So to decrease it RCS you increase the RCS of the cover, increasing the overall reflective surface, which doesn’t have any sign of LO shape, which is more exposed to radar than the cockpit , and this last would or would not be exposed to radar incidence…

I really think the golden foil has a more mundane work, but then, on this, is my personal opinion.

Gold film has been used as a heating element in canopies before, I would assume it still is. It also makes a good sun shade without degrading good vision for the pilot.

By all means, invite him over and listen to what he has to say. He will however remain an opportunistic prat.

Fuel off-load is exactly what it says, fuel passed on to other a/c (receivers).

This all leads to the conclusion that current tankers are timing out, rather than fueling out because it takes so long to offload the fuel, Probe and drogue woud reduce the time taken for a four aircraft package by 75%, and allow more fuel to be offloaded.

Refuelling two at a time will reduce time but refuelling singletons will take longer. The boom can taylor it’s fuel flow to the maximum the receiver can handle, most pods will deliver in the region of 2400lb/min and the larger centre-lines (HDU) will deliver in the region of 4000lb/min. A boom can exceed that by a handsome margin.

Granted, but is that a strong enough arguement?

Boom refueling might be best for large aircraft, but for small ones probe and drogue seems far more suitable.

I agree with you on this, having worked on three point tankers myself I do appreciate the pros and cons. The boom was developed in the US for a very specific need from the SAC for refuelling the bombers in short order. Probe and drogue came about when Sir Allen Cobham was asked if he had some form of automatic refuelling system to service single seat fighters. Funny thing is, it was the USAF that asked him.

imho it’s about time the USAF started to switch it’s tactical aircraft to probe and drogue tanking; is there any good reason to keep boom and recepticle tanking for fighters?

Yes, commonality of the inventory. Or you do the same as the UK E3’s, probe and receptacle.

I would assume so Swerve.

Hear is a hint. You can count the number types on one hand. 😉

1200 gal/min is no leap. The KC-10A is capable of 1500 gal/min (not that any receiver can receive at such a rate).

But to put the numbers into perspective…

F-15 receive rate: 3,400 lbs/min (~507 gal/min)
F-16 receive rate: 2,600 lbs/min (~388 gal/min)

Even if one assumes the F-22/F-35 have increased receive rate to 600 gal/min (4020 lbs/min) you are STILL talking about only half the rate KC-X is to be capable of.

***

Wrong.

I have had PLENTY of direct access to PLENTY of tanker personnel (including flight crew, ground crew & on up to Wing Commanders). In fact it is my discussions with them which have ‘shaped my view’ as much if not more than anything else.

I thought we were discussing a KC135 replacement not the KC10. By your very own arguments we should limit ourselves to the capabilities of the 135 and judge it’s replacement by that yardstick.

Assuming the receiver rates of the newer generation a/c is all very well for parlour talk, but that is all it is, parlour talk.

So you have access to tanker personnel? You have stated to me that you have no personal experience with tanker ops, I assume (rightly or wrongly) that you are a civilian. So how do you gain so much access to these people? Do you work on base? Are related to someone on the tanker fleet? Even then how many have you “interviewed”? How many do you ignore because they don’t say the things you want to hear? In effect you are involved in a game of Chinese whispers. Retelling something you’ve had whispered into your ear. Anybody who has played the game can tell you, the message at the end of the chain is always different to the original.

If you think Boeing is the only a/c for the job, fine that’s your choice. In the real world however, people with far more knowledge and experience than you will decide what is best for the USAF.
For me it makes no difference be it A or B, it doesn’t even matter to me which one is in reality the best. All I do know is, that if I were the man choosing, and seeing that such assets will be in service for decades, I would choose the more modern airframe with the greater capacity. That way there is always room for growth.