What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

US Foreign Policy 3.0: We're The Mets of International Diplomacy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Drew S. said:
From the people I know who fly them they have two main issues: the first one is that the boom operator sits next to the pilot and controls the boom by looking at a screen instead of being in the back and looking directly at the boom. The second major issue is the receiver aircraft has to ‘hit’ the boom much harder to connect. I guarantee you the issue in the article I posted had to do with the F-15 pilot overcompensating which they wouldn’t have to do with a KC-135 or KC-10.

Obviously buying refuelers from Airbus is a major disappointment and a poor reflection on our country but it’s better than the alternative of potentially not having enough capacity in a time of great need.
Click to expand...

Part of that is the choice that the USAF made to refuel their aircraft. Has nothing to specifically do with the airplane. If they wanted the fueller/receiver to be more gentle, then convert to the USN's version of refuelling- having a stiff boom has it's compromises.

The other part- I'm not really sure how much it really matters that the operator has a direct view or a TV view. Seems like an excuse than a reason. And does the airbus fix that or not? It's not as if the airbus has this massive space behind the tail to fit a person and all of the required controls. That, and some of the set ups I've seen, the operator has to lay on their stomach's to even see out clearly enough.

None the less, we have laws. The plane has to be built in the US and should be a US company. Just because your boy accepted bribes from many countries doesn't mean the laws change.
 
Kepler said:
There is a solution for all this. Just saying.
Click to expand...

It’s not a solution, too many people quote the derp. I don’t need that St. Cloud poster who posts twice a year coming back and stroking out over me asking someone to not quote the derp
 
Drew S. said:
They would be built in the US with Lockheed involved as well but don’t let facts get in the way https://www.defenseone.com/business...new-air-force-tankers-alabama-georgia/361367/
Click to expand...

Profits go to the EU. There's a matter of reality. Even IF Lockheed did the whole thing, they would have to pay Airbus a license to use the design.

But, hey, if you want to send YOUR tax dollars to Airbus in any way shape or form, it follows what your bud did as the president. Hardly shocking.
 
Drew S. said:
They would be built in the US with Lockheed involved as well but don’t let facts get in the way https://www.defenseone.com/business...new-air-force-tankers-alabama-georgia/361367/
Click to expand...
no-bugs-bunny.gif
 
MichVandal said:
Part of that is the choice that the USAF made to refuel their aircraft. Has nothing to specifically do with the airplane. If they wanted the fueller/receiver to be more gentle, then convert to the USN's version of refuelling- having a stiff boom has it's compromises.
Click to expand...
Non-starter for USAF. The fuel transfer rate of the probe-and-drogue system is ~1/10 the rate of a boom. It would take well over an hour to refuel a B-52, B-2, or VC-25A from a probe.
 
LynahFan said:
Non-starter for USAF. The fuel transfer rate of the probe-and-drogue system is ~1/10 the rate of a boom. It would take well over an hour to refuel a B-52, B-2, or VC-25A from a probe.
Click to expand...

It's not that I agree or disagree with it, but the hard contact requirement for refueling was made decades ago and is not specific to one version of a refuelling aircraft.
 
MichVandal said:
It's not that I agree or disagree with it, but the hard contact requirement for refueling was made decades ago and is not specific to one version of a refuelling aircraft.
Click to expand...
It’s not even a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It just wouldn’t work. The hose diameter would need to triple but stay flexible enough to roll up - and don’t forget that the reel would triple in size as well. And then you have the cost of putting probes on thousands of receiver airplanes. It’s not going to happen. We might as well be discussing a teleportation device to beam the fuel over.
 
LynahFan said:
It’s not even a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It just wouldn’t work. The hose diameter would need to triple but stay flexible enough to roll up - and don’t forget that the reel would triple in size as well. And then you have the cost of putting probes on thousands of receiver airplanes. It’s not going to happen. We might as well be discussing a teleportation device to beam the fuel over.
Click to expand...

I'll bet these guys could do it

1376871.jpg
 
LynahFan said:
It’s not even a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It just wouldn’t work. The hose diameter would need to triple but stay flexible enough to roll up - and don’t forget that the reel would triple in size as well. And then you have the cost of putting probes on thousands of receiver airplanes. It’s not going to happen. We might as well be discussing a teleportation device to beam the fuel over.
Click to expand...

You were missing my point- the complaint about the specific aircraft was about the solid boom- which is common on ALL USAF refuelers- so that can't be complained about for that specific plane.
 
No, the boom is definitely not “common” across all refueling aircraft. It is custom designed for each one. They each are designed so that some of the characteristics (shape of the tip, forces it can withstand, etc) are the same, but two things that are not the same are different. :). It’s perfectly plausible that the KC-135 and KC-10 booms are works of engineering art while the KC-46 boom sucks donkey balls.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top