Because it would put the boom operators out of a job???
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
F-35B/C Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)
- Thread starter jai5w4
- Start date
Because it would put the boom operators out of a job???
There's still a boom operator with a basket.
It's because their larger receivers probably aren't maneuverable enough to work the drogue method.Brett
There's still a boom operator with a basket.
Brett
Hey that makes sense....but if he's operating a basket wouldn't he be a basket operator?
Back when the USAF started refueling they mainly did it to extend the range of their bombers, they used to have well over a thousand instead of the approx 150 they have now, and Brett pointed out that with the big planes it is a lot easier to refuel by boom. While Brits do drogue refueling for their big planes they only have a few, the Navy does boom with the E-6's.
it's interesting how we've gone back to the "no aft vis" concept with the JSF .... suppose the designers figured with all the technology on the JSF, there would be no need to look aft.
wasn't it the "advance in technology" the reason we built the F-4 with no gun? Guess I shouldn't beat a dead horse by mentioning the gun on the F-35B/C ...
SF
wasn't it the "advance in technology" the reason we built the F-4 with no gun? Guess I shouldn't beat a dead horse by mentioning the gun on the F-35B/C ...
SF
Attachments
FlyingOnFumes
Nobel WAR Prize Aspirant
There's still a boom operator with a basket.
Does the boom have a higher tolerance to turbulence and/or stormy Wx?
(The MA ANG MH-60 Pavehawk's inability to refuel from the KC-130s during the whole Perfect Storm / Andrea Gail episode comes to mind...)
The boom has the capability to pass way more gas per minute than the hose and drogue assemblies, hence its use on the larger aircraft. I believe it also "locks" in the receptacle, but I wouldn't know if that makes it easier to hook up to. If you want to go further you could always just turn engines off, like us 
FlyingOnFumes
Nobel WAR Prize Aspirant
The boom has the capability to pass way more gas per minute than the hose and drogue assemblies, hence it's use on the larger aircraft. I believe it also "locks" in the receptacle, but I wouldn't know if that makes it easier to hook up to. If you want to go further you could always just turn engines off, like us
Well... what I meant was the fact that the boom operator can actually "fly" the boom which is more rigid (and actually controlable by the op) than the hose and drogue which could flap around in turbulent conditions like what happened in that storm.
You see stories of Navy/Marine folks ripping off drogues.... out of sheer curiosity (& amusement): have there been any cases of AF jets ripping off the boom since it does lock in place?
Supposedly, you can look "through" the aircraft with the new helmet mounted display.
They have a provision for a gun pod, much like what they have on the AV-8B, so it was not like they have completely forgotten about it.
I believe there may have been a rare instance or two of it happening but it would not be amusing, a lot more damage and other bad things can occur if that happens. XtndrBoom posts here periodically, he would probably know better than anyone the facts.
I’m familiar with the B’s gunpod… I was being a little facetious. Hopefully it’ll work better than the Harriers gunpod.
It’ll be interesting to see how long the Corps will be able to maintain such a high tech & expensive aircraft. The avionics on it is going to be badass, when it’s working… if the way the Corps has taken care of the Hornets radar, ALR, ALE, FLIR over the years is any indication, I wouldn’t count on that “see-through” technology on the F-35B to “check 6”. And what about the special paint? I can’t remember how many times I’ve seen Hornet maintainers use a mallet & ducktape to fix something on the jet… and washing & painting the thing…the Corps has no problems flying a dirty jet with paint peeling off of it.
I just don’t get the point of buying such an expensive high tech jet just for CAS? Seriously, it’s cool to go out and do BFM, intercepts and SES, but that’s not the Corps job in the grand scheme of things... the Corps is going take the F-35B and strap on external fuel tanks & an external gun pod, hang a couple bombs on the wings to go along with the internal bombs and go do CAS. You can do that with a much cheaper & easier to maintain aircraft … or a UAV.
I just hope we don't take the Corps only justification for pointy nose aircraft... CAS & FAC(A) ... and punt it away...
SF
That's what I was wondering...what is the Corps going to do with all the capabilities that it doesn't need?
Just seems like Super Hornets would have been more than capable for what they're going to be doing.
Well said -- excellent headwork.
For me: I think the -35 (for the Corps) is just the latest/newest iteration of the Harrier. Sorry ... it's still a 'free country' ... that's what I believe.