Tanker for the F-18 ?

[mjmorrow]

RAZBAM has heard our prayers! They’re making an AI KC-130 that will be released alongside the AV-8B (for free).

 

 

[/url]Source

 

Yes! The Razbam KC-130 is going to be a great addition. We can use that to refuel the F-18C, the AV-8B, the future Sea Stallion, and more. That KC-130 is going to see a lot of single player and multiplayer action! :thumbup: MJ

[Greekbull]

Yes! The Razbam KC-130 is going to be a great addition. We can use that to refuel the F-18C, the AV-8B, the future Sea Stallion, and more. That KC-130 is going to see a lot of single player and multiplayer action! :thumbup: MJ

 

Wags also mentioned last week I believe that Razbam is also adding the drogue to the KC-135. So we will get two great tanking options for all of those platforms!

[mjmorrow]

Wags also mentioned last week I believe that Razbam is also adding the drogue to the KC-135. So we will get two great tanking options for all of those platforms!

 

Thank you for mentioning that, Greekbull! I totally missed that! The KC-130 and KC-135 will both be greatly appreciated. I can't wait to see all the new DCS addons waiting for those tankers, the F18c's, AV-8B's, the F14A & B's! Good times ahead! :thumbup:

[Robert31178]

Indeed. 2018 will be a good year for us it would seem :-)

[TaktLwG 73 Steinhoff]

Future Sea Stallion? Did I miss something?

[SkateZilla]

Please Keep on topic, But:

Razbam kind of announced they are doing a Sea Stallion on their FB.

[Spudknocker]

I know we are getting a KC-130 and a probe/drogue modded KC-135, but it would be really cool especially for the F-14's coming to get a KA-6D Intruder AI Model for refueling for both the F-14 and F/A-18.

 

An updated S-3C would be better for mid 2000's F/A-18 but I think a KA-6D would be super neat to have as an option!

[CheckGear]

Question - the KA-6D was retired in 1994, but the A-6E continued to fly until 1997. The A-6E continued to be used a tanker role.

 

My question is, was the A-6E essentially outfitted with buddy stores? And did this result in a decrease in the amount of fuel available for tanking?

[BlackLion213]

Question - the KA-6D was retired in 1994, but the A-6E continued to fly until 1997. The A-6E continued to be used a tanker role.

 

My question is, was the A-6E essentially outfitted with buddy stores? And did this result in a decrease in the amount of fuel available for tanking?

 

Yep, just like you described. :)

 

The KA-6D had an integral hose and drogue built into the belly and carried 5 external tanks. Total fuel carried was around 26,000 lbs.

 

With the A-6E carrying a buddy store, it still carried 5 external tanks, but the central fuel tank also contained the hose and drogue - reducing the capacity of that central tank. I'm not sure how much capacity was lost, if the entire center tank was just hose/drogue then it could be as much as 3000 lbs less fuel than the KA-6D. So figure somewhere between 1500 to 3000 lbs less fuel carried.

 

-Nick

[CheckGear]

Yep, just like you described. :)

 

The KA-6D had an integral hose and drogue built into the belly and carried 5 external tanks. Total fuel carried was around 26,000 lbs.

 

With the A-6E carrying a buddy store, it still carried 5 external tanks, but the central fuel tank also contained the hose and drogue - reducing the capacity of that central tank. I'm not sure how much capacity was lost, if the entire center tank was just hose/drogue then it could be as much as 3000 lbs less fuel than the KA-6D. So figure somewhere between 1500 to 3000 lbs less fuel carried.

 

-Nick

 

Good to talk to you again, Blacklion!

 

That's quite a downgrade. Of course, that was mitigated by the greater availability of tankers, since S-3Bs were used primarily for tanking by this point.

 

Does that also mean the post-1994 air wings carried ten Intruders as opposed to the fourteen of yesteryear, given the four extra Intruders were KA-6Ds?

[BlackLion213]

Good to talk to you again, Blacklion!

 

Does that also mean the post-1994 air wings carried ten Intruders as opposed to the fourteen of yesteryear, given the four extra Intruders were KA-6Ds?

 

You too CheckGear. :)

 

From what I can tell, A-6 squadrons were still deploying with 14 airframes, but all were A-6Es.

 

You're right that the airwing lost a lot of tanking capacity after retiring the KA-6D, but after Desert Storm the Navy started operating much more directly with the USAF and generally utilized their tanking assets as well. This helped quite a bit, but also cost the USN some operational independence. Still, after the Cold War ended the focus was on integrated littoral warfare and the notion of a "blue water" conflict seemed pretty remote.

 

-Nick

[CheckGear]

You too CheckGear. :)

 

From what I can tell, A-6 squadrons were still deploying with 14 airframes, but all were A-6Es.

 

You're right that the airwing lost a lot of tanking capacity after retiring the KA-6D, but after Desert Storm the Navy started operating much more directly with the USAF and generally utilized their tanking assets as well. This helped quite a bit, but also cost the USN some operational independence. Still, after the Cold War ended the focus was on integrated littoral warfare and the notion of a "blue water" conflict seemed pretty remote.

 

-Nick

 

Here's a very innovative, if highly imperfect, solution for providing the carrier air wing a (semi-)organic tanking solution in the post-S-3B era:

 

Observers have compared the ASW and ASuW capabilities of the S-3 with the P-3C and asked how retiring this platform effected Naval Aviation. The truth is it effected the air wing enormously, but not in the ways one might think. With the loss of the Viking, the air wing had to rely on fast strike aircraft for organic tanking. Plugging tanks and buddy stores on an already short-legged strike fighter such as the legacy F/A-18C or even the upgraded F/A-18F is not nearly as effective as a dedicated tanker aircraft with long legs.

 

The funny thing is that MMA was originally envisioned as providing tanking services to the air wing. Instead of deploying independently, each P-8A squadron would be tied to a particular air wing. The P-8A's would follow the carrier as it moved from its homeport to an operating area, hopping from air base to air base. When a carrier would go into flight ops, the P-8A would launch, tank aircraft using drogue and hose buddy stores, conduct a surveillance flight around the carrier, tank during recovery, and then return to base. This was a great idea but got killed by inter-service politics.

 

When the Air Force heard that the navy was soliciting proposals with the tanking mission included, they cried foul, saying the fleet of KC-135's and KC-10's were the sole source of strategic tanking as mandated by Congress. The Navy replied "well, it's not strategic tanking, it's tactical tanking," but that battle had already been lost. A great idea withered on the vine because of shortsighted petty inter-service politics. Naval Aviation has always been shorted by USAF tanker assets. Why else would an organization like Omega Tanker exist? They provide on-demand tanking for the air wing because the USAF makes it too cumbersome. Oh, and because the Navy decided to retire the S-3 with no long-range tanker replacement. That decision didn't help the air wing but it sure helped Omega's shareholders.

 

It truly is a shame that the P-8A wasn't tied to the air wing as it was envisioned at one time. Both organizations would become more effective and deadly with the synergy of a powerful and persistent land-based sensor platform with tons of gas to play with and the all the unique strike, air-to-air and search and rescue capabilities of the air wing. Maritime patrol crews get a hard time for not being familiar with operating with the carrier and her aircraft but that's understandable if you consider the context. P-3C and P-8A crews usually only train with a carrier once or twice a year during a carrier group's pre-deployment certification exercises. Would anyone expect a football team to practice twice and then be ready for the big game on Friday night? No way! Why would anyone expect that something like aerial warfare would be simpler than a football game? The more the P-8A and the carrier air wing fly together, the more effective both will be.

 

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/confessions-of-a-pilot-behind-the-us-navys-airborne-sub-1598415741

 

The reality is always more complicated, but the Air Force's reaction was curious, given that there'll always be a demand for tankers. It's not as if the Air Force doesn't have enough aircraft to refuel.

[Scrape]

The Air Force doesn't have enough tankers for itself, let alone another branch. It's understandable. I've seen lots of movements cancel or become delayed. Not by hours, but days. Deployments shifted or TDY's for training dropped for lack of tanker support. When I joined I never heard of such a thing. Now, it's more common.

[CheckGear]

The Air Force doesn't have enough tankers for itself, let alone another branch. It's understandable. I've seen lots of movements cancel or become delayed. Not by hours, but days. Deployments shifted or TDY's for training dropped for lack of tanker support. When I joined I never heard of such a thing. Now, it's more common.

 

Which makes it's opposition to the P-8 being used as a tanker all the more baffling. It would've freed up the USAF tanker force to dedicate itself to its own aircraft.

[Scrape]

Which makes it's opposition to the P-8 being used as a tanker all the more baffling. It would've freed up the USAF tanker force to dedicate itself to its own aircraft.

 

I'm not so sure its that simple. You see AMC doesn't see itself as belonging to the Air Force. It belongs to itself. They pride themselves on providing service to the military as a whole, and after all it is in fact what they do. If a P8 tanker which is tied to the Navy and Navy duties then would it be in a position to tank Air Force jets? Who would you call for that? Which command? Is this a Naval commander who on top of running his theater is now receiving request from 16 different units who might be passing through in the next 3 months? Oh and a couple ferry flights flying at an odd hour due to country allowed airspace time. Phone calls and emails to which command in the Navy? Would they be equipped to logistically handle that? Would they keep that tanker service to themselves in the Lavy and not share such a valuable asset? That's not how it works. That in fact would be petty. Hoarding resources is not how you win a war.

 

 

Large tankers in one command allows for all services to have a one stop shop for tanking needs. This consolidation reduces cost overall, and increases the availability of an asset that everyone needs and everyone will use. Especially when the Air Force has an aging tanker fleet and needs replacement aircraft I would raise hell too if another service was awarded money for new tankers when the supplier of everyone to include the Navy isn't.

 

Imagine an Air Force unit asking for a tanker to whom? Which command? That logically disrupts how movements are organized. Perhaps it seems petty to the outsider, but the logistical flow and support of tankers for all military units (all branches) is a work of art considering what's on hand. Especially when the time will come when that Navy P8 tanker didn't make it and now the Navy has to call the Air Force to support it. It isn't Air Force pride so much as keeping the logistic machine intact. This is a good machine. It's kind of amazing.

It should be maintained, not fragmented.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Scrape

[Borg]

The KC-135 have a basket to.It is located right side just in front of the boom.

[Backy 51]

I'm not so sure its that simple. You see AMC doesn't see itself as belonging to the Air Force. It belongs to itself. They pride themselves on providing service to the military as a whole, and after all it is in fact what they do. If a P8 tanker which is tied to the Navy and Navy duties then would it be in a position to tank Air Force jets? Who would you call for that? Which command? Is this a Naval commander who on top of running his theater is now receiving request from 16 different units who might be passing through in the next 3 months? Oh and a couple ferry flights flying at an odd hour due to country allowed airspace time. Phone calls and emails to which command in the Navy? Would they be equipped to logistically handle that? Would they keep that tanker service to themselves in the Lavy and not share such a valuable asset? That's not how it works. That in fact would be petty. Hoarding resources is not how you win a war.

 

 

Large tankers in one command allows for all services to have a one stop shop for tanking needs. This consolidation reduces cost overall, and increases the availability of an asset that everyone needs and everyone will use. Especially when the Air Force has an aging tanker fleet and needs replacement aircraft I would raise hell too if another service was awarded money for new tankers when the supplier of everyone to include the Navy isn't.

 

Imagine an Air Force unit asking for a tanker to whom? Which command? That logically disrupts how movements are organized. Perhaps it seems petty to the outsider, but the logistical flow and support of tankers for all military units (all branches) is a work of art considering what's on hand. Especially when the time will come when that Navy P8 tanker didn't make it and now the Navy has to call the Air Force to support it. It isn't Air Force pride so much as keeping the logistic machine intact. This is a good machine. It's kind of amazing.

It should be maintained, not fragmented.

 

 

 

 

Spoken like a true Tanker Toad - NKAWTG!

[Crew Dog]

The KC-135 have a basket to.It is located right side just in front of the boom.

 

No, The basket on a KC-135 is fitted to the boom via a BDA (Boom/Drogue Adapter. I've installed many of those in my time on the Tanker.) You're thinking of that horrid abomination that they call the KC-10.

[Crew Dog]

I'm not so sure its that simple. You see AMC doesn't see itself as belonging to the Air Force. It belongs to itself. They pride themselves on providing service to the military as a whole, and after all it is in fact what they do. If a P8 tanker which is tied to the Navy and Navy duties then would it be in a position to tank Air Force jets? Who would you call for that? Which command? Is this a Naval commander who on top of running his theater is now receiving request from 16 different units who might be passing through in the next 3 months? Oh and a couple ferry flights flying at an odd hour due to country allowed airspace time. Phone calls and emails to which command in the Navy? Would they be equipped to logistically handle that? Would they keep that tanker service to themselves in the Lavy and not share such a valuable asset? That's not how it works. That in fact would be petty. Hoarding resources is not how you win a war.

 

 

Large tankers in one command allows for all services to have a one stop shop for tanking needs. This consolidation reduces cost overall, and increases the availability of an asset that everyone needs and everyone will use. Especially when the Air Force has an aging tanker fleet and needs replacement aircraft I would raise hell too if another service was awarded money for new tankers when the supplier of everyone to include the Navy isn't.

 

Imagine an Air Force unit asking for a tanker to whom? Which command? That logically disrupts how movements are organized. Perhaps it seems petty to the outsider, but the logistical flow and support of tankers for all military units (all branches) is a work of art considering what's on hand. Especially when the time will come when that Navy P8 tanker didn't make it and now the Navy has to call the Air Force to support it. It isn't Air Force pride so much as keeping the logistic machine intact. This is a good machine. It's kind of amazing.

It should be maintained, not fragmented.

 

And more specifically, the KC-135 ops (at the current timeframe) belongs to McConnell AFB, as they have the largest active fleet of 135's (soon to change with the rollout of KC-46) One thing to remember, AMC's main vision is Global Reach, so naturally they would have all the Force Multiplier capabilities (unless you fall under USAFE, then Ramstein owns you :P)

Edited November 30, 2017 by Crew Dog

[Scrape]

Spoken like a true Tanker Toad - NKAWTG!

 

Thanks for the love! Im a Toad, a Load Toad! An old 2W1. When youve been in long enough to plan movements you see a different side of the war machine. I respect it when it works and like a good maintainer cuss it when it doesn't.

[Crew Dog]

I respect it when it works and like a good maintainer cuss it when it doesn't.

 

Amen to that! Now get back on your Jammer, we got a 10 turn 8 today, and I've been waiting on POL for an hour...again.

[Scrape]

Amen to that! Now get back on your Jammer, we got a 10 turn 8 today, and I've been waiting on POL for an hour...again.

 

You wait on POL, and I wait on Ammo...again.

[vctpil]

Hi,

 

Anyone try to connect to the KC-135BDA ? Maybe there is a bug or it is only not possible.

 

I can connect to the S-3B, but not this one.

 

Thanks,

Vincent

[Turnip]

I will admit that in flight refueling is a B***C. Especially when the S-3 starts turning. Anyone having issues connecting?

[toma19]

Hi,

 

Anyone try to connect to the KC-135BDA ? Maybe there is a bug or it is only not possible.

 

I can connect to the S-3B, but not this one.

 

Thanks,

Vincent

It's not possible to connect to the KC-135BDA atm , Razbam is still working on a fix