Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!rdd@cs.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: NATO air refueling methods
Keywords: Both types seem to be in use?
Message-ID: <11157@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 6 Nov 89 05:04:04 GMT
References: <11120@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Lines: 43
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!rdd@cs.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett)

In article <11120@cbnews.ATT.COM> gandy@tellab5.TELLABS.COM (John Gandy) writes:
>From: gandy@tellab5.TELLABS.COM (John Gandy)
>In the October 30 Aviation Week & Space Tech. (pgs. 35 & 42), a French
>Mirage F1 and a West German Tornado are shown equiped with the "fly-to-
>drogue" air refueling probe. This is the method used by the US Navy in
>which the aircraft to be refueled flys its probe into a basket-like 
>drogue trailed from the tanker A/C. The USAF aircraft of NATO, however,
>use the "boom-to-recepticle" method in which the tanker's boom operator
>"flys" the refueling boom into a stationary aircraft's recepticle.

I believe, however, that the USAF's flying boom method is much more reliable, 
and puts less pressure on the pilot to fly a perfect coupling approach.  
Instead, he need only keep reasonably stable, and the boom can be maneuvered 
into place.  

It's probably worth noting that the booms (two distinct types) on the KC-135 
and KC-10, however, are larger than many an airplane that can operate off an 
aircraft carrier. :-)  On the other hand, up to three drogues can be dragged
off a Tristar tanker, thus permitting multiple-refuelling.


>My question is does NATO support both methods using two types of tanker
>aircraft or is there some dual method version out there? If there are two
>tanker types operating I can imagine a horendous logistics problem should
>a conflict arise.

And also consider that US Navy and Air Force aircraft have different recept-
acle designs.  So Navy tankers can only fuel Navy aircraft, and vice-versa.

I also seem to recall that one reason the United States didn't support the
ferrying of the Harriers to the Falklands (besides political considerations)
was that the receptacles wouldn't fit.




Robert Dorsett                                   
Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu               
UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd