about Helicopter in-flight refueling and UK Forces STILL can't do it!

Correct. But the UK really should have an AAR capability for Merlin and Chinook.

The mission to which I referred wasn't as long ago as the Yarrawonga; however, I don't recall which it was.

There are far too many capabilities which the UK no longer has - strategic bombing, strategic reconnaissance, maritime patrol, V/STOL....and even UAS training has been dumbed down to a few hours on the Plastic Pig when not playing pongos.....

[SUPER JOLLY GREEN]

Al-bert - Calm down dear, it's only a debate!


nimbev - the 67th ARRS (forerunners to the 67th SOS) had HH-3E Jolly Greens at Keflavik (Detachment 14) and the Sqn HQ was at Woodbridge with the Mighty HH-53C Super Jolly Green. The HC-130 tankers did a rolling Det to Kef from Woodbridge.


Beags - Damn right!

[KenV]

There's your answer. The RAF's helicopters were designed/procured to move stuff around the UK and northern Europe, not to make long flights over water or hostile territory. Granted it didn't quite work out like that...

If true, that is mighty short sighted. A force unable to deploy or be in the least expeditionary is very short sighted. I personally doubt the UK is that short sighted.

If the USAF/USMC's entire intended theatre of operations fitted between Boston and Cincinnati would they need/have AAR capability ?Force projection has been a cornerstone of the US military since WW2. The US decided after WW2 that we'd rather fight our wars on another guy's soil than our own. Very self centered of us, but there it is.

[Aynayda Pizaqvick]

Beags, why exactly 'should' the UK have a AAR refuelling capability? It might be nice in a world of unlimited resources etc but I struggle to see enough justification for it to reach anywhere near 'should' level of imperative. The Merlin's can carry either 4 or 5 hours of fuel without tanks; if you want to go crazy in a Chinook I think you can stick a few Ferry tanks in the back and make them go even longer! That is gonna see you sorted for 99%+ of you missions...

AAR refuelling in helicopters is dangerous, requires high levels of training to get qualified and lot's of hours to stay competent at it. While you are doing that chances are you neglecting another skill that might actually get used more often (unless you have more money, people, resources than you know what to do with). There are helicopter based skills/capabilities that the RAF/UK MOD probably 'should' have, but I really don't see AAR as being one of them.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Not many Nukes have been dropped either but a lot of resources went into maintaining that capability. Just saying!

[ShyTorque]

AAR refuelling in helicopters is dangerous, requires high levels of training to get qualified and lot's of hours to stay competent at it. While you are doing that chances are you neglecting another skill that might actually get used more often (unless you have more money, people, resources than you know what to do with). There are helicopter based skills/capabilities that the RAF/UK MOD probably 'should' have, but I really don't see AAR as being one of them.

Being one of the few RAF helicopter pilots who were allowed the opportunity to carry out AAR, it's not necessarily as difficult as some might like to think.

[Boudreaux Bob]

At night on NVG's, sans lights, in cloud with some turbulence....it might get a bit sporty I bet.

[busdriver02]

Helo AAR isn't some magical super dangerous thing. There is a training burden that needs to be addressed, but it's not voodoo.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Always used to look slightly askance at the probe on the Chinook, which is 20+ feet from fuselage to rotor disc edge (I suppose I could Google the actual distance..) with said disc coming down to a very, very few feet vertical clearance from probe/hose combo. I used to think that if I ever had to practice the art I'd rather start on a single-rotor heli where the probe starts from a point on the fuselage well ahead of the mast.

First observed AAR from a trailling Chinook after an interesting (10.5 hour total) flight somewhere interesting-and-still-topical. Having led us for around 8 of those hours, the USAF 53 then turned away and plugged into a C130 - all NVG - at around 300 ft above the desert. A useful skill, and it would've freed up a lot of space otherwise needed in the cabin by the Robbies.

Display of ignorance alert: How many helis have the probe under/inside the disc - none/some/most/all?

[Aynayda Pizaqvick]

I would have said all, but I really haven't studied all the Heli AAR platforms out there, so instead I will say almost all have the end of the probe inside the disk.

Ok, so Heli AAR isn't 'super dangerous' but it does incur a training burden that I would suggest isn't insignificant. And for what? So you can fly for a maximum of 9 hours (crew duty) to a trawler/ship/yacht etc a few hundred miles off the coast only to realise that no one on the crew has done wet winching or any form or relevant SAR training since Griffin at Shawbury/SARTU?! AAR is a great capability to say you possess, but not imho one that UK PLC need or 'should' have.

[KenV]

Display of ignorance alert: How many helis have the probe under/inside the disc - none/some/most/all?


I'm pretty sure the answer is none. You really really don't want the drogue entering the downwash of the blades.

[Biggus]

KenV,

Have you seen the photo at post 38 of this very thread? :ugh::ugh:

[Boudreaux Bob]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZiF-8-srsY

[KenV]

Yes. May I recommend you look closer at that photo.

[alfred_the_great]

AP - or perhaps conduct a long range recovery of personnel. But the UK isn't in the JPR game, and has firmly handed that over to the "coalition".

[Boudreaux Bob]

What happens if you decide to get into another fracas sans a Coalition?

How long would it take you to kit up, train up , and deploy into operational readiness?

[jonw66]

It doesn't bear thinking about.:ugh:

[alfred_the_great]

It will simply be a "risk" that is likely tolerated or treated in an ad-hoc manner.

[Aynayda Pizaqvick]

My point exactly Alfred, we need to be able to do these things at shorter range before we get wrapped around the axles in self flagellation for not being able to do a niche skill like AAR. The UK had a burgeoning CSAR/JPR capability and I believe we were told to stop doing it as it wasn't going to be funded or a role that we declared.
If we had to do something long range outside of coalition then I guess we would have to hope that there was somewhere that we could set up a FARP and do some buddy-buddy refuelling, which is at least something that is relatively easy and safe (enemy threat aside) to do.

[chopper2004]

and forgetting entente cordiale :) with their EC725

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4VW0PbQY7A

[ShyTorque]

Quote:
Display of ignorance alert: How many helis have the probe under/inside the disc - none/some/most/all?

I'm pretty sure the answer is none. You really really don't want the drogue entering the downwash of the blades.


Quite a number of helicopters have the probe ending inside the disk, so the basket goes under the blade tips; certainly the Pave Hawk I flew was so designed. Because the AAR has to be carried out at fairly high cruise speed (for the benefit of the fixed wing tanker aircraft), the downwash of the main rotor blades isn't a major factor.

[KenV]

Quite a number of helicopters have the probe ending inside the disk, so the basket goes under the blade tips; certainly the Pave Hawk I flew was so designed. Because the AAR has to be carried out at fairly high cruise speed (for the benefit of the fixed wing tanker aircraft), the downwash of the main rotor blades isn't a major factor.


You may be right. As for the Pave Hawks, their probes (like the Chinook's) are telescoping. When telescoped out, the probe tip terminates just at the blade tips. This prevents not only drogue/downwash interaction, but also prevents the blades from striking the drogue/hose. In the event the blades droop downward under load, the blades will strike the probe and not the drogue or the hose.

[ShyTorque]

KenV...

I'm fairly well aware of how it works on the Pave Hawk.

As I wrote, I've flown it and carried out AAR on that type.