US airforce = refuel from the topUS navy = refuel from the frontA F-35 from the airforce wouldn't be able to operate from navy stuff.And a F-35 from the navy wouldn't be able to work with the airforce.Wouldn't be better if both did it the same way?Would be cheaper if everything worked the same way, same parts = cheaper, no?I guess the rest of the NATO all refuel from the front like the US Navy.Trump should force the US airforce change into the universal standard.
https://youtu.be/DIL0d3culQA
>>64449763Actually the Italians refuel from the top, French from the front, British do both, but their tankers are designed for front refueling.
>>64449763Do you honestly believe congress knows what mid-air refueling is?
>>64449763Boom can flow more fuel, very useful if it is a BFO bomber you have to tank.
>>64449763The Air Force's tankers are for refueling strategic bombers and airlifters, fighters are an afterthought. Maybe once the KC-135 is finally retired the Air Force can can start switching to probe and drogue for their fighters.
>>64449899should have bought Airbus like you were going to before Boeing pissed and moaned
>>64449763Navy and Marines often refuel from fighters or other carrier borne aircraft using refueling pods slung from hard points. A boom requires a boom operator, which there isn't room for in a refueling pod, so probe and drouge is used for carrier borne aircraft. As to Congress, most of them are so senile they barely know their own names. They just sign whatever legislation lobbyists shove in front of them.
The KC-46 Pegasus has both boom and drogue options, so it's now a universal system.Are there any hints of Pegasus having isolated fuel supplies like the KC-135T models had for JP-7?
>>64450490The Air Force has an unmanned tanker with an unmanned boom.
>>64449763Start by learning why the USAF uses boom and the USN uses drogue.
>>64449763>What are flow rates
>>64450659A spook.
>>64449763Because we can't decide which one is better.The Boom is statistically superior, better flow rates, less spillage, etc.On the other hand, the Drogue is more flexible. It fits on a hardpoint just like a missile so you can mount them on fighters or mount multiple drogues on a tanker.
>>64449763Some tankers are fitted with both booms and drogues. The RAAF uses them, for instance, because they have both F-18s and F-35As.
>>64449776fpbp.
boom = pilot can't seedrogue = pilot can seeIt is obvious which is superior.
>>64449763Connecting hard refueling boom from Stratotanker is massively more easier. Receiving aircraft just flies steadily when operator places moving and telescoping boom into receptacle. Cone and probe connection is done by receiving aircraft maneuver and its much more difficult especially for large bomber aircraft. Unfortunately rigid booms size prevents it form installation on "buddy tankers" so Navy stuck with cone.
>>64449824I think they imagine a gas station attendant wing walking an F-16.
Can't they just add some AI remote controlled fins on the drogue.So they would have the best of both?
>>64453423Wouldn't actually solve most of the issues with Drogue but would make it easier to use.
>>64453360https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKhL6nm_pfM
>>64449763boom refuellling is the arrogant retarded method for when ur fighting poor retards who cant do anything about itsimple asyou arent doing fucking boom refuelling in a peer-nigger warzone ffs
>>64450042Airbus has boomsIt has actual automatic guided booms. The computer guides the boom.Boeing wanted to replace the boom operator windows with 3D glasses and that barely works.
>>64453423They tested F-18s several years ago with a hands-free autopilot that would take over and hit the drogue reliably even if it was bouncing around in turbulence. So, this problem is solvable if the USN ever decides it's worth the money to fix it. Heck, F-35s could probably do it with a patch.
>64455009Oh, it’s this retard.
>>64449763>And a F-35 from the navy wouldn't be able to work with the airforce.USAF tankers can refuel Navy planes
>>64449763Does the Navy have tanker aircraft? Afaik, they do buddy refuelings, but I'm having a hard time picturing a scenario where an F-35A would need to refuel from a carrier-based Super Hornet. The Air Force doesn't have navalized fighters, so they wouldn't be operating off a carrier, and if a land-based F-35 needed refueling over the ocean why wouldn't you use a land-based tanker to do it?
>>64455755They have KC-130s.
>>64456176The KC-130s are fine. They can refuel Hornets, Harriers and Prowlers just fine.
>>64456767>ProwlersGrowlers, I always get them confused. RIP Prowler.
>>64449763Anytime the USAF prefers something, it's wrong. Absolute clown show of a military branch that literally spent billions designing a system that would allow their airplanes to get pegged in the ass just like they do. No shit the entire rest of planet Earth doesn't use it you insufferable faggot retards
>>64455755They have started using drones for that
>>64457539That is a Navy F-35B (interestingly enough). VX-23 is the squadron, noticeable just under where the wing's leading edge meets the fuselage.
>>64457902Yeah, the pic is just to give a visual example. IOC is in 2027.
>>64457925Interdasting. I have lost track of the Nu-UAVs and who is getting what.As a side note, it makes me feel old knowing that my local air museum now has a Predator.
