In flight refueling photos...

[FLY_USMC]

A buddy of mine and I got to take a flight on a KC-135 yesterday and watch them refuel some of Tyndall's school house F-15's. Even though they're AF birds, I thought some of you might like to see some of the pictures we took. I'll try and just load the highlights, as I have like 30 of them. It was neat, having never in-flight refueled yet. The tanker shot is out the back through the refueling window, he was -2, closest he got was 1 mile in trail.

 

[FastMover]

Great pics! The F-15 is such a good looking plane.

 

[Schnugg]

Nice pics.

Future NAs and NFOs note that the USAF jets don't plug, they take the shaft.

Saw some of the same pics here: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=43369

 

[BACONATOR]

Nice pics.

Future NAs and NFOs note that the USAF jets don't plug, they take the shaft.

I've always wondered why the different services use different refueling systems? In case of emergency, it's silly to have a Navy A/C not able to take fuel from an AF tanker because it doesn't have a drogue. Any thoughts?

 

[Schnugg]

Just a different way of doing business. Remember we bring our tanking assets organically with us. F/A-18F now is that vehicle. Size and carrier suitability would restrict any kind of boom probe configuration.


A tanker like the one pictured can be equipped with a drogue for Navy tanking.

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/070316-N-3913C-008.jpg

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_070827-N-6346S-766.jpg

A close up:

Navy Image

And my personal favorite USAF/ANG tanker radio call on UHF: "Sorry 'bout that, coming left 180"

 

[WVUBetaHornet]

Awesome photos you guys..

 

[BACONATOR]

Well that certainly answers the question! I guess it makes sense to outfit the AF with Navy drogue. Is this a quick, simple, in-situ exchange or a pre-arranged outfit?

 

[HeloBubba]

Is this a quick, simple, in-situ exchange or a pre-arranged outfit?

I have this same question.

 

[jskibo]

Put on before flight, so it's either Navy or USAF drinking off the boom. Some are wing pod capable, however the pods selected in that competition aren't the most reliable in the world.

Italy's new 767 Tanker has a centerline drouge as well as wing pods. Japan didn't select that option. USAF's will look a lot like Italy's if its ever picked.

 

[Lawman]

Well that certainly answers the question! I guess it makes sense to outfit the AF with Navy drogue. Is this a quick, simple, in-situ exchange or a pre-arranged outfit?

In a word no.

The Wing Pod capable 135's and 10's can simply have them put on and left on operating both ways. Problem is those pods create extra drag which in turn creates fuel burn not to mention extra maint time spent on them yadda yadda yadda. The boom fitting known as "The Iron Maiden" (Heinous) is not a simple feature nor does it allow flexability in flight.

In all seriousness having had some up close and personal time around the 135's here at the Guard unit in Columbus the AF seriously screwed up its tanker roadmap.

 

[FlyinSpy]

I've always wondered why the different services use different refueling systems? In case of emergency, it's silly to have a Navy A/C not able to take fuel from an AF tanker because it doesn't have a drogue. Any thoughts?

It's a fuel transfer rate issue. Drogue = ~2K/min, booms = 6K/minute. It's one thing to top off a Prowler that needs 10K thru a drogue; when a B-52 wants tons, then it helps to have a boom to get them their gas quicker.

Useful discussion of the issue can be found here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32910.pdf

 

[Pugs]

Of course don't forget the lovely drogues of our stalwart friends the RAF. This was an ONF flight circa 95 IIRC

 

[A4sForever]

 

[winger]

Anyone know why the eagles appear to have two tacts pods?

 

[FlyinSpy]

"Joint Day on the Tanker": Me/us (USN Prowler), F-16, Marine Prowler, and Navy Hornet (out of view).