Typhoon Trail to Nellis.
 

I have just read a MOD press release about No 1(F)Sqn with Voyager deploying to Nellis. Can someone explain how it took 13 AAR prods for each aircraft during the trail? On previous ac we managed to do it with a total of 6 brackets. Even when forced to route via Larjes we only used 7 brackets. I assume that unlike the Tornado, the Typhoon transits at about FL370? Did they used Bermuda due to head winds or for another reason?

The first 6 were used getting no.3 into position for the photo.;)

When I said 'into' I meant 'just out of'.

The point has already been made-13 prods seems way over the top. I would expect about 7 brackets over the 4 legs. All trails to the U.S. are via Lajes but even for the Typhoon the max level for deployments in that airspace is F280 (ie non-RVSM). I originally thought the article in the DM was just ****e reporting, it seems the source documents were crap also.

Vasco - the reporting is accurate, it's your assumption which is utter ****e. There were 3 brackets between Brize and Lajes, then 6, 2 and 2 on the remaining legs.

I will double check my copies of the route briefs. Where I think the error lies is in the A and B brackets so to speak. For example between Bermuda and Eglin ( under 4 hours) a Typhoon does not need to refuel twice.There would be an A and B bracket published and 2 receivers would refuel in the A and 2 in the B. Over the entire deployment I would expect the reason for the odd number is that on the first leg to it was not possible to refuel both sets of receivers only once before the abort point without needing a top up for the first pair. A plan that had each ac refuelling 13 times would be a poor one.

Have just double checked the article which definitely says each ac refuelled 13 times- I would lay money on that being half of them refuelled 6 times and the other half 7 times for the reason above. Like a lot of reporting, when you know about the subject you can usually see errors.

Vasco,

I can only agree with you. There must be something wrong with the planning or the execution. We have done many trails across the Atlantic via numerous routes. I would question why they went so far south? Was it due to available staging points?

It was quoted that the Typhoons all remained within an hour and a half of a diversion. Is this applying so civilian regulation to Military Aviation?

I also only did trails in 2 engined aircraft (never single engine, well not to start with), and desite STC regs at the time, always insisted that all ac fuel states remain such that they could divert on one engine without further AAR.

If they ever tried a Goldern Eagle 2 they would wear out the backets half way across the Pacific!

South to avoid very strong reported jet streams.

Does '13 prods' = '13 brackets'?

I've heard of trails where the average number of prods far exceeded the total number of brackets, due to weather etc.

I would be interested to see the plan though - to compare notes.

Was it done on the MPS, AARWIN, CFPS, JUMPS, AIRPLAN or piece of string?

Remaining within 90 min of a div at all times between Lajes and Bermuda will mean that the route has to take a slightly more northerly track than great circle. Also, presumably the plan has to be single hose compatible for its entirety?

Even so, unless there was some unusual constraint, 6 brackets seems rather a lot for Typhoons in 2 tank fit. Unless, as vascodegama infers, it actually means 3 x 2 for a 4-receiver 2 hose plan?

Which is what 'another' planning system suggests, assuming 1000 kg min at abort aerodromes Lajes, St Anthony and Halifax, even with 2800 kg arrival fuel at Bermuda and 85% stat met.

Or, if there was a mission planning constraint to keep the Typhoons above 5000 kg in tanks at all times before the final bracket, perhaps 4 x 2.

D-IFF_ident wrote:I believe the geek-speak expression is ROFLMAO?

Happy memories of taking a Jaguar to Nellis vis Goose and Offutt in 1974. We weren't too proud to ask the pilot of the INS-equipped Jaguar for fixes as we crossed the pond.

Dunno what any of that means - I suspect "piece of string" came closest to our method :O

We stayed in the Tam O'Shanter motel in downtown Las Vegas. I looked it up online a few years back and found a website where people were mourning the demolition of one of Las Vegas's "heritage" buildings. It was built c1957!

Indeed BEags-I put the plan into MPS and it came up with exactly the 7/6 contacts needed. If memory serves, even with SHARs it was only 7 brackets from Lajes to Bangor (further and a shorter range ac)!

4 Greens-the southerly routing obviously did avoid the Jetstream but had been planned long before that revealed itself; all US bound trails go South.

4 Greens,

I know that staging via Laajes is now AC Policy, however why so far south afterwards. The route was planned long before the Upper Winds were known.
We have previously used, Oceana, Norfolk, Seymore Johnson, Charleston, all of which were fine. Islands and Island Holding Fuel can present their own problems. Remember VC10 and Harriers!

Dominator

Like everything in life it's not a simple answer. There are a number of factors such as ( but not limited to) maximum leg length for FJ, availability of correct fuel, willingness of airfield to accept, fuel/payload limit on tanker (itself influenced by no of avail tankers) etc. Out Of interest , I tried to plan it on the MPS using the constraints imposed on the planners and short of going via some very cold airfields in Newfy land it didn't work.

Anyone can do this but I might as well:







This one doesn't seem to be official but it's a bit longer:

Vasco

The figure of 13 was as given by the AARC. Is this unusual, much higher than you'd expect, it appears so. If you chat to the AARC all will come clear no doubt.

My point is your comment re the quality of the reporting which simply reflects the info given after a totting up of the brackets on the route plan by the AARC.

RM

Regie,

As a person who has flown for over the past 40 years one would like to believe that the information in a MOD Press Release would be accurate. If those reporting have no knowledge of aviation they should have a "sensibility check" done on their reports.

There is nothing that looks worse and undermines credibility than inaccurate reporting. The media are meant to help not hinder. If simple facts are wrong why should any of it be believed?

Reggie

I have a copy of the route briefs at work and will cross check tomorrow. I am pretty sure that my interpretation of the figures is correct. If the DM and the source document said there were 13 transfers that could be one way of putting it (7 for some and 6 for the others) but per ac?! If as you say the figure is a toting up of the brackets in the route brief then there is the problem as explained earlier-not all receivers do all brackets. If the DM got it wrong that's one thing but the MOD press release should at least get it right.

Typhoon Trail to Nellis.
 

Back in the days when I was involved in Atlantic trails I remember there was usually (always?) a Nimrod providing SAR cover. What is used now and is the absence of SAR cover the reason the Southerly route is now used?

Vasco,

Listen to regie and stop talking like you have a clue what you're on about. Or are you a bluntie in disguise?!?

Regie listed correctly: 3 brackets on leg to lajes on the two and single hose plan, 6 to Bermuda (well 5 plus a 6A) then 2 on each of the other 2 legs.
6 brackets due to the roundabout route to remain within range of Newfoundland divs. And if you've been keeping track of current events, the 300 kt ground speed into 130 kt headwinds (outside the 85% stat met) was not fun.
Jet Stream Propels Commercial Plane Across Atlantic In Record Time | IFLScience

The travelling press were correct though the articles do leave you wondering where they went to editing school. They had full access throughout the trail and were in both tankers.

The southerly route is due to it being WINTER...have you tried getting receivers airborne in snow and -20 degree temps in Newfie this time of year??

But Vegas was fun, thanks for asking :)

Nice to see the Voyager and little jets arrived on time in Las Vegas.

On the social side, this will probably be the last time that 5 Air Engineers will be enjoying each other's company in Vegas and it's associated environs <REDACTED>
It was fun boys, hope you have a great trip back. :ok:

It really does seem to be a waste of resources to train and employ an AARC cell made up of experienced tanker operators, drawing on the experience of about 40 years of doing this kind of thing. Much better just to ask some bloke who did it a couple of times on Javelins.

6foottanker wrote: Mate, why the harshness? I can assure you that vascodegama most assuredly does know what he's talking about - but the reason for the large number of brackets than would seem normal is perplexing. An intellectual query as to why doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

TankerTrashNav wrote

Well that confirms you are/were a Nav. The Tam O'Shanter wasn't downtown but mid-East strip on the site that is now the Venetian's sister property, the Palazzo :D

Yes ok - downtown wasn't quite right - but the TOS's location would have fitted into one of my astro cocked hats as well as the downtown area, such were my navigation skills ;) However it was a convenient walk to Caesar's Palace and one or two other large casinos so it suited us fine.

As the imprest holder I had a fairly large sum in US$ which had to go straight into the hotel safe wherever we were staying. The idea of taking it down to Caesar's Palace and sticking it all on red did flit across my mind, but fortunately I resisted the temptation.

Typhoon Trail to Nellis.
 

The southerly route is due to it being WINTER...have you tried getting receivers airborne in snow and -20 degree temps in Newfie this time of year??

Actually yes. Taking the participants to Red Flag always seemed to happen around new year time and I have vivid memories of crewing into aircraft in the hangar at Goose before being towed out to start. There was, for reasons I never understood a complete reluctance back then to use the Southern Route. Penny pinching I suspect.

Can two fighters air refuel simultaneously from the wing pods ?

Yes.



.............

Yes, I well remember those trails via Goose direct to LAS. If all went well one overnight and only 11 hours flying time. But that was when we cruised at FL350/M0.8. I also well remember the crewing in inside the hanger at Goose (which was OK). I also remember trying to launch from Halifax operating off a poorly de-iced, sloping GA pan in the middle of February! Closest LOX at Greenwood and Nimrod u/s again!

Best trip back was Halifax direct CGY. Missed out Laajes since 150kts on the tail most of the way.

I was always an advocate of the Southern Route in the winter. The difficulty seemed to be to find a single airfield that would/could accept Fast Jets, AAR and Advanced/Sweep C130. I know that after 9-11 everything became far more difficult.

In the Autumn 2014 edition of the Air Britain quarterly Aeromilitaria there is an article on early AAR trials, with two photographs of three Meteors in contact on a USAF YK B29 tanker, a type which was subsequently flown by the RAF as the Washington. This was the first "3 point" tanker, and naturally the third Meteor is in contact on the centreline. Other than during trials I doubt if simultaneous 3 point tanking ever took place in normal operations. It was theoretically possible on the Victor, but as far as I am aware it was never done. Beagle can confirm for later types, but I suspect that two's the limit!

One got in 4s...

http://www.xf90.com/images/R3Y-2/R3Y-2-300.jpg

R3Y Tradewind refuelling F9F-8 Cougars Sept 6 1956

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...ps745fcf80.jpg

That's a better copy of the 4 Cougars refuelling from the Tradewind than I've seen before, GreenKnight121, thanks for posting it and the links.

The RAF didn't attempt simultaneous refuelling of 3 aircraft from the VC10K - wing clearance would have been an issue as would the slower formation movement of 3 aircraft. For the air engineer to monitor 3 receivers on 2 different systems would have been difficult even if the transfer system itself could have coped.

Back to the Lajes-Bermuda trail, I gather that the 90 min requirement led to a track some 9% longer than great circle. Refuelling to less than full, a high arrival fuel at Bermuda, the slow Typhoon onload rate and single hose compatibility would certainly have required more brackets than were used historically - even without the significant headwinds on part of the route.

Is the RAF still using the same interval between sub-brackets for single hose as it does for two hoses? Even though there's far less receiver movement? Another planning system uses 3 min between sub-brackets for a 2 hose plan, but 2 min for a single hose plan - which is rather more logical, in my opinion.

BEagle, As I have been away from it for a while, what is the 90 min requirement?

As reported elsewhere:

Out of interest is the centre hose approved for fast jet use? ( and in addition are the wing units approved for any of the big aircraft?)

BEagle,

Thanks for restating all of the info but my question is, why 90 mins? How was that time decided? Is it the same for single engined and twin engined fast jets? 90 mins would appear to be a bit arbitrary or is it based on certain criteria?

Great picture Greenknight, and thanks for the info on the VC10 Beagle

Boxmover - singleton aircraft preferred the centreline because the faster rate of fuel transfer meant a shorter time in contact. In my era, Phantoms and Buccaneers in particular preferred the centreline as they could take on considerable amounts of fuel. With Lightnings it was little and often - in the case of the F3 very often!

Dominator2, I don't know why the 90 min figure has been adopted. I vaguely remember back on the F4 we didn't like being more than 90 min away from a div when flying on QRA - IIRC?

The Victor had rather a slow transfer rate from the Mk20 pods compared with the HDU, whereas the VC10K had a much better rate from the Mk32s. Again, with the F4 we preferred the Victor centreline as it was so much faster than the wing hoses and suited the F4 onload rate better, but the Tornado onload rate is slower, so less of an issue. But as for the Typhoon onload rate....:\

BEagle,

Thanks for the reply. I also did QRA for over 30 years and far as I can recall the rule was to always stay within single engine range of a usable diversion unless specifically ordered by the ADC. The rules did not say whether you were expected to keep the External Stores or not!

The principal of staying within single engine range was the same as I always attached to trails that I was responsible for. For many years the STC AAR Planning Rules made no mention of single engine range. Maybe they were written by a Lightning pilot since that ac could go further on one than two!
Unfortunately. the two that I flew reduced range by almost a third on one engine.

Today a wag (Ex 101) said to me that the 13 brackets sounds as though 1 Sqn picked up a Harrier Trail Brief!!

Wait for it!!