Spot on Roland. (I'd say most of 90s to at least mid-00s. A major Cat A Army programme was still rejecting interoperability in 2007). If you study successful programmes in those years the common denominator is we completely ignored such edicts, as far as possible. It was such a gob-smackingly deranged policy that few today would believe it, so I'm glad you mentioned it.

Up to a point. I wouldn't say that it is completely irrelevant, 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 (if not the P-8 and RC-135, then certainly the C-17 and the Voyager itself)

I would include the Voyager, as with AAR it could at least get to the Falklands in one-hop. Not a 'requirement' perhaps, but potentially useful, and why not have the capability to do that if it exists?

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...

Mel, not strictly true. It was always assumed that UK programmes needing AAR would have specified a UK compatible P&D refuelling method. This was the case with FSTA and both AirTanker and TTSC were looking at how a probe could be fitted to their candidate aircraft to allow buddy-buddy refuelling of 'FSTA'. Again the requirement for FSTA to be able to 'swap spit' was originally in the programme but traded out because of the PFI implications. Stupidest decision ever if you ask me.

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.

Interesting then Roly that the USN (the launch customer for P8 and mainly P and D refuelling users) chose boom for the P8.

As the USN now has the P8 in its fleet, is it having to rely on the USAF for AAR, or is the unrefueled range large enough for them to do their job in the Pacific?

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? :\

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.

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.

The P-3 had no IFR/AAR capability.

USN P-8s, like USN P-3s fly lots of places where there is no USN presence. There's no way USN is going to deploy a carrier or carrier aircraft to support a P-8. So USAF has the responsibility to provide tanker support, and USAF has mostly boom tankers. As for the P-3, it has zero inflight refueling capability.

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?

Falcon900, not while the US Navy have aircraft.

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...:rolleyes:

Which, according to certain Oz mates, stood for 'Poms are F****** Idiots!'.

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.

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?

It'd be interesting to compare the max speed of the KC-130J with the stall speed of the P-8A....

2805662,shouldn`t be a problem;more to do with `geometry` of aircraft/length of hose/hi-speed basket.