alternative tanker air-to-air refueling aircraft

[scooter]

Navy S-3 Viking.  Replace the bomb bays and sonobouy storage with fuel storage, and the MAD boom with a hose and drogue system, it'd give the Navy something with a bit more capacity than buddy packs.  And if you add a USAF receptacle, you can tank off of KC-10s and 135s without having to refit them.

[Maverick]

Scooter, there was talk of a dedicated KS-3 to be developed, but it ended up going away and stock S-3s were buddy-tank fitted instead when they were nearing the end of their service.

Regards,

Mav

[GTX]

KS-3A:



Regards,

Greg

[rickshaw]

The Australians were keen to use B-747s

Evidence please.  Beyond one certain individual trying to promote it, this is the first I've heard of this.

Regards,

Greg

I also wondered about that...

[Fulcrum]

The Australians were keen to use B-747s

Evidence please.  Beyond one certain individual trying to promote it, this is the first I've heard of this.

Regards,

Greg

I also wondered about that...

Don't forget that the Iranians modified at least 2 of their Boeing 747's as tankers before the fall of the Shah.

[McColm]

In 1970 the ACTA-advanced cargo transport aircraft was out for tender, the contract was won by McDonald Douglas with the KC-10. Boeing proposed the KC-33A based on their 747-100 series.
Check out: www.aussieairpower.net/APA-2005-02.pdf

[rickshaw]

I don't think Greg and I are disputing that the could be modified to the air-tanker role.  Rather we are questioning this supposed RAAF interest in the 747 for the role.

[scooter]

Scooter, there was talk of a dedicated KS-3 to be developed, but it ended up going away and stock S-3s were buddy-tank fitted instead when they were nearing the end of their service.

Regards,

Mav

Figures I go about reinventing the wheel. 

[GTX]

I don't think Greg and I are disputing that the could be modified to the air-tanker role.  Rather we are questioning this supposed RAAF interest in the 747 for the role.

Exactly.

Regards,

Greg

[jcf]

Boeing proposed the KC-33A based on their 747-100 series.

Not exactly, the C-33 version of the 747-400 was a 1990s proposal and the KC-33A is pretty much a fantasy.
The actual military 'C' designations used on 747s are C-19A for the converted Pan-Am aircraft of the
CRAF - Civil Reserve Air Fleet, and VC-25A as used for the Presidential transports. Both of these designations
post-date the early '70s tanker contest, so even if the 747 had been chosen it's unlikely it would have been
designated KC-33A.

[jcf]

Don't forget that the Iranians modified at least 2 of their Boeing 747's as tankers before the fall of the Shah.

Not quite, the IIAF purchased twelve used 747-100s and Boeing Wichita modified them into military cargo aircraft.
All received aerial refueling capability and three were equipped as tankers complete with the Boeing flying boom.
These were followed by a later purchase of four 747-200F freighters.

[McColm]

Thanks

[MAD]

Whilst looking for other things, I came across this which kinda does the whole "hose & drogue" out of a 'normal' transporter.

Regards,

Mav

Hey great find John
The USAF must have loved the army for this experiment

M.A.D

[McColm]

The mach 1  aircraft i.e. KB-1 ( T-Steak) might work, but in real terms would it need to slow down at all in refueling?
What about the use of Concorde and the Russian Concordiski?

[Maverick]

McColm,

IFR is a tricky game at the best of times (eg clear weather, experienced tanker & receiver crew, etc).  To throw in supersonic speed to the mix would be asking for trouble even if a hose & drogue or flying boom could be deployed at that speed.  I can't think of any operational reason that would see the necessity for an aircraft being refuelled at anything other than a pedestrian speed.

Regards,

Mav