Air Refueler crews are hardcore. My grandfather served in the Korean conflict aboard a KB-29 Air Refueler as a Radar technician. I distinctly remember 2 of his tales from his service he told me a few years before he passed. The first one involved him on RTB where he had to crawl to the back of the aircraft on the way back, and they hit some turbulence on landing. KB-29's had their ball turrets stripped from the aircraft to lighten the aircraft and there was just a big hole in the aircraft where it was. Due to the turbulence he had fallen part way out of the aircraft and was hanging from the opening by his elbows. The other harrowing experience he told me about wasn't in the air actually, but on the ground. KB-29's still didn't have the whole grounding the aircraft from ESD thing sorted yet and had a nasty habit of spontaneously combusting due to that. So one day he came in to go fly, and he was checked out by a nurse before the flight. He had come down with the flu, but still wanted to fly. However, the nurse said he was too sick and told him to go on back to the barracks. On the jeep ride back he saw his flight take off and suddenly explode just after it left the ground. All hands were lost, and he could have been one of them. My grandfather would later go on to work on the Apollo Program as a contract Aerospace Engineer and some of the stuff he worked on is still on the moon.
I would've told that nurse to kiss my ass and still would've gotten on that aircraft. I'd rather ride and die. Edit. Not trying to dishonor your gran-pa. That's my decision I want to do. Everyone has free will.
In the vid an F-111 was cited as being towed home. There were other cases of F-4s and F-105s also being rescued this way. The tanker crews often left their safe refueling areas and flew into N Vietnam to do this. Putting themselves at risk of being shot down by Migs or SAMs. The crews were brave heroes!
As a former KC-135 tanker pilot, I have to say this was a great refueling compendium. Thanks for putting this out there. BTW, K actually stands for Kerosene, and C stands for Cargo.
The most ridiculous endurance story is the US bombing of Libya in the '80s. No mainland European country would let the US fly over their country, but the UK was where the attack was launched from. The SR-71 spy planes were used to scout and verify the mission. They flew 3 spy flights during the attack. One flew before the bombing, one immediately after, one a bit later (after the smoke had cleared) to confirm. There were two crews - one flew the first and last, a different crew flew the middle mission. The "pre-bombing" crew took off *AFTER* the bombers took off. They flew around the tip of Spain, up the Med, scouted the target, flew back, landed, had their film taken out and quickly analyzed so details could be relayed to the (still en-route) bombers. They then rested while their plane was refueled and prepared for their "after the bombing" flight. Then they took off, flew the "verify we hit the targets" pass, again, around the tip of Spain and up the Med, then back out the same way. They passed the bombers on their way back. So the SR-71 crew flew two complete missions, with a rest in between, in less time than the bombers flew their single bombing run.
The US is very hesitant to land a B2 outside their country. Any landing abroad could mean that somebody briefly detects it, which could give away clues on how to identify it during an actual attack. The B2 is pretty much the single best option to take out airfields and anti-air assets right before a major operation. They flew into some of the most well-defended airspaces in the world to take out some of the most effective defenses there are. It's hard to overestimate their value and the importance of secrecy in that case.
I see the B2s damn near daily, they are also in the air national guard here in Missouri. Fun fact, Missouri ANG is nuclear capable and would likely be the force tasked to deploy domestic nuclear strike if ever called for
@@prophetsspaceengineering2913 I think it has more to do with the lack of climate-controlled hangars in allied nations. Unlike newer stealth aircraft like the F-35, the B-2's radar-absorbent material is more superficial and not as durable, the RAM have to be reapplied more often. The B-2 wasn't designed for a SEAD mission, but rather "open up" a gap in the air defense with its stealth, so that it can destroy the target protected by the anti-air defense. Electronic warfare aircraft is the backbone of the SEAD operation.
@Yuck Foutube The US Air Force has approximately 450 tankers, the Marines have around 80 and the Navy uses the buddy-buddy system where most aircraft can refuel each other.
Yuck Foutube - The US has world's largest air force by a HUGE margin and obviously has the most tankers, so here is a list of the US active tanker fleet. KC-135 - 397 KC-10 Extender - 58 KC-46 Pegasus - 12 (52 on order) KC-130 - 60 That's a total of 527 tankers the US Air Force operates. The US Navy also operates 5 KC-130T and uses the buddy to buddy system with F-18 Super Hornets. If you wanted to compare the UK tanker fleet to the US tanker fleet, the UK has a total of 9 KC-30A Voyagers.
@@mississippirebel1409 9 Voyegers are no joke. Boeing makes the best tankers. We Indians will purchase 2 KC-46s within 2022. Right now we have 6 IL-78s, which are good, but getting spares for them is a nightmare.
It's a special kind of feeling taking off over the ocean knowing you don't have enough gas to cross it. The water is not where I want to end up, so it all hangs on a 20 year old enlisted boomer staring 25 ft away from a 26 year old officer pilot, and doing a perfect job.
Excellent video. As a former Boom Operator on the KC-135 out of Grand Forks AFB (912th ARS) I really enjoyed and appreciated this video. The story about the F-111 over Vietnam is one we're told early on in flight training. And despite all of the program issues with the KC-46 most fliers are still excited about it. The 135 fleet has been faithful but was extremely old even before I flew on them 13 years ago.
To add to this, all three aircraft have completely different fuselages. The 367-80 was the smallest, the kc-135’s which came next have a fuselage about a foot wider in diameter, and the 707 larger still with about 2 feet wider than the 367-80.
@@RCAvhstape from the Boeing company history "The 707 was designated the 720 when it was modified for short- to medium-range routes and for use on shorter runways. Engineers reduced the fuselage length by 9 feet (2.7 meters), changed the leading edge flaps and later installed turbofan engines. Boeing built 154 720s between 1959 and 1967. Its short- to medium-range role was later filled by 727s and 737s."
I once was on a 13 hour flight in a MC-130P from the UK to Africa. Ditto for the return trip. We were packed with people and equipment (got a waiver to take off at 163000 pounds, normal max takeoff was 155000). Hit tankers twice both ways. We also had to rely on tankers for gas during the mission, because the gas at some of the airfields was contaminated and command didn't want to risk clogging the fuel filters on the engines of our planes and helicopters.
Erratum: 6:35 Common misconception since the family resemblance is obvious, but the (K)C-135 and the 707 are each separate derivatives of the Boeing 367-80 proof of concept prototype, with the C-135 being the first to enter service. The C-135 is not a 707 in military drag as its fuselage is narrower and shorter than the 707's. The VC-137 is the military VIP transport version of the 707 that served as Air Force One. The E-3 Sentry is based on the 707 as well. And finally, the C-18 is the transport version of the big 707-320B Intercontinental. Interesting side note: the 367-80 is somewhat inspired by the KC-97, the civilian version of which is known as the 367. Boeing originally intended to use the same diameter as the 367's upper fuselage to decrease tooling costs.
The funny thing is the channel originally started as a source of fairly mediocre top 10 list type things. Then he quite suddenly transitioned into making some of the best reasearched, interesting, well made short-format documentary videos on the internet.
44 hours in the cockpit, granted there have been longer flights that tested stamina but at least those planes had racks for that. Not discounting the Spirit of Saint Louis. Still, the B2 has a toilet? That has got to be the weirdest peace of info for that particular bomber I've ever heard.
With the right altitude, a good pilot and your arse hanging out the bomb bay doors you could wipe your arse on the back of a 200 mph seagul. Just make sure the angles right otherwise your gonna squawk when you walk. Or the golfing term birdie.
The only other plane that I know of that has a galley and toilet for the crew is the Su-34, but this leads me to believe that probably any aircraft expected to perform lengthy missions has those on board as well.
If you go to the Fighter Pilot Podcast channel and watch the episode on the B2 they mention it. The guy also says the rule for that little toilet is "Doing an inflight Number 2 is not cool", although 44 hours would be damn tough to avoid it. I imagine the crew might take laxatives the day before the mission and go liquid diet only lol.
Always had a great deal of respect for the tankers, remember some time ago writing some fiction for airline sim game where I flew a bunch of Vickers VC10s (Still the best looking plane ever imho) and had one suffer some nast damage on it's way from Canada to Hawaii. Loosing fuel quickly before they shot of the tank that was leaking it lacked the range to make it back to any base, but seeing story wise these had been ex RAF tankers we didn't bother to remove the receiving end of the refueling operations. So we used that, send a call to the USAF and got her refueled and return safely back to dry land.
Thank you, will check it out. His videos are very good. The Black Buck missions were pointless in terms of a bombing mission, as much more damage was done by the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm Sea Harrier Force. But, in terms of political and propoganda purposes, they were VERY effective.
Auxigamerz Mark has a great channel doesn't he? Yes l saw the Black Buck video and enjoyed it. I just discovered this channel here and also enjoy it. Check out his F-14 Tomcat video.
@@michaelroberts889 He had some very interesting videos indeed. For example one of only two instances that the germans helped the allies in WW2 was close to my home town in Austria. I would have never known it if it wasn't for him. ua-cam.com/video/80ZyPeoDUqk/v-deo.html it's this video if you're interested.
Auxigamerz the Castle Itter? I saw that on but l must check out the other. I really enjoy both Mark's and your videos. I'm a bit of a history/aviation/aerospace geek. Though l do find some of your shirts questioable (lol!) I watch and give a like to all of your videos 👍
@@underwaterdick Similar to the Doolittle raid then, it makes the point very graphically: We can do the things _you_ thought were impossible - so what else can we do? Just let your imagination roam free.....Sleepin' well tonight are you?
Always such outstanding content. Thank you Paul for your dedication to excellence in script writing, editing and narration. I always look forward to these videos and often find myself back in a binge watching session following your new videos!
Boeing 767. I had the opportunity to fly in a KC10 tanker while on deployment. The boomer gave me a headset a showed me where to sit. The easy, casual conversation between the pilots and the boomer was a smooth cover for the tension felt by both. True professionals are really fun to watch.
I have watched people in simulators do this and the only thing I can say is mad props to the pilots who rotated doing this for nearly 2 days in one go, tankers and bombers. Everything about it takes herculean patience.
KC-46 was developed from the 767. The KC-767 was developed before the KC-46 and operated by several countries around the world. But the US Airforce had to have an almost completely custom aircraft resulting cost overruns and delays, YAY Airforce.
The KC-46 Pegasus got developed from the 767-200ER through the KC-767. Love the vids, always something different from the other channels I subscribe to so thanks for all your hard work!! :)
Not to nit-pick but, you missed a tanker in service - The KC-(3)30 / Airbus A330 MRTT. A few of these are operating here with the RAAF. A very capable aircraft indeed.
The B2 mission after 9/11 is the definition of air superiority, "I'm gonna kick your ass even if I have to fly 44 hours non-stop, then I'll take a 45 minute break, and then fly for another 6 hours and do it 5 more time. I'm talking back to back, to back, to back, to back!" Not saying it's right, but I'm also not saying that it isn't 100% a savage flex.
As a kid growing up in 1980s I learnt the air-refuelling first time from the Tanguy & Laverdure comic books. Who would've thought the air-refuelling had existed commercially since the 1940s. This channel has been the most educational and entertaining at the same time.
I appreciate you having your commercial at the back of the video. I have a commercial free subscription to UA-cam already. So it helps out that I don’t see ads. Still as it is, about every 3rd video of yours I will watch to the end out of the respect that you have for us.
How the BBC or some other big tv company hasn’t snapped you up yet is beyond me. I feel like I’m watching the David Attenborough of the skies. Amazing content mate 👍
Paul Hopkins. Wait. So Harrison Ford was not the 43rd president of the US? Next you’ll be telling me Nemo was never found CD is an awesome source for my kind of interests. My favourite subscription
The US Navy also does HIFR (Helicopter In-Flight Refueling). The helicopter hovers over the ship, and the fuel hose is hoisted up and makes the connection. I only saw it done once, and that was for training.
A great video for people who don't realize how important refueling is! Also important is the ability to refuel ships at sea, which was partly responsible for the Allied victory in WW2! I Tried to leave an answer but since I don't have a mobile phone and live in America where we use zip codes, my answer wasn't accepted.
I hadn’t considered tankers themselves being refueled in flight. This makes perfect sense when operating far from an air base. Without refueling, a tanker uses up a good portion of its fuel just getting to the designated refueling location, performs a limited number of refuelings, and then heads back to base. With regular top-ups, it can continue doing its job indefinitely.
The two secret power houses of the US Airforce are the tankers and early warning radar aircraft. These two are the key logistical backbones that allow the USAF to strike anywhere in the world in a day. And the number the US employees dwarfs the nearest competitors by margins of 10 to 1.
the KC-135 was developed in parallel with the 707 but it is NOT based on the 707, rather the 707 and the KC-135 share a common ancestor, the Boeing 367-80. The KC-135 is similar to the 707 but it has an entirely different fuselage that is a little bit narrower than the 707's.
I have found CD about year ago, since then it's one of my favorites channels... It has good old classic BBC style of presenting the content. Always very well researched, and most important there is something in Curious Droid author voice that gets attention and doesn't make listener tired - what is usual problem of many even popular YTbers - they do not have this professional vibe, and make me irritated after while. In a times when TV and popular YT channels are painfully dumb it is something very refreshing. Thanks for Curious Droid author - keep doing good job! (Although I live outside UK, in EU)
This has to one of the best you've made. So interesting. Your videos should be shown in schools. They are so well made and its important that these technologies are remembered.
I read the Vulcan Boys by Tony Blackman over Christmas. The bit about the Black Buck raids is trully impressive. Especially about how the fuel burn had to be calculated by hand and quite literally from scratch.
Operation Black Buck was the reason why the RAF bought the biggest tanker available later on: A330MRTT The KC-46 is less capable and quite inefficient on a modern days KCs main task: moving cargo and troops. The Airbus can carry nearly twice the amount of pallets. That's the reason why the KC-10 fleet is nearly at the end of its lifetime. They can move cargo far cheaper than any KC-135 or C-17 (except outsized cargo). The A330 even outsold the 787 after the new engine option was available. The 787 was introduced by Boeing after A330 bested the aircraft the new KC-46 is based on. Yes, KC-46 is based on an outdated aircraft while KC-135 was state of the art and even flow before its commercial sibling. KC-135 fuselage was deemed to small for passenger transport and was enlarged: 707 The 737 inherited the fuselage of the 707.
Paul, check the fighter pilot podcast channel, I think the B52 episode claims that the KC135 predates the Boeing 707, which seems counterintuitive but apparently true . I might have misunderstood but as I only listened to it on December, it put my long held belief to doubt.
Both the KC-135, and the 707 were based off the 367-80 jet prototype. The 707 is wider and longer than the KC-135. The KC-135 first flew in 1956, while the 707 first flew in 1957...
@@cjmpaja thanks for that, I think that the FPP were correct then in saying that the KC135 came from a more pressing imperative at the time to provide a fast subsonic tanker to combine with the B47 and then newly deployed B52s. I think that they said something like the B52 and KC135 were two components of s system.
I understood that the C-135 was the initial Boeing production aircraft using that basic hull, and so it was effectively a USAF-funded project. The B-707 was separately derived from the prototype (with slightly larger dimensions). But as my sources are very old, like my memory, that may not be the whole story. A bit like that F-111 story, I also read about a Navy story from Vietnam. An A-3 tanker was refueling an A-4 equipped with a buddy system. A damaged and leaking attack aircraft (I cannot recall what type), called emergency and hooked onto the A-4. So the three flew back linked, and successfully recovered on the carrier. Alone, I understand neither the A-4 nor the damaged plane had enough fuel to get back to the carrier.
Thanks for refueling our brains with another excellent video. I'm happy to be a Patreon. I was lucky enough get a promotional ride in the back seat of an F-15 a few years ago, (and endure some mild punishment by the pilot because I was a wise-ass to him ;-). I loved every second of it. However, I'd have to wear a diaper for a refueling maneuver.
The KC-46 was developed from the Boeing KC-767 which in turn was developed from the regular old 767 with manual controls allowing it to have an unrestricted flight envelope, you know. Just in case you want to pull some sick manuvers while filling somebody up.
As the saying goes, "Nobody kicks @$$ without tanker gas" A rather odd example of "aerial refueling" was the currently standing continuous flight endurance record - set by a Cessna 172 that flew 64 days, 22 hours, and 19 minutes, set in 1958. The aircraft was refueled and given food and water mid-flight from a truck using hoses and ropes.
Anyone know definitively which choppers are capable of aerial refueling? I've identified the Seahawk/Blackhawk, and the Chinook, but I've had trouble finding a credible source with any detail of the real-world practicality for choppers- as in whether it's genuinely wise and/or effective in fulfilling chopper missions.
All the choppers supporting SF of long range certain types we used had air to air capable but not always used. If the battle space has say, huge uninhabited terrain then a dirt runway capable transport can land with fuel blisters. The choppers arrive, hot refuel, go to mission, return, refuel, await retrieval, refuel, return home. Transport packs up quick and rtb. Only needs a small defence force which travels on the plane. Very widely used.
not explicitly stated but implied; commercial airliners were used as blueprint to save money but as well as so you could retrofit airliners for military needs quickly see drones launched from commercial airliners (not modern day drones but radio controlled aircraft)
KC-46 is an amalgam of a few different Boeing 767 models, with parts coming from the -200, -300 and -400. It's nickname in the US press at the time was the "Frankentanker". It's a replacment for the oldest KC-135E and R models.
After watching a documentary concerning a SAR helicopter in a terrible storm in the Bering sea. It went down because they were unable to link up to the refueling boom before they ran out of fuel due to extreme turbulence. After that, I had often thought how a computer controlled boom/ receiver flight system could have saved them and how much easier it would be for night/ inclement operations.
"very upset"... Quite an understatement! After all, he is quite an opinionated man and doesn't hold back on his thoughts! Fairly controversial for his moaning about the treatment of his squadron Vs the other during the Falklands war.
Sharky was unaware that all Harriers had to be protected at all costs. His reasoning that the RAF was given preff treatment was wrong. There was a limited number of Harriers down there with shit hot pilots such as himself. Any losses would have jepordized the air cover for the landing parties and air cover for the fleet.....
Its strongly suspected that the tail section of the BUFF separated. This caused the 52 to lurch upward and strike the 135. Why the tail came off is still unknown.
a fellow with experience on these planes elsewhere on the thread talks about how these airframes were stripped bare and then some to safe weight and maximise payload - leaving gaps everywhere. it is not a leap to imagine that this paring down could have critically weakened the attachment of the tail section
@@DrWhom The B-47 fleet developed serious fatigue issues when SAC switched them to low level operations. Maybe this affected the B-52G fleet as well. If this is the case the Big Belly modification didn't help matters.
UK PEOPLE let me spare you a google search: "The Boeing KC-46 Pegasus is a military aerial refueling and strategic military transport aircraft developed by Boeing from its 767 jet airliner." -Wikipedia
@@DrWhom Yes, the US Air Force should have purchased a European made plane, over the US made 767, made by Boeing, a company with a long history of making fine military aircraft. Makes perfect sense.
Sweet Jesus, no wonder we need to switch to electric cars. But also props to the pilots of the stealth bombers and mega props to the engineers of those engines running for three days straight is just awesome.
On the subject of bombing the Stanley airfield with a Vulcan, I think the idea was to put the field out of commission before the aircraft carriers came within range, for their own protection.
That's how I understood it to be . although only 1 bomb hit the runway . it was the fact that at early stage in the conflict you could strike any larger force that decided to base it's self from there .
Varys? Just kidding. I've been subscribed to you for a long time but haven't appreciated much of your videos. Your content is very informative and your delivery is superb. Kudos to you :)
gonna say what others have said before - CD is what the Discovery channel could have been.
Bradonomous but then what would I know about aliens?
@@eaminyashed7799
About as much as that Giorgio freak.
Not a damn thing. 😆
this is what discovery channel used to be, before they got into the fake "reality" tv crap.
Curious Droid - Discovery channel
Rare earth - National geographic
Sadly the Discovery channel is but a shell of what it once was...
Corporate sellouts 🖕🏼
Air Refueler crews are hardcore. My grandfather served in the Korean conflict aboard a KB-29 Air Refueler as a Radar technician. I distinctly remember 2 of his tales from his service he told me a few years before he passed. The first one involved him on RTB where he had to crawl to the back of the aircraft on the way back, and they hit some turbulence on landing. KB-29's had their ball turrets stripped from the aircraft to lighten the aircraft and there was just a big hole in the aircraft where it was. Due to the turbulence he had fallen part way out of the aircraft and was hanging from the opening by his elbows. The other harrowing experience he told me about wasn't in the air actually, but on the ground. KB-29's still didn't have the whole grounding the aircraft from ESD thing sorted yet and had a nasty habit of spontaneously combusting due to that. So one day he came in to go fly, and he was checked out by a nurse before the flight. He had come down with the flu, but still wanted to fly. However, the nurse said he was too sick and told him to go on back to the barracks. On the jeep ride back he saw his flight take off and suddenly explode just after it left the ground. All hands were lost, and he could have been one of them. My grandfather would later go on to work on the Apollo Program as a contract Aerospace Engineer and some of the stuff he worked on is still on the moon.
Wow, thanks for sharing
Your grandfather was a real hero!
I would've told that nurse to kiss my ass and still would've gotten on that aircraft. I'd rather ride and die.
Edit. Not trying to dishonor your gran-pa. That's my decision I want to do. Everyone has free will.
Really amazing story. Thank you for sharing!
And look at his grandson, a furry, wtf.
Seriously impressed by the ability to physically tow a plane home, the amount of concentration required to maintain sync for so long is just amazing.
When I first read your comment, before seeing the entire video, I thought you were making a joke I did not understand.
In the vid an F-111 was cited as being towed home. There were other cases of F-4s and F-105s also being rescued this way. The tanker crews often left their safe refueling areas and flew into N Vietnam to do this. Putting themselves at risk of being shot down by Migs or SAMs. The crews were brave heroes!
If you have cloudside trouble, call AAAA.
Try an F4 pushing another F4. Vietnam.
@@fromaggiovagiola9128 Pussy cheese? lol
I realised why your narration is so good, it's the iambic pace and clever pauses, not easy to master.
It is if you speak (British) English as a first language. it's natural.
@@Aeronaut1975 Actually, I have more than a few British friends who could use lessons on how to speak like Paul.
@@Platyfurmany
LOL
yes mate, makes it so easy to take in and remember his educations, I agree, its naturally brilliant how he is,
@@Platyfurmany it's not a way of speaking, it's a narration style. It is more common than you think.
This has to be the best content I’ve found on UA-cam
thanks
As a former KC-135 tanker pilot, I have to say this was a great refueling compendium. Thanks for putting this out there. BTW, K actually stands for Kerosene, and C stands for Cargo.
T = Tanker,
R = Refueling,
F = Fuel,
G = Gas,
A = AerialRefueling,
All taken already?
Ok, let’s go with ‘K’.
Tanker crews motto: No kicking ass till we pass gas!
Its more like NKAWTG..nobody
@@RH-ke3od when I pronounce the abbreviation in my head it sounds like alien language in star wars.
@@ryanvandoren1519 It's called an acronym. You're welcome :D xx
@@ryanvandoren1519 Nobody Kicks Ass Without Tanker Gas...it is the motto of Tanker toads
Jet fuel aint gas.
KC-135R pilot here. Wonderful video. Thanks for it!
Former Boom Operator here. Thanks for making this video. NKAWTG
You sure have interesting stories to share, don't you?
Thorint thank you for your current probing service....sorry I’ll see myself out
OK, Boom
Explosions go BOOM. Implosions go MOOB
Graduated Boom qual yesterday, NKAWTG!
Didn't know the B-2 story, never heard about their use but damn that first crew had good endurance!
The most ridiculous endurance story is the US bombing of Libya in the '80s. No mainland European country would let the US fly over their country, but the UK was where the attack was launched from.
The SR-71 spy planes were used to scout and verify the mission. They flew 3 spy flights during the attack.
One flew before the bombing, one immediately after, one a bit later (after the smoke had cleared) to confirm. There were two crews - one flew the first and last, a different crew flew the middle mission.
The "pre-bombing" crew took off *AFTER* the bombers took off. They flew around the tip of Spain, up the Med, scouted the target, flew back, landed, had their film taken out and quickly analyzed so details could be relayed to the (still en-route) bombers. They then rested while their plane was refueled and prepared for their "after the bombing" flight.
Then they took off, flew the "verify we hit the targets" pass, again, around the tip of Spain and up the Med, then back out the same way. They passed the bombers on their way back.
So the SR-71 crew flew two complete missions, with a rest in between, in less time than the bombers flew their single bombing run.
The US is very hesitant to land a B2 outside their country. Any landing abroad could mean that somebody briefly detects it, which could give away clues on how to identify it during an actual attack. The B2 is pretty much the single best option to take out airfields and anti-air assets right before a major operation. They flew into some of the most well-defended airspaces in the world to take out some of the most effective defenses there are. It's hard to overestimate their value and the importance of secrecy in that case.
I see the B2s damn near daily, they are also in the air national guard here in Missouri. Fun fact, Missouri ANG is nuclear capable and would likely be the force tasked to deploy domestic nuclear strike if ever called for
i do wonder what drugs did crew take in those flights to stay awake... do they have toilet or just some no-poop drugs?
@@prophetsspaceengineering2913
I think it has more to do with the lack of climate-controlled hangars in allied nations. Unlike newer stealth aircraft like the F-35, the B-2's radar-absorbent material is more superficial and not as durable, the RAM have to be reapplied more often. The B-2 wasn't designed for a SEAD mission, but rather "open up" a gap in the air defense with its stealth, so that it can destroy the target protected by the anti-air defense. Electronic warfare aircraft is the backbone of the SEAD operation.
You can kind of tell it's a force multiplier when you add up the number of air refueling airplanes the military has.
@Yuck Foutube I don't know how many exactly but I know you can flyover with Google Earth any military Airport and you can see a whole bunch of them.
@Yuck Foutube at least 3
@Yuck Foutube The US Air Force has approximately 450 tankers, the Marines have around 80 and the Navy uses the buddy-buddy system where most aircraft can refuel each other.
Yuck Foutube - The US has world's largest air force by a HUGE margin and obviously has the most tankers, so here is a list of the US active tanker fleet.
KC-135 - 397
KC-10 Extender - 58
KC-46 Pegasus - 12 (52 on order)
KC-130 - 60
That's a total of 527 tankers the US Air Force operates. The US Navy also operates 5 KC-130T and uses the buddy to buddy system with F-18 Super Hornets.
If you wanted to compare the UK tanker fleet to the US tanker fleet, the UK has a total of 9 KC-30A Voyagers.
@@mississippirebel1409 9 Voyegers are no joke. Boeing makes the best tankers. We Indians will purchase 2 KC-46s within 2022. Right now we have 6 IL-78s, which are good, but getting spares for them is a nightmare.
It's a special kind of feeling taking off over the ocean knowing you don't have enough gas to cross it. The water is not where I want to end up, so it all hangs on a 20 year old enlisted boomer staring 25 ft away from a 26 year old officer pilot, and doing a perfect job.
Oooh shit.. here we go again..
Roger that...
Yep! Your ass belongs to an A1C ;-) But it gets done and has for a long time. Teamwork!
Agreed, yet: "Excellence in all we do"
@@HiekerMJ Yee Yee!
Excellent video. As a former Boom Operator on the KC-135 out of Grand Forks AFB (912th ARS) I really enjoyed and appreciated this video. The story about the F-111 over Vietnam is one we're told early on in flight training. And despite all of the program issues with the KC-46 most fliers are still excited about it. The 135 fleet has been faithful but was extremely old even before I flew on them 13 years ago.
912th in the house!
Kc-135 is not based on the 707. They are both based on the 367-80 prototype.
To add to this, all three aircraft have completely different fuselages. The 367-80 was the smallest, the kc-135’s which came next have a fuselage about a foot wider in diameter, and the 707 larger still with about 2 feet wider than the 367-80.
Where does the 720 fit into this? They are all part of the "707 family", but not sure which came in which order.
@@RCAvhstape from the Boeing company history
"The 707 was designated the 720 when it was modified for short- to medium-range routes and for use on shorter runways. Engineers reduced the fuselage length by 9 feet (2.7 meters), changed the leading edge flaps and later installed turbofan engines. Boeing built 154 720s between 1959 and 1967. Its short- to medium-range role was later filled by 727s and 737s."
707 and kc135s have different wings too.. kc135 wings are not as wide.
@@9HighFlyer9 Cool, thanks.
I once was on a 13 hour flight in a MC-130P from the UK to Africa. Ditto for the return trip. We were packed with people and equipment (got a waiver to take off at 163000 pounds, normal max takeoff was 155000). Hit tankers twice both ways. We also had to rely on tankers for gas during the mission, because the gas at some of the airfields was contaminated and command didn't want to risk clogging the fuel filters on the engines of our planes and helicopters.
Erratum: 6:35 Common misconception since the family resemblance is obvious, but the (K)C-135 and the 707 are each separate derivatives of the Boeing 367-80 proof of concept prototype, with the C-135 being the first to enter service. The C-135 is not a 707 in military drag as its fuselage is narrower and shorter than the 707's.
The VC-137 is the military VIP transport version of the 707 that served as Air Force One. The E-3 Sentry is based on the 707 as well. And finally, the C-18 is the transport version of the big 707-320B Intercontinental.
Interesting side note: the 367-80 is somewhat inspired by the KC-97, the civilian version of which is known as the 367. Boeing originally intended to use the same diameter as the 367's upper fuselage to decrease tooling costs.
Tanking has saved my arse many times!! :) (DCS Harrier, Hornet and Tomcat pilot)
I love the KC-10. Thank you for the new facts I just learned about air to air refueling.
When i see a notification for Curious Droid I get so happy. By far one of my favorite channels! Keep up the amazing content!
Patreon! ... ?
The funny thing is the channel originally started as a source of fairly mediocre top 10 list type things. Then he quite suddenly transitioned into making some of the best reasearched, interesting, well made short-format documentary videos on the internet.
I will have to look into patreon because if it means ensuring the longevity of this channel Im all for it
@@st0rmforce Maybe that was a carefully considered plan to build the channels viewership before unleashing the really good stuff?
@@marshallee51 Never actually seen someone with the same profile picture as me. Honestly I dont even remember where I got it.
That shirt refueled my mind...
44 hours in the cockpit, granted there have been longer flights that tested stamina but at least those planes had racks for that. Not discounting the Spirit of Saint Louis.
Still, the B2 has a toilet? That has got to be the weirdest peace of info for that particular bomber I've ever heard.
With the right altitude, a good pilot and your arse hanging out the bomb bay doors you could wipe your arse on the back of a 200 mph seagul. Just make sure the angles right otherwise your gonna squawk when you walk. Or the golfing term birdie.
@@UberAlphaSirus made my day
The only other plane that I know of that has a galley and toilet for the crew is the Su-34, but this leads me to believe that probably any aircraft expected to perform lengthy missions has those on board as well.
Yes, modern strategic bombers like the B2 have simple toilets and a space for the crew to sleep (not necessarily comfortable).
If you go to the Fighter Pilot Podcast channel and watch the episode on the B2 they mention it. The guy also says the rule for that little toilet is "Doing an inflight Number 2 is not cool", although 44 hours would be damn tough to avoid it. I imagine the crew might take laxatives the day before the mission and go liquid diet only lol.
Always had a great deal of respect for the tankers, remember some time ago writing some fiction for airline sim game where I flew a bunch of Vickers VC10s (Still the best looking plane ever imho) and had one suffer some nast damage on it's way from Canada to Hawaii. Loosing fuel quickly before they shot of the tank that was leaking it lacked the range to make it back to any base, but seeing story wise these had been ex RAF tankers we didn't bother to remove the receiving end of the refueling operations. So we used that, send a call to the USAF and got her refueled and return safely back to dry land.
I'd answer the trivia question but I'm afraid I'd have to go to SxSW.
I don't even live in the UK, can't even win if I wanted to.
I'm likely disqualified
Mark Felton recently uploaded a video detailing the events on operation: Black Buck. It's a nice video to watch if anyone's interested
Thank you, will check it out. His videos are very good.
The Black Buck missions were pointless in terms of a bombing mission, as much more damage was done by the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm Sea Harrier Force.
But, in terms of political and propoganda purposes, they were VERY effective.
Auxigamerz Mark has a great channel doesn't he? Yes l saw the Black Buck video and enjoyed it. I just discovered this channel here and also enjoy it. Check out his F-14 Tomcat video.
@@michaelroberts889 He had some very interesting videos indeed. For example one of only two instances that the germans helped the allies in WW2 was close to my home town in Austria. I would have never known it if it wasn't for him.
ua-cam.com/video/80ZyPeoDUqk/v-deo.html it's this video if you're interested.
Auxigamerz the Castle Itter? I saw that on but l must check out the other. I really enjoy both Mark's and your videos. I'm a bit of a history/aviation/aerospace geek. Though l do find some of your shirts questioable (lol!) I watch and give a like to all of your videos 👍
@@underwaterdick Similar to the Doolittle raid then, it makes the point very graphically:
We can do the things _you_ thought were impossible - so what else can we do? Just let your imagination roam free.....Sleepin' well tonight are you?
If there is a Grammy or Oscar for UA-cam videos, than Paul with Curious Droids is my absolute favorite candidate.
Always such outstanding content. Thank you Paul for your dedication to excellence in script writing, editing and narration. I always look forward to these videos and often find myself back in a binge watching session following your new videos!
there have been several videos on this topic, but you have done an exceptionally good job. Cheers and good luck.
Tankers motto, "Before you can kick ass you got to get our gas."
Boeing 767. I had the opportunity to fly in a KC10 tanker while on deployment. The boomer gave me a headset a showed me where to sit. The easy, casual conversation between the pilots and the boomer was a smooth cover for the tension felt by both. True professionals are really fun to watch.
This channel should have over a million subs. very informative and well presented videos.
@curiousdroid The KC-135 was developed from the Dash-80, not the 707. The 707 was also developed from the Dash-80
Thanks Paul. Great film. I learnt a lot, as usual.
I have to admit I really enjoy your videos, I love your presentation and your research. Thank you so much!
I have watched people in simulators do this and the only thing I can say is mad props to the pilots who rotated doing this for nearly 2 days in one go, tankers and bombers. Everything about it takes herculean patience.
KC-46 was developed from the 767.
The KC-767 was developed before the KC-46 and operated by several countries around the world. But the US Airforce had to have an almost completely custom aircraft resulting cost overruns and delays, YAY Airforce.
The KC-46 Pegasus got developed from the 767-200ER through the KC-767. Love the vids, always something different from the other channels I subscribe to so thanks for all your hard work!! :)
The small winglets on the boom are called ruddervaters, because they are both elevators and rudders for the boom, they move it left/right and up/down
Not to nit-pick but, you missed a tanker in service - The KC-(3)30 / Airbus A330 MRTT. A few of these are operating here with the RAAF. A very capable aircraft indeed.
The B2 mission after 9/11 is the definition of air superiority, "I'm gonna kick your ass even if I have to fly 44 hours non-stop, then I'll take a 45 minute break, and then fly for another 6 hours and do it 5 more time. I'm talking back to back, to back, to back, to back!"
Not saying it's right, but I'm also not saying that it isn't 100% a savage flex.
As a kid growing up in 1980s I learnt the air-refuelling first time from the Tanguy & Laverdure comic books. Who would've thought the air-refuelling had existed commercially since the 1940s. This channel has been the most educational and entertaining at the same time.
I was just hoping that CD would drop another banger! Great video as always. Keep up the work Paul ♥️
I appreciate you having your commercial at the back of the video. I have a commercial free subscription to UA-cam already. So it helps out that I don’t see ads. Still as it is, about every 3rd video of yours I will watch to the end out of the respect that you have for us.
How the BBC or some other big tv company hasn’t snapped you up yet is beyond me. I feel like I’m watching the David Attenborough of the skies. Amazing content mate 👍
When talking about accidents, I was hoping there would be the scene from the film Air Force One
Why? CD is about facts, not fiction.
Paul Hopkins. Wait. So Harrison Ford was not the 43rd president of the US? Next you’ll be telling me Nemo was never found
CD is an awesome source for my kind of interests. My favourite subscription
As a recipient of a PhD in military history, I can confidently state this channel is clearly one of the best on UA-cam today.
If you haven't already, check out Mark Felton. He's a British military historian posting great content here.
@@Марк.Фетнов Thanks, will check him out.
So this is what David Gilmour does with his time away from Pink Floyd.. Fantastic channel btw!! Keep on rockin 🤘🏽
The US Navy also does HIFR (Helicopter In-Flight Refueling). The helicopter hovers over the ship, and the fuel hose is hoisted up and makes the connection. I only saw it done once, and that was for training.
A great video for people who don't realize how important refueling is! Also important is the ability to refuel ships at sea, which was partly responsible for the Allied victory in WW2! I Tried to leave an answer but since I don't have a mobile phone and live in America where we use zip codes, my answer wasn't accepted.
I hadn’t considered tankers themselves being refueled in flight. This makes perfect sense when operating far from an air base. Without refueling, a tanker uses up a good portion of its fuel just getting to the designated refueling location, performs a limited number of refuelings, and then heads back to base. With regular top-ups, it can continue doing its job indefinitely.
thanks for yet again, another amazing video Paul...
Boeing 767. I once saw a KC-135 tanker refueling an AWAC over the US East coast. My girlfriend pointed and said "look Michael! They're mating"
she was giving you a clear hint there
The two secret power houses of the US Airforce are the tankers and early warning radar aircraft.
These two are the key logistical backbones that allow the USAF to strike anywhere in the world in a day. And the number the US employees dwarfs the nearest competitors by margins of 10 to 1.
767 I believe
If I win can I donate my prize to any active duty or veterans in the UK ?
the KC-135 was developed in parallel with the 707 but it is NOT based on the 707, rather the 707 and the KC-135 share a common ancestor, the Boeing 367-80. The KC-135 is similar to the 707 but it has an entirely different fuselage that is a little bit narrower than the 707's.
I have found CD about year ago, since then it's one of my favorites channels... It has good old classic BBC style of presenting the content. Always very well researched, and most important there is something in Curious Droid author voice that gets attention and doesn't make listener tired - what is usual problem of many even popular YTbers - they do not have this professional vibe, and make me irritated after while. In a times when TV and popular YT channels are painfully dumb it is something very refreshing. Thanks for Curious Droid author - keep doing good job! (Although I live outside UK, in EU)
Came for the shirt....stayed for the planes. 😛🤣😬
WOW, Had no idea on most of this.
So great old pic's of planes refueling.
Thanks.
This has to one of the best you've made. So interesting. Your videos should be shown in schools. They are so well made and its important that these technologies are remembered.
Jeez Louise everytime I see a Eurofighter front on like that one at the end, it still gives me chills.
Such a great looking aircraft.
This is quite easily one of my favorite Channels! Cheers ⭐️
I read the Vulcan Boys by Tony Blackman over Christmas. The bit about the Black Buck raids is trully impressive. Especially about how the fuel burn had to be calculated by hand and quite literally from scratch.
KC-46 was developed from the Boring KC-767 which is used by the JASDF, it's core or original airframe is the Boeing 767
Operation Black Buck was the reason why the RAF bought the biggest tanker available later on: A330MRTT
The KC-46 is less capable and quite inefficient on a modern days KCs main task: moving cargo and troops.
The Airbus can carry nearly twice the amount of pallets. That's the reason why the KC-10 fleet is nearly at the end of its lifetime. They can move cargo far cheaper than any KC-135 or C-17 (except outsized cargo).
The A330 even outsold the 787 after the new engine option was available. The 787 was introduced by Boeing after A330 bested the aircraft the new KC-46 is based on. Yes, KC-46 is based on an outdated aircraft while KC-135 was state of the art and even flow before its commercial sibling. KC-135 fuselage was deemed to small for passenger transport and was enlarged: 707
The 737 inherited the fuselage of the 707.
Living near McConnell AFB, I've gotten to see lots of KC135s practice refueling with B52, B1, and B2 bombers.
We have ac130 that practice orbital patterns over my county hahahahah
Your content is first rate Droid. I've been an aviation enthusiast for 40 years and you can still teach me something.
Paul, check the fighter pilot podcast channel, I think the B52 episode claims that the KC135 predates the Boeing 707, which seems counterintuitive but apparently true . I might have misunderstood but as I only listened to it on December, it put my long held belief to doubt.
Both the KC-135, and the 707 were based off the 367-80 jet prototype. The 707 is wider and longer than the KC-135. The KC-135 first flew in 1956, while the 707 first flew in 1957...
@@cjmpaja thanks for that, I think that the FPP were correct then in saying that the KC135 came from a more pressing imperative at the time to provide a fast subsonic tanker to combine with the B47 and then newly deployed B52s. I think that they said something like the B52 and KC135 were two components of s system.
Mom: What's Curious Droid like?
Me:Lord Varys explains planes.
I understood that the C-135 was the initial Boeing production aircraft using that basic hull, and so it was effectively a USAF-funded project. The B-707 was separately derived from the prototype (with slightly larger dimensions). But as my sources are very old, like my memory, that may not be the whole story.
A bit like that F-111 story, I also read about a Navy story from Vietnam. An A-3 tanker was refueling an A-4 equipped with a buddy system. A damaged and leaking attack aircraft (I cannot recall what type), called emergency and hooked onto the A-4. So the three flew back linked, and successfully recovered on the carrier. Alone, I understand neither the A-4 nor the damaged plane had enough fuel to get back to the carrier.
Always a pleasure
Thanks for refueling our brains with another excellent video. I'm happy to be a Patreon. I was lucky enough get a promotional ride in the back seat of an F-15 a few years ago, (and endure some mild punishment by the pilot because I was a wise-ass to him ;-). I loved every second of it. However, I'd have to wear a diaper for a refueling maneuver.
The KC-46 was developed from the Boeing KC-767 which in turn was developed from the regular old 767 with manual controls allowing it to have an unrestricted flight envelope, you know. Just in case you want to pull some sick manuvers while filling somebody up.
As the saying goes, "Nobody kicks @$$ without tanker gas" A rather odd example of "aerial refueling" was the currently standing continuous flight endurance record - set by a Cessna 172 that flew 64 days, 22 hours, and 19 minutes, set in 1958. The aircraft was refueled and given food and water mid-flight from a truck using hoses and ropes.
My o my what a ridiculously high quality video! 🤯
The VC-10 was certainly a beautiful aircraft! When airlines fazed them out they then saw a second-life as British air-force tankers.
If I remember correctly, it was also the fastest tanker, cruising at just below Mach 1 (When not refuelling)
1:32 wow I almost had a heart attack.
Anyone know definitively which choppers are capable of aerial refueling? I've identified the Seahawk/Blackhawk, and the Chinook, but I've had trouble finding a credible source with any detail of the real-world practicality for choppers- as in whether it's genuinely wise and/or effective in fulfilling chopper missions.
Some versions of the CH-53...MH-53 Pave Low long range rescue for USAF, CH-53E Super Stallion for the Marines.
All the choppers supporting SF of long range certain types we used had air to air capable but not always used. If the battle space has say, huge uninhabited terrain then a dirt runway capable transport can land with fuel blisters. The choppers arrive, hot refuel, go to mission, return, refuel, await retrieval, refuel, return home. Transport packs up quick and rtb. Only needs a small defence force which travels on the plane. Very widely used.
Thank you!
Thank you for making another video
not explicitly stated but implied; commercial airliners were used as blueprint to save money but as well as so you could retrofit airliners for military needs quickly
see drones launched from commercial airliners (not modern day drones but radio controlled aircraft)
Top quality content as always! Thanks Paul!
The air Force has to be working diligently on an alternative fuel propulsion system. I can only imagine the next generation of air craft
The KC-135 was purpose built as a tanker based on the original Boeing Dash80 prototype. The later 707 was also based on the Dash80.
That's one of your best!!
Again, a great video. Good work.
KC-46 is an amalgam of a few different Boeing 767 models, with parts coming from the -200, -300 and -400. It's nickname in the US press at the time was the "Frankentanker". It's a replacment for the oldest KC-135E and R models.
Its
After watching a documentary concerning a SAR helicopter in a terrible storm in the Bering sea.
It went down because they were unable to link up to the refueling boom before they ran out of fuel due to extreme turbulence.
After that, I had often thought how a computer controlled boom/ receiver flight system could have saved them and how much easier it would be for night/ inclement operations.
Awesome video. Side note, the K is for Kerosene technically as that's the fuel that is carried and burned. T was taken for Trainer (T-38).
Sharkey Ward would be very upset that you said he was part of the RAF :)
"very upset"... Quite an understatement!
After all, he is quite an opinionated man and doesn't hold back on his thoughts!
Fairly controversial for his moaning about the treatment of his squadron Vs the other during the Falklands war.
Sharky was unaware that all Harriers had to be protected at all costs. His reasoning that the RAF was given preff treatment was wrong. There was a limited number of Harriers down there with shit hot pilots such as himself. Any losses would have jepordized the air cover for the landing parties and air cover for the fleet.....
My grandfather did this and Nam. The best Chief flight engineer the Air Force ever had
Its strongly suspected that the tail section of the BUFF separated. This caused the 52 to lurch upward and strike the 135. Why the tail came off is still unknown.
a fellow with experience on these planes elsewhere on the thread talks about how these airframes were stripped bare and then some to safe weight and maximise payload - leaving gaps everywhere. it is not a leap to imagine that this paring down could have critically weakened the attachment of the tail section
@@DrWhom The B-47 fleet developed serious fatigue issues when SAC switched them to low level operations. Maybe this affected the B-52G fleet as well. If this is the case the Big Belly modification didn't help matters.
the thumbnails bay in the shape of a flying saucer was a nice touch
UK PEOPLE let me spare you a google search:
"The Boeing KC-46 Pegasus is a military aerial refueling and strategic military transport aircraft developed by Boeing from its 767 jet airliner."
-Wikipedia
He says so in the clip. Should have been an airbus, though.
@@DrWhom Yes, the US Air Force should have purchased a European made plane, over the US made 767, made by Boeing, a company with a long history of making fine military aircraft. Makes perfect sense.
Always a treat when a new CD short doc is uploaded.
I've flown in a kc135 and sat in the boom area a couple times when I was in the military.
Mad respect to the designers of the B-2 engines! Running for 100 hours non stop with only an oil change is absolutely incredible.
Sweet Jesus, no wonder we need to switch to electric cars. But also props to the pilots of the stealth bombers and mega props to the engineers of those engines running for three days straight is just awesome.
the EQ seems super heavy on the treble side of things this time.
awesome work as always. thank you paul and everyone involved =)
On the subject of bombing the Stanley airfield with a Vulcan, I think the idea was to put the field out of commission before the aircraft carriers came within range, for their own protection.
That's how I understood it to be . although only 1 bomb hit the runway . it was the fact that at early stage in the conflict
you could strike any larger force that decided to base it's self from there .
I have family in military. Specifically maintenance on refuelers. Interesting stuff.
@Curious Droid.... KC-46 Pegasus was developed from Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker
Varys?
Just kidding. I've been subscribed to you for a long time but haven't appreciated much of your videos. Your content is very informative and your delivery is superb. Kudos to you :)