Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: gandy@tellab5.TELLABS.COM (John Gandy)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: NATO air refueling methods
Summary: Heavy jets would have a problem with probe-to-drogue
Message-ID: <11202@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 7 Nov 89 02:17:46 GMT
References: <11156@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Tellabs, Inc. Lisle, IL
Lines: 30
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: gandy@tellab5.TELLABS.COM (John Gandy)

In article <11156@cbnews.ATT.COM>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 
> The historical origin is that probe-and-drogue
> was a bit harder to debug, so SAC -- which was in a big hurry -- went
> with flying-boom, while the rest of the world (including the USN and,
> to some extent, other parts of the USAF) waited for p-and-d to be made
> fully workable.  The USAF has now standardized on f-b, while
> essentially everyone else uses p-and-d. 

[Stuff about KC-135s and KC-10s]
> 
> Everyone agrees that it would make sense to use one system,
> but the USAF is too big and too self-centered to be dragged into step
> with the rest of the world, and you can bet your booties that nobody
> else is willing to change just to match the USAF's mistake. :-)
> 

While I would certaintly agree that p-and-d method is superior in terms of
flexibility, compatibility with most of the world, and simultaneous refueling,
I still have trouble envisioning a craft the size of a C-5A/B, C-141, or
B-52 flying the probe to the drogue. Not only would maneuverability (lack of)
be a concern but there is a not-insignificant bow wave attached to this
size of aircraft. I can imagine that little basket skittering away ~10 feet
in front of a Galaxy.

--John Gandy