Air Refueling

[Guest]

RFID tags are incredibly cheap, around the $0.50 mark. They use them in some racing organizations for timing and scoring. The costs would more than likely come from the receiving equipment on the tanker and all the associated support systems to gather and compile the data. Interesting nonetheless.

If they've signed off on ATP-56, I would assume so. Even before ATP-56 we got tail numbers from NATO receivers but that's a completely different billing process, FMS case codes and whatnot.

<bracing for Rainman's reply>

RFID is actually a good idea. You need to manage FOD and OPSEC (limit the reception/reply range) but I like it.

Looks like the AF is testing the RFID tags.

https://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123199398

Good article but I laughed at a couple things...

"(ARAI) helps clean up the process so the boomer can focus on what's really important, refueling the aircraft and completing the mission, rather than administrative tasks," said Karen Etzkorn, a Boeing systems engineer and principal investigator.

Obviously, she's never seen what is going on on the other end of the boom, especially in a big airplane.

"There's millions of dollars lost every year because of tracking for fuels that are unaccounted for or allocated incorrectly," Mr. Walden said. "When you go into a certain situation when there's no communication (between the two aircraft), you have to estimate and that's when you could lose money."

No one is losing money. This is simply right pocket to left pocket.

Mr. Walden said the ARAI system could potentially save the Air Force money by accurately tracking the amount of fuel downloaded and charging squadrons the proper dollar amount. Air Force officials would be able to budget their fuel needs and costs more efficiently.

I can't see where the real savings would come from. I also don't see any how this brings any efficiencies in the budgeting process.

That said, I think it would be a significant operational process improvement for a very slight cost.

[Guest whatever]

This is the most moronic thread I've read on BaseOps in quite some time. whatever, YAAFM.

Thanks, man.

[Clark Griswold]

Thread revival 

Not really about booms on C-130s but an argument for booms on C-130s... really for growing expeditionary air refuelling capability as part of Agile Combat Employment but whatevs worth a read and discussion

AGILITY BOOM: FUELING INNOVATION AND THE AIR FORCE’S BLUNT LAYER

Points for not advocating the acquisition of a new platform as that is likely impossible in the next few years and proposing a technically feasible reuse of what we already have but is the juice worth the squeeze?  Methinks it is worth a test / demo at least.

[jazzdude]

Interesting article, but ignores some glaring logistics issues.

-Where is that C-130 filling up? It's not going to be flying that fast, so is the logistics hub where it gets it's gas going to be far enough away to be safe from attack while allowing the (K)C-130 to be close enough to be operationally relevant?

-Where are those boom operators coming from?

My pie in the sky idea:

-Amphibious Tanker. Land in the ocean next to a fuel ship, onload gas, and go to meet the receivers. Harder to target since it's not a fixed logistics site, and eases the fuel logistics problem since you can move a large quantity of fuel on a ship easily. Also a much smaller footprint than an aircraft carrier.

[Bigred]

3 hours ago, jazzdude said:

My pie in the sky idea:

-Amphibious Tanker. Land in the ocean next to a fuel ship, onload gas, and go to meet the receivers. Harder to target since it's not a fixed logistics site, and eases the fuel logistics problem since you can move a large quantity of fuel on a ship easily. Also a much smaller footprint than an aircraft carrier.
 

Cool idea but for a large plane, anything other than a calm to mild sea would seem absolutely terrifying. 

[Clark Griswold]

4 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Interesting article, but ignores some glaring logistics issues.

-Where is that C-130 filling up? It's not going to be flying that fast, so is the logistics hub where it gets it's gas going to be far enough away to be safe from attack while allowing the (K)C-130 to be close enough to be operationally relevant?

-Where are those boom operators coming from?

My pie in the sky idea:

-Amphibious Tanker. Land in the ocean next to a fuel ship, onload gas, and go to meet the receivers. Harder to target since it's not a fixed logistics site, and eases the fuel logistics problem since you can move a large quantity of fuel on a ship easily. Also a much smaller footprint than an aircraft carrier.
 

Valid question - my guess is Benitez (article author) envisions them (new AR tanker Agile Boom equipped C-130s) refuelling on small reopenned island airfields and then launching with this fuel to AR inside the A2AD as it is being attacked / disrupted to enable CAPs to remain airborne and less vulnerable during intense combat than cycling thru often FARPs and FOLs.  

Marines have been doing this (reopening old island airfields and there are a number out there in the Western Pacific)

https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/06/05/u-s-reopening-world-war-ii-bases-in-pacific/

https://www.airfields-freeman.com/HI/Airfields_W_Pacific.htm

Pushes the risk to the 130s when they land to get fuel to go to another AR mission but there is risk always, shifting some of that risk to the expediently modified tanker is better tactically than risking the few and essentially irreplaceable 22s / 35s.  

Where the booms come from?  Loadmaster force trained to an appropriate level and skill set maintained at some level that is acceptable until it appears soon to be called for then brought to a higher level of proficiency.  There's a cost to be associated with that to be sure and would have to be factored in, not advocating one way or the other just where I would see this Agile Boom operator crew coming from.

Alternative to that is to make all those 130s AR capable to increase options for the Agile Boom 130s to use and extend Tanker Bridges but that seems to violate the intention of the proposal by Benitez to gain a new capability by only modifying existing platforms with as little modification as you have to.  Getting receiver capability would then incur a pilot training bill, probably outside the realm of the possible.

Your idea is not that pie in the sky but to my knowledge not done since the 50s:

USS Guavina (AGSS-362), refueling a P5M-1 Marlin flying boat off Norfolk, Virginia (USA), in 1955. Prior to World War II several submarines were fitted to refuel seaplanes.  

Was proposed for the Seamaster but never tested I believe

 

Now we (the US / USAF) don't have any in inventory but the A400M seems like a better candidate platform to try this concept with.

Much better speed for fighters and still has short unprepared field capability with a more relevant fuel offload capability assuming a parallelized fuel tank and ramp boom system could work on the Grizzly.  Ask the Brits, get Cobham as an contractor entrant in the experiment / demo and they might bite.

[Prosuper]

What is old is new again.

[jazzdude]

Valid question - my guess is Benitez (article author) envisions them (new AR tanker Agile Boom equipped C-130s) refuelling on small reopenned island airfields and then launching with this fuel to AR inside the A2AD as it is being attacked / disrupted to enable CAPs to remain airborne and less vulnerable during intense combat than cycling thru often FARPs and FOLs.  

I guess I phrased my first question poorly: How does the fuel get to the FOB so it's available for the (K)C-130? I get what the author is after, but they need to look one step further to make it a viable solution.

That FOB (assuming an island in the Pacific) would need port access and a fuel ship, or an air bridge to stage fuel (probably a dedicated C-17 sortie for every 2 C-130 refueling sorties).

So how do we support the ACE concept while supporting all the other logistical movements required in a shooting war?

One of the things we've taken for granted in the last couple decades is a permissive environment for resupply/logistics. I'd envision the ACE concept more being a last ditch effort to not die; hop the gen 5 fighters to safety by trading some C-130s that will fuel them (on the ground or in the air) and then also try to make a run for it before they're killed. Plus, the C-130 line is still open, so you can always buy another one (same for F-15/F-16)...

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

I guess I phrased my first question poorly: How does the fuel get to the FOB so it's available for the (K)C-130? I get what the author is after, but they need to look one step further to make it a viable solution.

That FOB (assuming an island in the Pacific) would need port access and a fuel ship, or an air bridge to stage fuel (probably a dedicated C-17 sortie for every 2 C-130 refueling sorties).

So how do we support the ACE concept while supporting all the other logistical movements required in a shooting war?

One of the things we've taken for granted in the last couple decades is a permissive environment for resupply/logistics. I'd envision the ACE concept more being a last ditch effort to not die; hop the gen 5 fighters to safety by trading some C-130s that will fuel them (on the ground or in the air) and then also try to make a run for it before they're killed. Plus, the C-130 line is still open, so you can always buy another one (same for F-15/F-16)...

 

How to mass resupply the remote island base?  Author didn't address that and I had the same question from a friend at work who read the article and wondered the same, my answer was likely covert logistics that could stand a better chance of survival / delivery from air and naval threats.  WOR on the rocks had a good article related to this proposing "Cocaine Logistics" for the USMC if they plan to operate inside the range of Chinese (or Russian, Iranian, etc...) power projection.

https://warontherocks.com/2020/07/cocaine-logistics-for-the-marine-corps/

For these remote island FARP / FOLs, if the air to surface threat has not been suppressed, a semi-submersible supply ship could probably deliver the 690 tons of fuel, fresh water and food with a reasonable amount of risk / vulnerability.  As for port facilities to allow for the offload, that's another problem to solve but likely not insurmountable. 

Valid question as how the other logistics / support bills the ACE concept requires to be paid will be addressed as when a Herc gets this Agile Boom kit installed it's mainly a tanker now.  I got a ride way back in 13 in Afghanistan on a KC-130T with around 20 of my closest friends and it was tight and we only had one pallet of bags.

Last thing, KC-390 might be another candidate to try this on

[MCO]

In addition to some issues already brought up, are Herk crews going to now be qualified in and maintain currency in every mission in the entire MAF and be expected to be proficient at all of them when employed?

[herkbier]

I feel like it would be easier to convert our fighters to probe/drogue, add tanks and pods to the MAF Herks and somehow fuel from a cargo bay bladder out to those pods. 
 

Maybe we don’t modify the 22s and the 35s.. but you could probably figure out something for the non stealth aircraft..
 

That’s way more realistic than a boom on a C-130. Doesn’t matter though, AMC leadership doesn’t trust its crews to do much more than standard cargo hauling.. pushing the envelope is an exercise in smashing your dick in a file cabinet. 

[Tarawa565]

13 hours ago, jazzdude said:

-Amphibious Tanker. Land in the ocean next to a fuel ship, onload gas, and go to meet the receivers. Harder to target since it's not a fixed logistics site, and eases the fuel logistics problem since you can move a large quantity of fuel on a ship easily. Also a much smaller footprint than an aircraft carrier.
 

At least one other person thinks the same way as you: https://warontherocks.com/2020/07/bring-back-the-seaplane/

 

The author writes: 

"

Adaptive basing concept

The Air Force is currently experimenting with operating aircraft from austere fields in order to complicate adversary targeting efforts and sustain striking power. Here, seaplanes could provide tanker support for fighters and bombers operating in theater. A fully loaded KC-135 tanker might require over 10,000 feet of runway, while tactical fighters can operate from shorter runways. Strategic bombers could stage from bases outside adversary threat rings but would require multiple refuelings en route. Thus, it is very possible that suitable tanker bases are a more important constraint than fighter or bomber bases (obviously, strike aircraft also require weapons stores, but this is true regardless of the method of refueling them). Seaplane tankers, experimented with in the 1950s, would theoretically have unlimited runways, removing this limitation from planning. While there are real benefits in operating tankers from civilian airports instead of from water — namely the existence of fuel stores — these benefits are useless if the runway is cut, the fuel stores are destroyed, or the aircraft are eliminated on the ground.

Sea-based tankers could provide a mobile air refueling capability resistant to adversary surveillance and targeting efforts. Instead of searching the approximately 300 bases in the Western Pacific capable of handling tankers (a relatively manageable problem for the Chinese military), adversaries would be forced to search thousands of square miles of ocean, beaches, lakes, and lagoons for seaplanes and their supporting tenders or onshore facilities. Even if found, seaplanes would present a difficult target compared to an airfield due to their small size and mobility. It is impossible to crater the ocean. Furthermore, forcing an adversary to expend limited missiles targeting a difficult target like a seaplane would be beneficial to other American forces in theater."

[Sua Sponte]

3 hours ago, MCO said:

In addition to some issues already brought up, are Herk crews going to now be qualified in and maintain currency in every mission in the entire MAF and be expected to be proficient at all of them when employed?😂

Like a Loadmaster is going to work during flight instead of gear up/feet up 😂

[Chuck17]

16 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Valid question - my guess is Benitez (article author) envisions...

My guess is he’s a fighter WSO who understands as much about Air Mobility as he does about logistics... 

This is an uninformed idea that nonetheless has potential - if you reframe it for an unmanned platform. 

Cannibalizing Herks “because we have so many” and turning them into Inside tankers is a non-starter for AMC. Put that brainpower into an unmanned platform requirement and you’re on to something...

Chuck

Edited September 10, 2020 by Chuck17

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, Chuck17 said:

My guess is he’s a fighter WSO who understands as much about Air Mobility as he does about logistics... 

This is an uninformed idea that nonetheless has potential - if you reframe it for an unmanned platform. 

Cannibalizing Herks “because we have so many” and turning them into Inside tankers is a non-starter for AMC. Put that brainpower into an unmanned platform requirement and you’re on to something...

Chuck

Possibly as to re-framing it as a boom equipped tanker uav but his idea was a gain in capability in existing platform(s) not a new platform as new iron is not possible in the short term.  

Just a WAG but from proposal to IOC for a tanker uav would be at least 10 years, pathetic but given our acquisition plinko machine even that seems optimistic.  But you have start somewhere so...

Taking a cue from the article, he proposed breaking the system into two separate RFPs for the palletized tank and bolt on boom kit, put a third RFP for a an optionally manned boom station to develop the hardware / software for use into a successor tanker boom equipped uav.

[MT near]

Stealth tankers. 

[Clark Griswold]

16 hours ago, MT near said:

Stealth tankers. 

Unless said stealth tanker has expeditionary capability (short, rough field with minimal support) then it doesn't really fit in the agile concept employment.

From the article:

Relying on a 70-year-old refueling paradigm with a 40-year-old operating concept is hardly the way to implement the National Defense Strategy. It’s certainly not innovative. The Air Force needs an “insider tanker” for intra-theater tactical refueling that is tailor-made for expeditious operations in austere airfields. That’s usually where requirements-focused solution seeking ends, but it’s actually not the real problem. The real problem is this: The Air Force needs an “insider tanker” that does not even exist on paper and that the service likely could not afford anyway.

and from earlier in the article:

This employment concept addresses both of these by focusing on combat generation inside contested anti-access areas with two basic principles. First is to turn anti-access “outsiders” into “insiders” by employing dispersed airpower that can be generated from shorter ranges inside highly contested areas because it is less reliant on fixed operating locations. Agile combat employment is lean, agile, and less predictable because it is expeditious and austere. Operational maneuver — not firepower or technology — is the predominant mechanism to negate anti-access.

They want a force constantly shifting its logistical footprint to make the enemy targeting problem harder.  An LO tanker likely would be like other LO assets that are support intensive, not saying we don't need or could justify an LO tanker just that it is not what they (Joint Leadership) are calling for in systems to execute this concept.

IDK, I'm a believer in distributed ops / agile combat employment but I wonder if our current platforms aside from the Mobility assets can really do this as they were not designed for this but really this begs the question if land based fighter aircraft with relatively short ranges (for the Pacific theater) albeit extendable with AR are the right platform to plan to deter/defeat Chinese aggression in the SCS, Taiwan, etc... methinks that LO bombers with longer unrefuelled ranges and greater potential delivery of LO standoff munitions per sortie might be where the AF needs to focus on delivering our piece of the Joint Force if WW3 kicks off with the PRC.

Fewer AR events during mission and could refuel further away from A2AD area prior to ingress thus lowering risk to the tanker / mission enabling capability.

I'm not a Douhet acolyte but in this case, given our potential foe and his capabilities at least until they are severely degraded, we might best help the team by providing this type of capability and not incurring a liability to the team.  That is our fires platforms footprint (the AF's) is primarily based far outside his targeting capability so we launch with impunity at very long range from our fixed bases, use our organic AR resources to get over the tyranny of distance, deliver weapons and RTB but keep the cycle going so the enemy gets no respite and further complicates his defensive choices.

Edited September 11, 2020 by Clark Griswold

[jazzdude]

IDK, I'm a believer in distributed ops / agile combat employment but I wonder if our current platforms aside from the Mobility assets can really do this as they were not designed for this but really this begs the question if land based fighter aircraft with relatively short ranges (for the Pacific theater) albeit extendable with AR are the right platform to plan to deter/defeat Chinese aggression in the SCS, Taiwan, etc... methinks that LO bombers with longer unrefuelled ranges and greater potential delivery of LO standoff munitions per sortie might be where the AF needs to focus on delivering our piece of the Joint Force if WW3 kicks off with the PRC.

This. Maybe stealth tankers solves the wrong problem.

Along similar lines:
https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2198566/afrl-afsoc-launch-palletized-weapons-from-cargo-plane/
(Summary: initial testing for launching cruise missiles from airlifters)

[norskman]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Unless said stealth tanker has expeditionary capability (short, rough field with minimal support) then it doesn't really fit in the agile concept employment.

 

Refit with boom

Edited September 11, 2020 by norskman

[Breckey]

Refit with boom

And have an MC rate in the single digits.

[Bigred]

1 hour ago, Breckey said:

2 hours ago, norskman said:

Refit with boom

And have an MC rate in the single digits.

That’s a Navy Osprey, affectionately known as a plopter. Not sure if their availability rate is better than ours.

The Navy ‘plans’ to use it as a COD replacement but I have a strong feeling it’s going to end up doing a helluva lot more than just ass and trash back and forth from the boat.

Edited September 11, 2020 by Bigred

[viper154]

4 hours ago, Breckey said:

5 hours ago, norskman said:

Refit with boom

And have an MC rate in the single digits.

I can’t imagine the wake turbulence would be very fun. In helicopter mode they are absolutely nasty. I avoid them like the plague. Team guys hate roping out of them, told us it was very unpleasant, they much preferred a standard helo. Maybe they aren’t as bad in airplane mode.  They also are as reliable as $500 1985 350,000 mile craigslist add car that’s never had a oil change. 

[Clark Griswold]

Refit with boom

Maybe if the weight of palletized AR systems can be kept reasonable
Not an Osprey guy and the only data I have is Wikipedia and Boeing’s site which says it can lift 20k in short take off, didn’t specify conditions but would just assume ISA

WAG but likely the whole kit and caboodle would come in around 5k at best leaving 15k for offload - likely enough for a two ship with bags some time / options but no extra for anybody on the boom


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Prosuper]

Operating any type of KC platform has this big logistics problem. It needs large POL storage facilities. I have refueled KC-135's in bare bones facilities were the pump from the bladders to the jet was a Briggs and Stratton lawn mower engine hooked to a pump. So in a austere field that's not going to happen, if you have a large fuel dump and the bad guys know where it is wouldn't it be smart to keep in the rear with the gear. If forward one lucky hit destroys all plans. Sorry I'm just a MX guy, didn't the IJN during the attack on Pearl Harbor not even sniff around the POL facilities or subs. Wouldn't taking those two assets out have stopped us for at least a couple years. 

[Prosuper]

https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/rsaf-stratotankers-get-third-lease-of-life, looks like a US operator has bought the Singaporean KC-135R MPRS birds and put N numbers on them.  I wonder if the USAF will sell them parts or retrofit with civilian off the shelf parts. All -135 parts don't have FAA/PMA serviceable tags since they were never type 2 certificated. Logistics is provided by 2 level mx shops at the Depots. The RSAF probably had a huge stockpile of extra parts to go along with the deal.