Britain's Air to Air Refuelling Capability
In procurement in the late 90s/early 00s Defence was not allowed to buy stuff that provided "interoperability" (fortunately common sense has now prevailed and interoperability needs to be considered).
The P8 argument is completely irrelevant as it was not In the procurement equation and therefore irrelevant to the boom v drogue argument.
What are the 5 large aircraft you refer to? I can only think of P8, Rivet-joint and C-17, I don't include Voyager in this as its not really a requirement! The Hercules, A400 and Sentry all use drogue.
The Sentry uses both methods, though it is my understanding that it uses the boom from USAF tankers more often than it uses the hose. I stand ready to be corrected on that though...
as it would have been known that receptacle-equipped aircraft existed and that there was a chance that the RAF would at some point over the 27-year FSTA private finance agreement perhaps acquire and need to refuel such equipped platforms
C-17 wasn't in the equation as they were only leased and supposed to be an interim capability.
Interesting background there Roland. I imagine that Nimrod XV230 probably had an unforeseen effect on previously laid plans to adapt future aircraft with probes and the associated plumbing, no?
Mel. Not sure it changed anything at the time of FSTA (everything that needed AAR had a plan for P&D (MRA4, Nim R1, C-130 J & K, E-3 (as well as Tornado, Typhoon and JSF)) but nowadays...........
That said, I see no reason why any aircraft couldn't be fitted with a probe (particularly if they already have an AAR system (RC-135 and P-8)), it just depends on how much you want to spend on D&D and OT&E etc.
That said, I see no reason why any aircraft couldn't be fitted with a probe (particularly if they already have an AAR system (RC-135 and P-8)), it just depends on how much you want to spend on D&D and OT&E etc.
vascodegama, surely the USN preferred to have the full range of USAF tankers available for the P-8 rather than just the KC-10A?
How goes the Voyager Mystery Planning Sh*te?
How goes the Voyager Mystery Planning Sh*te?
Plus of course (eventually!) the 176 KC46 and the follow on KCY and KCZ programmes. It would be interesting to see what the motive behind boom AAR was for the P8 or is it a case of that is what the P3 had.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Vasco, no, one only
https://airrefuelingarchive.wordpres...ion-refueling/
Remember though that boom refuelling helicopters would be a gift tricky so that is something we could do. - if we had suitable helicopters.
https://airrefuelingarchive.wordpres...ion-refueling/
Remember though that boom refuelling helicopters would be a gift tricky so that is something we could do. - if we had suitable helicopters.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting to see what the motive behind boom AAR was for the P8 or is it a case of that is what the P3 had.
A word which I have yet to spot in this thread is 'convergence'. Does it not make sense to be heading on a convergent path with our allies when it comes to procurement? I can accept that the P 8 wasn't on the horizon when the procurement decision for the tankers was made, but is it really sensible to persist in ploughing a divergent furrow? Are we not in danger of being in a minority of 1 with drogue?
Simple answer is that we now operate in a coalition scenario mostly. RAAF KC-30's are fitted with both as we have them deployed to the sandpit and refuel all and sundry as tasked. Makes you wonder why the RAF didn't follow suit initially. You also have C-17's with ARB...we have cleared the KC-30/C-17 ARB
TBM-legend wrote:
Because the UK went for a PFI solution...
Which, according to certain Oz mates, stood for 'Poms are F****** Idiots!'.
Makes you wonder why the RAF didn't follow suit initially.
Which, according to certain Oz mates, stood for 'Poms are F****** Idiots!'.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Falcon, are you suggesting drogue and boom fit?
Twin capability is definitely nice to have but as someone said above, pre-82 no one on Nimrods was clamouring for AAR. Boom may have advantages but it cannot replace drogue for all AAR.
Twin capability is definitely nice to have but as someone said above, pre-82 no one on Nimrods was clamouring for AAR. Boom may have advantages but it cannot replace drogue for all AAR.
Re boom receptacle on the P-8, how easy would it be for a probe equipped Poseidon to take on fuel from a KC-130, which after all is USN's primary tanker, anyway?
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2805662,shouldn`t be a problem;more to do with `geometry` of aircraft/length of hose/hi-speed basket.