Back To The Future

[B777LR]

The USAF operates boom tankers, we have probe and drogue.

USAF tankers also carry hoses. Check Airliners.net, plenty of pictures by boom operators showing them refueling both using boom and hose in USAF plane  

NATO are unreliable allies. cf Belgium refusing to supply us with ammo for Iraq 1, Afghanistan, Iraq 2.  Or France and Germany vetoing the supply of SAMs to Turkey.

Just do a agreement like the E-3 Awacs and the recent C-17 deal

[Martin H]

The USAF operates boom tankers, we have probe and drogue.

USAF tankers also carry hoses. Check Airliners.net, plenty of pictures by boom operators showing them refueling both using boom and hose in USAF plane  

NATO are unreliable allies. cf Belgium refusing to supply us with ammo for Iraq 1, Afghanistan, Iraq 2.  Or France and Germany vetoing the supply of SAMs to Turkey.

Just do a agreement like the E-3 Awacs and the recent C-17 deal

U just cant expect the USAF to be able to be every ware with it small and ageing fleet of tankers. The RAF needs its own tanker fleet.

A NATO tanker force is a good idea in principle, untill it comes to sending them into harms way, then watch each member country with aircrew on broad suddenly try to veto the deployment, as its service men may get hurt.

[GeorgeC]

The USAF operates boom tankers, we have probe and drogue.

USAF tankers also carry hoses. Check Airliners.net, plenty of pictures by boom operators showing them refueling both using boom and hose in USAF plane  

NATO are unreliable allies. cf Belgium refusing to supply us with ammo for Iraq 1, Afghanistan, Iraq 2.  Or France and Germany vetoing the supply of SAMs to Turkey.

Just do a agreement like the E-3 Awacs and the recent C-17 deal

The USAF KC135s are fitted with a single point, flying boom system.  They can refuel probe-equiped aircraft by attaching a short length of hose and a drogue on the end of the boom.  The boom is then deployed as a fixed hose and the receiver 'prods'  the drogue as normal.  The hose is necessary to absorb the shocks on connection, particularly if it is not as graceful as the sqn QFI would like...

However, the aircraft is limited to either drogue or boom refuelling on a single mission.  I think the flow rate with the drogue connected is less than the boom alone, and the tanker has only a single point, compared to VC10s which can refuel 2 small receivers at once.  There can be problems offloading fuel fast enough to the receiving aircraft, particularly if they have just come off a carrier somewhere hot with a heavy weaponload.  The centreline hoses on the RAF tanker fleet are heavy duty ones allowing a higher offtake for single large aircraft.

You may also note that the RAF has its own E3s, C17s and other strategic recce assets a lot of other European countries don't have, allowing the government to use these assets without asking other Allies.

[SimonR]

It's expected that at least one major program will have to give in the future.  Typhoon tranche 3 might go, along with JSF, or at large least cuts to the numbers.  The Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft program might be delyaed further to 2015 putting even more pressure on the forty year old VC10 fleet (the aircraft themselves are actually a fair bit older than that).

Anyone got any idea how this funding situation is likely to affect the rest of the forces too?

We're in the middle of losing two land wars in Asia Minor so I think Typhoons are fairly low down the list of priorities for the MoD. I think the Saudis will get most of what would have been Tranche 2 and if we can get agreement with the other participating nations Tranche 3 will be cancelled.

[cthulhu77]

SA80's ? Yucch. Bring back the SLR too, while you guys are refurbishing!  Yeah, you are all right, NATO has become a fractured force since the fall of the wall...members just decide "no, I don' wanna" and leave you hanging.

 1 mpg? yipes. That's worse than my jeep.

[jcf]

Nahh, this what they need:

:dum:  :dum:

While parts of camel mounts are extant, contrary to 'internet' references, there is no evidence that such a combination was ever used...the name 'Camel Gun' was adopted by Gatling and his associates as a marketing ploy for the shortened and lightened version. The illustration and others that appeared in the late-19th century were fanciful invention.

Jon

[Martin H]

SA80's ? Yucch. Bring back the SLR too, while you guys are refurbishing!

No can do. we gave the entire uk stock pile of SLR's to Serria Leone, when we rebuilt their armed forces free of charge In tonies first attempt at nation building.

[NARSES2]

While parts of camel mounts are extant, contrary to 'internet' references, there is no evidence that such a combination was ever used...the name 'Camel Gun' was adopted by Gatling and his associates as a marketing ploy for the shortened and lightened version. The illustration and others that appeared in the late-19th century were fanciful invention.

Jon

Interestingly though Jon camels did have heavy muskets fitted to them - "wall guns", " Jingles" etc and they were quite heavy calibre.

So how about a camel mounted RPG, recoiless rifle or Carl Gustav ? Bring back the Household Cavalry Camel Corps - be interesting ridinng down the Mall    

[Hatchet]

The USAF operates boom tankers, we have probe and drogue.

USAF tankers also carry hoses. Check Airliners.net, plenty of pictures by boom operators showing them refueling both using boom and hose in USAF plane  

NATO are unreliable allies. cf Belgium refusing to supply us with ammo for Iraq 1, Afghanistan, Iraq 2.  Or France and Germany vetoing the supply of SAMs to Turkey.

Just do a agreement like the E-3 Awacs and the recent C-17 deal

The USAF KC135s are fitted with a single point, flying boom system.  They can refuel probe-equiped aircraft by attaching a short length of hose and a drogue on the end of the boom.  The boom is then deployed as a fixed hose and the receiver 'prods'  the drogue as normal.  The hose is necessary to absorb the shocks on connection, particularly if it is not as graceful as the sqn QFI would like...

However, the aircraft is limited to either drogue or boom refuelling on a single mission.  I think the flow rate with the drogue connected is less than the boom alone, and the tanker has only a single point, compared to VC10s which can refuel 2 small receivers at once.  There can be problems offloading fuel fast enough to the receiving aircraft, particularly if they have just come off a carrier somewhere hot with a heavy weaponload.  The centreline hoses on the RAF tanker fleet are heavy duty ones allowing a higher offtake for single large aircraft.

You may also note that the RAF has its own E3s, C17s and other strategic recce assets a lot of other European countries don't have, allowing the government to use these assets without asking other Allies.

Some (a few) of the KC-135s have the Multi Point Refuelling System, with a hose-reel pod on each wing and I believe some of the KC-10s are equipped with them too. Not nearly as many as they would like tho'!

Trip7, the question of tankers doesn't solely relate to the size of the country - if it did, it's somewhat overkill for the Dutch to have KDC-10s! Danish Vipers routinely perform AAR, mostly from USAFE KC-135s. When deployed to A-stan (airfield in one of the former Soviet republics), USAF tankers supported them.