Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, Playstation and Xbox. Click the link to download the game and get your exclusive bonus now: playwt.link/notwhatyouthink2024
Pre-9/11 my buddy asked me if I wanted to attend "boss's day" at his Air National Guard in California. I was a private pilot so I said sure, a chance to hang out at an air base. So I show up and they send me to a briefing room. Within 30 minutes I'm climbing into a KC-135 and we proceed to fly to Mammoth, California to refuel F-16s! They let me lay down next to the gal that was flying the boom and watch the entire process. Unreal! And they NEVER confirmed my ID. Just welcomed me in and said thanks for being a good boss! I'm guessing security would be a little bit tighter nowadays.
If the “birdie” is old, bent or slightly damaged the damn thing will often oscillate in a figure eight pattern requiring the Naval Pilot to split the difference and aim for where it will be when he gets there.
USAF Eagle Keeper here, and gotta say that getting to fly in a KC-10 across the country while getting to watch our birds get a drink was definitely one of the coolest Air Force experiences I’ve ever had. Stationed at Nellis, we’d fly to Tyndall AFB in FL every year to shoot off missiles over the ocean, and one year there was space available in the tanker as opposed to boarding the regular ole charter plane. I didn’t even wait for permission, I just started running and got on - good times.
I lost count of the number of ARs I've done. One time, over Maine on our way to a deployment, we disconnected from the KC-135 about 6-9 times because our orbit was over a thunderstorm and we couldn't maintain contact. Quite literally the most stressful AR ever.
Hey, given that you seem to have some knowledge on the topic. I would like to hear your thoughts on an idea: Could you recharge an electric plane in flight? You would have to get an appropriate cable design and all, but could it work? If it was to be used in commercial aviation you would have to improve the safety of the process significantly over what is possible with current systems, but given that you don't have thousands of liters of flamable chemicals being transferred, I could imagine that being possible. Is it a completely crazy idea, or is there a chance of it being feasible?
@placeholdername0000 Not a pilot, but I can tell you that powered flight without ICEs is possible but entirely pointless. The energy density of a battery is absolutely tiny compared to the energy density of liquid fuel. This means that the plane would have to dedicate a massive amount of its carrying capacity to batteries, leaving practically nothing for cargo. Flying is the one application where ICEs cannot be replaced with the technology we possess. The most realistic "green" solutions talk about carbon capture and artificial fuels.
@@placeholdername0000Same answer as for a car: you could, but it would take 20x longer and pretty much defeat the purpose. But that’s the least of the reasons electric airplanes won’t work, until someone invents a much lighter, much more energy-dense battery. It’s a crazy idea. No disrespect intended. I like crazy ideas. An electric airplane that gets its energy from a hydrogen fuel cell might make more sense because you could transfer liquid hydrogen as quickly as jet fuel, but I still don’t think there’d be any point, plus the Hindenburg thing.
10:20 That is not a Navy F-35C, thats a USMC F-35B. It is however correct that both the B and C use the probe and drogue system, in contrast to the Air Force A version with the traditional Air Force boom type. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages.
At 21:46 there is an omega aircraft refueling a drone. In the mid 1990's I designed the 707 fuel system modifications for the 1st Omega Tanker. Omega contracted AEL/Tracor to modify one of there 707 Aircraft to be a hose and drogue tanker. The fuel system modifications installed two large Aerial Refueling pumps in the wing belly tanks. These pumps were connected with 4 inch diameter fuel lines to 2 removable pallets. Each pallet contained an FR300 hydraulic hose reel systems. These pallets where part of the B-kit and were designed to be removed from the aircraft in about an hour. With a removable Air Refueling B-Kit the Aircraft could perform either civilien or aerial refueling missions. The Aircraft had two hose reels for redundancy so that ocean crossing could be performed safely with only one tanker. It could deliver over 500 gallons per minute which was the highest flow rate for a 2 5/8 inch Inner Diameter Hose and Drogue system at the time. I have not kept up with what improvements were made to the Omega system over the years. It would be interesting to see how they are using it today.
Who exactly outside the military needs aerial refueling services, NASA? NASA is only my first guess, my 2nd is the CIA or some other three letter agency that is "military adjacent" but "not officially part of the military" (huge wink).
@@Kenny-yl9pc it's a robot designed by the US government to combat the declining birthrate. It breaks into people's homes and abducts people's fathers to use them for reproduction. It's why so many kids these days grow up without a father.
a KC-135 has a boom, and 2 drogue chute pods. It can theoretically 'mate' with 3 planes at once. ETA @11:11 you can see a KC-135 Equipped with the two wingtip drogue chute pods I previously mentioned ETA #2: Yes, there were newer bids for a new aerial refueling aircraft, most of them failed and were recalled from service, the KC135 is still the most widely used and available aerial refueler in the world
From what I've heard about the KC-46, when the receiver is backlit, meaning the sun is close to being directly being the receiver, the digital camera's have an issue with even seeing the receiver aircraft, let alone where the boom needs to be flown into. (In my experience, in life, not anything related to this, the mark 1 usually has an advantage over tech. Meaning the eyeball in the rear vs. the camera provided image in the front.)
@robertheinkel6225 mark 1 is handy but if you're near some naughty boys who might want to have a potshot at you at night, the option to refuel in the pitch dark with the night vision tech might be a welcome improvement?
While inflight refueling saves gas, I very much doubt it saves money. An airline: -) Must buy and maintain a fleet of tankers, as well as train boom operators. -) The pilots of the passenger/freighter aircraft have to be trained/qualified for inflight docking -) Airports en route would have to be schedule for the possibility of an unscheduled landing because weather, malfunctions, etc, prevented the inflight refueling. -) Here's the kicker......LIABILITY...Imagine weather or operator error causing a collision, killing hundreds and the loss of two aircraft.
i was a KC-135 Boom Operator from 1979-1986 and KC-10 Boom Operator from 1986-1999. Thanks for the memories. And for the record, I rather use my own eyes, than a 3-d screen. Never should have retired the KC-10 (Gucci Bird). To my tanker toads, "Boom Stowed, leaving position."
I lived in Pasadena for 33 years and you made me smile when I saw your shirt. It makes people think that you are a world traveler. I am now in my 70's and never married so I have been going to places by myself for most of my life. It becomes fun because you can go and do whatever you want. No need to negotiate with friends or family. I also graduated from the University of Minnesota and the book store has a website where you can order shirts and decals. You will get positive points for attending a US University so add a U of M shirt to your fashion selection.
As an old fart now, I recall refueling our TA-4 F’s in my Navy squadron back in the late 60’s. After I left the service, I was afforded the opportunity to fly as a civilian guest on a training/refueling hop on a KC-10 out of Travis AFB. It was interesting, to say the least, flying in both aircraft/ tankers.
The probe-and-drogue system was first developed by the British in the late '40s. The F-105 Thunderchief had both refueling systems built into each aircraft. A really interesting system to look into is the old Soviet wingtip system. I've seen photos, but don't know how it worked. This would be a great video!!
Really good video. On a trans oceanic flight with fighters the fighters always have to have sufficient fuel on board to proceed to an alternate should the refueling system fail. This can mean many top ups en route. It is not just a matter of waiting until your fighter is low on fuel. On a long flight with a lot of turbulence this can be quite a bit of work.
Apparently, it's a numbers game. Retiring the 60 KC-10 is cheaper in the long run than splitting the number between the two airframes. Which kind of makes sense.
It has nothing to do with safety. I flew on the 10 as a boom for years. It’s a game of averages and numbers. The AF brass determined that the average offload was ~63k lbs. Which is well within the 135 and 46 capabilities. They decided more aircraft was better rather than more capabilities.
Super informative video! It’s amazing to understand just how critical in-flight refueling is for maintaining the operational range and effectiveness of fighter jets. Your breakdown of the process and its importance was perfectly clear. Thanks for shedding light on such a pivotal aspect of modern air combat!
I was born in the early 70's and grew up about 20 miles from Plattsburgh AFB. From as early as I can remember, seeing KC-135's and FB-111'S flying over was quite routine.
I wanted this type of video since 1,2 years ago finally i got so much detailed video on mid air refuelling today atlast i subscribed the channel while i used to watch the channel sometimes uploaded 24 may 2024
Another thing with drogue refuelling is sometimes the drogue can shear off, leaving it attached to the receiver aircraft. Which made their landing interesting when it still had the basket and a few meters of pipe attached. We’ve also experienced the drogue wafting around in turbulence and hitting the pitot probes, causing the receiver aircraft to abort. Having said that, the drogue method has been used for decades on 1000s of sorties. I remember reading the book Flight Of The Intruder, which said A-6’s fitted with a buddy refuelling pod were crucial to helping those who struggled to land on an aircraft carrier. If they struggled to get down and did many bolters, they’d send up the standby refueller to save them before they ran out of fuel.
During the black buck missions, one of the victors broke its probe and had to get itself back to ascension, the rest had to reshuffle fuel to get the vulcan to its departure point. It could have jeopardised the entire mission. At the time it was the longest bombing mission with refuelling in the world until surpassed years later.
That clip of the H53 cutting off its fuel nozzle happened in 29 Palms CA being Motor Transport/Fuels, we were tasked with towing it back to the airfield from it's landing point. the rotors were damaged and it took several weeks to get the parts and fix it the pilot was screwed though.
F-15EX can fly from US to UK without mid-air refueling. At 45 minutes the pilot must have been for an F-16. It’s quite standardized, US Air Force - Boom; Navy/USMC - drogue, ALL helicopters - drogue. The US military is represented by multiple branches with different needs; a one size fits all approach sometimes isn’t the best for all.
I would guess the paper on the fuel savings between non air refuled plans and with aerial refueling may have had a section on the fuel used, and time lost, if the aircraft had to land refuel and then take off again. I friend of mine was a crew on B-52s during Vietnam. They would take off with about 30/45 minutes of fuel to maximize their bomb load.
The hardest part of refueling (bombers in particular) is the tanker gets lighter while the receiving aircraft gets heavier so its a constant battle to stay in the box since the tanker will get faster and you get slower thus it's a constant battle to stay in the box with the thrust and alpha changes needed while taking on fuel. Also air force tankers can carry wing reels with probe and drogue so they can refuel either method (drogue or boom) in the same mission. One advantage of this configuration is being able to refuel two probe type aircraft at the same time.
@NotWhatYouThink @GrowlerJams I served at RAF Mildenhall, U.K.('88-'97) Loved it when our KC-135s had the two MIPRS(Washington ANG 2003-2009) installed, which meant our flying boom could take care of our USAF jets, and MIRPS for the USNAVY and our Allies jets. However, for our mostly MIPRS-less KC-135s('88-'97), it was hang the drogue and put it on a stand, until tasked. Refueling those Navy/Allied jets were a slight pain, but happy to support! The only USAF jet that was a major pain refueling was the F-4 Phantom, which required us to lube the flying boom contact points everytime, and pray that the F-4 Phantoms didn't cause a 'Brute Force Disconnect', thus potentially damaging the entire boom assembly every mission. Not Fun! Still glad and honored to have served! I am also honored to support building the new replacement, and State-of-the-Art, Most Advanced Tanker in the World, the Boeing KC-46A. This 1980s technology jet gets some of the 🛩 787 avionics/cockpit 💺 advancements included, along with a brand new 3D Refueling Boom control deck 💺 for the Boom Operator. This is leaps & bounds above, laying on your belly and staring out the back boom window! Also, when I served we transition from the old water burning KC-135 A/Q (limited to 135K take-off fuel), over to the upgraded KC-135 R/T (limit increased to 180K take-off fuel), thanks to the new at the time, GE CFM-56 jet engines. ✈️
Too bad the KC-46 can't do half of what it is designed for because Boeing used the wrong kind of (black and white) camera on them. Should have bought the MRTT instead, which is just better in every way, not to mention that is actually works.
But the MRTT "wasn't made here" and Boeing has more power where it counts (which isn't "making the thing work") so that's what we got. Incopmpetence floats to the top of the corporate ladder, and that's at least doubly true when the products of the company are supposed to fly.
Point is, they "engineered" the contract so it couldn't fail, instead of engineering the PRODUCT so that it meets requirements. Bean-counters at the top where there should be engineers, that's why Boeing isn't what it used to be.
I actually genuinely agree with you and finally some one who l found in the comment section that actually has a functioning brain for once and this world actually genuinely needs more people actually like you in this world and you actually couldn't have said that actually any better than me lol
Never happened. True, with the Navy probe/drogue system there are small latches on the probe which engage and "lock" into the fitting on the drogue so that fuel can transfer without leaking. And the probe/receiver coupling used by the Air Force boom system is quite similar. But those latches in no way are strong enough to tow an aircraft. If they were, you could never disengage from the tanker. Sounds like bar talk between people who were never there.
@@Roberto-oi7lmincorrect! The boom was used to tow fighter aircraft, provided they could provide some power assist. The safeties are shut off, and once locked on, it would bring the fighter to a safe area. This happened several times during Vietnam, all fully documented. Towing cannot be done with the drogue, since it can’t handle the strain. Retired tanker crew chief.
VFA-115 here during the period mentioned. I can say that refueling missions weren't the favorite. They were very long missions just for the pilot to be a flying gas station. Unlike those big AF tankers, the Super Hornets aren't as comfortable either. It isn't like the pilot could stand up to take a leak. But don't get me wrong because they can, just not standing up. 😂
Wouldn't the C-2's be better refueling planes for carriers than F-18's? They would have much larger fuel capacity, and could carry extra fuel bags in their cargo bay. Also, they're turboprops, so they could probably go slow enough to refuel any helicopters or tiltrotors in the carrier's fleet. And you wouldn't need to procure new fuel drones, just use what you already have in a different way.
For every good reason you can think of 1) make all tankers have both methods of refueling available built in and routinely interchangeable that a tanker could refuel a bomber and 2 fighters at the same time and 2) USAF, all branches and NATO fleet-wide mil spec requirement for all aircraft from now on in the fleet have BOTH systems interchangeability built in and always ready to go. THAT'S a war-winning advantage by all measure.
But ONLY the US Air Force uses the Boom, everyone else uses the Drogue. Why should everyone else be required to carry the extra weight & complexity of the Boom System? The outlier here is the US Air Force, should they not be the ones to change for compatibility?
Supermarine Scimitar fighter/attack aircraft were used as in flight refuellers for Blackburn Buccaneer S1 strike aircraft which were underpowered and could not be catapulted off Royal Navy carriers with a full fuel load. they topped up with fuel from the Scimitars once airborne, the Scimitars had big beer tankards painted on their fins.
Those probe-and-drogue mishaps are quite spectacular! And i would not be chill flying through the fuel spray in my combat jet with 400° EGT and whatever static electricity build-up on my aircraft's skin! (Yes i know jet fuel is acktchually hard to ignite)
the Answer to your question at 1:30 is different requirements for aerial refueling. The USAF method is fast. I mean can move a lot more fuel than a drogue can, but it takes more advanced equipment, and perhaps a little less forgiveness between the Refueler and receiving aircraft. Especially with something like a B-52 still in Operation, a Drogue style refuel would be literally unable to keep the B-52 flying, much less actually refill the tanks of one. For the Navy, Marines, etc. Simplicity and weight are primary factors. They don't HAVE to refuel a B-52, E-3 Sentry, or anything close to that level. Hence, the Air Force can not shift away from using the refueling probe as their primary method, and the Navy/Marines, etc. can't adopt the USAF method, which wouldn't fit onto their aircraft anyway. Fortunately, there is something of a happy medium, where the Drogue basket can be attached to the USAF probe, and full length drogue hoses can be deployed from wing pods, when interservice cooperation is required.
"The adapter isn't the only weakness of the KC-135" He goes on to describe the benefits of an aircraft that is being retired (kc-10) and a lemon (KC-46) while the KC-135 is still operating with life expectancy for decades to come. 😂
On the B2, the video shows you just how precise things are. No gaps or anything when the fuel door opened or closed it would be hard to guess it was there.
9:44 This happened in Desert Storm in 1991. The Iraqi military began to anticipate the arrival of F-117 stealth fighters over Baghdad by timing how long it took for them to fly away from the refuelling tankers that they could see on radar. 14:37 Some people may tell you the SR-71 leaked so much fuel on the ground that they needed to be refueled right after take-off because all the fuel they were carrying was gone. That is incorrect. The SR-71 took off with a small fuel load in order to minimize stress on the airframe due to the onset of g-forces and lift from the wings. They were trying to keep as much fatigue out of the airframe's lifespan as possible and taking off with light amount of weight was one of those ways. 15:57 It's the same logic behind external fuel tanks. When you carry additional fuel in a pod attached to the outside of the airplane, it's said that half of the fuel inside that tank is used just to overcome the added weight and drag of that tank.
The tankers refueling the SR-71s were also modified so that its engines burned the same fuel as the SR-71, to eliminate the same issue that retired the prop-driven tankers.
the Air Force was short sighted when it did start equipping all KC 135 tankers with MPRS when they became available. I had to install many drogue adapters in my career as a crew chief.
i was wondering for 5 minutes whether MQ25 stingray could be deployed from aircraft carriers but when I saw the video again i found it is actually shown in video 21:12
7:26 why do the copilots initiate transfer? My guess is that the transfer can have a huge effect on the donor plane's center of gravity and you can't have a boom operator turning such a process on and off without the cockpit totally agreeing and knowing... so putting the switch on the plane's dashboard just makes absolutely sure the pilots know and agree.
Not exactly a true statement. The pilots have all the pumps and valves turned on before the fuel transfer. As soon as the aircraft are connected, the refueling begins automatically. Only the tanker pilots can see the fuel gages, and control where the fuel is being taken from. If done correctly, the tanks levels are pumped off equally, so CG is not a big issue. Also, the tanker is on autopilot, so the receiver aircraft has to adjust to stay in position. The amount of fuel transferred is tracked, and billed to the receiver aircraft. When dragging fighters overseas, the fighters top off every hour during the flight, and fly just off the wingtips when not refueling. Retired tanker crew chief.
The SR71 is the one that leaks fuel before the fuselage heats up, isn't it? BTW, the best and most exciting film about aviation I ever saw is called Starfighters and received excellent reviews from the famous Minneapolis critics Crow, Servo and M. Nelson.
The SR-71 did fly missions WITHOUT refueling. They would launch a fully fueled bird to run a test mission. This was only done at BEAL AFB. Take off, run the test and land.
Thank you for a MOST comprehensive overview of the aerial refueling subject! As usual, your vids lead to a greater understanding of aviation and various systems. Plz keep up the GREAT WORK!!
@9:57; I seriously thought it was a photo until the boom started moving! 😂😂 How is the background not even moving?! Talk about having a uncanny valley moment!
The KC-135 is hated by USN/USMC pilots. The short rigid hose has to be pushed in to bend the knuckle to allow fuel flow. The window is about 4 foot box. It is known as the iron maiden.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 78 | คู่เอก "ปกรณ์ vs ฟาบิโอ"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LSOmgl0Th2c/mqdefault.jpg)
Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, Playstation and Xbox.
Click the link to download the game and get your exclusive bonus now: playwt.link/notwhatyouthink2024
vid about war thunder military leaks?
Vid about Gajin sponsors Donbas seperatists? @@LaggySoupDealer
its not really a limited time offer, war thunder sponsors youtubers so often that you can find this offer for every day of the year
Best segue ever
dont you will regret playing it
Kid: Dad. What are those two planes doing together?
Dad: They are mating son
😂😂
I definitely read the dad in a Hank Hill voice
That's how airplanes are made, son
Btw I did see 3 planes in serial formation drogue formation.
@@Michael_Brocksometimes planes experiment with other planes son to keep the “fire” going
Pre-9/11 my buddy asked me if I wanted to attend "boss's day" at his Air National Guard in California. I was a private pilot so I said sure, a chance to hang out at an air base. So I show up and they send me to a briefing room. Within 30 minutes I'm climbing into a KC-135 and we proceed to fly to Mammoth, California to refuel F-16s! They let me lay down next to the gal that was flying the boom and watch the entire process. Unreal! And they NEVER confirmed my ID. Just welcomed me in and said thanks for being a good boss! I'm guessing security would be a little bit tighter nowadays.
That's so lucky
"A boomer, laying on their belly, passing gas." - Not What You Think
Like the first gals smile
This line killed me 😂
If that's what they do then I think we could all qualify for that job. Just remember you're a confined space so nothing too spicy
This!!!!!!😂😂😂😂😂
Use to
If the “birdie” is old, bent or slightly damaged the damn thing will often oscillate in a figure eight pattern requiring the Naval Pilot to split the difference and aim for where it will be when he gets there.
On booms, the camera should be near // on the control surfaces, significantly closer to the receptical, allowing far more precise control & viewing.
"If the “birdie” is old, bent or slightly damaged the damn thing will often oscillate in a figure eight pattern" Happens to the best of us.
Sounds like damn Scope Sway for rifles...
I Laughed out loud when u inserted the warthunder sponsor after the hourly price of the simulator
Either losing money to refuel those jet, of losing to the snail 😂
Warthunder needs a mod to practice in air refueling !!!
I actually agree @@z0phi3l
@@z0phi3l vtol vr does... as the craft being refueled
I was about to comment the same thing lol great transition!
USAF Eagle Keeper here, and gotta say that getting to fly in a KC-10 across the country while getting to watch our birds get a drink was definitely one of the coolest Air Force experiences I’ve ever had. Stationed at Nellis, we’d fly to Tyndall AFB in FL every year to shoot off missiles over the ocean, and one year there was space available in the tanker as opposed to boarding the regular ole charter plane. I didn’t even wait for permission, I just started running and got on - good times.
I lost count of the number of ARs I've done. One time, over Maine on our way to a deployment, we disconnected from the KC-135 about 6-9 times because our orbit was over a thunderstorm and we couldn't maintain contact. Quite literally the most stressful AR ever.
Hey, given that you seem to have some knowledge on the topic. I would like to hear your thoughts on an idea: Could you recharge an electric plane in flight? You would have to get an appropriate cable design and all, but could it work?
If it was to be used in commercial aviation you would have to improve the safety of the process significantly over what is possible with current systems, but given that you don't have thousands of liters of flamable chemicals being transferred, I could imagine that being possible. Is it a completely crazy idea, or is there a chance of it being feasible?
@placeholdername0000 Not a pilot, but I can tell you that powered flight without ICEs is possible but entirely pointless.
The energy density of a battery is absolutely tiny compared to the energy density of liquid fuel. This means that the plane would have to dedicate a massive amount of its carrying capacity to batteries, leaving practically nothing for cargo.
Flying is the one application where ICEs cannot be replaced with the technology we possess. The most realistic "green" solutions talk about carbon capture and artificial fuels.
@@placeholdername0000Same answer as for a car: you could, but it would take 20x longer and pretty much defeat the purpose.
But that’s the least of the reasons electric airplanes won’t work, until someone invents a much lighter, much more energy-dense battery.
It’s a crazy idea. No disrespect intended. I like crazy ideas. An electric airplane that gets its energy from a hydrogen fuel cell might make more sense because you could transfer liquid hydrogen as quickly as jet fuel, but I still don’t think there’d be any point, plus the Hindenburg thing.
That thumbnail reminds me of my first *"aerial refueling"* in middle school history. Thanks Miss Blom! You'll always be twenty-two in my dreams.
😋 22?????
AYO??
Middle School?? 💀💀
what
10:20 That is not a Navy F-35C, thats a USMC F-35B. It is however correct that both the B and C use the probe and drogue system, in contrast to the Air Force A version with the traditional Air Force boom type. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages.
Now thanks to this video I can never look at aerial refueling the same way again
At 21:46 there is an omega aircraft refueling a drone. In the mid 1990's I designed the 707 fuel system modifications for the 1st Omega Tanker. Omega contracted AEL/Tracor to modify one of there 707 Aircraft to be a hose and drogue tanker. The fuel system modifications installed two large Aerial Refueling pumps in the wing belly tanks. These pumps were connected with 4 inch diameter fuel lines to 2 removable pallets. Each pallet contained an FR300 hydraulic hose reel systems. These pallets where part of the B-kit and were designed to be removed from the aircraft in about an hour. With a removable Air Refueling B-Kit the Aircraft could perform either civilien or aerial refueling missions. The Aircraft had two hose reels for redundancy so that ocean crossing could be performed safely with only one tanker. It could deliver over 500 gallons per minute which was the highest flow rate for a 2 5/8 inch Inner Diameter Hose and Drogue system at the time. I have not kept up with what improvements were made to the Omega system over the years. It would be interesting to see how they are using it today.
Who exactly outside the military needs aerial refueling services, NASA? NASA is only my first guess, my 2nd is the CIA or some other three letter agency that is "military adjacent" but "not officially part of the military" (huge wink).
9:54 I thought that was a still image!!
Yeah I know!
It wasn't what you thought eh?
"Not what you think"
lmao "Incase a tanker gets too excited and cannot retract the boom....." - NWYT
NWYT? more like NSFW
"If your boom extension lasts longer than 4 hours, seek medical attention."
@@SwordOfApollo BRO WHATS THE TIMESTAMP HAHA
Why is there a smile on her face when he makes contact
@@WhiteCoastRS10:30
I remember how hard was trying to refuel in-flight my F-14 Tomcat.... (in the NES version of Top Gun).
This is the first time I have see a film of Airforce One air refueling. Thanks for that.
Gasped at 19:14 seeing that NATO AWACS almost bump into the tanker!
Yeah some new flight suits required after that one!!
Sex bots really like videos on military Aviation, Who would have thought
It's all the aerial mating. Really gets them going.
Extra kinky
😂
@@Kenny-yl9pc it's a robot designed by the US government to combat the declining birthrate. It breaks into people's homes and abducts people's fathers to use them for reproduction. It's why so many kids these days grow up without a father.
get ready to see planes doing bad stuff one u try searching "arial refeul"
9:55 Woahh O.O *that* was a video :o
Thanks for pointing it😂
was thinking the same thing lol
30mins trying to stable 2 aircraft for refueling is just insane work 🤯
yea i couldnt mate for 30 mins either
@@unironicaluser1867 I can go for like an hour.
@@johnsmithe4656wtf
a KC-135 has a boom, and 2 drogue chute pods. It can theoretically 'mate' with 3 planes at once.
ETA @11:11 you can see a KC-135 Equipped with the two wingtip drogue chute pods I previously mentioned
ETA #2: Yes, there were newer bids for a new aerial refueling aircraft, most of them failed and were recalled from service, the KC135 is still the most widely used and available aerial refueler in the world
From what I've heard about the KC-46, when the receiver is backlit, meaning the sun is close to being directly being the receiver, the digital camera's have an issue with even seeing the receiver aircraft, let alone where the boom needs to be flown into. (In my experience, in life, not anything related to this, the mark 1 usually has an advantage over tech. Meaning the eyeball in the rear vs. the camera provided image in the front.)
True to a point. Not totally blind, but limited visibility. The newer color three D system should fix it.
@robertheinkel6225 mark 1 is handy but if you're near some naughty boys who might want to have a potshot at you at night, the option to refuel in the pitch dark with the night vision tech might be a welcome improvement?
and the KC10 did not have any problems, the Air force for got the Idea of KISS keep it simple stupid
This has been the core of the problems getting the KC-46 into service.
For the past 100 years air-to-air refuelling has been the exclusive preserve of military aviation to project power across the globe
Yummy.
While inflight refueling saves gas, I very much doubt it saves money. An airline: -) Must buy and maintain a fleet of tankers, as well as train boom operators.
-) The pilots of the passenger/freighter aircraft have to be trained/qualified for inflight docking
-) Airports en route would have to be schedule for the possibility of an unscheduled landing because weather, malfunctions, etc, prevented the inflight refueling.
-) Here's the kicker......LIABILITY...Imagine weather or operator error causing a collision, killing hundreds and the loss of two aircraft.
0:56 i bet that took you a couple tries to say with a straight voice 😂 Peak humor right there
Hehe you’re not wrong there 😅
i was a KC-135 Boom Operator from 1979-1986 and KC-10 Boom Operator from 1986-1999. Thanks for the memories. And for the record, I rather use my own eyes, than a 3-d screen. Never should have retired the KC-10 (Gucci Bird). To my tanker toads, "Boom Stowed, leaving position."
The weights of both planes are changing rapidly during refueling. Really amazing airmanship on both ends.
Great video, Mr. INWYT.
8:15 Okay, that was the smoothest ad transition I have seen ever, you deserve every cent of ad money for that and this is not something I say often
Either Losing dollar to refueling or to those pesky snail😂
The whole whipped by the "hose" cutaway was slick
I lived in Pasadena for 33 years and you made me smile when I saw your shirt. It makes people think that you are a world traveler.
I am now in my 70's and never married so I have been going to places by myself for most of my life. It becomes fun because you can go and do whatever you want. No need to negotiate with friends or family. I also graduated from the University of Minnesota and the book store has a website where you can order shirts and decals. You will get positive points for attending a US University so add a U of M shirt to your fashion selection.
As an old fart now, I recall refueling our TA-4 F’s in my Navy squadron back in the late 60’s. After I left the service, I was afforded the opportunity to fly as a civilian guest on a training/refueling hop on a KC-10 out of Travis AFB. It was interesting, to say the least, flying in both aircraft/ tankers.
The KC-46's new system is anything but good. Maybe one day.
they should have kept the KC10
I'm loving the "sex puns" and fart jokes 😂 (passing gas)😂
The probe-and-drogue system was first developed by the British in the late '40s. The F-105 Thunderchief had both refueling systems built into each aircraft.
A really interesting system to look into is the old Soviet wingtip system. I've seen photos, but don't know how it worked. This would be a great video!!
Really good video. On a trans oceanic flight with fighters the fighters always have to have sufficient fuel on board to proceed to an alternate should the refueling system fail.
This can mean many top ups en route. It is not just a matter of waiting until your fighter is low on fuel. On a long flight with a lot of turbulence this can be quite a bit of work.
Does beg the question: Why is the KC-10 *retiring* while the older design KC-135 *still flying*?!
I wondering too, why retired the best of the best among the best that proven the best already
The D/KC-10 has a rather poor safety history.
Apparently, it's a numbers game. Retiring the 60 KC-10 is cheaper in the long run than splitting the number between the two airframes. Which kind of makes sense.
It has nothing to do with safety. I flew on the 10 as a boom for years. It’s a game of averages and numbers. The AF brass determined that the average offload was ~63k lbs. Which is well within the 135 and 46 capabilities. They decided more aircraft was better rather than more capabilities.
the 135 is the only option to refuel helicopters, the jet powered options wind up at or barely above stall speed if they try to refuel a helicopter.
Funny how War Thunder teaches how vital fuel management is in a modern, afterburning fighter. IE, the F-14 GUZZLES fuel at full A/B.
Everything guzzles fuel in full A/B
@@counterfit5 there's guzzling fuel, and then there's dumping the whole tank into the engine. F-14 is the latter
Super informative video! It’s amazing to understand just how critical in-flight refueling is for maintaining the operational range and effectiveness of fighter jets. Your breakdown of the process and its importance was perfectly clear. Thanks for shedding light on such a pivotal aspect of modern air combat!
Damn, NWYT has that Big Altima Energy
That BOOM ENGAGED indicator light would be awesome for a sound engineering board
oh my god you're so right! 🤣
hey, i've been to that KC-97. it's at March Field, they also have a YA-9 there.
Always great videos! BTW, in 'scarce' and 'scarcity', the first syllable sounds like 'scare', rather than 'scar'. ♥😻
I was born in the early 70's and grew up about 20 miles from Plattsburgh AFB. From as early as I can remember, seeing KC-135's and FB-111'S flying over was quite routine.
Thanks, this was a great deal more informative than I thought it would be. Learned quite a bit.
Hahaha, Crown Royal bag for the chin rest @5:11
I wanted this type of video since 1,2 years ago
finally i got so much detailed video on mid air refuelling
today atlast i subscribed the channel while i used to watch the channel sometimes
uploaded 24 may 2024
Another thing with drogue refuelling is sometimes the drogue can shear off, leaving it attached to the receiver aircraft. Which made their landing interesting when it still had the basket and a few meters of pipe attached.
We’ve also experienced the drogue wafting around in turbulence and hitting the pitot probes, causing the receiver aircraft to abort.
Having said that, the drogue method has been used for decades on 1000s of sorties.
I remember reading the book Flight Of The Intruder, which said A-6’s fitted with a buddy refuelling pod were crucial to helping those who struggled to land on an aircraft carrier. If they struggled to get down and did many bolters, they’d send up the standby refueller to save them before they ran out of fuel.
During the black buck missions, one of the victors broke its probe and had to get itself back to ascension, the rest had to reshuffle fuel to get the vulcan to its departure point. It could have jeopardised the entire mission. At the time it was the longest bombing mission with refuelling in the world until surpassed years later.
That clip of the H53 cutting off its fuel nozzle happened in 29 Palms CA being Motor Transport/Fuels, we were tasked with towing it back to the airfield from it's landing point. the rotors were damaged and it took several weeks to get the parts and fix it the pilot was screwed though.
F-15EX can fly from US to UK without mid-air refueling. At 45 minutes the pilot must have been for an F-16.
It’s quite standardized, US Air Force - Boom; Navy/USMC - drogue, ALL helicopters - drogue. The US military is represented by multiple branches with different needs; a one size fits all approach sometimes isn’t the best for all.
That name is not a mistake. F-1SEX
I think they talking about combat conditions
ever tried air to air refuelling on DCS world... it took me more than 45 minutes
I would guess the paper on the fuel savings between non air refuled plans and with aerial refueling may have had a section on the fuel used, and time lost, if the aircraft had to land refuel and then take off again.
I friend of mine was a crew on B-52s during Vietnam. They would take off with about 30/45 minutes of fuel to maximize their bomb load.
The hardest part of refueling (bombers in particular) is the tanker gets lighter while the receiving aircraft gets heavier so its a constant battle to stay in the box since the tanker will get faster and you get slower thus it's a constant battle to stay in the box with the thrust and alpha changes needed while taking on fuel.
Also air force tankers can carry wing reels with probe and drogue so they can refuel either method (drogue or boom) in the same mission. One advantage of this configuration is being able to refuel two probe type aircraft at the same time.
The bots kinda love military refueling i guess not gonna judge them i also enjoy whatching planes refuel
@NotWhatYouThink @GrowlerJams I served at RAF Mildenhall, U.K.('88-'97) Loved it when our KC-135s had the two MIPRS(Washington ANG 2003-2009) installed, which meant our flying boom could take care of our USAF jets, and MIRPS for the USNAVY and our Allies jets. However, for our mostly MIPRS-less KC-135s('88-'97), it was hang the drogue and put it on a stand, until tasked. Refueling those Navy/Allied jets were a slight pain, but happy to support! The only USAF jet that was a major pain refueling was the F-4 Phantom, which required us to lube the flying boom contact points everytime, and pray that the F-4 Phantoms didn't cause a 'Brute Force Disconnect', thus potentially damaging the entire boom assembly every mission. Not Fun! Still glad and honored to have served! I am also honored to support building the new replacement, and State-of-the-Art, Most Advanced Tanker in the World, the Boeing KC-46A. This 1980s technology jet gets some of the 🛩 787 avionics/cockpit 💺 advancements included, along with a brand new 3D Refueling Boom control deck 💺 for the Boom Operator. This is leaps & bounds above, laying on your belly and staring out the back boom window! Also, when I served we transition from the old water burning KC-135 A/Q (limited to 135K take-off fuel), over to the upgraded KC-135 R/T (limit increased to 180K take-off fuel), thanks to the new at the time, GE CFM-56 jet engines. ✈️
Too bad the KC-46 can't do half of what it is designed for because Boeing used the wrong kind of (black and white) camera on them. Should have bought the MRTT instead, which is just better in every way, not to mention that is actually works.
"It's a game changer" because the camera fogs up half the time.
But the MRTT "wasn't made here" and Boeing has more power where it counts (which isn't "making the thing work") so that's what we got.
Incopmpetence floats to the top of the corporate ladder, and that's at least doubly true when the products of the company are supposed to fly.
Point is, they "engineered" the contract so it couldn't fail, instead of engineering the PRODUCT so that it meets requirements. Bean-counters at the top where there should be engineers, that's why Boeing isn't what it used to be.
better yet they should have use the same system as used on the KC10 Kc135
that ad transistion was mint
I see new upload video of NWYT I click.
See NWYT sponsoring War Thunder again many times, Skip to the Trash.
I actually genuinely agree with you and finally some one who l found in the comment section that actually has a functioning brain for once and this world actually genuinely needs more people actually like you in this world and you actually couldn't have said that actually any better than me lol
During the Vietnam War refueling booms were used to tow damaged aircraft returning from North Vietnam to their bases in the south.
Never happened. True, with the Navy probe/drogue system there are small latches on the probe which engage and "lock" into the fitting on the drogue so that fuel can transfer without leaking. And the probe/receiver coupling used by the Air Force boom system is quite similar. But those latches in no way are strong enough to tow an aircraft. If they were, you could never disengage from the tanker.
Sounds like bar talk between people who were never there.
@@Roberto-oi7lmincorrect! The boom was used to tow fighter aircraft, provided they could provide some power assist. The safeties are shut off, and once locked on, it would bring the fighter to a safe area. This happened several times during Vietnam, all fully documented. Towing cannot be done with the drogue, since it can’t handle the strain. Retired tanker crew chief.
VFA-115 here during the period mentioned. I can say that refueling missions weren't the favorite. They were very long missions just for the pilot to be a flying gas station. Unlike those big AF tankers, the Super Hornets aren't as comfortable either. It isn't like the pilot could stand up to take a leak. But don't get me wrong because they can, just not standing up. 😂
Crown royal bag for a chin pad is a nice touch
Fantastic video! Answered all the questions I had about tankers.
Wouldn't the C-2's be better refueling planes for carriers than F-18's? They would have much larger fuel capacity, and could carry extra fuel bags in their cargo bay. Also, they're turboprops, so they could probably go slow enough to refuel any helicopters or tiltrotors in the carrier's fleet. And you wouldn't need to procure new fuel drones, just use what you already have in a different way.
C-2 is propeller aircraft, it's too slow for refueling fighter jets.
The C2 is being phased out for the Osprey. They do have a setup for refueling from the Osprey but jet refueling is limited by minimum flight speed.
@@czaja995 if the KC-130 isn't too slow, then it's not clear why the C-2 would be too slow.
For every good reason you can think of 1) make all tankers have both methods of refueling available built in and routinely interchangeable that a tanker could refuel a bomber and 2 fighters at the same time and 2) USAF, all branches and NATO fleet-wide mil spec requirement for all aircraft from now on in the fleet have BOTH systems interchangeability built in and always ready to go. THAT'S a war-winning advantage by all measure.
But ONLY the US Air Force uses the Boom, everyone else uses the Drogue. Why should everyone else be required to carry the extra weight & complexity of the Boom System? The outlier here is the US Air Force, should they not be the ones to change for compatibility?
I think that boom is better for bigger aircraft and probe and drogue for the smaller aircraft like a fighter.
Well-organized and clearly presented
We thought we already knew the "basics", until we saw this video.
We used to call the KC-135 metal drogue the wrecking ball. Always a lot of fun tanking off of that (not) in an EA-6B especially at night.
I will as hoping to see the Sea King chopping off its own probe, and there it is at 19:41
Stallion 🙂
One of the capabilities of the de Havilland Sea Vixen used by the Royal Navy was to refuel other Sea Vixen's and that was back in the 60s
Supermarine Scimitar fighter/attack aircraft were used as in flight refuellers for Blackburn Buccaneer S1 strike aircraft which were underpowered and could not be catapulted off Royal Navy carriers with a full fuel load. they topped up with fuel from the Scimitars once airborne, the Scimitars had big beer tankards painted on their fins.
"You could get whipped by those hose" sent me when I heard it, and made me laugh hard enough to scare my cat when I looked at the screen
Excellent doco! I knew a lot about aerial refueling, but I learned a lot of stuff I didn’t know. Thanks! 😊👍👌
Those probe-and-drogue mishaps are quite spectacular! And i would not be chill flying through the fuel spray in my combat jet with 400° EGT and whatever static electricity build-up on my aircraft's skin! (Yes i know jet fuel is acktchually hard to ignite)
I was about to acktchually
Slight title mistake. I think it should be Standardized not Standardize ( If he changes title ignore comment)
He has an accent I think. In 2x it sounded correct
You are correct. Grammatically, it should be "standardized".
Grammar MP
@@muhazreenl actually agree with you.
the Answer to your question at 1:30 is different requirements for aerial refueling.
The USAF method is fast. I mean can move a lot more fuel than a drogue can, but it takes more advanced equipment, and perhaps a little less forgiveness between the Refueler and receiving aircraft. Especially with something like a B-52 still in Operation, a Drogue style refuel would be literally unable to keep the B-52 flying, much less actually refill the tanks of one.
For the Navy, Marines, etc. Simplicity and weight are primary factors. They don't HAVE to refuel a B-52, E-3 Sentry, or anything close to that level.
Hence, the Air Force can not shift away from using the refueling probe as their primary method, and the Navy/Marines, etc. can't adopt the USAF method, which wouldn't fit onto their aircraft anyway.
Fortunately, there is something of a happy medium, where the Drogue basket can be attached to the USAF probe, and full length drogue hoses can be deployed from wing pods, when interservice cooperation is required.
Here we are, listening damn jokes from my boy
"The adapter isn't the only weakness of the KC-135"
He goes on to describe the benefits of an aircraft that is being retired (kc-10) and a lemon (KC-46) while the KC-135 is still operating with life expectancy for decades to come. 😂
"it's okay if you can't get it up Mr plane, it happens to all of us as we get older"
The under appreciated part of the USAF! Can’t get there without the motion lotion, the vitamin G! The flying Gas Stations!
Man i love watching your videos. It seems like forever waiting for a new video to drop. I start going through dt convulsions and stuff. 😂😂😂😂
Always instructive and fun !
On the B2, the video shows you just how precise things are. No gaps or anything when the fuel door opened or closed it would be hard to guess it was there.
9:44 This happened in Desert Storm in 1991. The Iraqi military began to anticipate the arrival of F-117 stealth fighters over Baghdad by timing how long it took for them to fly away from the refuelling tankers that they could see on radar.
14:37 Some people may tell you the SR-71 leaked so much fuel on the ground that they needed to be refueled right after take-off because all the fuel they were carrying was gone. That is incorrect. The SR-71 took off with a small fuel load in order to minimize stress on the airframe due to the onset of g-forces and lift from the wings. They were trying to keep as much fatigue out of the airframe's lifespan as possible and taking off with light amount of weight was one of those ways.
15:57 It's the same logic behind external fuel tanks. When you carry additional fuel in a pod attached to the outside of the airplane, it's said that half of the fuel inside that tank is used just to overcome the added weight and drag of that tank.
The tankers refueling the SR-71s were also modified so that its engines burned the same fuel as the SR-71, to eliminate the same issue that retired the prop-driven tankers.
the Air Force was short sighted when it did start equipping all KC 135 tankers with MPRS when they became available. I had to install many drogue adapters in my career as a crew chief.
after seeing the notification I knew the original title and thumbnail were going to be changed quickly 😂😂
i was wondering for 5 minutes whether MQ25 stingray could be deployed from aircraft carriers but when I saw the video again i found it is actually shown in video 21:12
Greetings: Thx 4 Ur service
7:26 why do the copilots initiate transfer? My guess is that the transfer can have a huge effect on the donor plane's center of gravity and you can't have a boom operator turning such a process on and off without the cockpit totally agreeing and knowing... so putting the switch on the plane's dashboard just makes absolutely sure the pilots know and agree.
Not exactly a true statement. The pilots have all the pumps and valves turned on before the fuel transfer. As soon as the aircraft are connected, the refueling begins automatically. Only the tanker pilots can see the fuel gages, and control where the fuel is being taken from. If done correctly, the tanks levels are pumped off equally, so CG is not a big issue. Also, the tanker is on autopilot, so the receiver aircraft has to adjust to stay in position. The amount of fuel transferred is tracked, and billed to the receiver aircraft.
When dragging fighters overseas, the fighters top off every hour during the flight, and fly just off the wingtips when not refueling.
Retired tanker crew chief.
The SR71 is the one that leaks fuel before the fuselage heats up, isn't it? BTW, the best and most exciting film about aviation I ever saw is called Starfighters and received excellent reviews from the famous Minneapolis critics Crow, Servo and M. Nelson.
I have been wondering what that rotating hatch on B2 were. Finally I know!
Boomer: "You are too far left!"
Pilot: "Ok boomer..."
The SR-71 did fly missions WITHOUT refueling. They would launch a fully fueled bird to run a test mission. This was only done at BEAL AFB. Take off, run the test and land.
7:54 he tripped
Thank you for a MOST comprehensive overview of the aerial refueling subject! As usual, your vids lead to a greater understanding of aviation and various systems. Plz keep up the GREAT WORK!!
Setting off flairs after refueling is like flicking a lit cigarette after filling up your trans-am
19:44 Ouch, that must have hurt!
Placing of the add is perfect.
The Embraer KC-390 may fill that gap...
In flight refueling is a must for modern stealth aircraft. Not 4th gen aircraft. An F14 could fly 1842 miles....
@9:57; I seriously thought it was a photo until the boom started moving! 😂😂 How is the background not even moving?! Talk about having a uncanny valley moment!
Yeah that’s a tricky shot. It’s in slow mo, so that’s partly why.
great video but you made a mistake while showing the f-35, you've put a B instead of a C (but it can be carrier based too so...)
“The Boeing had a flaw” not surprised… not we are both on a hit list
The KC-135 is hated by USN/USMC pilots. The short rigid hose has to be pushed in to bend the knuckle to allow fuel flow. The window is about 4 foot box. It is known as the iron maiden.