Airtanker
It gets to Type rate a few RAF lads before they go civvy. They go onto a widebody in Thompson or Monarch as a DEC.
"This is a snowballing problem. Rumour mill reports that the lack of suitable candidates is causing some alarm, whilst ex-mil types involved are trying to recruit ex-muckers thereby turning it into a nepa-fest."
Aye, and there's the rub, Mr Mainwaring!
All Mil and no Civ does not an AOC/145/M.G. make.
Aye, and there's the rub, Mr Mainwaring!
All Mil and no Civ does not an AOC/145/M.G. make.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAAF, which operates both types of receiver is ordering the outright military purchase of the KC30A: capable of refuelling Probe and Boom. Adaptable!
RAF, which (in a couple of years!) will operate Typhoon and C130J (2types, probe); and E3D, Rivet Joint and C17 (3 types, Boom refuel only) orders wait for it...
A330MRTT, Drogue and probe only, under a PFI which involves complex bilateral agreements and recruitment of experienced commercial training captains who must sign up as junior officer reservist pilots for the thing to work.
Mental...! Unless of course I am dreaming this.
RAF, which (in a couple of years!) will operate Typhoon and C130J (2types, probe); and E3D, Rivet Joint and C17 (3 types, Boom refuel only) orders wait for it...
A330MRTT, Drogue and probe only, under a PFI which involves complex bilateral agreements and recruitment of experienced commercial training captains who must sign up as junior officer reservist pilots for the thing to work.
Mental...! Unless of course I am dreaming this.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you servodyne,
Good spot and thank-you for keeping it factually correct.
I suspect the faster refuel rate may mean the boom is preferable for E3 ops. (any experts out there...?)
However, I see where you are coming from, but for one minor correction: it's "indie"...
Good spot and thank-you for keeping it factually correct.
I suspect the faster refuel rate may mean the boom is preferable for E3 ops. (any experts out there...?)
However, I see where you are coming from, but for one minor correction: it's "indie"...
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: England
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indie,
You are right in that KC-135/KC-10 boom system can transfer fuel at about 6000lbs/min which is about double that of probe + drogue. However, the RAF P+D crews were far more flexible in their operations which allowed (generally) a muck quicker join up over USAF and ANG crews.
Put together and you are on a winner. I never understood why we didn't order a boom system as well (cost obviously) as we operate with so many coalition partners who only have boom systems.
Regards
You are right in that KC-135/KC-10 boom system can transfer fuel at about 6000lbs/min which is about double that of probe + drogue. However, the RAF P+D crews were far more flexible in their operations which allowed (generally) a muck quicker join up over USAF and ANG crews.
Put together and you are on a winner. I never understood why we didn't order a boom system as well (cost obviously) as we operate with so many coalition partners who only have boom systems.
Regards
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the USAF use Flying boom bu doesn't that cause isues when they refuel USN/USMC aircraft who are probe and drogue?
Which is the most predominant system across the world? and since the UK will be continually working in coalition type ops shouldn't we go for the most used system?
Which is the most predominant system across the world? and since the UK will be continually working in coalition type ops shouldn't we go for the most used system?
The USAF has now recognised a need for more KC-135s to be fitted with wing AAR pods.....
Perhaps the EC-135 Rivet Joint could also have the same multiple AAR systems as the E-3D? I'm sure the high-priced talent would have looked at this.....??
Perhaps the EC-135 Rivet Joint could also have the same multiple AAR systems as the E-3D? I'm sure the high-priced talent would have looked at this.....??
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the EC-135 Rivet Joint could also have the same multiple AAR systems as the E-3D? I'm sure the high-priced talent would have looked at this.....??
With respect, why would we adapt one legacy airframe to fit the RAF version of the KC30 instead of adapting our order of the new KC30 (proven a la Aussies) to fit multiple multinational receiver types with a greater refuel rate???
Pplease educate me... I've given up guessing!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure the problem of not having a boom system could b e solved quickly enough if the aircraft was RAF owned but with the crazy PFI system that we are stuck with for 20 odd years, well!!!!
3 Rivet Joints to have probes, or some 9 Voyagers to have booms - do the sums!
The greater onload rate is only significant for very large receivers. As a boom can only do one fighter at a time, the offload rate of a boom becomes less significant once multiple receivers need refuelling due to the time needed for formation management and contact / disconnect procedures. The cycle time of 4 Tornados needing 4000 kg each is probably quicker than 4 F-15s needing 8800 lb each.
It seems that the USN thought that 'large receivers couldn't use probes', so they specified the P-8 with just a receptacle.....
Fitting a boom to the Voyager would be a significant and expensive undertaking; it would also have both inital and recurrent training burdens.
The greater onload rate is only significant for very large receivers. As a boom can only do one fighter at a time, the offload rate of a boom becomes less significant once multiple receivers need refuelling due to the time needed for formation management and contact / disconnect procedures. The cycle time of 4 Tornados needing 4000 kg each is probably quicker than 4 F-15s needing 8800 lb each.
It seems that the USN thought that 'large receivers couldn't use probes', so they specified the P-8 with just a receptacle.....
Fitting a boom to the Voyager would be a significant and expensive undertaking; it would also have both inital and recurrent training burdens.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF, which (in a couple of years!) will operate Typhoon and C130J (2types, probe); and E3D, Rivet Joint and C17 (3 types, Boom refuel only) orders wait for it...
E3D, C130J and C17 all seem to do their thing pretty well without them (with the odd exception for E3D vs USAF tankers, but that's more out of convenience).
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Mostly here, but often there
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
employed 330 drivers to kick it into touch for the delights of MPA and AKT?
Mate, you need to get back in your F*cking box. For many of us, MPA and AKT are pretty much the only places we get to go outside of theatre.
employed 330 drivers to kick it into touch for the delights of MPA and AKT?
Mate, you need to get back in your F*cking box. For many of us, MPA and AKT are pretty much the only places we get to go outside of theatre.
As a wise man once said, if you don't like it, leave. Having been out for 3 years, I've grown rather fond of hot & cold running water in my hotel room rather than a hike across the bondu.....You may not like that attitude, but I suspect I'm not alone.
Now, back to the issue of how much AT plan on paying to tempt my fellow commercial pilots away from their boxes.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: An airfield cunningly close the Thames
Age: 46
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kc-10s are all equipped with booms and centreline drogues, so they retain the flexibility to refuel any aircraft as required. There is a difference is the tasking, which matches receivers with the most suitable tanker at the planning stage, leaving less ad-hoc aar as the RAF do. Aircraft are fitted with wing pods when tasked to support offloads with more probe equipped receivers than UARRSI equipped jets.
Transfer rates from the boom are varied by the number of fuel pumps used by the tanker: less for fighters, more for eg C5. This is no different to a VC10 refuelling using the centreline hose, which also requires careful use of pumps dependent on the receiver.
Transfer rates from the boom are varied by the number of fuel pumps used by the tanker: less for fighters, more for eg C5. This is no different to a VC10 refuelling using the centreline hose, which also requires careful use of pumps dependent on the receiver.
Mate, you need to get back in your F*cking box. For many of us, MPA and AKT are pretty much the only places we get to go outside of theatre.
