# Strategic Air to air  Refueling



## Spencer100 (24 Jul 2008)

The Air Force will soon have Strategic Air-to-Air Refuelling (SAAR) capability. One modified CC-150T (tanker) Polaris aircraft is now being tested and evaluated at 4 Wing Cold Lake, Alta. for this purpose. 

This operational testing and evaluation (OT&E) phase introduces increasingly difficult air-to-air refuelling sequences and missions under operational conditions. Lessons learned will be implemented to ensure the capabilities of the CC-150T (tanker) are used to their maximum potential. 

The Polaris (or Airbus A-310) is capable of off-loading 80,000 pounds of fuel to receiving aircraft over a 2,500 Nautical Mile leg (4,630 km). This will permit the Polaris tanker to ferry a flight of four CF-18 Hornets non-stop across the Atlantic Ocean. 

Canada’s Air Force has not had this capability since it retired its fleet of CC-137 (Boeing 707) aircraft in 1997. 

The CC150T successfully passed 14,000 pounds of fuel to three German Air Force Tornado fighter aircraft during the Customer Acceptance Flight completed on 30 May 2008. 

The new SAAR capability, which will be based at 8 Wing Trenton, Ont., will permit fighter aircraft to fly longer distances without landing to refuel. The Air Force has used CC-130 Hercules aircraft from 435 Squadron at 17 Wing Winnipeg for tactical air-to-air-refuelling, however, the aircraft is limited by range and fuel capacity. 

The SAAR capability modification to two of the CC150 Polaris five-aircraft fleet still permits the primary role of long-range transport of personnel and equipment, as the newly configured aircraft remains capable of carrying cargo and/or passengers.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Jul 2008)

source?


----------



## Haletown (24 Jul 2008)

source  http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/news_e.asp?cat=114&id=6727


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Jul 2008)

Thanks!  How did I miss that one? (I looked on the site).


----------



## Haletown (24 Jul 2008)

google are your friend   ;D


----------



## dimsum (25 Jul 2008)

Anyone know what crew are being added to handle the refuelling equipment?


----------



## aesop081 (25 Jul 2008)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Anyone know what crew are being added to handle the refuelling equipment?



Oh i'm sure they will find a way to add a nav in there regardless of if its needed or not  ;D


----------



## Zoomie (25 Jul 2008)

Yup - the Navigator has already been placed on the crew roster for the MRTT.  They have been in there from the very start.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Jul 2008)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Yup - the Navigator has already been placed on the crew roster for the MRTT.  They have been in there from the very start.



But is a Nav really needed ?

 ;D   >


----------



## dimsum (25 Jul 2008)

Anyone know the responsibilities of the Nav onboard?


----------



## aesop081 (25 Jul 2008)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Anyone know the responsibilities of the Nav onboard?



Bulk Claim holder........ ;D


----------



## Gazoo (1 Aug 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Bulk Claim holder........ ;D



 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## pfl (1 Aug 2008)

On the Discovery channel show Airstream, a reality show forcused on the fighter pilot selection process based in Cold Lake, it would seem that this technology was already available to CF pilots. One guys nickname was Broketip, or something to that effect, because he turned off early, damaging the nozzle or something. What up with that?


----------



## Klinkaroo (1 Aug 2008)

Show was called Jetstream and yes they did do air to air refueling but off of a United-States Stratotanker.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Aug 2008)

Klinkaroo said:
			
		

> Show was called Jetstream and yes they did do air to air refueling but off of the Hercules aircraft which don't have the same capacity and range as the Polaris do.



On jetstream they did AAR with a USAF KC-135 Stratotanker........


----------



## geo (2 Aug 2008)

How is our global transport capability being affected by reconfiguring 2 of our 5 CC150 / Airbus A310S ?
We're talking about 40% of our resource after all.


----------



## aesop081 (2 Aug 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> How is our global transport capability being affected by reconfiguring 2 of our 5 CC150 / Airbus A310S ?
> We're talking about 40% of our resource after all.



Geo, the modifications to the 2 Polaris aircraft just mean they can be used as tankers as needed. They will still be available as cargo aircrafts.


----------



## Zoomie (2 Aug 2008)

Exactly - their internal payload and PAX structure has not really been changed.  The reconfiguration involved mostly internal plumbing and wiring. The fuel is pumped to the Jets from the Polaris' own fuel tanks.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Aug 2008)

Is this AAR capability going to be limited to the '18s?  Or will it also be something that is extended to the RW Sar (Cormorant), MH, TacHel, etc communities as well?  I know our neighbors to the north have an AAR capabilty throughout their inventory, up to and including the USCG SAR helo's.  If/when this is deemed 'operational', will say, the TacHel world that plays with CSOR use this, like the Yanks do with their Pave Lows, etc?


----------



## Zoomie (3 Aug 2008)

Strategic AAR is really for the Jets - whether it be fighters, bombers, strategic trash-haulers (C-17).  

What you are describing is the role of the Tactical AAR - a helicopter can't fly fast enough to refuel effectively off a jet airliner, conversely that same airliners might experience some difficulties slowing down enough.  The C-130 usually refuels the helo-assets in the US military.  AFAIK, we are not considering this role for our legacy Hercs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Aug 2008)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Strategic AAR is really for the Jets - whether it be fighters, bombers, strategic trash-haulers (C-17).
> 
> What you are describing is the role of the Tactical AAR -* a helicopter can't fly fast enough to refuel effectively off a jet airliner*, conversely that same airliners might experience some difficulties slowing down enough.  The C-130 usually refuels the helo-assets in the US military.  AFAIK, we are not considering this role for our legacy Hercs.



Oops.  I should have spelled it out more rather than saying "extended" to include what you had said re: Herc's/Tac AAR.  My bad.  But you got what I meant, and thanks for the answer.


----------



## FoverF (28 Aug 2008)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Strategic AAR is really for the Jets - whether it be fighters, bombers, strategic trash-haulers (C-17).



Can a C-17 actually be refueled via a drogue? 

It can't so far as I know (but I have been wrong before), because I don't think it has a probe, and even if it did, it would burn gas pretty much as quickly as it could take it on from a drogue. A tanker could 'drag' a C-17, but not really properly refuel one.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Aug 2008)

FoverF said:
			
		

> Can a C-17 actually be refueled via a drogue?



It cant and no one here said that it could either.


----------



## bartbandyrfc (29 Aug 2008)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Strategic AAR is really for the Jets - whether it be fighters, bombers, strategic trash-haulers (C-17).
> 
> What you are describing is the role of the Tactical AAR - a helicopter can't fly fast enough to refuel effectively off a jet airliner, conversely that same airliners might experience some difficulties slowing down enough.  The C-130 usually refuels the helo-assets in the US military.  AFAIK, we are not considering this role for our legacy Hercs.



This is a bit philosophical, and I wager off topic - but it is a pet peeve of mine.  The Canadian Air Force has got to get out of the mind set that says "strategic" means "large" and "intercontinental" (i.e. long range).  This is old thinking.  We used to call our Boeing 707s strategic, because of the size and range of the asset.  We now are doing the same thing with C-17s and with the new tanker conversion.  

Our purchase of the tanker conversion was labeled "strategic" in that we could take our CF-18s and deploy them quickly to some place far away from home so that they could be used to achieve strategic effect.  However, the tanker kit can just as easily be used for tactical effects, for example as a tactical asset chopped to NORAD in support of Operation NOBLE EAGLE.  The same is true for the C-17.  We can use that asset for strategic effect (responding to a natural disaster in order to stabilise a region of the world), or tactically (hauling fuel to Alert).

Conversely, a medium range/medium lift USMC MC-130T tanker could support a small USAF pavehawk helicopter that is transporting a section sized US Army SOF team.  That Delta Force team might have a strategic mission, for example a hypothetical hostage rescue of five heads of state that were captured by some terrorists baddies.  

The range and speed of the asset is immaterial.  The use of the asset is material to whether it is either strategic, operational, or tactical.  This is one of the tenets of air power.

BB


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Aug 2008)

pfl said:
			
		

> On the Discovery channel show Airstream, a reality show forcused on the fighter pilot selection process based in Cold Lake, it would seem that this technology was already available to CF pilots. One guys nickname was Broketip, or something to that effect, because he turned off early, damaging the nozzle or something. What up with that?



His callsign was Bobbit


----------

