I didn’t see that statement you’re referencing. I saw somebody ask about fuel transfer rates (a very valid question) and then you ran to the defense of P&D refueling.

Post #40:

Yet somehow, hose-and-drogue refuelling isn’t even seriously considered

Seriously, Anyone have the fuel flow comparisons between boom and H&D?

Rather sweeping by implication…;)

P&D isn’t perfect, sorry.

I never said it was. In fact, IIRC, I think I may well have just been quoted in you last post as saying “no system’s perfect“.

Of course, as you correctly state, the boom is better suited to the USAF, but of course the USAF’s KC-X (and Y and Z ad infinitum) will have to cater for the needs of “prodders” such as the USN, USMC, RAF, FAF etc…:) – and have “WARPS” properly integrated from the start.

but they are not as widespread as you’d like them to appear.

Logan, I was probably a bit harsh saying that. Sorry.:)

Seriously, Anyone have the fuel flow comparisons between boom and H&D?

Yep, but by the fact that for fast jet receivers you can do two at once, extra fuel flow provided by the boom makes it just about equal – the boom would still complete the fuel transfer a little quicker, but due to the extra manoeuvring by the receiver aircraft required behind the tanker (as both can move simultaneously behind a two drogues, and if they’re good you can get two plugged in on the hoses within 20 seconds or so), this advantage is also negated to an extent.

P&D, unless on a single hose equipped KC10 or a BDA equipped 135 will also offer more redundancy, as invariably the tanker will have more than one available, so there’s less chance of having to refrag the plot should one hose go u/s. If the boom doesn’t play, it’s a very expensive “game over” for that sortie, and then you’re looking for the boys and girls with spare gas!

So actually, for fast jet receivers (who are also often limited by their internal pipework as to their flow rate – the Typhoon for example will often take fuel slower than Harriers and Tornados at it’s computers decide where it’s going), boom v P&D is much of a muchness. For large receivers, there is probably little doubt the boom will always win hands down, but then again, it isn’t as fun as seeing a large airliner lunging for a drogue!

Certainly….but that works only if the USAF wants more of the same.
It may want a larger or smaller airframe. Airlines show us that operating costs and the right size aircraft for the job is more important than fleet commonality. Otherwise, BA would fly 777s for every route!:D

Tanker operations are slightly different though to airlines. An airliner will be the correct size for the pax carried, but more pertinently will only take the necessary fuel required to keep the costs down.

With a tanker fleet you generally want to have as much fuel on board as possible within the bounds of the aircraft’s certification, because fuel “in the bowser” is ultimately useless when your little friends are hurting for gas.

If this were a competition for a KC-10 replacement, then I would certainly believe that the A330 was the aircraft for the job. Although it doesn’t carry quite as much fuel as the KC-10, it is still far larger than is necessary for a KC-135 replacement.

However, playing devil’s advocate, using foresight (a capability surgically removed from a high percentage of military officers at the basic training stage!:D) one could argue the selection of the larger tanker could entirely negate the need for a future competition (and, judging by this one, several years of moving goalposts, political infighting, a dodgy dealing on all sides) to replace the KC-10, by either extending numbers the KC-X order at a later date, or by a refining of the required capability. Then of course you’d only need the engineering and logistical setup for one type too.

Your points are all valid though.:)

Around the Falklands can be found …

… 1 Tristar Tanker,

Not been one of them there for a long time.:)

Which reminds me: does anyone know if the Sentinel has any air-air capability? I know it’s designed for battlefield surveillance.

I don’t think it needs it – one of the reasons the Global Express was chosen in the first place.

If you can get more booms in the air with a smaller, cheaper, SLIGHTLY less capable a/c…..then so be it.

You’ll get the same number of booms in the air with both.:)

the -135 and flew with plenty of guys who had green ink dating back to GW #1. One of the chief constraints they mentioned was there were never enough booms in the air, but almost every mission they flew they brought lots of gas home.

There’s a solution to that – get the USN and USMC hierarchy to convince the USAF to go probe and drogue on their fighter assets. Yes, the individual transfer will be slower, but you can do two at a time.:D

I suspect it’d be fifty years too late though!:)

On a serious point though, it’s better to have the luxury of being able take gas back home off the area, than to find you haven’t got enough of it. You very rarely here of a KC-10 with a negative frag, but I’ve heard it from -135s (and other “smaller” coalition tanker aircraft). With the number of tankers being procured, with the basing options available (certainly in the near and middle distance future) I suspect wouldn’t be a big push factor either way.:)