How do you refuel an Air Force F35-B?

[Henry J Cobb]

USAF to Purchase Marines’ Vertical-Lift Fighter
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/164/documentid/2407/history/3,2360,656,164,2407

Note the lift fan on the F-35B where the F-35A refueling-boom socket goes.

http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm

So you need a KC-135R or KC-767 to refuel a F-35B, and the KC-767 can
only refuel one of these short ranged fighters at a time and only from a
safe distance to keep the airliner out of harm's way.

Perhaps USMC KC-130Js will go back to fill up from the AF KC-767s then
forwards to refuel AF F-35Bs? ;-)

-HJC

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 14:36:04 -0700, Henry J Cobb > wrote:

>USAF to Purchase Marines’ Vertical-Lift Fighter
>http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/164/documentid/2407/history/3,2360,656,164,2407
>
>Note the lift fan on the F-35B where the F-35A refueling-boom socket goes.
>
>http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm
>
>So you need a KC-135R or KC-767 to refuel a F-35B, and the KC-767 can
>only refuel one of these short ranged fighters at a time and only from a
>safe distance to keep the airliner out of harm's way.


If they ever bought the KC-767 why couldn't they outfit it with two
under-wing refueling drouge systems? It's not like it's never been
done before.





>
>Perhaps USMC KC-130Js will go back to fill up from the AF KC-767s then
>forwards to refuel AF F-35Bs? ;-)
>
>-HJC

[Brett]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote:
> USAF to Purchase Marines’ Vertical-Lift Fighter
>
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/164/documentid/2407/history/3,2360,656,164,2407
>
> Note the lift fan on the F-35B where the F-35A refueling-boom socket goes.
>
> http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm
>
> So you need a KC-135R or KC-767 to refuel a F-35B,

The KC-10 works - the KC-767 is still on hold.

> and the KC-767 can
> only refuel one of these short ranged fighters at a time and only from a
> safe distance to keep the airliner out of harm's way.

How many USAF fighters do you think get refueled at a time when an operator
guides the only boom on the tanker into the aircraft being refueled.
The only significant difference would be a 50% reduction in fuel transfer
rate.

> Perhaps USMC KC-130Js will go back to fill up from the AF KC-767s then
> forwards to refuel AF F-35Bs? ;-)

Or add two extra hose and drogue systems to the wing of new build (or
modified/updated) tankers

>
> -HJC

[Henry J Cobb]

Scott Ferrin wrote:
> If they ever bought the KC-767 why couldn't they outfit it with two
> under-wing refueling drouge systems? It's not like it's never been
> done before.

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32056.pdf
> The ORD requires, for example, that the KC-135's replacement be able
> to refuel two aircraft simultaneously with the hose-and-drogue system.
> The KC-767 variant being considered in this lease cannot satisfy this
> requirement. It can only refuel one aircraft at a time with the
> hose-and-drogue which considerably reduces, opponents say, its
> operational capabilities.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/aug2003/0803tankers.asp
> Though USAF wanted plumbing in the wings for wingtip probe-and-drogue
> refueling, to lower cost, it dropped the requirement. The aircraft
> will have both a boom-type refueling system and a probe-and-drogue,
> both on the centerline.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc767/specs.html
> Probe and drogue refuelling Wingpods and a centre-line hose

But the *-technology.com sites are often wrong.

Writing to them does help as they've changed the CIWS to RAM after I
notified them.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lpd17/index.html

-HJC

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Henry J Cobb wrote:
>
> USAF to Purchase Marines’ Vertical-Lift Fighter

I would imagine that the USAF's only reason for purchase
of VTO F-35s would be forward-basing of them close to
the battle area, where in-flight refueling needs are
considerably lessened.

[Brett]

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote:
> Henry J Cobb wrote:
> >
> > USAF to Purchase Marines' Vertical-Lift Fighter
>
> I would imagine that the USAF's only reason for purchase
> of VTO F-35s would be forward-basing of them close to
> the battle area, where in-flight refueling needs are
> considerably lessened.

They are if your supply train can put a large quanties of fuel close to the
front line...

[Mark]

And the ordnance, force protection personnel and equipment, aircraft support
equipment, food/water, etc etc etc....

The forward basing "feature" of the VSTOL is way oversold (IMHO)

Mark

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote:
> > Henry J Cobb wrote:
> > >
> > > USAF to Purchase Marines' Vertical-Lift Fighter
> >
> > I would imagine that the USAF's only reason for purchase
> > of VTO F-35s would be forward-basing of them close to
> > the battle area, where in-flight refueling needs are
> > considerably lessened.
>
> They are if your supply train can put a large quanties of fuel close to
the
> front line...
>
>

[JASON BOWMAN]

Since when is USAF getting the VTO version? I was under the impression that
those were strictly USMC... ??

--
Jason
"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
...
> Henry J Cobb wrote:
> >
> > USAF to Purchase Marines' Vertical-Lift Fighter
>
> I would imagine that the USAF's only reason for purchase
> of VTO F-35s would be forward-basing of them close to
> the battle area, where in-flight refueling needs are
> considerably lessened.

[Brett]

"JASON BOWMAN" > wrote:
> Since when is USAF getting the VTO version? I was under the impression
that
> those were strictly USMC... ??

You could try reading the first post in the thread. If you had you would
find:

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/164/documentid/2407/history/3,2360,656,164,2407

[Paul J. Adam]

"Mark" > wrote in message
m...
> And the ordnance, force protection personnel and equipment, aircraft
support
> equipment, food/water, etc etc etc....
>
> The forward basing "feature" of the VSTOL is way oversold (IMHO)

Been done in action (Falklands, Desert Storm, Afghanistan) which is why it
remains popular. Transit time is a big part of your "numbers on station"
equation.

--
Paul J. Adam

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Mark wrote:
>
> And the ordnance, force protection personnel and equipment, aircraft support
> equipment, food/water, etc etc etc....

Of course - but I wonder if you realize that a standard
squadron mobility package (18.U.E., 24 U.E) in the tactical
forces was set up to contain all of the people, equipment,
and supplies for at least 30 days of autonomous operations?
(With the very low munitions capacity of today's much smaller
fighters, it should be even easier to transport the required
munitions - almost always the largest tonnage component of
the package.)

Besides - an FOL would likely use a very small number of
aircraft (4? 6 to include spares?) for a very short time,
measured in days - before moving on to a different location;
perhaps swapped out with fresh aircraft/personnel/supplies
from the more-rearward located base.)

> The forward basing "feature" of the VSTOL is way oversold (IMHO)

Perhaps. It would be a new ballgame for the USAF, anyway.

[Mark]

To clarify my point (slightly)...

If you need the JSF VSTOL capability to use a particular 'forward base', how
would you get the airlift into the proposed airfield? It's not so much the
forward basing per se.... to a 'conventional' NATO standard (8000 ft)
airstrip I'll sign on... send the conventional JSF. But to an airfield
where you need VSTOL to operate; the support logistics I see as being a
potential show stopper to effective operations.

wrt 'been done'....

Afghanistan/Desert Storm... very small numbers; very limited overall impact
on capability to successfully prosecute air war (just a subjective opinion)
Was is this forward basing done because it could only be done by Harriers,
or was it a matter that it so-happened to be Harriers. Was it an
operational imperative or an opportunity seized by USMC to "show their
stuff"?? I see a difference.

Mark

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
...
> Mark wrote:
> >
> > And the ordnance, force protection personnel and equipment, aircraft
support
> > equipment, food/water, etc etc etc....
>
> Of course - but I wonder if you realize that a standard
> squadron mobility package (18.U.E., 24 U.E) in the tactical
> forces was set up to contain all of the people, equipment,
> and supplies for at least 30 days of autonomous operations?
> (With the very low munitions capacity of today's much smaller
> fighters, it should be even easier to transport the required
> munitions - almost always the largest tonnage component of
> the package.)
>
> Besides - an FOL would likely use a very small number of
> aircraft (4? 6 to include spares?) for a very short time,
> measured in days - before moving on to a different location;
> perhaps swapped out with fresh aircraft/personnel/supplies
> from the more-rearward located base.)
>
> > The forward basing "feature" of the VSTOL is way oversold (IMHO)
>
> Perhaps. It would be a new ballgame for the USAF, anyway.

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Mark wrote:
>
> To clarify my point (slightly)...
>
> If you need the JSF VSTOL capability to use a particular 'forward base', how
> would you get the airlift into the proposed airfield?

What airfield? We're talking about a parking lot - reached
via overland convoy by all except the pilots of the aircraft
- the LAST to arrive at the FOL.

[Peter Kemp]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:56:13 GMT, "Mark"
> wrote:

>To clarify my point (slightly)...
>
>If you need the JSF VSTOL capability to use a particular 'forward base', how
>would you get the airlift into the proposed airfield? It's not so much the
>forward basing per se.... to a 'conventional' NATO standard (8000 ft)
>airstrip I'll sign on... send the conventional JSF. But to an airfield
>where you need VSTOL to operate; the support logistics I see as being a
>potential show stopper to effective operations.

A C-130 can get into a very small field that a CTOL F-35 could not get
into, but a Harrier/STOVL F-35 could.

>wrt 'been done'....
>
>Afghanistan/Desert Storm... very small numbers; very limited overall impact
>on capability to successfully prosecute air war (just a subjective opinion)

With Afghanistan the impact was rather greater since the rest of the
TACAIR had *very* long transits, so having Harriers (& A-10s?) close
by was more useful.

>Was is this forward basing done because it could only be done by Harriers,
>or was it a matter that it so-happened to be Harriers. Was it an
>operational imperative or an opportunity seized by USMC to "show their
>stuff"?? I see a difference.

Dependent on the size of the strip an A-10 may have been an option,
but fast movers need a lot of length to operate at decent weights.


---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Frijoles]

Apart from the observation that there are many misconceptions about how
"forward bases" are used, I would add that it's not just about
"...prosecuting the air war...". Ask the guys getting shot at on the
ground. Forward bases can provide increased sortie generation, reach, time
on station, and reduced use of what are critical assets -- airborne tankers.
If anybody thinks tanker availability isn't an issue, talk to the Navy. Or
talk to air planners who worked at the CAOC during OAF. Or how about
OEF...?

Most 'forward bases' have been used simply for fuel, obviating the logistics
issues that most cite as prohibitive. In simple terms, when you don't need
much more than a couple thousand feet of hard surface (e.g. a road, an
old/repaired airfield), and you can get some fuel bladders there via 53s or
Battle Hercs, your options increase dramatically. The Air Force actually
used a FW forward site during OIF before the USMC did. Was that an
"operational imperative," or was the USAF "showing their stuff?" The Marine
Corps waited to use a location further north (within about 60nm of Baghdad)
in anticipation of having to support ops north/well north of Baghdad. In
addition to a large number of RW sorties (Army and Marine), it supported
about 200 Harrier sorties before major combat ops ended. Earlier, four
Harriers landed and fueled on a road location that some of the helicopters
were using further south, but it was deemed too narrow and too unsecure and
not used for FW again.

Forward basing is often less about how a jet takes off and lands than it is
about having the support assets necessary to conduct various levels of
airfield operations at austere/expeditionary locations. That's why the
Marine Corps has the MWSSs (Marine Wing Support Squadrons). Forward bases
are typically formed from what's available -- the MWSS's rarely have to
start from scratch, though the Wing has the ability to do so if necessary.
During ODS, the primary airfield the Harriers used wasn't on anybody's dance
card. If it had been such an easy thing to use, others would have been all
over it since it was further north by a considerable margin. The
difference? -- 3300 sorties.

"Mark" > wrote in message
m...
> To clarify my point (slightly)...
>
> If you need the JSF VSTOL capability to use a particular 'forward base',
how
> would you get the airlift into the proposed airfield? It's not so much
the
> forward basing per se.... to a 'conventional' NATO standard (8000 ft)
> airstrip I'll sign on... send the conventional JSF. But to an airfield
> where you need VSTOL to operate; the support logistics I see as being a
> potential show stopper to effective operations.
>
> wrt 'been done'....
>
> Afghanistan/Desert Storm... very small numbers; very limited overall
impact
> on capability to successfully prosecute air war (just a subjective
opinion)
> Was is this forward basing done because it could only be done by Harriers,
> or was it a matter that it so-happened to be Harriers. Was it an
> operational imperative or an opportunity seized by USMC to "show their
> stuff"?? I see a difference.
>
> Mark
>
> "Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Mark wrote:
> > >
> > > And the ordnance, force protection personnel and equipment, aircraft
> support
> > > equipment, food/water, etc etc etc....
> >
> > Of course - but I wonder if you realize that a standard
> > squadron mobility package (18.U.E., 24 U.E) in the tactical
> > forces was set up to contain all of the people, equipment,
> > and supplies for at least 30 days of autonomous operations?
> > (With the very low munitions capacity of today's much smaller
> > fighters, it should be even easier to transport the required
> > munitions - almost always the largest tonnage component of
> > the package.)
> >
> > Besides - an FOL would likely use a very small number of
> > aircraft (4? 6 to include spares?) for a very short time,
> > measured in days - before moving on to a different location;
> > perhaps swapped out with fresh aircraft/personnel/supplies
> > from the more-rearward located base.)
> >
> > > The forward basing "feature" of the VSTOL is way oversold (IMHO)
> >
> > Perhaps. It would be a new ballgame for the USAF, anyway.
>
>