Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Avionics-Equipped F-35 Joins Edwards AFB Test Jets
FORT WORTH, Texas, December 14th, 2010 -- The third F-35A to join the test fleet at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., tops off its fuel tanks while cruising west toward its destination after departing Fort Worth, Texas, on Dec. 10. Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti flew the conventional takeoff and landing variant, known as AF-3, on the 1,200-mile ferry flight. AF-3 will focus on testing advanced technologies and mission systems. The F-35 Lightning II program on Dec. 9 achieved its goal of 394 flights in 2010, and reached the 400-flight mark for the year-to-date on Dec.13.
Cheers

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/pres ... Btest.html

F-16.net Sponsor

I've never understood why the USAF doesn't use probe & drogue, but instead prefers the flying boom technology. It seems like it would be much easier for the pilot to line up a probe. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyone have experience with one or the other want to comment on the pluses and minuses?

perhaps the boom works better with the big birds like C-5, so to standardize have all planes use the same. Also the Air Force One would look stupid with a big probe sticking out at the front. Embarassed

I have no experience with it, but I am pretty sure I have seen comments on here in other threads from boom-operators stating that they can supply more jets in a shorter amount of time with the boom than they can with the drogue. Any true experts out there to educate us, please?

Here is a 2006 GAO doc that covers it.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32910.pdf

lamoey wrote:

Air Force One would look stupid with a big probe sticking out at the front. Embarassed

It would be a more accurate depiction of what the politicians intend for us though. Shocked

Thanks Spud!

stereospace wrote:

I've never understood why the USAF doesn't use probe & drogue, but instead prefers the flying boom technology. It seems like it would be much easier for the pilot to line up a probe. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyone have experience with one or the other want to comment on the pluses and minuses?

The "easiest" is the one you are trained on.

Boom to P/D is 3-4 to 1 on flow rates. It takes longer to fuel with the smaller system. Both planes burn more fuel while waiting on fueling. Combat a/c like fighters have small fuel load systems compared to bombers and transports. This is simple apples and oranges. SAC's tankers for it's big bombers (apples) are now, also refueling "all"(oranges). It's a good idea and now everyone wants one.

The probe adds more weight and complexity to the stealth fighter. Soon a Predator will "pull up and want a sip", of course it may be a KC-27J that slows down to do the refuel. The Brits found that inflight refueling was more than "just" adding the plumbing; samething with these fighters. Two Cents

A good a place as any because we have seen discussion about icy runway drag chutes for Canada perhaps and Norway with the refuelling issue. Can't say when this graphic was made from here:
http://forums.liveleak.com/attachment.p ... 1313785254

But here 'tis.

That came from page 16 of a May 7th, 2009 presentation on F-35 International Business Development for Canada and United Kingdom presented by Keith P. Knotts.

Here it is in our Program Docs thread.
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 096#154096

stereospace wrote:

I've never understood why the USAF doesn't use probe & drogue, but instead prefers the flying boom technology. It seems like it would be much easier for the pilot to line up a probe. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyone have experience with one or the other want to comment on the pluses and minuses?

The reason for the USAF being stuck with the boom system goes all the way back to the 1950s, when it was decided to standardize to one system. Back then, SAC had the most clout; and while probe 'n drogue was the fastest, safest and easiest way to refuel most of the time (it could refuel up to 3 planes at once), the boom method was faster for tanking large bombers. Despite all arguments to the contrary, LeMay didn't really give a rat's a$$ about the rest of the Air Force; so everyone had to go with the boom, whether they liked it or not. The Navy, having smaller aircraft, went with the drogue, along with the rest of the world.

SWP says: "...That [graphic] came from page 16 of a May 7th, 2009..." Good one - thanks. Thought it was familiar but could not find another example.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

stereospace wrote:

I've never understood why the USAF doesn't use probe & drogue, but instead prefers the flying boom technology. It seems like it would be much easier for the pilot to line up a probe. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyone have experience with one or the other want to comment on the pluses and minuses?

The reason for the USAF being stuck with the boom system goes all the way back to the 1950s, when it was decided to standardize to one system. Back then, SAC had the most clout; and while probe 'n drogue was the fastest, safest and easiest way to refuel most of the time (it could refuel up to 3 planes at once), the boom method was faster for tanking large bombers. Despite all arguments to the contrary, LeMay didn't really give a rat's a$$ about the rest of the Air Force; so everyone had to go with the boom, whether they liked it or not. The Navy, having smaller aircraft, went with the drogue, along with the rest of the world.

Quick question: does the boom flow more fuel than a P&D basket? (3 baskets at once would flow more than one boom I would expect)

Ignore this ^^^^^ : I just read the answer above.

Don’t know that much about boom systems
Some info about the boom system as operated by the Dutch Airforce

The document tells: 1750 L p/min = 462.3 Gallon p/min

Purchase

The Royal Netherlands Air Force purchased two widebody, commercial DC-10s from Martinair in June 1992. They were modified into multi-functional transport and tanker aircraft and put into service in mid-1995.
The modifications included the installation of a boom system and lighting, modifying the fuel, electrical and hydraulic systems for the use of the boom, and a Remote Air Refuelling Operating (RARO) operator station and related systems. Military avionics and navigation and communications systems were also installed

Air-to-air refuelling

KDC-10s are able to refuel other aircaft in flight. The refuelling is done using the KDC-10's own fuel. The 'K' of KDC-10 is an internationally recognised symbol that indicates that an aircraft is an air-to-air refueller.

Air-to-air refuelling is done with the help of the RARO system. That system includes 5 cameras and a fuelling boom.
The boom is a narrow, 8 m long hose that can be extended from the rear of the aircraft up to a maximum length of 15 m.

The boom is operated by a boom operator from a station directly behind the KDC-10's cockpit. With the aid of a computer and several 3-D monitors, the boom operator has a good view of the aircraft being refueled. The tank hose is manoeuvred into position by means of a joystick.

When refueling another aircraft, approximately 1,750 litres of fuel per minute can be pumped from the KDC-10's tanks into the receiving aircraft.

http://www.defensie.nl/english/air_forc ... -10__dc-10

Salute!

Need some others here who have flown both, however....

Flew both and the boom was lots faster and easier, especially in poor weather and/or night.

- With the probe you flew the drogue AND the tanker. With the boom/receptacle you only flew the tanker like it was a huge attitude indicator.

- The basket was hard to see at night

- The probe weighs more and has drag. For the LO considerations, a probe would require more mechanical complexity and volume inside the skin.

- The boom could actually "pull" you once engaged, and there a many cases of tankers "helping" the little friends when they flamed out or were close to flaming out, We would call "tobaggan" , and down we went with help from the tanker.

- The Navy likes the probe as it primarily uses smaller jets and the "tankers" can be basic attack jets with external tanks carrying a small amount of fuel. Not so good for long ferry missions, as those reqwuire taking on thousands of pounds of gas while far away from the boat. think about it.

Hope that helps.

Gums sends...