KC-40?

[scooter]

Answering Kendra's question about using a seaplane tanker for the XB-70, and researching it, brought me to this file Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue.  One of the issues discussed was this:

Suggesting a dearth of Air Force tanker support, U.S. Navy pilots who flew early missions against the Taliban during Operation Enduring
Freedom described the UK Royal Air Force's (RAF) six VC-10 tankers that supported them as "a Godsend" and the "silent heros" of the air war. Navy pilots expressed a clear preference for RAF tankers over USAF tankers.9

To ameliorate a deficit in refueling assets during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Navy flew refueling sorties with F/A-18E/F aircraft.10 While using the Super Hornet for aerial refueling demonstrated flexibility and reduced the Navy's dependence on the Air Force for refueling, these desirable attributes came at a cost. F/A-18E/F aircraft, and the pilots that fly them, are very specialized. Using these assets for aerial refueling rather than combat is seen as a sub-optimization of a scarce and valuable resource. F/A-18E/F squadron VFA-115 flew 623 sorties between March 21, 2003 and April 9, 2003: 216 were refueling sorties. When equipped to refuel other aircraft, Super Hornets carry only self
defense weapons and are not equipped to conduct attack operations.11

Now, my question then, is why hasn't the US Navy looked into a tanker variant of the C-40 or P-8?  Equip it with the Multipoint Refueling System (MPRS) and two hose reels out the tail, a boom receptacle over the cockpit, and you've now given the Navy a land-based tanker asset capable of transferring fuel from non-hose and drogue equipped USAF tankers to NAVAIR assets.  And, by making it a common platform, you've streamlined your cockpit training requirements.

[PR19_Kit]

Now, my question then, is why hasn't the US Navy looked into a tanker variant of the C-40 or P-8?  Equip it with the Multipoint Refueling System (MPRS) and two hose reels out the tail, a boom receptacle over the cockpit, and you've now given the Navy a land-based tanker asset capable of transferring fuel from non-hose and drogue equipped USAF tankers to NAVAIR assets.  And, by making it a common platform, you've streamlined your cockpit training requirements.

Don't be silly scooter, that's FAR too logical an idea to be thought about by the powers that be.

[scooter]

Now, my question then, is why hasn't the US Navy looked into a tanker variant of the C-40 or P-8?  Equip it with the Multipoint Refueling System (MPRS) and two hose reels out the tail, a boom receptacle over the cockpit, and you've now given the Navy a land-based tanker asset capable of transferring fuel from non-hose and drogue equipped USAF tankers to NAVAIR assets.  And, by making it a common platform, you've streamlined your cockpit training requirements.

Don't be silly scooter, that's FAR too logical an idea to be thought about by the powers that be.

Sadly too true, Kit.  They'd rather waste money on changing the uniforms every couple of years.

[rickshaw]

You must look smart, mate!  Military fashion is something that has fascinated me for some time.  The way trends sweep around the globe.  The fashionistas have a lot to learn from the military I believe... 

[scooter]

You must look smart, mate!  Military fashion is something that has fascinated me for some time.  The way trends sweep around the globe.  The fashionistas have a lot to learn from the military I believe... 

Rickshaw, the ABU is the worst designed uniform the USAF ever bought.  1) Its light shades of grayish green, in 2) a pixelated tiger stripe pattern, made with 3) material that is heavier than the heaviest weight non wool uniform, and is required to wear with 4) sage green boots.  Who the hell wears sage green boots?  I would have rather gone back to the old pickle greens with blue and white tapes for garrison duty.

[rickshaw]

It maybe the worst one the USAF ever bought but I could show you the RAN's Camouflage Uniform. It is in shades of grey and modelled on the Army's Auscam uniform.  Why you need to wear a Camouflage Uniform on a ship is a mystery.  What's even more mysterious is that they have reflective tapes sewn on the arms and legs, which rather defeats the purpose of it being camouflage in the first place.  And all it seems because the Navy felt it was losing out on the "cool" factor of the widespread introduction of Cams.   

[scooter]

I've seen the USN's...blue MARPAT.  Which echoes the same thought "Why Camo on a ship?"

[martinbayer]

It maybe the worst one the USAF ever bought but I could show you the RAN's Camouflage Uniform. It is in shades of grey and modelled on the Army's Auscam uniform.  Why you need to wear a Camouflage Uniform on a ship is a mystery.  What's even more mysterious is that they have reflective tapes sewn on the arms and legs, which rather defeats the purpose of it being camouflage in the first place.  And all it seems because the Navy felt it was losing out on the "cool" factor of the widespread introduction of Cams.   

That's exactly the point - it's *NOT* about functionality, it's purely about show value. In our 21st century 24/7 online media age, military uniforms (or at least some of them) have come full circle .

Martin

[scooter]

Then its time to bring back the broadcloth and gold lace.  To quote Tchéky Karyo, from the move The Patriot: "If I die I will die well dressed."

[ChernayaAkula]

I've seen the USN's...blue MARPAT.  Which echoes the same thought "Why Camo on a ship?"

It seems the only time the new USN camo work really well is when you've gone overboard. Which, incidentally, is probably the one moment you want to be the least camouflaged possible.

[NARSES2]

Yup in times of peace * throughout history military uniforms have become military fashion. Watching countries copy others is fascinating and the 19thC was a great example of it.

The other interesting thing is what the actual serving man does to his issued uniform to make it practical. Again some of the best examples can be found in the 19th C

* and yes I know personnel involved in all the worlds hot spots wouldn't say we are at peace, but "technically" we are.

[kerick]

Now, my question then, is why hasn't the US Navy looked into a tanker variant of the C-40 or P-8?  Equip it with the Multipoint Refueling System (MPRS) and two hose reels out the tail, a boom receptacle over the cockpit, and you've now given the Navy a land-based tanker asset capable of transferring fuel from non-hose and drogue equipped USAF tankers to NAVAIR assets.  And, by making it a common platform, you've streamlined your cockpit training requirements.

Don't be silly scooter, that's FAR too logical an idea to be thought about by the powers that be.

Many years ago the Navy proposed buying used airliners and using them as tankers in the Mediterranean. Of course this idea made sense but I'm sure the Air Force kicked and screamed about the Navy having land based tankers so the proposal went down the tubes. The biggest problem here is the fact that the F-18 has never had "legs".