RAF RC-135's can't refuel from RAF tankers

Discussion in 'Royal Air Force' started by sunnoficarus, Jan 22, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Yes, I get that bit, flying boom and all that, but what am I missing here?

    RAF sources said the Rivet Joint can fly for up to ten hours without refuelling so commanders would rarely need to rely on their allies for assistance.
    But they said fitting the spy plane with RAF-friendly mid-air refuelling capabilities would have seen costs spiral 'astronomically' and delay the introduction of the aircraft for several years.
    One officer said: 'This is not the gold-standard but that was not possible in the time frame we wanted to have the planes in operation.

    Read more: Embarrassment for MoD as new £650million spy Airseeker planes cannot refuel in mid-air | Mail Online
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    Hmmm, does he really mean someone dropped a bollock?

  2. Grumblegrunt

    Grumblegrunt LE Book Reviewer

    I thought one thing we get repeatedly asked for off the US is our refueling capability so how come these things don't fit.

    somebody knew as usual and as usual somebody higher up decided it wasn't necessary - like our new tanker fleet being a bag of shite costing more for less than other buyers.
  3. Well, it's called compromise isn't it. Of course we could have insisted on AAR capability (although 10-12 hours seems like a reasonable sortie length to me), but someone has to make a cost-benefit decision. To try and paint it as an oversight, however, is ridiculous.
  4. That isn't a Rivet Joint

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 2
  5. I did wonder about the pic of the E3 Sentry...
    • Like Like x 2
  6. As said in the article, it was either soon, cheap(er) and without AAR or late, more expensive and the gold standard.

    Of note is the fact that USMC/Navy (and alot of other countries) aircraft use probe and drogue too - hence why our tankers are so popular on Ops.

    (Editted to add that KC-135 can also refuel probe and drogue - although this was not always the case...)
  7. I was referring to the claims of astronomical cost rises and years of delay to bolt a fuel probe to the cab roof. Does seem a bit of an over egging of the issue. I mean, it's not as if the things haven't already got all the properly installed refuelling plumbing already running up to the roof, is it?

    Yes, I know, it's a E-3, same airframe as the RC-135, same flying boom refuelling arrangements, that the RAF were able to bolt a refuelling probe on in quick time without breaking the national coffers and spending years doing it.
    • Like Like x 2
  8. RJ was never going to be P/D capable without a massive wedge of extra cash - that cash could only have come from within the RJ 'buy', so the choice was either 3 RJ without P/D that fit seemlessly into the USAF RJ programme - including upgrades - or 2 RJ with P/D that don't fit seemlessly into the USAF RJ programme, and don't have upgrades.

    only a fucknut could possibly have thought option 2 was the better option.
    • Like Like x 3
  9. USN & USMC use hose & drogue.

    On original topic... LOL! it's all you can do,
  10. no, its not.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. So why didn't the RAF wonk just say they wanted them to stay 100% USAF compatible instead of waffling on about gazillions in cost and years of delays and save all the confusion?
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Anyone remember the Nimrod disaster and subsequent enquiry about just bolting on a fuel probe? Royal Air Force Nimrod XV230 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    • Like Like x 1
  13. It's okay. It's just a case of doing more with less.

    Easy that.
  14. Any news though?
  15. Surely the key thing is to get it into UK service?
    • Like Like x 2