View Single Post
  #6  
Old May 9th 04, 04:21 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"C Knowles" wrote in message
om...
Just some observations.

The article is not clear on the fact that the 767 WILL have a drogue on
every mission, like the KC-10. It will not have multiple wing pods, only

a
centerline hose. Hence it does not meet the "simultaneous" capability
required by the USN.


The hang up is the use of the word "required". The USN's own tanking assets
on board their carriers are single-point hose/drogue assets; for them to
"require" that other providers have to perform better is a bit odd, sort of
like looking the gift-horse in the mouth (unless the USN wants to pony up
the additional bucks required to make the 767 a multi-point platform,
something I have not seen them express any desire to do as of yet).

Brooks


So why doesn't the AF have this desperately needed requirement? Because

the
AF uses a boom that can offload fuel 2-3 times a fast, and requires less
cycle time? Maybe the USN should consider putting receptacles next to the
probes on their fighters, ala the F-101 and F-105. Or buy more KC-130s.

The pods on KC-10s are WARPs (Wing Air Refueling Pod) while the KC-135
version is the MPRs (Multi-Point Refueling System). Essentially the same
pod but not interchangeable.

Curt


"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...042804,00.html
Will the Air Force fulfill the Navy requirement for simultaneous
refueling capability and, if so, when?


-HJC