regarding the advantages of the boom being lost due to fighters not being able to take on fuel quickly enough to make the highter possible through
flow count, you said;
Nope. What I said was two paragraphs long and related to a number of factors that make the P&D system nearly non functional in any but the most
/ideal/ of circumstances with topnotch pilots neither tired from long deployments nor jittery at the thought of landing on a boat.
That you refused to comment to the full length of the CONTEXT of my statement is the flaw in your argument, not mine.
Well, the USAF seems to think it IS true because my chief source was a USAF report on the differences between the two systems, part of which was a
consideration that the F-22 should be adapted to hose and drogue in order to improve matters regarding interoperability (which I know you don't want
it to have) and also for operational reasons at home. The idea being that the USAF would be better served using booms for the big planes like bombers
and transports but hose and drogue units for fighters. This is their opinion, not mine. I can almost hear you saying "well they are wrong because I
know best" as I write.
Hey, let's get real here, I can read Deja-Google just as well as you can-
How fast can a Fighter refuel
I just happen to take the time to go through the ENTIRE set of posts including those by two drivers whom I happen to respect quite a bit more than I
Before adding my own relative knowledge about 'other scenarios'.
How fast can a Fighter refuel
Janes F-15E refueling Sean
This contradicts and negates many of your subsequent plus points, though a fair bit of what you say against hose and drogues is also quite correct.
Gentle Readers, please take this as Waynos' admission that he can't fight the truth and so prefers to slander it in-absentia of open debate.
The fact remains that several air forces have evaluated the boom system, including the RAF, and every single one has decided against it, the reason
being that the single reason it works for the USAF, refuelling big bombers quickly, does not apply to them and in every other way the hose and drogue
is preferable on balance.
As I recall, the RAF converted some 15 VC-10 and 9 Tristars to tanker configuration. That's not a (working, longrange, expeditionary) Air Force,
it's a freakin' Air Meet.
IF YOU WOULD LEARN TO READ, you would realize that HAVING more tankers optimizes the efficiency of ALL of them. IF you consolidate to a single type.
Easy refueling without having to spread oneself thin makes for SMART refueling because '50% faster' X3 KonoCos is 150% total throughput gain. And
it will work all the time without any of the melodrama that destroys aircraft because they have broken IFR gear and/or are fuel starved because they
can't make the hookup before they run out of gas. All common mistakes with 'junior' air forces that check the box, all of about once a year.
I agree that the boom system can be designed with multi-point refuelling in mind. I have even seen a design from Lockheed that features this, but that
requires a level of imagination and funding from the Pentagon in order to make it happen that simply *will not* be forthcoming when converted
airliners can be procured more cheaply, this again means that hose and drogue is the only game in town when it comes to multi point tanking.
It requires a dedication to redundant avionic design which takes the boomer out of the damn belly _where he shouldn't be anyway_ and seats him,
headsup, in front of a video camera on a fly-by-light boom whose 1-of-X AAR multitude he can monitor, split screen. As an alternative to individual,
manual, control. Heck, let's be generous and hire TWO boomers. You STILL come out ahead of the P&D solution.
The difference being that we will NOT be buying replacements for 500 KC-135s and so the SAVINGS inherent to fewer tankers of ANY type means you can
afford to leverage their offload more and more efficiently through the _safest, fastest throughput, quickest-connecting_ means. (2X 50% means 100%
And all of a sudden we're right back to the whiney bitches in 'other air forces' whimpering because the USAF will not hold their damn hands so that
they can pretend they are worth the effort of 'regional allies' pretending to contribute to the outcome with 10-20 Probe Fighters that detract from
our own warfighter doctrine of 70+.
My comment about xenophobia has nothing to do with 'best interests'. We are talking about a tanker here, a tanker that, whatever platform it ends up
being based on, will be a converted airliner that is already in service by the hundreds all over the planet, including the USA.
And for that reason, we should go with the largest one which you have already admitted is 767 ranked.
Prime contractor for this contract is going to be either Boeing or Northrop Grumman, both American.
And the money will be going overseas or Airbust wouldn't be offering. Isn't the /stench/ of hypocrisy here amazing? You scream bloody murder when
the U.S. wants to sell you F-35s 'at cost' (lower for you because we DO NOT play the 'consortia' game of three-primes but require maximum
efficiency or you're out). And suddenly "We're not playing fair!" We KNOW that you will do the same to us 'license producing' A330MRTT
_because that is the style of Euro-subsidized manufacturing_.
And now you say we're paranoid? Bwuahahahahahahhaha!
Your refusal to call it what it is, instead insisting on the 'KC-30' designate is all the proof I need bucko. It ain't ours, it never will be and
the difference in price 'guarantee' will buy MORE KC-767s that will MORE than make up the difference.
Your ranting about America laying itself bare to the foreign hordes, or whatever point it is you are trying to make, is therefore completely OTT and
just plain silly. Anyone would think you had to hand over the entire F-22 and B-2 technology base to Europe in return for buying a few Airbus' the
way you are banging on.
Politics of Economics rules the world bucky. Because while we no longer play nationalist warfare (as we should, so that people take our wrath
seriously when they bomb our civillians) to fill our coffers, we do still have companies that try to.
Simple economic fact of life #1,003: Better for Boeing = better for U.S. _with the same overall capability_ inherent to NUMBERS of inventoried jets.
It's the TOOTHY END of the tiger-to-tail ratio that will enable us to make savings in the total-fleet buy. Not some damn Eurotrash 'efficiency is
as we say it does' offer.
Try proving otherwise on a 'offsets + profit' basis which doesn't end up raping the taxpayers for more than the jets are 'efficiency' worth and I
might listen. Or I might not. You say so little that acknowledges either the unique strategic or fiscal realities the U.S. is now facing that I can
only believe you're a closet EUro freak who has only 'his' side of the worlds best interests in mind and will not speak to the issues at hand,
fairly and openly.
(Mod edit: Fixed long links. -- Majic)
(Mod note: Warning issued for insults. Do not continue to insult other members if you wish to continue posting on ATS. -- Majic)
[edit on 11/15/2006 by Majic]