Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, Playstation and Xbox. Click the link to download the game and get your exclusive bonus now: playwt.link/notwhatyouthink2024
Pre-9/11 my buddy asked me if I wanted to attend "boss's day" at his Air National Guard in California. I was a private pilot so I said sure, a chance to hang out at an air base. So I show up and they send me to a briefing room. Within 30 minutes I'm climbing into a KC-135 and we proceed to fly to Mammoth, California to refuel F-16s! They let me lay down next to the gal that was flying the boom and watch the entire process. Unreal! And they NEVER confirmed my ID. Just welcomed me in and said thanks for being a good boss! I'm guessing security would be a little bit tighter nowadays.
USAF Eagle Keeper here, and gotta say that getting to fly in a KC-10 across the country while getting to watch our birds get a drink was definitely one of the coolest Air Force experiences I’ve ever had. Stationed at Nellis, we’d fly to Tyndall AFB in FL every year to shoot off missiles over the ocean, and one year there was space available in the tanker as opposed to boarding the regular ole charter plane. I didn’t even wait for permission, I just started running and got on - good times.
If the “birdie” is old, bent or slightly damaged the damn thing will often oscillate in a figure eight pattern requiring the Naval Pilot to split the difference and aim for where it will be when he gets there.
I lost count of the number of ARs I've done. One time, over Maine on our way to a deployment, we disconnected from the KC-135 about 6-9 times because our orbit was over a thunderstorm and we couldn't maintain contact. Quite literally the most stressful AR ever.
Hey, given that you seem to have some knowledge on the topic. I would like to hear your thoughts on an idea: Could you recharge an electric plane in flight? You would have to get an appropriate cable design and all, but could it work? If it was to be used in commercial aviation you would have to improve the safety of the process significantly over what is possible with current systems, but given that you don't have thousands of liters of flamable chemicals being transferred, I could imagine that being possible. Is it a completely crazy idea, or is there a chance of it being feasible?
@placeholdername0000 Not a pilot, but I can tell you that powered flight without ICEs is possible but entirely pointless. The energy density of a battery is absolutely tiny compared to the energy density of liquid fuel. This means that the plane would have to dedicate a massive amount of its carrying capacity to batteries, leaving practically nothing for cargo. Flying is the one application where ICEs cannot be replaced with the technology we possess. The most realistic "green" solutions talk about carbon capture and artificial fuels.
@@placeholdername0000Same answer as for a car: you could, but it would take 20x longer and pretty much defeat the purpose. But that’s the least of the reasons electric airplanes won’t work, until someone invents a much lighter, much more energy-dense battery. It’s a crazy idea. No disrespect intended. I like crazy ideas. An electric airplane that gets its energy from a hydrogen fuel cell might make more sense because you could transfer liquid hydrogen as quickly as jet fuel, but I still don’t think there’d be any point, plus the Hindenburg thing.
10:20 That is not a Navy F-35C, thats a USMC F-35B. It is however correct that both the B and C use the probe and drogue system, in contrast to the Air Force A version with the traditional Air Force boom type. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages.
At 21:46 there is an omega aircraft refueling a drone. In the mid 1990's I designed the 707 fuel system modifications for the 1st Omega Tanker. Omega contracted AEL/Tracor to modify one of there 707 Aircraft to be a hose and drogue tanker. The fuel system modifications installed two large Aerial Refueling pumps in the wing belly tanks. These pumps were connected with 4 inch diameter fuel lines to 2 removable pallets. Each pallet contained an FR300 hydraulic hose reel systems. These pallets where part of the B-kit and were designed to be removed from the aircraft in about an hour. With a removable Air Refueling B-Kit the Aircraft could perform either civilien or aerial refueling missions. The Aircraft had two hose reels for redundancy so that ocean crossing could be performed safely with only one tanker. It could deliver over 500 gallons per minute which was the highest flow rate for a 2 5/8 inch Inner Diameter Hose and Drogue system at the time. I have not kept up with what improvements were made to the Omega system over the years. It would be interesting to see how they are using it today.
Who exactly outside the military needs aerial refueling services, NASA? NASA is only my first guess, my 2nd is the CIA or some other three letter agency that is "military adjacent" but "not officially part of the military" (huge wink).
@@Kenny-yl9pc it's a robot designed by the US government to combat the declining birthrate. It breaks into people's homes and abducts people's fathers to use them for reproduction. It's why so many kids these days grow up without a father.
a KC-135 has a boom, and 2 drogue chute pods. It can theoretically 'mate' with 3 planes at once. ETA @11:11 you can see a KC-135 Equipped with the two wingtip drogue chute pods I previously mentioned ETA #2: Yes, there were newer bids for a new aerial refueling aircraft, most of them failed and were recalled from service, the KC135 is still the most widely used and available aerial refueler in the world
From what I've heard about the KC-46, when the receiver is backlit, meaning the sun is close to being directly being the receiver, the digital camera's have an issue with even seeing the receiver aircraft, let alone where the boom needs to be flown into. (In my experience, in life, not anything related to this, the mark 1 usually has an advantage over tech. Meaning the eyeball in the rear vs. the camera provided image in the front.)
@robertheinkel6225 mark 1 is handy but if you're near some naughty boys who might want to have a potshot at you at night, the option to refuel in the pitch dark with the night vision tech might be a welcome improvement?
Super informative video! It’s amazing to understand just how critical in-flight refueling is for maintaining the operational range and effectiveness of fighter jets. Your breakdown of the process and its importance was perfectly clear. Thanks for shedding light on such a pivotal aspect of modern air combat!
While inflight refueling saves gas, I very much doubt it saves money. An airline: -) Must buy and maintain a fleet of tankers, as well as train boom operators. -) The pilots of the passenger/freighter aircraft have to be trained/qualified for inflight docking -) Airports en route would have to be schedule for the possibility of an unscheduled landing because weather, malfunctions, etc, prevented the inflight refueling. -) Here's the kicker......LIABILITY...Imagine weather or operator error causing a collision, killing hundreds and the loss of two aircraft.
i was a KC-135 Boom Operator from 1979-1986 and KC-10 Boom Operator from 1986-1999. Thanks for the memories. And for the record, I rather use my own eyes, than a 3-d screen. Never should have retired the KC-10 (Gucci Bird). To my tanker toads, "Boom Stowed, leaving position."
The probe-and-drogue system was first developed by the British in the late '40s. The F-105 Thunderchief had both refueling systems built into each aircraft. A really interesting system to look into is the old Soviet wingtip system. I've seen photos, but don't know how it worked. This would be a great video!!
Apparently, it's a numbers game. Retiring the 60 KC-10 is cheaper in the long run than splitting the number between the two airframes. Which kind of makes sense.
It has nothing to do with safety. I flew on the 10 as a boom for years. It’s a game of averages and numbers. The AF brass determined that the average offload was ~63k lbs. Which is well within the 135 and 46 capabilities. They decided more aircraft was better rather than more capabilities.
I lived in Pasadena for 33 years and you made me smile when I saw your shirt. It makes people think that you are a world traveler. I am now in my 70's and never married so I have been going to places by myself for most of my life. It becomes fun because you can go and do whatever you want. No need to negotiate with friends or family. I also graduated from the University of Minnesota and the book store has a website where you can order shirts and decals. You will get positive points for attending a US University so add a U of M shirt to your fashion selection.
Really good video. On a trans oceanic flight with fighters the fighters always have to have sufficient fuel on board to proceed to an alternate should the refueling system fail. This can mean many top ups en route. It is not just a matter of waiting until your fighter is low on fuel. On a long flight with a lot of turbulence this can be quite a bit of work.
As an old fart now, I recall refueling our TA-4 F’s in my Navy squadron back in the late 60’s. After I left the service, I was afforded the opportunity to fly as a civilian guest on a training/refueling hop on a KC-10 out of Travis AFB. It was interesting, to say the least, flying in both aircraft/ tankers.
I wanted this type of video since 1,2 years ago finally i got so much detailed video on mid air refuelling today atlast i subscribed the channel while i used to watch the channel sometimes uploaded 24 may 2024
I was born in the early 70's and grew up about 20 miles from Plattsburgh AFB. From as early as I can remember, seeing KC-135's and FB-111'S flying over was quite routine.
I actually genuinely agree with you and finally some one who l found in the comment section that actually has a functioning brain for once and this world actually genuinely needs more people actually like you in this world and you actually couldn't have said that actually any better than me lol
Too bad the KC-46 can't do half of what it is designed for because Boeing used the wrong kind of (black and white) camera on them. Should have bought the MRTT instead, which is just better in every way, not to mention that is actually works.
But the MRTT "wasn't made here" and Boeing has more power where it counts (which isn't "making the thing work") so that's what we got. Incopmpetence floats to the top of the corporate ladder, and that's at least doubly true when the products of the company are supposed to fly.
Point is, they "engineered" the contract so it couldn't fail, instead of engineering the PRODUCT so that it meets requirements. Bean-counters at the top where there should be engineers, that's why Boeing isn't what it used to be.
That clip of the H53 cutting off its fuel nozzle happened in 29 Palms CA being Motor Transport/Fuels, we were tasked with towing it back to the airfield from it's landing point. the rotors were damaged and it took several weeks to get the parts and fix it the pilot was screwed though.
@NotWhatYouThink @GrowlerJams I served at RAF Mildenhall, U.K.('88-'97) Loved it when our KC-135s had the two MIPRS(Washington ANG 2003-2009) installed, which meant our flying boom could take care of our USAF jets, and MIRPS for the USNAVY and our Allies jets. However, for our mostly MIPRS-less KC-135s('88-'97), it was hang the drogue and put it on a stand, until tasked. Refueling those Navy/Allied jets were a slight pain, but happy to support! The only USAF jet that was a major pain refueling was the F-4 Phantom, which required us to lube the flying boom contact points everytime, and pray that the F-4 Phantoms didn't cause a 'Brute Force Disconnect', thus potentially damaging the entire boom assembly every mission. Not Fun! Still glad and honored to have served! I am also honored to support building the new replacement, and State-of-the-Art, Most Advanced Tanker in the World, the Boeing KC-46A. This 1980s technology jet gets some of the 🛩 787 avionics/cockpit 💺 advancements included, along with a brand new 3D Refueling Boom control deck 💺 for the Boom Operator. This is leaps & bounds above, laying on your belly and staring out the back boom window! Also, when I served we transition from the old water burning KC-135 A/Q (limited to 135K take-off fuel), over to the upgraded KC-135 R/T (limit increased to 180K take-off fuel), thanks to the new at the time, GE CFM-56 jet engines. ✈️
F-15EX can fly from US to UK without mid-air refueling. At 45 minutes the pilot must have been for an F-16. It’s quite standardized, US Air Force - Boom; Navy/USMC - drogue, ALL helicopters - drogue. The US military is represented by multiple branches with different needs; a one size fits all approach sometimes isn’t the best for all.
The hardest part of refueling (bombers in particular) is the tanker gets lighter while the receiving aircraft gets heavier so its a constant battle to stay in the box since the tanker will get faster and you get slower thus it's a constant battle to stay in the box with the thrust and alpha changes needed while taking on fuel. Also air force tankers can carry wing reels with probe and drogue so they can refuel either method (drogue or boom) in the same mission. One advantage of this configuration is being able to refuel two probe type aircraft at the same time.
"The adapter isn't the only weakness of the KC-135" He goes on to describe the benefits of an aircraft that is being retired (kc-10) and a lemon (KC-46) while the KC-135 is still operating with life expectancy for decades to come. 😂
VFA-115 here during the period mentioned. I can say that refueling missions weren't the favorite. They were very long missions just for the pilot to be a flying gas station. Unlike those big AF tankers, the Super Hornets aren't as comfortable either. It isn't like the pilot could stand up to take a leak. But don't get me wrong because they can, just not standing up. 😂
Another thing with drogue refuelling is sometimes the drogue can shear off, leaving it attached to the receiver aircraft. Which made their landing interesting when it still had the basket and a few meters of pipe attached. We’ve also experienced the drogue wafting around in turbulence and hitting the pitot probes, causing the receiver aircraft to abort. Having said that, the drogue method has been used for decades on 1000s of sorties. I remember reading the book Flight Of The Intruder, which said A-6’s fitted with a buddy refuelling pod were crucial to helping those who struggled to land on an aircraft carrier. If they struggled to get down and did many bolters, they’d send up the standby refueller to save them before they ran out of fuel.
During the black buck missions, one of the victors broke its probe and had to get itself back to ascension, the rest had to reshuffle fuel to get the vulcan to its departure point. It could have jeopardised the entire mission. At the time it was the longest bombing mission with refuelling in the world until surpassed years later.
Thank you for a MOST comprehensive overview of the aerial refueling subject! As usual, your vids lead to a greater understanding of aviation and various systems. Plz keep up the GREAT WORK!!
Never happened. True, with the Navy probe/drogue system there are small latches on the probe which engage and "lock" into the fitting on the drogue so that fuel can transfer without leaking. And the probe/receiver coupling used by the Air Force boom system is quite similar. But those latches in no way are strong enough to tow an aircraft. If they were, you could never disengage from the tanker. Sounds like bar talk between people who were never there.
@@Roberto-oi7lmincorrect! The boom was used to tow fighter aircraft, provided they could provide some power assist. The safeties are shut off, and once locked on, it would bring the fighter to a safe area. This happened several times during Vietnam, all fully documented. Towing cannot be done with the drogue, since it can’t handle the strain. Retired tanker crew chief.
Wouldn't the C-2's be better refueling planes for carriers than F-18's? They would have much larger fuel capacity, and could carry extra fuel bags in their cargo bay. Also, they're turboprops, so they could probably go slow enough to refuel any helicopters or tiltrotors in the carrier's fleet. And you wouldn't need to procure new fuel drones, just use what you already have in a different way.
For every good reason you can think of 1) make all tankers have both methods of refueling available built in and routinely interchangeable that a tanker could refuel a bomber and 2 fighters at the same time and 2) USAF, all branches and NATO fleet-wide mil spec requirement for all aircraft from now on in the fleet have BOTH systems interchangeability built in and always ready to go. THAT'S a war-winning advantage by all measure.
But ONLY the US Air Force uses the Boom, everyone else uses the Drogue. Why should everyone else be required to carry the extra weight & complexity of the Boom System? The outlier here is the US Air Force, should they not be the ones to change for compatibility?
I would guess the paper on the fuel savings between non air refuled plans and with aerial refueling may have had a section on the fuel used, and time lost, if the aircraft had to land refuel and then take off again. I friend of mine was a crew on B-52s during Vietnam. They would take off with about 30/45 minutes of fuel to maximize their bomb load.
i was wondering for 5 minutes whether MQ25 stingray could be deployed from aircraft carriers but when I saw the video again i found it is actually shown in video 21:12
the Air Force was short sighted when it did start equipping all KC 135 tankers with MPRS when they became available. I had to install many drogue adapters in my career as a crew chief.
9:44 This happened in Desert Storm in 1991. The Iraqi military began to anticipate the arrival of F-117 stealth fighters over Baghdad by timing how long it took for them to fly away from the refuelling tankers that they could see on radar. 14:37 Some people may tell you the SR-71 leaked so much fuel on the ground that they needed to be refueled right after take-off because all the fuel they were carrying was gone. That is incorrect. The SR-71 took off with a small fuel load in order to minimize stress on the airframe due to the onset of g-forces and lift from the wings. They were trying to keep as much fatigue out of the airframe's lifespan as possible and taking off with light amount of weight was one of those ways. 15:57 It's the same logic behind external fuel tanks. When you carry additional fuel in a pod attached to the outside of the airplane, it's said that half of the fuel inside that tank is used just to overcome the added weight and drag of that tank.
The tankers refueling the SR-71s were also modified so that its engines burned the same fuel as the SR-71, to eliminate the same issue that retired the prop-driven tankers.
The SR-71 did fly missions WITHOUT refueling. They would launch a fully fueled bird to run a test mission. This was only done at BEAL AFB. Take off, run the test and land.
The SR71 is the one that leaks fuel before the fuselage heats up, isn't it? BTW, the best and most exciting film about aviation I ever saw is called Starfighters and received excellent reviews from the famous Minneapolis critics Crow, Servo and M. Nelson.
Supermarine Scimitar fighter/attack aircraft were used as in flight refuellers for Blackburn Buccaneer S1 strike aircraft which were underpowered and could not be catapulted off Royal Navy carriers with a full fuel load. they topped up with fuel from the Scimitars once airborne, the Scimitars had big beer tankards painted on their fins.
The KC-135 is hated by USN/USMC pilots. The short rigid hose has to be pushed in to bend the knuckle to allow fuel flow. The window is about 4 foot box. It is known as the iron maiden.
On the B2, the video shows you just how precise things are. No gaps or anything when the fuel door opened or closed it would be hard to guess it was there.
