AWACS Refueling Question
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AWACS Refueling Question
Page 93 of last weeks AWST has a photo of an RAF AWACS been refueled by a USAF KC135. It is being refueled using the KC135's boom.
Is the Sentry the only RAF aircraft capable of both hose and probe and Boom refueling and indeed are the RAF Sentry's the only aircraft anywhere capable of using both techniques?
Is the Sentry the only RAF aircraft capable of both hose and probe and Boom refueling and indeed are the RAF Sentry's the only aircraft anywhere capable of using both techniques?
Last edited by beerdrinker; 23rd Jul 2006 at 10:28.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
IIRC, the French E-3F have the same fit.
There are also probe-drogue pods (e.g. Sargent Fletcher F-16 ARTS) which can be fitted to US boom receptacle aircraft to give the same flexibility. Not sure who has bought it though.
There are also probe-drogue pods (e.g. Sargent Fletcher F-16 ARTS) which can be fitted to US boom receptacle aircraft to give the same flexibility. Not sure who has bought it though.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD
The KC135 can employ a "Boom Drogue Attachment (BDA)" system as well and the drogue is attached to the boom and used for the mixed assets that require this system. Not having seen the photo I cannot comment on which procedure it was employing.
In the RAF ATP56 (A) docs it lists the E3 as a 'Boom' receiver but obviously the RAF doesn't have this capability and it has been modified to incorporate the drogue recepticle for its own fleet of tankers. I can only assume that as the E3 was an American built platform it was configured in its original form to have a boom receptacle.
In the RAF ATP56 (A) docs it lists the E3 as a 'Boom' receiver but obviously the RAF doesn't have this capability and it has been modified to incorporate the drogue recepticle for its own fleet of tankers. I can only assume that as the E3 was an American built platform it was configured in its original form to have a boom receptacle.
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KC-135 and KC-10 tankers are both probe and drogue capable. The problem on the KC-135 is the drogue must be attached on the ground, making mixed boom and drogue refueling on one sortie impossible. There is a mod to attach drogue pods on the wings to allow both types of receivers. The KC-10 can use, I believe, drogue pods and the boom concurrently in flight.
Another key limitation is the rate of fuel offload to the receiver. The drogue on the KC-135 allows only one of four hydraulic pumps to operate, at a theoretical rate of 1600 lbs/minute and a practical rate of about 1,000 lbs/minute. The boom, with four pumps, offloads at 6400 lbs/minute.
In the case of the E3 AWACS, an operational offload of say, 80,000 lbs, would take about an hour with a drogue, while a boom would get the job done in 15 minutes.
Another key limitation is the rate of fuel offload to the receiver. The drogue on the KC-135 allows only one of four hydraulic pumps to operate, at a theoretical rate of 1600 lbs/minute and a practical rate of about 1,000 lbs/minute. The boom, with four pumps, offloads at 6400 lbs/minute.
In the case of the E3 AWACS, an operational offload of say, 80,000 lbs, would take about an hour with a drogue, while a boom would get the job done in 15 minutes.
The RAF E-3D has both probe and receptacle. As far as I'm aware, it is the only bisexual receiver in RAF service; every other reciver uses the 'male' probe-and-drogue technique rather than the 'female' boom-and-receptacle method.
The BDA is a truly dreadful device. I had to prod against it with a Q-fit Phantom (8 missiles, 3 tanks) once without ever having had any dual instruction.... You are supposed to make contact very slowly, then push until valves at both ends of the adaptor open; the hose ends up in a sort of S-bend shape and is highly likely to snap the probe off as allowable positional tolerance is much less than with a proper hose - and if you miss on the approach to contact the boom person is likely to move the damn thing. It doesn't have any hose response system and seems to rely purely on hose flex to compensate for receiver movement. It truly sucks!
I don't think that any large aircraft are cleared to use the BDA - and detcos in Incirlik certainly weren't happy to let some UK aircraft prod against it.
The BDA is a truly dreadful device. I had to prod against it with a Q-fit Phantom (8 missiles, 3 tanks) once without ever having had any dual instruction.... You are supposed to make contact very slowly, then push until valves at both ends of the adaptor open; the hose ends up in a sort of S-bend shape and is highly likely to snap the probe off as allowable positional tolerance is much less than with a proper hose - and if you miss on the approach to contact the boom person is likely to move the damn thing. It doesn't have any hose response system and seems to rely purely on hose flex to compensate for receiver movement. It truly sucks!
I don't think that any large aircraft are cleared to use the BDA - and detcos in Incirlik certainly weren't happy to let some UK aircraft prod against it.
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember doing refueling certification and training for the Tornadoes at RAF Cottesmore over a decade ago. My 135 came back with a Tornado's probe still attached. Not cheap.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by BenThere
KC-135 and KC-10 tankers are both probe and drogue capable. The problem on the KC-135 is the drogue must be attached on the ground, making mixed boom and drogue refueling on one sortie impossible. There is a mod to attach drogue pods on the wings to allow both types of receivers. The KC-10 can use, I believe, drogue pods and the boom concurrently in flight.
Another key limitation is the rate of fuel offload to the receiver. The drogue on the KC-135 allows only one of four hydraulic pumps to operate, at a theoretical rate of 1600 lbs/minute and a practical rate of about 1,000 lbs/minute. The boom, with four pumps, offloads at 6400 lbs/minute.
In the case of the E3 AWACS, an operational offload of say, 80,000 lbs, would take about an hour with a drogue, while a boom would get the job done in 15 minutes.
Another key limitation is the rate of fuel offload to the receiver. The drogue on the KC-135 allows only one of four hydraulic pumps to operate, at a theoretical rate of 1600 lbs/minute and a practical rate of about 1,000 lbs/minute. The boom, with four pumps, offloads at 6400 lbs/minute.
In the case of the E3 AWACS, an operational offload of say, 80,000 lbs, would take about an hour with a drogue, while a boom would get the job done in 15 minutes.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beenthere,
Some KC-135s have wing pod mounted baskets AS WELL as the centreline Boom. In this configuration, they can refuel any commer. I acknowledge that often the single CL Boom may have the BDA (What a laugh it is trying to get connected to that contraption for those who haven't tried!!!).
....just a point of order!
Some KC-135s have wing pod mounted baskets AS WELL as the centreline Boom. In this configuration, they can refuel any commer. I acknowledge that often the single CL Boom may have the BDA (What a laugh it is trying to get connected to that contraption for those who haven't tried!!!).
....just a point of order!
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I defer to your more current knowledge and stand corrected. I've been out of the game a few years and only know my reserve tanker unit had only the center line drogue to attach to the boom last time I checked a few months ago.
The fact remains though, the boom is the only way to go for refueling heavy receivers.
The fact remains though, the boom is the only way to go for refueling heavy receivers.
Guest
Posts: n/a
FR KC10
On a recent visit to RIAT, I had a close look at the FR Aviation, KC10 (or equivalent) with the Cobham pods but with what appeared to be a blanking plate bolted over where the boom assembly should be.
Looked a bit temporary but how would I know ?
Did anyone else have a good view?
Imagegear
Looked a bit temporary but how would I know ?
Did anyone else have a good view?
Imagegear
Ben There, clearly the success of probe-and-drogue refuelling on OP BLACK BUCK in 1982 didn't actually penetrate the redneck media?
ImageGear, presumably you're referring to Global Airtanker Services' ancient DC10-40s with FR pods? Intended to be flown by ex-USAF mercenaries in support of the USN? I hear that some have 80000 hours on them - the a/c that is!
ImageGear, presumably you're referring to Global Airtanker Services' ancient DC10-40s with FR pods? Intended to be flown by ex-USAF mercenaries in support of the USN? I hear that some have 80000 hours on them - the a/c that is!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Image,
The KC-10 that FR are converting is to complement a standing contract with a pair of Irish businessmen who (I believe) are buying 10-12 of the KC-10s, in addition to the KB707 they already utilise for the US DoD. I understand that the single KB707 has off loaded more fuel this year than the entire UK based RAF refuelling fleet. - heresay only, I dont have the verified facts....
The KC-10 that FR are converting is to complement a standing contract with a pair of Irish businessmen who (I believe) are buying 10-12 of the KC-10s, in addition to the KB707 they already utilise for the US DoD. I understand that the single KB707 has off loaded more fuel this year than the entire UK based RAF refuelling fleet. - heresay only, I dont have the verified facts....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pot to kettle
Originally Posted by BEagle
Ben There, clearly the success of probe-and-drogue refuelling on OP BLACK BUCK in 1982 didn't actually penetrate the redneck media?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Regaining Track
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the E3F no longer has a probe capability, I believe the E3D is the only heavy jet, indeed only a/c (I think) capable of both P&D and Boom.
Sentry is cleared to refuel from VC-10, Tristar (Centre-line basket), US KC135, US KC-10, French KC135 and Dutch KDC-10.
Boom is preferred due to higher flow rate (as previously mentioned), however is more difficult for the receiver pilot (smaller envelope = tighter formation required)....However, to maintain compatibility with national tankers, the E3D retains its probe capability.
All CR Sentry skippers are now required to maintain currency on both disciplines, day and night..(it used to be boom only, basket where possible)..although this can be a bit of a challenge with the scarcity of the mighty VC-10 & Tristar for receiver upgrade trg and currency sorties.
Sentry is cleared to refuel from VC-10, Tristar (Centre-line basket), US KC135, US KC-10, French KC135 and Dutch KDC-10.
Boom is preferred due to higher flow rate (as previously mentioned), however is more difficult for the receiver pilot (smaller envelope = tighter formation required)....However, to maintain compatibility with national tankers, the E3D retains its probe capability.
All CR Sentry skippers are now required to maintain currency on both disciplines, day and night..(it used to be boom only, basket where possible)..although this can be a bit of a challenge with the scarcity of the mighty VC-10 & Tristar for receiver upgrade trg and currency sorties.
"....the boom is the only way to go"
Would seem to imply that there is no other way. Which is nonsense.
Hardly surprising if indeed the American mercenaries in their old 707 have offloaded a lot of fuel compared to the UK-based RAF AAR fleet - as it spends so much time in either the Malvinas or various $hitholes in the sandpit, thanks to the simpering little poodle's love for Dubya and all his wars.
Would seem to imply that there is no other way. Which is nonsense.
Hardly surprising if indeed the American mercenaries in their old 707 have offloaded a lot of fuel compared to the UK-based RAF AAR fleet - as it spends so much time in either the Malvinas or various $hitholes in the sandpit, thanks to the simpering little poodle's love for Dubya and all his wars.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by BEagle
Hardly surprising if indeed the American mercenaries in their old 707 have offloaded a lot of fuel compared to the UK-based RAF AAR fleet - as it spends so much time in either the Malvinas or various $hitholes in the sandpit, thanks to the simpering little poodle's love for Dubya and all his wars.
Bad day today?
That's two post with the "mercenaries" tag applied. Why? It is accurate I would agree, but how is it different from your own circumstances? They sell their experience and skills to a company willing to pay them. And that's different from you because.....?
You really can't see the difference?
Oh well.
PFI aircrew, 'sponsored reservists', call them what you will, but they are simply mercenary civilian aircrew flying military missions.
Maybe note quite in the same league as 'Air America' was - or whoever it is who flies those clandestine airliners of yours around bringing happy campers to your torture camps.
Oh well.
PFI aircrew, 'sponsored reservists', call them what you will, but they are simply mercenary civilian aircrew flying military missions.
Maybe note quite in the same league as 'Air America' was - or whoever it is who flies those clandestine airliners of yours around bringing happy campers to your torture camps.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fife
Age: 87
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[
Thanks for the memory, Beags, I had the “pleasure” of refuelling an F4 from a KC135 with BDA just once in about 1972; as pantomimes go it was an unforgettable experience. The briefing amounted to being told which towline to go to and to see how the tanking worked out. The first few attempts to contact the drogue reduced my navigator to tears of laughter as they all resulted in random misses all around the clock. Eventually I noticed a crewman in the tanker’s big rear window. When I asked their driver what this fellow was doing he responded, “He’s the boom operator and is trying to get the drogue on to your probe”. After I asked that he be persuaded to stop doing this the operation went much better and we did leave with more fuel than we had on arrival. 
The BDA is a truly dreadful device...... You are supposed to make contact very slowly, then push until valves at both ends of the adaptor open; the hose ends up in a sort of S-bend shape and is highly likely to snap the probe off as allowable positional tolerance is much less than with a proper hose - and if you miss on the approach to contact the boom person is likely to move the damn thing. It doesn't have any hose response system and seems to rely purely on hose flex to compensate for receiver movement. It truly sucks! ]
Last edited by NutherA2; 24th Jul 2006 at 09:14.
