|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 11, 2006 21:37:04 GMT 12
The Skyhawks used to refuel air-to-air from each other. I always assumed this was purely for show, for the airshows so they could do the tricky and unique "plugged" aerobatics routine.
But then on a DVD that FlyNavy Phil kindly sent (as I couldn't download it from his link) I saw a clip of RAN Skyhawks which were on a mission to strike targets in NZ during an exercise. It showed RAN A-4's doing an air-to-air refuel on their way. So it seems it was part of their tactical mission.
Why do they do that? I mean, if a Skyhawk can carry a large droptank so another can drain it with its probe, why not fit the large droptanks to all of them and pipe it into it's own fuel system, eliminating the transfer? It seems illogical - is there a clever explanation I have missed?
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Dec 11, 2006 21:48:03 GMT 12
The aircraft supplying the fuel doesn't go all the way to the target. It may escort the attacking formation to a certain point from base, top them them off, go home, refuel and then wait for them on the return leg, to detail one possible mission profile.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Dec 11, 2006 21:53:54 GMT 12
On genuine attack missions the tanker aircraft would not travel the full distance to the target, after refuelling its mate it would return to base, or possibly loiter to refuel the strike aircraft on its return. with extra an extra tank there wouldnt be many weapons options, so its tactical role may be diminished. I guess thats how it goes, some of the ex knucks may know. I was reading the other day about the Falklands war "Black Buck" raids by Vulcan bombers on port Stanley. To put one vulcan over Stanley from Acension Island required something like 16 mid air refuels from 13 tanker aircraft (some to refuel the tankers themselves to get them to thier stations) plus a couple of Nimrods co-ordinating everthing. Must get the book "Vulcan 607" to read the whole story.(Santa please note)
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Dec 11, 2006 21:54:14 GMT 12
Snap
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 11, 2006 22:03:49 GMT 12
I see. Well that makes more sense. Based on this new knowledge, I surmise that the one with the tank not be able to lift the necessary weaponry to go all the way there and back in one hit.
I recall in the early 1990's No. 40 Squadron was considering buying a roll in-roll out fuel tank to slip inside a Herc, making it into a tanker for long range 75 Squadron missions. I'm not sure why the idea was dropped, it seemed a good idea at the time.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Dec 12, 2006 1:45:50 GMT 12
I have a copy of "Vulcan 607" Bruce, and it's not the sort of book you want to put down once you've started reading it! It's excellent, and all factual. It also explains why they attacked the airfield at the angle they did, and the consequent effect on the Argentine Air Force in Argentina itself. A great read. Contact me if you can't get hold of a copy, It's not readily available.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Dec 12, 2006 1:54:20 GMT 12
Nothing on a military aircraft is 'for show' Dave. The A4 system was a 'buddy' which allowed transfer of fuel from one aircraft to another, both for real and in an emergency. There were many instances in Vietnam, for example, where damaged A4s and other aircraft made it back to the carriers by receiving fuel from a similar aircraft sent to meet them.
|
|
|
Post by turboNZ on Dec 12, 2006 7:36:57 GMT 12
This is a really fascinating thread. Thanks guys !!
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Dec 12, 2006 10:37:43 GMT 12
The US Navy have been a big user of the buddy refuelling system, and as Colin has said it was used quite a bit during Vietnam. Another reason it's used is that takeoff weight is often quite critical for carrier ops, so the bombed-up aircraft could takeoff with minimal fuel and then top up from a tanker aircraft before heading off for the target. By the way, "Vulcan 607" is available for A$7.99 (retail was A$35) over here at QBD bookshops, and if anyone's interested they do mail order to NZ for A$15 - so even with postage you can have it for about NZ$26 - click on the link below for more info: www.qbdthebookshop.com/ssp_product.cfm?productID=438828&CFID=4529902&CFTOKEN=95433316&requestID=200612120824410%2E10881343
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 12, 2006 11:21:59 GMT 12
When deploying to Aussie, the aircraft would always tank after take off prior to heading accross the ditch. This was especially important for the T birds that carried less internal fuel in the fuse bag, if I remember correctly.
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Dec 12, 2006 12:09:11 GMT 12
Heading west into the headwind, the model hardly ever needed to refuel. The T-bird needed to only if there was holding gas required at the other end and the average head wind was over approx 50kts.
Agree with the statements that the tanker wouldn't go all the way to the target. Strike aircraft will often be takeoff weight or performance limited when carrying a warload. The simple way around this is to provide tanker support at some point during the flight, as there's no max airborne weight limit.
This is why tanking aircraft have picked up the "force multiplier" moniker. To destroy a target takes an arbitary number of weapons - say 10. Your strike aircraft may only be able to takeoff with 1 of these onboard with the fuel required for the route, so without tanking support you'd need 10 sorties. With tanking, get airborne with 2 weapons and a reduced fuel load and then top-up after airborne. You now only need 5 sorties, leaving the other 5 to do other tasking.
The downside is that a tanker is a high value unit and the enemy will expend a lot of effort to trying to reduce your tanking availability. Theatre planners will either have to use some of their fighter support to provide a tanker CAP, or position the tanker tracks a long way behind the front line which will reduce the striker's range.
This is where the tactical tanker is useful (a'la the A4, and now the F/A-18E/F). A tactical tanker can be part of the strike package and offload the fuel closer to the action, and also has a limited self-defense capability. We used to practice refuelling down to 250ft AGL for this reason (not just because it looked good at airshows!!) A strategic tanker will pull in the hoses and turn and run as the first sniff of trouble.
Tanker planning can be quite a complex operation, having to take into account offload, receiver tank space available, bracket times, threats, diverts, receiver performance and other things that don't spring to mind. During peace-time (and 99% during operations), a tanking plan will never leave the receiver in a position that if they fail to tank they don't have anywhere to go.
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Dec 12, 2006 12:13:35 GMT 12
The F/A-18E is now the USN's only carrier-borne tanking asset, so the buddy system is still alive and well.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 12, 2006 12:43:37 GMT 12
Thankjs Barnsey, and everyone else. This is really interesting stuff, something I'd never given a lot ot thought to before. It all makes perfect sense now. I recall seeing three RNZAf A-4K's in a row plugged in once, but I can't recall where. Maybe Whenuapai in 1994?
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Dec 12, 2006 13:00:44 GMT 12
3 at once, mmmmmmmmmmm can't remember seeing that. I was there then. Unless I was away in the Uk on exercise then. Yes 3 would look great. I supposse you could go as many as you like, depending on the proper tanks you had, then again what about turbulence. Would it get a bit rough the futher back yu were.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 12, 2006 13:17:04 GMT 12
It may have been Ardmore. I'm trying hard to think where it was.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 12, 2006 13:21:31 GMT 12
No, I'm now fairly certain it was a Wings and Wheels at Whenuapai, mid-1990's. I found some pretty shabby photos I took at the time.
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Dec 12, 2006 13:24:26 GMT 12
3 RAN A-4Gs at NAS Nowra Air Day in 1974 photo by Steve McDonald Some good aspects of tanking have been explained already. From the Navy viewpoint having a tanker at the carrier enables less stressful deck landings - especially at night (USN) - when carrier landing fuel is always at a minimum (due to arrestor cable limitations etc.). If there is a missed landing (bolter) the aircraft can rendezvous with a circling tanker to take on more fuel for another approach to the carrier, rather than having to divert ashore (if this is possible). In one case in the RAN an A-4G lost a wheel during a shipboard touch and go landing. A tanker got airborne quickly (ready on deck) to give the damaged aircraft enough fuel to divert to RAAF Amberley (some distance away) where it was able to land on its EMPTY fuel tanks successfully. The RAN regarded the drop tanks (when empty) as the emergency undercarriage, especially during ship ops. Reason why you see the A-4G with dual underwing tanks of either 1,000 or 2,000 lb capacity most of the time. Phil.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 12, 2006 13:42:00 GMT 12
Thanks Phil. Nice photo.
One of our TA-4K's landed on its droptanks at Ohakea once, there's an impressive film clip of it on Calum's site.
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Dec 12, 2006 14:19:41 GMT 12
Great photos, Dave and Phil.
Never got to see three Skyhawks like that plugged together, but I always though the plugged barrel-roll was pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Dec 12, 2006 14:54:46 GMT 12
Back in 1969 the then 724 Squadron ‘RamJet’ aerobatic A-4G team (usually only three aircraft with perhaps a fourth - when only 4 singles and two trainers available - often trainer was lead aircraft) did 'plugged in barrel rolls at altitude with perhaps some practice low level instances over the airfield but they never did them in any air day display to my knowledge. The team was 'famous' for their 4 aircraft diamond fullstop landing but once again aircraft availabilty (out of ten total when 4 A-4Gs were taken by 805 squadron) meant often on an air day (1969 for example) they could only field 3 aircraft for formation. Later VF-805 when more aircraft became available fielded a 4 A-4G aerobatic team ‘CheckMates’ that regularly did the 4 aircraft diamond full stop landing. This team was led by the CO who did the same landing in the Sea Venom era. I don't believe they tried (to my knowledge) the 'plugged barrel roll' at low level - but I may be wrong here. The diamond four fullstop landing was particularly difficult for A4s on the 6,000+ foot runway at regulation 150 foot width (?). Nowra's runways were regarded as the minimum required runways for operations in USN. Phil.
|
|