Probe-and-Drogue vs. Boom

[A4sForever]

^ Merely rhetorical ... inquiring minds want to know ... as I certainly don't.

 

[A4sForever]

What is this predilection for "duding" senior officers lately?

Brett

Well, I went to a "Dude" ranch a couple of summers when I was a kid .... Spin and Marty, anyone??? I fantasized about Annette ...

 

[raptor10]

Sorry sir, no excuse sir.

 

[A4sForever]

Sorry sir, no excuse sir.

All is forgiven ... no need to salute again as I'll be in the area all day .... stand at ease ... smoke 'em if you've got 'em ... :icon_rast

 

[BOMBSonHAWKEYES]

Think B-52s - Volume/Time

 

[DanMa1156]

I fantasized about Annette ...

Don't you mean, "Ansley," apparently? :icon_wink

 

[A4sForever]

Don't you mean, "Ansley," apparently? :icon_wink

PUH-LEEEEEASE ..... Annette. All day long ... oooops ... is my age showing ...????

 

[raptor10]

Okay I think I have found the answer (or at least a more elaborate expostition on the reasoning given by catmando, heyjoe, and BOMBSonHAWKEYES)

CRS Report for Congress

CRS Report for Congress
Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods:
Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue
May 11 2005

A single flying boom can transfer fuel at approximately 6,000 lbs per minute. A single hose-and-drogue can transfer between 1,500 and 2,000 lbs of fuel per minute. Unlike bombers and other large aircraft, however, fighter aircraft cannot accept fuel at the boom’s maximum rate. (Today’s fighter aircraft can accept fuel at 1,000 to 3,000 lbs per minute whether from the boom or from the hose-and-drogue.)1 Thus, the flying boom’s primary advantage over the hose-and-drogue system is lost when refueling fighter aircraft.

As decisions are made regarding the Air Force tanker fleet, an issue that may arise for Congress is whether to examine the mix of boom, and hose-and-drogue-refuelable aircraft in the Air Force. What might be the benefits and costs of any changes? Would DOD benefit in terms of increased combat power? If so, would this benefit justify the cost?

Background

Air Force aircraft have not always used the flying boom. All U.S. combat aircraft used the hose-and-drogue system until the late 1950s. The Air Force’s decision to field boom-equipped tankers was based on the refueling needs of long-range bombers, which required large amounts of fuel. The Air Force’s fighter community resisted eliminating the hose-and-drogue, but was overruled by the Strategic Air Command, which operated the tanker fleet, and during the Cold War, placed a higher value on refueling bombers.

 

[snort]

Okay I think I have found the answer (or at least a more elaborate expostition on the reasoning given by catmando, heyjoe, and BOMBSonHAWKEYES)

[snip]

You've hit the nail on the head. Also, imagine an AWACS driver trying to hit a drogue.

PS: I still fantasize about Annette.

 

[Piperdriver]

[snip]

You've hit the nail on the head. Also, imagine an AWACS driver trying to hit a drogue.

PS: I still fantasize about Annette.

You don't have to imagine it because they do refuel with a drogue. Boeing sold a few E-3's to the British. Those aircraft have both a probe and a receptacle for air-refueling.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/infoelect/awacs/uke3.html

 

[wink]

You don't have to imagine it because they do refuel with a drogue. Boeing sold a few E-3's to the British. Those aircraft have both a probe and a receptacle for air-refueling.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/infoelect/awacs/uke3.html

As do the Brit's Nimrods and the old Vulcans. Neither of those were very svelt. As I recall the US actually refueled Vulcans in tranist during the Falklands war. It was rather hush hush at the time. (Standby for thread jack) How about that Vulcan, was it cool or what? Any old guys ever work with Vulcans on Med or North Sea cruises?

 

[Flash]

As do the Brit's Nimrods and the old Vulcans. Neither of those were very svelt. As I recall the US actually refueled Vulcans in tranist during the Falklands war. It was rather hush hush at the time. (Standby for thread jack) How about that Vulcan, was it cool or what? Any old guys ever work with Vulcans on Med or North Sea cruises?

Really ? I would love to hear the details.......:icon_smil

 

[eddie]

Vulcan is SWEET!!

I, also, want to hear the hush hush stories.

 

[snort]

You don't have to imagine it because they do refuel with a drogue. Boeing sold a few E-3's to the British. Those aircraft have both a probe and a receptacle for air-refueling.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/infoelect/awacs/uke3.html

Nuts... I should've remembered that. I saw a Nimrod and Brit E-3 at Eglin a couple years ago while they were participating in JCIET. As I recall now, they were being refueled via the receptacle during the exercise.

 

[HeyJoe]

As do the Brit's Nimrods and the old Vulcans. Neither of those were very svelt. As I recall the US actually refueled Vulcans in tranist during the Falklands war. It was rather hush hush at the time. (Standby for thread jack) How about that Vulcan, was it cool or what? Any old guys ever work with Vulcans on Med or North Sea cruises?

The Nimrods and Vulcans use probe and drogue only IIRC. During Falklands, many urgent mods were made including equipping C-130 Hercs with probes and Vulcans to be tankers (with drogues). Brits have impressed other aircraft into tanker role besides the legacy Victor tankers (that served the Vulcans for so many years); VC-10 multi-point refuellers and huge L-1011 transports.