Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!uokmax!occrsh!att!cbnews!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: NATO air refueling methods
Message-ID: <11277@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 9 Nov 89 15:32:11 GMT
References: <11156@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 27
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>From: gandy@tellab5.TELLABS.COM (John Gandy)
>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.

It's doable.  The Brits did it routinely with B-52-class bombers, and are
planning to do it with their E-3s.  In the Falklands War, they used
three separate waves of tankers refuelling each other to get one Vulcan
to Port Stanley and back.  For that matter, the USN did it with Skywarriors,
which are strategic bombers, albeit small ones.

>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.

The answer to this one is easy:  if you've got a 10-foot bow wave, make
the probe 15 feet long.  The probes for the big boys *are* impressively
large and long.  One British writer compared the probe on (I think) the
Victor to "a 16-inch gun sticking forward above the windshield".

                                     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                 uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu