Also in this day of coalition activity why no boom on the FSTA???
About a million years ago, when the PFI thing first came up, the topic of FSTA+boom was raised with one of the bidders.
From an RAF point of view, I explained that the primary advantage of having a boom was that the wretched bean counters would have to forget their stupid idea of a 2-person AAR flight deck for FSTA, as a boom would dictate the need for a boom operator. Otherwise, it was an option which would include a training burden, both initial and recurrent and was really only a 'might be nice to have' for interoperability benefits, but was very far from being essential.
As for equipping the FSTA for operation in the receiver role, the bidding consortia (one of whom was spectacularly naive) announced that their proposals met the spec - or rather, the Indicative Statement of User Need..
- so a probe/receptacle would be outside the stated need. But if the RAF wanted it, they would have to pay the extra....
"We always did it that way on Victors" mentality initially condemned the TriStar to have an AAR probe. I recall doing trials (in the VC10K tanker) and the success rate / time required for the golden-gloved test pilot to make contact and stay in at the specified IAS wasn't that good. The probe was very noisy and fatigued the TriStar airframe - and there were few operational requirements which would have justified it....
Whilst prodding is indeed the sport of kings, the cost/benefit of equipping the UK FSTA fleet for operation in the receiver role just wasn't worth it. Pity!
Dragging a boom around the sky for the odd occasion when an American (non-USN) aircraft
might need fuel from an FSTA seems to me to be an expensive waste of fuel/time/training in the current era.
If you want interoperability for NATO fighters, ensure they have probes!