If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
How do you refuel an Air Force F35-B?
USAF to Purchase Marines’ Vertical-Lift Fighter
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articl...0,656,164,2407 Note the lift fan on the F-35B where the F-35A refueling-boom socket goes. http://globalsecurity.org/military/s...craft/f-35.htm So you need a KC-135R or KC-767 to refuel a F-35B, and the KC-767 can only refuel one of these short ranged fighters at a time and only from a safe distance to keep the airliner out of harm's way. Perhaps USMC KC-130Js will go back to fill up from the AF KC-767s then forwards to refuel AF F-35Bs? ;-) -HJC |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 14:36:04 -0700, Henry J Cobb wrote:
USAF to Purchase Marines’ Vertical-Lift Fighter http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articl...0,656,164,2407 Note the lift fan on the F-35B where the F-35A refueling-boom socket goes. http://globalsecurity.org/military/s...craft/f-35.htm So you need a KC-135R or KC-767 to refuel a F-35B, and the KC-767 can only refuel one of these short ranged fighters at a time and only from a safe distance to keep the airliner out of harm's way. If they ever bought the KC-767 why couldn't they outfit it with two under-wing refueling drouge systems? It's not like it's never been done before. Perhaps USMC KC-130Js will go back to fill up from the AF KC-767s then forwards to refuel AF F-35Bs? ;-) -HJC |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Ferrin wrote:
If they ever bought the KC-767 why couldn't they outfit it with two under-wing refueling drouge systems? It's not like it's never been done before. http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32056.pdf The ORD requires, for example, that the KC-135's replacement be able to refuel two aircraft simultaneously with the hose-and-drogue system. The KC-767 variant being considered in this lease cannot satisfy this requirement. It can only refuel one aircraft at a time with the hose-and-drogue which considerably reduces, opponents say, its operational capabilities. http://www.afa.org/magazine/aug2003/0803tankers.asp Though USAF wanted plumbing in the wings for wingtip probe-and-drogue refueling, to lower cost, it dropped the requirement. The aircraft will have both a boom-type refueling system and a probe-and-drogue, both on the centerline. http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...767/specs.html Probe and drogue refuelling Wingpods and a centre-line hose But the *-technology.com sites are often wrong. Writing to them does help as they've changed the CIWS to RAM after I notified them. http://www.naval-technology.com/proj...d17/index.html -HJC |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Henry J Cobb" wrote:
USAF to Purchase Marines’ Vertical-Lift Fighter http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articl...0,656,164,2407 Note the lift fan on the F-35B where the F-35A refueling-boom socket goes. http://globalsecurity.org/military/s...craft/f-35.htm So you need a KC-135R or KC-767 to refuel a F-35B, The KC-10 works - the KC-767 is still on hold. and the KC-767 can only refuel one of these short ranged fighters at a time and only from a safe distance to keep the airliner out of harm's way. How many USAF fighters do you think get refueled at a time when an operator guides the only boom on the tanker into the aircraft being refueled. The only significant difference would be a 50% reduction in fuel transfer rate. Perhaps USMC KC-130Js will go back to fill up from the AF KC-767s then forwards to refuel AF F-35Bs? ;-) Or add two extra hose and drogue systems to the wing of new build (or modified/updated) tankers -HJC |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Henry J Cobb wrote:
USAF to Purchase Marines’ Vertical-Lift Fighter I would imagine that the USAF's only reason for purchase of VTO F-35s would be forward-basing of them close to the battle area, where in-flight refueling needs are considerably lessened. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote:
Henry J Cobb wrote: USAF to Purchase Marines' Vertical-Lift Fighter I would imagine that the USAF's only reason for purchase of VTO F-35s would be forward-basing of them close to the battle area, where in-flight refueling needs are considerably lessened. They are if your supply train can put a large quanties of fuel close to the front line... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
And the ordnance, force protection personnel and equipment, aircraft support
equipment, food/water, etc etc etc.... The forward basing "feature" of the VSTOL is way oversold (IMHO) Mark "Brett" wrote in message ... "Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote: Henry J Cobb wrote: USAF to Purchase Marines' Vertical-Lift Fighter I would imagine that the USAF's only reason for purchase of VTO F-35s would be forward-basing of them close to the battle area, where in-flight refueling needs are considerably lessened. They are if your supply train can put a large quanties of fuel close to the front line... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mark wrote:
And the ordnance, force protection personnel and equipment, aircraft support equipment, food/water, etc etc etc.... Of course - but I wonder if you realize that a standard squadron mobility package (18.U.E., 24 U.E) in the tactical forces was set up to contain all of the people, equipment, and supplies for at least 30 days of autonomous operations? (With the very low munitions capacity of today's much smaller fighters, it should be even easier to transport the required munitions - almost always the largest tonnage component of the package.) Besides - an FOL would likely use a very small number of aircraft (4? 6 to include spares?) for a very short time, measured in days - before moving on to a different location; perhaps swapped out with fresh aircraft/personnel/supplies from the more-rearward located base.) The forward basing "feature" of the VSTOL is way oversold (IMHO) Perhaps. It would be a new ballgame for the USAF, anyway. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
To clarify my point (slightly)...
If you need the JSF VSTOL capability to use a particular 'forward base', how would you get the airlift into the proposed airfield? It's not so much the forward basing per se.... to a 'conventional' NATO standard (8000 ft) airstrip I'll sign on... send the conventional JSF. But to an airfield where you need VSTOL to operate; the support logistics I see as being a potential show stopper to effective operations. wrt 'been done'.... Afghanistan/Desert Storm... very small numbers; very limited overall impact on capability to successfully prosecute air war (just a subjective opinion) Was is this forward basing done because it could only be done by Harriers, or was it a matter that it so-happened to be Harriers. Was it an operational imperative or an opportunity seized by USMC to "show their stuff"?? I see a difference. Mark "Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message ... Mark wrote: And the ordnance, force protection personnel and equipment, aircraft support equipment, food/water, etc etc etc.... Of course - but I wonder if you realize that a standard squadron mobility package (18.U.E., 24 U.E) in the tactical forces was set up to contain all of the people, equipment, and supplies for at least 30 days of autonomous operations? (With the very low munitions capacity of today's much smaller fighters, it should be even easier to transport the required munitions - almost always the largest tonnage component of the package.) Besides - an FOL would likely use a very small number of aircraft (4? 6 to include spares?) for a very short time, measured in days - before moving on to a different location; perhaps swapped out with fresh aircraft/personnel/supplies from the more-rearward located base.) The forward basing "feature" of the VSTOL is way oversold (IMHO) Perhaps. It would be a new ballgame for the USAF, anyway. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Mark" wrote in message m... And the ordnance, force protection personnel and equipment, aircraft support equipment, food/water, etc etc etc.... The forward basing "feature" of the VSTOL is way oversold (IMHO) Been done in action (Falklands, Desert Storm, Afghanistan) which is why it remains popular. Transit time is a big part of your "numbers on station" equation. -- Paul J. Adam |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
Highest-Ranking Black Air Force General Credits Success to Hard Work | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 10th 04 11:06 PM |
us air force us air force academy us air force bases air force museum us us air force rank us air force reserve adfunk | Jehad Internet | Military Aviation | 0 | February 7th 04 04:24 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Air Force announces acquisition management reorganization | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 21st 03 09:16 PM |