wrote in message
ups.com...
Many tanker aircraft that employ the hose-and-drogue system, can
simultaneously
employ two such mechanisms - and, refuel two aircraft simultaneously.
The boom,
however, can dispense fuel faster than a hose-and-drogue.

I am not sure, what is the opinion on that of this group, but I guess
the hose-and-drogue system must be cheaper, though seems to required
more pilot skills (as the only one to get the connection, with no
operator from the tanker manoeuvering the device).

Also, hose-and-drogue is more, "portable", easier to adapt on smaller
planes (can you imagine F/A-18E with the flying boom?;-)))

Navy and Marine Corps strike packages - often composed of 24 aircraft -
have
required as many as four KC-135s to meet their refueling needs.

The same task could demand 12 (a full squadron) of Super Hornets
configured as tankers.

F/A-18E/F squadron VFA-115 flew 623 sorties between March 21, 2003 and
April 9,
2003: 216 were refueling sorties.

Gosh! It is over 33%!

When equipped to refuel other aircraft, Super Hornets carry only self
defense weapons and are not equipped to conduct attack operations.

Not the whole truth, I think. Some Super Hornets can carry an AGM-65
Maverick when flying RTKR/SSC missions. But I guess that due to the
small space between outboard and mid weapon stations the number of fuel
tanks then must be reduced to 3 (2 tanks + ARS, to be exact)??? Could
somebody confirm that?

Best regards,
Jacek Zemlo


One thing to keep in mind. When your in the middle of the Pacific with no
ship or island to land on, and you need fuel, who do you want to depend on?
The guy flying the boom who may be having a bad day, or do you want to
depend on your own skills? (After all you have told everybody in every club
from Cubi Point to Naples, and all over the world that you are the greatest
fighter pilot that ever flew!). All kidding aside, I am sure that the guys
flying the boom are dedicated professionals, but the guy in the cockpit has
a little more motivation to get it right.