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

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

"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

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

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.

"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...

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...

Since when is USAF getting the VTO version? I was under the impression that
those were strictly USMC... ??

--
Jason
"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...
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.

"JASON BOWMAN" wrote:
Since when is USAF getting the VTO version? I was under the impression
that
those were strictly USMC... ??

You could try reading the first post in the thread. If you had you would
find:

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articl...0,656,164,2407

"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