Awesome A-10 News and Anchor

[Max the Mad Russian]

The Rhino is one of many fleet aircraft that has this ability.

Indeed. Some satcom or Link-16's J-Voice, right. I.e., three and four. And of course, I'm again on the edge of "sensitive matter". Ok, let's fun again

 

[Gatordev]

What's Link-16? J-Voice? That's that singing show on NBC, right? Maybe it's the language barrier.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Maybe it's the language barrier.

You bet. When F-18 pilot tells about KY-58 secure voice device, I barely understand him

 

[Recovering LSO]

Next topic.....

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Ah, no. Just next USAF-related question: on one occasion over there, a pair of A-10As was initially provided with tanker which had no boom system. Whether it means that it was non-USAF tanker or USAF has some tankers with only probe-and-drogue capability?

 

[HackerF15E]

Yes, sometimes on the KC-135 when mission dictates they replace the bottom portion of the boom with a basket.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Yes, sometimes on the KC-135 when mission dictates they replace the bottom portion of the boom with a basket.

And thus such tanker loses the ability to refuel the boom USAF/USN airplanes till the end of its mission, right?

 

[Gatordev]

Max, you should probably go Google "USAF aerial refueling" and then "USN aerial refueling" and compare the pictures. Ignore any pictures of an E-6, as that will just confuse the matter.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Ignore any pictures of an E-6, as that will just confuse the matter.

P-8A too, but it doesn't matter. Well, I know the difference, but it seems that arranging proper tanker to fuel the definite tactical jets seems to be no small job for planners, especially if USAF KCs with added baskets cannot refuel the boom aircraft in the mission.

 

[armada1651]

P-8A too, but it doesn't matter. Well, I know the difference, but it seems that arranging proper tanker to fuel the definite tactical jets seems to be no small job for planners, especially if USAF KCs with added baskets cannot refuel the boom aircraft in the mission.

KC-10s carry both simultaneously and KC-135s can if configured with wing pods (they can also fuel 2 drogue aircraft at the same time that way). Still, allocating tankers is a major job.

 

[HackerF15E]

P-8A too, but it doesn't matter. Well, I know the difference, but it seems that arranging proper tanker to fuel the definite tactical jets seems to be no small job for planners, especially if USAF KCs with added baskets cannot refuel the boom aircraft in the mission.

As @armada1651 said, most 135s are now configured with the wing pods with baskets and KC-10s always had the capability to do both.

Either way, yes -- planning. It is how you fight a war.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Thank you gentlemen

As wide as the hystorical cultural gap - when Italian people had boasted by the pearlbuttons on the jackets at XV century, the Russian people, even most rich, were not knowing what the button is - the recent difference in aerial refueling practice between Western air assets and Soviet block was sometimes shocking. The scaring - for some unexplainable reason - MiG-29 initially had no aerial refueling capability and very small amount of internal fuel, so that its definition was creepping from "air defence fighter" to jockingly "its airbase defence fighter", while the only carrier-borne aircraft of Soviet Navy, a light VSTOL attacker Yak-38 had only 60 nm of battle radius with full fuel and two 23-mm gun pods even by using of short takeoff instead of vertical - and no air refueling, of course. For long time the complicated and dangerous wing-to-wing refueling was available only to big airplanes like Badger, Bear and so on. That is why this matter is so interesting for me.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

I actually knew him. Both are uncommon but are a normal option with a handful of slots each, to do both he was pretty lucky but it was more about timing than anything else especially for the A-10 thing. For him he was in the right place in the right time and was good enough to get the billets he got.

Hello Flash, I'm back again after awhile: ski clash-related broken leg, some surgery, some titan things in the knee, so now I'm a Terminator-like while at airport security gate

Look, back to this pilot, then LtCdr Scott Craig who was flying USAF A-10 on exchange tour in 2007 in Afghan and who was very seldom example of 60' driver converted to Prowler guy. I found out that there was the EA-6B loss in VAQ-135 here in 2003, and if the pilot was that same Scott Craig, he was the same O-4 in 2003. Which is the normal tenure for NA who's flying to stay O-4 before O-5 selection board? Or that Prowler BuNo 158800 became an obstacle for his career?

 

[Flash]

Look, back to this pilot, then LtCdr Scott Craig who was flying USAF A-10 on exchange tour in 2007 in Afghan and who was very seldom example of 60' driver converted to Prowler guy. I found out that there was the EA-6B loss in VAQ-135 here in 2003, and if the pilot was that same Scott Craig, he was the same O-4 in 2003. Which is the normal tenure for NA who's flying to stay O-4 before O-5 selection board? Or that Prowler BuNo 158800 became an obstacle for his career?

LCDR's are usually at that rank for ~5 years give or take a little bit, the mishap would have had no impact to his career as it was not his fault.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Thanks Flash