Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 96.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Roman Alymov

    16121

  • Stuart Galbraith

    11338

  • glenn239

    5038

  • Josh

    3789

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted
1 hour ago, Josh said:

USAF uses rigid booms; everyone else in the entire world (and USMC and USN) use probe and drogue (hoses), with the only other exception I can think of being the half dozen or so 707s of the IAF. The USAF adopted this in its SAC years because it is a much faster refill for bomber sized aircraft. A long time ago there actually were separate TAC probe and drogue tankers for fighter aircraft, but the fleet was consolidated. KC-10s and KC-46s can employ hose refueling pods on their wings to handle both methods and KC-135s can use an adaptor to switch to hose in place of boom.

The RAF Rivet Joint fleet is ex USAF so they are boom receivers unless the Brits modified them.

RAF RC135’s are identical to US versions.  They were converted from KC 135 manufactured the same year as several of the US fleet.   

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Josh said:

USAF uses rigid booms; everyone else in the entire world (and USMC and USN) use probe and drogue (hoses), with the only other exception I can think of being the half dozen or so 707s of the IAF. The USAF adopted this in its SAC years because it is a much faster refill for bomber sized aircraft. A long time ago there actually were separate TAC probe and drogue tankers for fighter aircraft, but the fleet was consolidated. KC-10s and KC-46s can employ hose refueling pods on their wings to handle both methods and KC-135s can use an adaptor to switch to hose in place of boom.

The RAF Rivet Joint fleet is ex USAF so they are boom receivers unless the Brits modified them.

Thanks for that Josh I couldn't for the life of me remember the details.

One of the reasons why the UK hasn't made the RAF Rivet Joints compatabile with RAF tankers is that due to the public-private contract that Air Tanker won, is that changing the contract is so costly, that it's beyond the RAF budget to do so. It's that extremely tightly wordered. 

Some other NATO countries have looked at public-private deals - that the UK was first to do - but have realised that why it maybe cheaper it's not flexible enough for most air forces, and results in it being more costly in the long term.

Edited by TrustMe
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, txtree99 said:

RAF RC135’s are identical to US versions.  They were converted from KC 135 manufactured the same year as several of the US fleet.   

There were a lot of differences between the US an UK Rivet Joints but it's all classified so I have no idea what. I'm sure that certain US technology that the US wanted solely for themselves was removed/downgraded. Likewise certain technology that the RAF wanted we don't let the US get access to it was added.

Edited by TrustMe
Posted
1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

There were a lot of differences between the US an UK Rivet Joints but it's all classified so I have no idea what. I'm sure that certain US technology that the US wanted solely for themselves was removed/downgraded. Likewise certain technology that the RAF wanted we don't let the US get access to it was added.

I worked on them at their depot.     There is no difference in them

Posted
13 minutes ago, txtree99 said:

I worked on them at their depot.     There is no difference in them

Cool. I didn't know that.

Posted
1 hour ago, txtree99 said:

 

It is visejunk, it is probably fake.

Posted
2 minutes ago, bojan said:

It is visejunk, it is probably fake.

Might be.  They stated later it was a Gepard SPAAG…have not seen it on other feeds

Posted
Just now, txtree99 said:

Might be.  They stated later it was a Gepard SPAAG…have not seen it on other feeds

Sounds more like ZU-23, but sound over bodies of water, then recorded can be really deceiving.

Posted

I can't tell from the sound...but doesn't look like Gepard fire to me (though guy on video says 'Gepard'). Looks like ZU-23 and some other assorted guns/machineguns to me. Also if the video is from Romanian side, doesn't look like any of the shooting takes place from their side of the river.

ZU-23's firing at night for comparison:

 

Posted
7 hours ago, txtree99 said:

 

Well if it’s close enough to shot at with gun fire then that’s close enough to warrant a response, given how often Russian ordnance goes off script. I doubt even the Russians are surprised.

Posted
5 hours ago, Yama said:

I can't tell from the sound...but doesn't look like Gepard fire to me (though guy on video says 'Gepard'). Looks like ZU-23 and some other assorted guns/machineguns to me. Also if the video is from Romanian side, doesn't look like any of the shooting takes place from their side of the river.

ZU-23's firing at night for comparison:

 

For comparison 

 

 

 

Posted
11 hours ago, TrustMe said:

Thanks for that Josh I couldn't for the life of me remember the details.

One of the reasons why the UK hasn't made the RAF Rivet Joints compatabile with RAF tankers is that due to the public-private contract that Air Tanker won, is that changing the contract is so costly, that it's beyond the RAF budget to do so. It's that extremely tightly wordered. 

Some other NATO countries have looked at public-private deals - that the UK was first to do - but have realised that why it maybe cheaper it's not flexible enough for most air forces, and results in it being more costly in the long term.

Curious that the UK bought A330MRTT, (Voyager Mk.2 and Mk.3) and decided to no install the refueling boom.

Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, sunday said:

Curious that the UK bought A330MRTT, (Voyager Mk.2 and Mk.3) and decided to no install the refueling boom.

The RC-135 fleet is like 3-4 aircraft, right? Not enough to plan refueling around. And I believe it was kind of a quick deal for both parties. Plus they have USAF tankers literally based inside their country. In the rare instance that they want to do something alone, they can with range limitations. Anything NATO ish, USAF will pitch in.

Edited by Josh
Posted

The primary recce aircraft of the RAF would have been specially modified Nimrod. They were taken out of service in 2011 after the crash in Afghanistan in 2006 (im still not clear what exactly caused the crash, but an aging airframe apparently had something to do with it).

Voyager tanker entered service the following year in 2007, which means they must have specced it long before the RC135 replacement entered service with the RAF, which was in 2011. Ergo, there was absolutely no reason why they would accomodate the RC135, because they had no expectation they would be ever operating it. And as said, why add complexity and cost to a tanker just to accomodate such a trivial number of aircraft.

IMHO, they woudl perhaps do well to plug all the gear into an A400 and kick the RC135 loose. But of course, budget is always a problem.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...