EU Heavy Bomber ideas?

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..

I don't recall ever seeing a probe on a SAAB and I thought
probe and drogue was the "Brit method".


AIUI, everyone but the USAF uses probe-and-drogue (USN, NATO countries
other than USAF, people who buy their jets, etc.). Buddy refueling is
a tremendous advantage for people operating tactical jets, and so they
use probe-and-drogue. The USAF, though, needed (and still needs) much
higher flow rates to keep their enormous aircraft in the sky. For
uniformity, the USAF went to booms for all of their aircraft, even for
the tactical jets that don't need those flow rates.

The Soviets worked out some crazy-fool system involving passing the
fuel from wing-tip to wing-tip for their big thirsty jets, I seem to
recall. Though I'm not sure what Backfire and Blackjack used, the wing
system was for the Badger, I do believe.

No guarentee's on this info; it's based on memory of an article I read
several years ago.

Chris Manteuffel

In article ,
(Chris Manteuffel) writes:
Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..

I don't recall ever seeing a probe on a SAAB and I thought
probe and drogue was the "Brit method".


AIUI, everyone but the USAF uses probe-and-drogue (USN, NATO countries
other than USAF, people who buy their jets, etc.). Buddy refueling is
a tremendous advantage for people operating tactical jets, and so they
use probe-and-drogue. The USAF, though, needed (and still needs) much
higher flow rates to keep their enormous aircraft in the sky. For
uniformity, the USAF went to booms for all of their aircraft, even for
the tactical jets that don't need those flow rates.

Not quite true - the Spanish used boom-equipped KC-97s to refuel their
F-4s, right off the top of my head. I'll have to dig my copy of teh
NATO Air Refuelling Guidebook to give you more current answers.

Buddy refuelling doesn't buy you much, in terms of fuel transfer, and
cuts the number of bomb-carriers in half. It's worth noting that the
French Force de Frappe originally intended to buddy-refuel their
Mirage IVs, but abandoned that concept adn went with KC-135s, albeit
with the Drogue Adapter.

The Soviets worked out some crazy-fool system involving passing the
fuel from wing-tip to wing-tip for their big thirsty jets, I seem to
recall. Though I'm not sure what Backfire and Blackjack used, the wing
system was for the Badger, I do believe.

The Tu-16 Bombers & Tankers used the wingtip-wingtip method. (I'd
hate to see what a hookup looked like - the Tanker ends up as the aft
plane in the formation). The Tu-95, M-4, and various Backfires used a
fairly standard-type Probe & Drogue.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Chris Manteuffel" wrote in message
om...
Alan Minyard wrote in message
. ..

I don't recall ever seeing a probe on a SAAB and I thought
probe and drogue was the "Brit method".


AIUI, everyone but the USAF uses probe-and-drogue (USN, NATO countries
other than USAF, people who buy their jets, etc.). Buddy refueling is
a tremendous advantage for people operating tactical jets, and so they
use probe-and-drogue. The USAF, though, needed (and still needs) much
higher flow rates to keep their enormous aircraft in the sky. For
uniformity, the USAF went to booms for all of their aircraft, even for
the tactical jets that don't need those flow rates.

Not quite correct. Some other air forces also have boom tanking; IIRC the
Turks have some KC-135's to handle their own F-16's, as does Singapore, and
the Netherlands has their own DC-10 conversions with boom.


The Soviets worked out some crazy-fool system involving passing the
fuel from wing-tip to wing-tip for their big thirsty jets, I seem to
recall. Though I'm not sure what Backfire and Blackjack used, the wing
system was for the Badger, I do believe.

That system was actually first developed by either the US or Brits, from
what I recall, and quickly discarded in favor of the hose and drogue, and
then the boom in the case of the USAF.

Brooks


No guarentee's on this info; it's based on memory of an article I read
several years ago.

Chris Manteuffel

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:17:00 +0100, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:22:11 +0100, Robert Briggs
wrote:
Er, since when has the VC10 been a Yankish aeroplane?

(Or the Victor which we used to use?)

Is there a system in place where by they can refuel JAS 39s?
I don't recall ever seeing a probe on a SAAB and I thought
probe and drogue was the "Brit method".

The Gripen has a retractable probe above the port engine inlet.

Ahh, thanks. I have not seen any pictures of it extended.

Al Minyard

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 22:59:49 +0100, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:



Indeed, one reason I give high marks indeed to F-117 pilots on Day One
of Desert Storm is the sheer uncertainty of "does this Stealth crap
actually work?" Seeing streams of tracer and clouds of barrage fire
burst around them, is bad enough: but the gut-wrenching anticipation of
wondering at what point those streams of fire will begin to converge on
your aircraft because you're less invisible than the contractors hoped,
must have been hard to bear indeed.

There were many brave deeds done in that conflict: some we know about,
some we don't.

And some that did not occur during the publicized dates for either Shield or Storm :-)

Al Minyard

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:22:11 +0100, Robert Briggs
wrote:
Er, since when has the VC10 been a Yankish aeroplane?

(Or the Victor which we used to use?)

Is there a system in place where by they can refuel JAS 39s?
I don't recall ever seeing a probe on a SAAB and I thought
probe and drogue was the "Brit method".

The Gripen has a retractable probe above the port engine inlet.

--
There used to be some pics of the trials on the BAe website, but they don't
appear to be there anymore.... Trials were done using RAF VC10 and Tristar
tankers a few years ago.

But if you go he

http://www.gripen.com/4.17aece8f9e5eefe8b7fff2528.html

and select 2003 from the Photo CD dropdown category, the middle pic on sheet
1 shows a gripen approaching a VC10. Sheet two shows a ground static pic
with the probe deployed.

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , John S. Shinal
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Sure, but then the Tornado was designed to fight from Day One when
control of the air was disputed, and it can do so. (The F-15E has a
great many many strengths, but with that large wing it's not really a
low-level penetrator except in emergencies: not if you want the crews to
keep their eyeballs in their heads)

When carrying a typical warload for deep interdiction, doesn't
the increased wing loading cure the rough ride ?

Still a rougher ride than a F-111 or Tornado or other airframe designed
for the job. (The F-15 is a superb airframe for both air superiority and
mid-level strike, but designed as a low-level penetrator it is not)

The F-15E's ride is rougher for two primary reasons, wing loading and aspect
ratio. Even at MTOW of 81,000 lb., the wing loading is only 133 lb./ sq. ft
(wing area is 608 sq. ft.). Aspect ratio of the F-15 is 3.01 (span is 42'
9.75": Aspect ratio is span^2 /area). By comparison, an F-111C at 110,000 lb.
has a wing loading of at least 200 lb./sq.ft. and an aspect ratio of 2.10. I
say "at least" because I only have handy the area for the wing when at minimum
sweep, 550 sq. ft. At max sweep (span 33' 11.5") some of the wing area will
be covered by the fairing. Tornado's wing loading is a bit higher (on
unverified MTOW and area I get 215 lb./sq.ft.) than the F-111, while its
aspect ratio at max. sweep is also a bit higher, about 2.78.

As the aspect ratio increases, small changes in wing angle of attack will
cause relatively larger changes in lift than is the case with a lower aspect
ratio wing. In bumpy air down low (caused by the wind flowing
around/over/through terrain, as well as differential heating of the ground),
every bump may cause a change in wing angle of attack and lift (and thus
instantaneous g loading, positive or negative), as the a/c is constantly going
up and down. These changes in lift will be greater on a higher aspect ratio
wing, causing the ride to be much bumpier than on a lower aspect ratio wing.
In addition, the a/c with the higher wingloading will need more of a bump to
affect it than is the case with a more lightly loaded wing - bumps that would
be throwing a Cessna all over the sky would probably be unnoticeable in a 747
(at the same speed).

Guy

"John S. Shinal" wrote in message
...
I get
goosebumps thinking about the Tornado crews with that Hunting runway
denial weapon - what a nasty job.

It always amuses me to see US objections to the Hunting JP233 airfield
attack weapon. It was originally a joint US/UK program but the US withdrew
beause they did not believe that it was practical to attach a Warsaw Pack
airfield that way. When their own stand off airfield attack weapon did not
materielise they bought the French Duardal (spelling in doubt!) which
required a direct flight over the runway - at a higher altititude that the
JP233! During the Gulf War the Tornado and JP233 was the only combination
used in the key role it was designed to do - keep the enemy airforce on the
ground for the key first 24 hours of the war.

David

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "David
Nicholls" confessed the following:


During the Gulf War the Tornado and JP233 was the only combination
used in the key role it was designed to do - keep the enemy airforce on the
ground for the key first 24 hours of the war.

Interestingly enough, a co-worker flew F-16s in DS. His first combat
sortie was part of a daylight 16 ship that dropped Mk-84s (2000
pounders) in a 45 degree high dive profile on an Iraqi airfield. His
mission was on the first *day*

FWIW I have my "lady's aide" (weapons guide) close at hand and the
numbers look like...12k' release, airspeed limit 550 KIAS with two
bags of gas.

Robey

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Guy Alcala
confessed the following:


The F-15E's ride is rougher for two primary reasons, wing loading and aspect
ratio. ....
In addition, the a/c with the higher wingloading will need more of a bump to
affect it than is the case with a more lightly loaded wing - bumps that would
be throwing a Cessna all over the sky would probably be unnoticeable in a 747
(at the same speed).

IMO this is all "relative"...I remember Phantom and Aardvark guys
knowingly opining on the quality of the ride in an F-16. "Ah, those
guys in their toy jet will get the **** beat out of them down low."

Funny thing was the Viper was a sweet ride down low. On a hot, humid
day the Phantom's air conditioning was often suspect. Not so with the
F-16. Perhaps it was just me, but sweat pouring down my face (and into
my eyes) during a low level was routine in the Phantom, but usually in
the Viper it only happened pulling several (6+) Gs during BFM/ACM.

Robey