Henry J Cobb wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote:
I'm sure they think so. OTOH, FAIK the USAF would have fought against any such
proposal with tooth and nail. The navy has in the past considered buying their
own land-based tanker fleet, but ISTR that SAC (at the time) in effect said
"over our dead body." IIRR the Tradewind was an attempt to get around that;
after all, the USAF could hardly complain about seaplanes.

The Navy Department already has ground based tankers and unlike the
KC-767s they are effective at refueling helicopters, which is the only
thing that allows the Marines to do their deep penatration missions today.

As I pointed out in my reply to Kevin, a KC-130 is a poor choice for a pure jet
tanker, if you don't need STOL or helo refueling capability (and the navy doesn't).

Can a KC-767 refuel a KC-130J?

AFAIK (don't quote me) the KC-130Js don't have probes or receptacles. There's no
technical reason why they couldn't have them, and a KC-767/KC-130J refueling would
presumably be easier than the Victor/probed C-130K hookups during the Falklands war;
the 767 shouldbe able to fly slower than a Victor, and the (K)C-130J is faster than
the earlier models.

Guy