Off-station refueling, including in-flight

[StoleIt]

Since you're taking requests...don't slow dow, just descend down to ~5k AGL so the Hogs don't have to climb up to get gas.

If it was up to me I would.

But some the intel briefs in the past couple of days does raise an eyebrow for a military aircraft with absolutely zero form of self defense.

Cap-10, you may be on the right track; how much variance/deviation happens between your fragged ARs and reality? If they're reasonably close, that might work...

From the tanker perspective...I'd say 1 out of every 5 receivers so far is as fragged. Generally they want less...but if there is a TIC or something going on they will ask for a top off.

And I have yet to have a single mission where the entire offload went as planned according to the ATO. There has always been last minute adds, receiver cancels, token offloads (4k to some Mud Hens...WTF guys), or top offs.

[herkbier]

Do booms have a fuel flow gauge? Is it accurate?

[Homestar]

KC-135 has no boom-flow gauge. The fuel totalizer on the fuel panel up front is no better than a cracker jack toy.

[Prozac]

Do booms have a fuel flow gauge? Is it accurate?

No and no. As stated, totalizer up front varies from wildly inaccurate to completely useless. All calculations based on copilot's public math. Not always pretty.

[Guest Daddy Mac]

Would it be unreasonable for the receiver to report the number of ARs during a mission, and the quantity of fuel received rounded to the nearest 1/4 tank? You could convert to gallons/pounds once you were back on the ground. If its just a top-off, use something like TO so the WRDCO knows that you got gas, but that it isn't much.

That would be accurate enough for him to do a sanity check against what the tanker reported and catch anything strange, but not cause excessive amounts of pain in the air (I hope).

[schokie]

Just to clear up a couple misconceptions here.

1) The fuel gage in the jet isn't like it is in your car. It doesn't show fractions of a tank, it shows thousands of pounds, and just a totalizer at that. So there is no way to determine how much gas you recieved without subtracting your remembered pre-AR total from the post-AR total. Reporting that in fractions of a tank requires more work, not less.

2) A topoff isn't just a quick couple thousand pounds. It means fill it up till it don't take no more. So a topoff for a Strike Eagle could easily be 25K each. So other than listing that I took gas, telling you it was a topoff gives you no idea how much gas I took.

Edited December 20, 2011 by schokie

[Guest Daddy Mac]

Lots of comments about what can't be done, but not many about what can be. I can leave it up to the MAJCOM to dictate that guidance, but then you'll be stuck with whatever they say. Ideas?

[Jaded]

Lots of comments about what can't be done, but not many about what can be.

Couldn't the same be said about your posts?

[SurelySerious]

Lots of comments about what can't be done, but not many about what can be. I can leave it up to the MAJCOM to dictate that guidance, but then you'll be stuck with whatever they say. Ideas?

There have been plenty of ideas, and you've dismissed all of them.

[jango220]

The problem is that a rewrite of the AFI is not going to change anything. There is simply no way to accurately track how much fuel is transferred between tankers and receivers without implementing some new hardware. How we do things now gets us close, i.e. within a few hundred pounds.

The tankers need an accurate fuel panel and totalizer, and there needs to be something like a RFID chip that identifies each plane for fuel tracking purposes. Heck, I'd just like the fuel panel to match what the 781 shows how much fuel is actually loaded for once. Don't believe us about the totalizers? There are 2 tanker bases within driving distance of you (135s at Andrews and 135s/10s at McGuire). Talk in an official capacity with the guys who do this every day. Go fly with them and see the numbers on the fuel panels change the second you turn on pumps, and watch the copilot frantically try and keep track of it (my current job). See the inadequacies in the equipment, and see how we implement the system that is currently in place.

[Karl Hungus]

Lots of comments about what can't be done, but not many about what can be.

There have been lots of suggestions, but they require a lot of work and significant financial investment on the AF's part. That's not the simple answer you're looking for, so you've dismissed the suggestions.

What you're asking for simply isn't possible without some major improvements to the jets (RFIDs, accurate fuel counters, etc).

If you (or the AF/DoD) really wanted to save fuel and money, you'd take a long hard look at the blank check AFCENT receives. Having 600k-900k pounds of extra, unspoken for gas and 6-9 extra tankers over the AOR at any given time is complete overkill. But that would require some tough decisions be made and some painful prioritizing of resources, things you and your comrades at the pentagon are unwilling to do.

[brickhistory]

But that would require some tough decisions be made and some painful prioritizing of resources, things you and your comrades at the pentagon are unwilling to do.

And he is you. As were those "leaders" at one point.

[JarheadBoom]

BUT, all I care about is giving the guy his gas so he can go help out the guy on the ground. Nothing is more rewarding than seeing a jet come back for gas with some empty pylons on it's wings. That's what our job is about.

Best statement of the whole damn thread, at least from the tanker perspective.

I realize that the cost of implementing such a system would, at least up front, outweigh and probably restrict such system from being worth it, but what about actually measuring the amount of offload and/or onload that passes through the boom/refueling receptacle?

Do booms have a fuel flow gauge?

The KC-10 has two offload quantity gauges, one each for the FE and BO on their panels. They're not perfect, but we've got 'em and we use 'em. I have no idea how hard it would be to retrofit all the hardware from the KC-10 offload gauge system into the -135 fuel system (beyond getting past the "A KC-10 part on a KC-135?!? BLASPHEMY!!!" reactions of some people in both communities...)

Couple that with a rfid sensor system, or even just paint the damned tail # above the receptacle and you have a system in place that CAN gnats-ass the transfer, and neither individual has to worry about guessing at any of the required accounting data.

A lot of receivers have their tail # painted near the receptacle, but not all. Even when they are painted, they're not always visible at night, and I'm not cranking up any of my external lights just to see the number (and thereby blinding the receiver pilot(s)).

An RFID tag on every receiver-capable aircraft, combined with an RFID reader on every tanker's boom nozzle, would be sweet.

[Guest Daddy Mac]

Gents,

I have not discounted your suggestions. There is a difference between unwilling to help and unable to help. DLA is the Godfather for all of the fuel in the DOD; every service is bound by their systems and their processes. Yet I have been told more than once that I am unwilling to help because I can't change what DLA says we have to do. Believe me - I wish I could.

Congress has put our fuel budget under a microscope, but we can't really protest because we can't/don't track what we really use and what we really spend. Until we get to the place where we can accurately measure what we use and what we spend, we will continue to have our budget cut. When our budget gets cut, so do your flying hours. I really am trying to help all of you by dragging the AF - kicking and screaming - to a place where we can account for the fuel that we use and the money we spend to buy that fuel.

My question at the start was simple: what's the best way for a fighter to record the gas he gets during an in-flight refuel. The overwhelming answer has been: "...what [i'm] asking for simply isn't possible without some major improvements to the jets

(RFIDs, accurate fuel counters, etc)." If it seems that I have dismissed all of your suggestions, it's because almost every suggestion has been about how to NOT pass tail numbers, or how to NOT record fuel received. No one - except for the C-17 driver who posted the first reply - has offered a method to pass information to the WRDCO so he can verify the fuel bills. No one has told me yet why you can't, at the least, document the number of ARs on a mission, and turn that in during your debriefs. The WRDCO will need something he can use to verify those fuel bills when they come across his desk, and I was hoping the community here could offer a viable solution to that problem.

All that I have the immediate power to change are processes internal to the Air Force (and by "change," I mean "write guidance into an AFI" - I have no power whatsoever to enforce anything). Some of you will follow them - like the C-17 driver. Some of you will blow them off because you think they are stupid/difficult/impossible. That's fine, but when you do that, you are hurting your own cause.

As for the totalizers, RFIDs, AFCENT, et al. I can recommend those things up my chain, but that's all that I have the power to do. Maybe they will gain traction. Maybe they won't. I don't know.

If you can't see what I'm trying to do and why, then just continue to consider me a stupid shoe who doesn't understand what the "real" Air Force is about. But when you get pissed because your flying hours become sim hours, and want to know what stupid bean counter made that brilliant decision...go look in the mirror.

[Danny Noonin]

But when you get pissed because your flying hours become sim hours, and want to know what stupid bean counter made that brilliant decision...go look in the mirror.

Go look in the mirror? Go fuck yourself. I was with you and your quest up until this point.

This is an internet forum, not the place to find real, accurate answers for your staff work. Go do some real Magnum P.I. detective work by coordinating with real fighter/bomber/airlift/tanker/etc wings and get your real answers the old fashioned way. Are you really going to try and change an AFI and the way the AF does business based on what you learned from anonymous dudes on the internet?

The truth is you don't even know what you're asking for, therefore you aren't getting the answers you need. You talked about accurate fuel totals, which we all said was challenging at best and gave specific reasons why. Then you said stuff about 1/4 tank or 1/2 tank, which means absolutely nothing in terms of accurately accounting for fuel. You also talked about just basically verifying that a certain unit did AR on a certain day to send the bill to the right place and so no one can contest it. That's a totally different animal and does not require anyone to do extra paperwork since that information already exists on paper. You just need to figure out how to find it.

So which is it? Do you really need to just verify that AR occurred or do you need accurate numbers? Until you can understand and accurately communicate the problem and what your goals are, then you aren't going to get any real answers. Right now, you're all over the place.

I know you are trying to solve a problem that is outside of your expertise. Sucks to be you. But don't come into an internet forum looking for the real answers (wrong strategy) then throw spears when you don't like the answers (wrong tactic).

[D-ron]

Using the car analogy - when you pump gas you don't independently verify the exact amount of gas you get. You look at the reciept and it says you took 6.9 gallons of fuel. You assume 6.9 gallons was correct and you turn in that reciept for reimbursement. I don't see any need to independently verify onload in a fighter/bomber either.

How about the tanker tells us how much fuel they offloaded (their gauges may be innaccurate, but not any more inaccurate than our gauges) and we write that number down, and accept it as fact. They usually already tell us how much we gas we got, so nothing needs to change there. It will still be a pain in the ass to write that number down and fill out yet another post-flight form, but it will be easier than: [start AR fuel - (end AR fuel + (average fuel flow during AR)*(time on AR))]. I know the tanker dudes have to do something like that equation to tell us how much they offloaded, but I assume they have a little more brain bites to spare than the reciever.

Edit to add: Daddy Mac, go back and re-read Rainman's driving analogy, and think about the workload in the cockpit before you go and rewrite the books. There will be lots of push back from the communities if you try and increase our workload in an already very high workload phase of flight. Yes, even writing down a number can be difficult.

Edited December 21, 2011 by D-ron

[Guest]

This fucker took a hard left into the ditch...

[Alpharatz]

This ######er took a hard left into the ditch...

Oh No !!!? are you OK? need an ambulance? maybe a wrecker? Yet to continue posting thru such an ordeal

.......................and through it all he e-mailed......................

[Guest Daddy Mac]

Danny Noonin,

Yeah, I regret the last bit. My apologies to you and to everyone else.

D-ron,

Because of your post, I went back and reread the thread. My original question was answered within the first couple of posts, but unfortunately I missed it. Then, things quickly spun out of control...

Q: How do you know how much fuel you took during an AR?

A: Because the tanker tells you how much you took.

In this case, since the whole point is to verify that yes, your jet took on the fuel - the amount the tanker tells you is good enough. Ideal, in fact, since the WRDCO won't have to try to figure out why the amount you report and amount on his bill don't match. Getting the job done in the air comes first, and if you are unable to record how much you took, then so be it. In that case, documenting the number of ARs is better than nothing.

As for the fractional tank thing, that comes from a flaw in Rainman's exercise in eloquence. "Think about trying to determine how many gallons of gas you bought simply by using the gas gauge in your car." So, I thought about it...

For those of you who are still reading this far, I am dead serious when I say that Congress has put HUGE target on our fuel budget - and therefore your flying hours are also targeted. Our argument to keep your flying hours will carry more weight if we can accurately account for all of the fuel that we buy and the money we spend to buy it - and as trivial as it may seem, and as annoying, frustrating, and difficult as it might be, passing real tail numbers and tracking those AR amounts really does help.

Now, all of that said, I will try to redeem myself by answering, as best I can, your questions about how the money and fuel flows. Just no more about tail numbers...please.

edit=typos

Edited December 21, 2011 by Daddy Mac

[Prosuper]

As a prior Kc-135 mx guy and it was on water injected A/Q models so my frame of reference may be quite dated. Sometimes the best answer to a problem is the simpliest answer, with todays software would it be able to tell you the weight of tanker aircraft before and after a AR? Wouldn't that be more accurate using than total offload depending on fuel guages, fuel sloshing in tanks, fuel tank capitiance probes unable to keep up in the flight envelope. If able to determine your weight inflight it would be a very simple equation to determine your off load within a +/- 500 pounds. Then again I am not sure if you have the capability to accurately tell your weight inflight.

[Jughead]

Then again I am not sure if you have the capability to accurately tell your weight inflight.

That's the issue--your gross weight readout is only as accurate as your fuel weight readout, since it's depending on the fuel reading to determine the gross weight.

[magnetfreezer]

Now, all of that said, I will try to redeem myself by answering, as best I can, your questions about how the money and fuel flows. Just no more about tail numbers...please.

edit=typos

Any objection to looking up tail numbers afterwards? Tails are needed to uniquely identify a certain jet. Callsigns on a specific day do the same.

1. Boom writes down 20k @ time X to Mudhen69, 10k to Viper69, etc, etc. along with whatever tails him or the copilots can deduce on some type of daily flight log. Completes A/R without needing to clog up radio asking for tail numbers.

2. Hands log to ARMS with rest of paperwork on landing, ARMS calls receiver ARMS and says "what tail flew Viper69 on this day"?

3. Tanker ARMS sends log with tails and fuels to WRDCO. Big Blue can track fuel flow by tail # and everyone is happy.

[ThreeHoler]

ARMS fucks up logging stuff enough as it is...

[Guest]

Oh No !!!? are you OK? need an ambulance? maybe a wrecker? Yet to continue posting thru such an ordeal

.......................and through it all he e-mailed......................

WTFO?

[Guest]

Any objection to looking up tail numbers afterwards? Tails are needed to uniquely identify a certain jet. Callsigns on a specific day do the same.

1. Boom writes down 20k @ time X to Mudhen69, 10k to Viper69, etc, etc. along with whatever tails him or the copilots can deduce on some type of daily flight log. Completes A/R without needing to clog up radio asking for tail numbers.

2. Hands log to ARMS with rest of paperwork on landing, ARMS calls receiver ARMS and says "what tail flew Viper69 on this day"?

3. Tanker ARMS sends log with tails and fuels to WRDCO. Big Blue can track fuel flow by tail # and everyone is happy.

The BO doesn't always know which callsign within a flight is on the boom, the flight lead decides that and often doesn't tell the BO what the refueling order will be because it doesn't matter and it would just be extraneous comm. As long as we don't go overboard with worrying about which tail in a flight took which offload this might work.

All this and the tail numbers are painted next to the recepticle. The BO DEMANDS it be said over the radio before he even knows whether he will be able to see it when the jet pulls up to the boom.

You guys look at this picture and see if you can see the tail number on the A-10 (look carefully, it's REALLY difficult to see) and tell me if passing the tail number over the radio is more important than staying out of the wx so we don't ice up the maverick seekers.