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
@LaggySoupDealer
4 ай бұрын
vid about war thunder military leaks?
@skoldmo762
4 ай бұрын
Vid about Gajin sponsors Donbas seperatists? @@LaggySoupDealer
@LordBobeus-to9yz
4 ай бұрын
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
@VGACGAEGA
4 ай бұрын
Best segue ever
@dedwoodgaming6119
4 ай бұрын
dont you will regret playing it
@YPequeñito500
4 ай бұрын
Kid: Dad. What are those two planes doing together? Dad: They are mating son
@debashis169
4 ай бұрын
😂😂
@cruisinguy6024
4 ай бұрын
I definitely read the dad in a Hank Hill voice
@lweberk
4 ай бұрын
That's how airplanes are made, son
@Michael_Brock
4 ай бұрын
Btw I did see 3 planes in serial formation drogue formation.
@seansingh4421
4 ай бұрын
@@Michael_Brocksometimes planes experiment with other planes son to keep the “fire” going
@OrionArmwrestling
4 ай бұрын
"A boomer, laying on their belly, passing gas." - Not What You Think
@bgold2007
3 ай бұрын
Like the first gals smile
@Back-alley-technician
3 ай бұрын
This line killed me 😂
@bigblue6917
3 ай бұрын
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
@Richtshn06
3 ай бұрын
This!!!!!!😂😂😂😂😂
@edl617
Ай бұрын
Use to
@abc-coleaks-info3180
4 ай бұрын
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.
@trumanhw
3 ай бұрын
On booms, the camera should be near // on the control surfaces, significantly closer to the receptical, allowing far more precise control & viewing.
@bigblue6917
3 ай бұрын
"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.
@TheMonkey747
Ай бұрын
Sounds like damn Scope Sway for rifles...
@dougb4956
Ай бұрын
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.
@Nicolas-zw5ex
Ай бұрын
That's so lucky
@michaelmckeever2734
4 ай бұрын
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.
@placeholdername0000
Ай бұрын
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?
@ΣτελιοςΠεππας
Ай бұрын
@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.
@lebojay
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@anotherbacklog
4 ай бұрын
Now thanks to this video I can never look at aerial refueling the same way again
@fuzzybloodpc9291
4 ай бұрын
9:54 I thought that was a still image!!
@NotWhatYouThink
4 ай бұрын
Yeah I know!
@stalincat2457
3 ай бұрын
It wasn't what you thought eh?
@DOI_ARTS
Ай бұрын
"Not what you think"
@skenzyme81
4 ай бұрын
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.
@opprox
4 ай бұрын
😋 22?????
@CapSora
4 ай бұрын
AYO??
@chugachuga9242
4 ай бұрын
Middle School?? 💀💀
@Snoopsthecat
3 ай бұрын
what
@ChookyChuck
4 ай бұрын
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.
@44R0Ndin
2 ай бұрын
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).
@No1DiscoveryTV
4 ай бұрын
For the past 100 years air-to-air refuelling has been the exclusive preserve of military aviation to project power across the globe
@johnsmithe4656
4 ай бұрын
Yummy.
@gregparrott
4 ай бұрын
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.
@cagin5
4 ай бұрын
Gasped at 19:14 seeing that NATO AWACS almost bump into the tanker!
@geopolitix7770
2 ай бұрын
Yeah some new flight suits required after that one!!
@crazestyle83
3 ай бұрын
The whole whipped by the "hose" cutaway was slick
@carlsoll
4 ай бұрын
9:55 Woahh O.O *that* was a video :o
@muhazreen
4 ай бұрын
Thanks for pointing it😂
@Tobinator7274
4 ай бұрын
was thinking the same thing lol
@ThorsonWiles
4 ай бұрын
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
2 ай бұрын
True to a point. Not totally blind, but limited visibility. The newer color three D system should fix it.
@geopolitix7770
2 ай бұрын
@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?
@dknowles60
2 ай бұрын
and the KC10 did not have any problems, the Air force for got the Idea of KISS keep it simple stupid
@petesheppard1709
Ай бұрын
This has been the core of the problems getting the KC-46 into service.
@alberthartl8885
28 күн бұрын
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.
@Oatmealism
Ай бұрын
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
@lukevaxhacker7762
4 ай бұрын
Does beg the question: Why is the KC-10 *retiring* while the older design KC-135 *still flying*?!
@muhazreen
4 ай бұрын
I wondering too, why retired the best of the best among the best that proven the best already
@zsu-23-4shilka2
4 ай бұрын
The D/KC-10 has a rather poor safety history.
@fidjeenjanrjsnsfh
4 ай бұрын
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.
@xxxotiknightz
4 ай бұрын
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.
@jaquigreenlees
4 ай бұрын
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.
@ilaril
4 ай бұрын
The KC-46's new system is anything but good. Maybe one day.
@dknowles60
2 ай бұрын
they should have kept the KC10
@curiousmindshubofficial
4 ай бұрын
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!
@petesheppard1709
Ай бұрын
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!!
@jordibt1789
4 ай бұрын
Damn, NWYT has that Big Altima Energy
@uss_liberty_incident
4 ай бұрын
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.
@counterfit5
4 ай бұрын
Everything guzzles fuel in full A/B
@piscessoedroen
4 ай бұрын
@@counterfit5 there's guzzling fuel, and then there's dumping the whole tank into the engine. F-14 is the latter
@scribehades
4 ай бұрын
That BOOM ENGAGED indicator light would be awesome for a sound engineering board
@rudysmith1445
Ай бұрын
oh my god you're so right! 🤣
@iskandartaib
4 ай бұрын
Thanks, this was a great deal more informative than I thought it would be. Learned quite a bit.
@larrydugan1441
3 ай бұрын
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.
@gilbertdelgado6703
Ай бұрын
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.
@Allenfactsandinsider
Ай бұрын
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
@larrybremer4930
3 ай бұрын
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.
@northropi2027
4 ай бұрын
hey, i've been to that KC-97. it's at March Field, they also have a YA-9 there.
@stevengmarcus
4 ай бұрын
Crown royal bag for a chin pad is a nice touch
@LionPride11241968
2 ай бұрын
@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. ✈️
@fyrebatskymarshall1778
4 ай бұрын
that ad transistion was mint
@jjfdkdjiwejnd092
4 ай бұрын
"it's okay if you can't get it up Mr plane, it happens to all of us as we get older"
@Ashkanjustsayin
4 ай бұрын
“The Boeing had a flaw” not surprised… not we are both on a hit list
@jeffwalther3935
Ай бұрын
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.
@chrissouthgate4554
Ай бұрын
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?
@ChloeKruegerSenpai
4 ай бұрын
I see new upload video of NWYT I click. See NWYT sponsoring War Thunder again many times, Skip to the Trash.
@RADICALFLOAT95
4 ай бұрын
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
@Bruno74823..
4 ай бұрын
The bots kinda love military refueling i guess not gonna judge them i also enjoy whatching planes refuel
@christiantroy3034
2 ай бұрын
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.
@oceanmariner
3 ай бұрын
During the Vietnam War refueling booms were used to tow damaged aircraft returning from North Vietnam to their bases in the south.
@Roberto-oi7lm
2 ай бұрын
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.
@robertheinkel6225
2 ай бұрын
@@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.
@notmenotme614
4 ай бұрын
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.
@bionicgeekgrrl
Ай бұрын
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.
@DoubleMrE
2 ай бұрын
Excellent doco! I knew a lot about aerial refueling, but I learned a lot of stuff I didn’t know. Thanks! 😊👍👌
@geetargeek79
4 ай бұрын
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. 😂
@DragNetJoe
2 ай бұрын
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.
@bobgreene2892
4 ай бұрын
Well-organized and clearly presented We thought we already knew the "basics", until we saw this video.
@navypowertv
Ай бұрын
He Say: "A boomer, laying on their belly, passing gas."
@Adiscretefirm
Ай бұрын
The SR 71 leaked so much fuel on the ground it had to refuel almost immediately after takeoff
@frosty3693
Ай бұрын
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.
@ronaldoc5637
4 ай бұрын
The Embraer KC-390 may fill that gap...
@nekomakhea9440
4 ай бұрын
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.
@czaja995
4 ай бұрын
C-2 is propeller aircraft, it's too slow for refueling fighter jets.
@abc-coleaks-info3180
4 ай бұрын
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.
@SkyhawkSteve
4 ай бұрын
@@czaja995 if the KC-130 isn't too slow, then it's not clear why the C-2 would be too slow.
@harrisonlichtenberg3162
Ай бұрын
A flying wing refuler would be even better, as the increased flight efficiency would allow the refueler to use less fuel and the therefor cobtribute more fuel to the mating aircraft
@stevewilley1029
3 ай бұрын
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.
@Coolphone1984
2 ай бұрын
Placing of the add is perfect.
@bearbon2
Ай бұрын
Our F-105s had both a probe and receptacle so could refuel from both methods.
@BerylButler-s2n
Ай бұрын
I do not believe in a fate that falls on men however they act; but I do believe in a fate that falls on man unless they act.
@markrainford1219
Ай бұрын
Imagine a car leaving a filling station pump, and firing flares in all directions.
@eriknewman5288
4 ай бұрын
In flight refueling is a must for modern stealth aircraft. Not 4th gen aircraft. An F14 could fly 1842 miles....
@jamesvespucci5527
3 ай бұрын
"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
@Dark_Knight_USA
Ай бұрын
Greetings: Thx 4 Ur service
@LtColDaddy71
Ай бұрын
The biggest reason is that when carrier deployed, refueling mid air is usually done by an aircraft capable of taking off and landing on the carrier not a huge tanker. I don’t know if he ever says that in his 23 minutes of word vomit for watch time. Drones are simple. At sea with limited resources, simple matters.
@aCycloneSteve
3 ай бұрын
I'm 13 minutes in & they said the F-35A takes the boom, the C takes the drogue, but they didn't say what the B does to add fuel.
@FL0ra_favvn
4 ай бұрын
You've heard of two trucks... Now get ready for two planes
@Freesavh1776
4 ай бұрын
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. 😂😂😂😂
@banaynayy
2 ай бұрын
I have always wondered how different the aerial refueling must be in the night
@monketok141
4 ай бұрын
Surely they'd have ditched the booms and drogues by now and gone wireless?
@TonyChan-eh3nz
Ай бұрын
Bluetooth hose
@lqr824
3 ай бұрын
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.
@robertheinkel6225
2 ай бұрын
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.
@h8GW
4 ай бұрын
It's wild how the B-2 refueling door just disappears into the fuselage skin when closed.
@OB_GYN_Kenobi
18 күн бұрын
How the slipway isn’t called the labia is beyond me.
@christopheravans1075
4 ай бұрын
Yeah, those flares are not cheap. Thanks buddies.
@busboy262
4 ай бұрын
I can't imagine what just the pivot on that adapter costs. I bet the cost of the adapter is high, but that knuckle probably accounts for more than half of that cost.
@pathos48
4 ай бұрын
I have been wondering what that rotating hatch on B2 were. Finally I know!
@NisGamer
2 ай бұрын
19:42 that helicopter just cut off its own refueling stick?!?!
@rwarren58
Ай бұрын
The thumbnail. That is the biggest shuttlecock I’ve ever seen.
@johnwatson8004
2 ай бұрын
I stopped it a little way in, when they asked would they use two different fueling and systems. Because of the different speeds? That's my guess!😊
@Skyfighter64
3 ай бұрын
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.
@SalePlouck
21 күн бұрын
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...)
@maxheadrom3088
Ай бұрын
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.
@namelesskok378
4 ай бұрын
For everyone. If you are interested in military. Warthunder is a game for you. Its for free and its a lot of fun after you understand how it works
@sea_muffin
4 ай бұрын
war thunder is a garbage game. wasted my money and life playing it
@Bruno74823..
4 ай бұрын
Its good if u dont grind it
@piscessoedroen
4 ай бұрын
@@sea_muffin average review from a WT veteran before playing the game for another several hundreds of hour after posting said review
@stevenshea990
4 ай бұрын
@@sea_muffin Hey now, war thunder is a great way to find classified aircraft manuals on the internet
@RADICALFLOAT95
4 ай бұрын
@@piscessoedroenl actually 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
@centralplains7608
4 ай бұрын
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!!
@trumanhw
3 ай бұрын
The camera should be near // on the boom's control surfaces, significantly closer, allowing far more precise control and viewing.
@dknowles60
2 ай бұрын
in the old days the KC 135 KC10 got the Job Done with out a Camera
@Drcraigfreeman9280
Ай бұрын
The simple answer is that the navy would have a hard time fitting a KC135 on their aircraft carriers
@robertheinkel6225
2 ай бұрын
Boom operator. The only job in the military, where it takes three officers to fly an enlisted person to their job of laying on their stomach and passing gas. On the KC-10 and KC-46, they are seated, not lying down.
@Ariu_the_furry
3 ай бұрын
and that is how planes are made educational content (and excited planes)
@whatever_12
4 ай бұрын
What happened at 19:10? Did the plane hit sudden turbulence for it to rise or something else.. Did nato released details about the cause?
@NotWhatYouThink
4 ай бұрын
Look this up on KZitem: “Aerial refueling accidents examined” We discuss the E-3 early on in the video.
@kartiksaxena152
4 ай бұрын
the title literally changed while i was watching wtf when i started watching it was " why the us airforce has two refueling methods " and when i clicked off its now " how aerial gas stations work "
@RADICALFLOAT95
4 ай бұрын
I actually genuinely agree with you.
@armyhobo2471
Ай бұрын
Awesome video
@welshpete12
3 ай бұрын
Very informative , thank u for posting !
@BillAllyn
3 ай бұрын
"Whipped by the hose" lol
@Finn_given
3 ай бұрын
He really likes mentioning the iron dome project in every video
@bgold2007
3 ай бұрын
Boom too excited to retract,!
@aussieboy3766
4 ай бұрын
This mf has got me hooked on both war thunder and conflict of nations
@NotWhatYouThink
4 ай бұрын
🤓
@misterbig9025
4 ай бұрын
During Vietnam war, North Vietnam had no tanker. Their interceptors managed to down American jets with guns.
@globalautobahn1132
4 ай бұрын
1:44 but the new Air Force One is not going to be capable of in-flight refueling
@generybarczyk6993
4 ай бұрын
Good one. Flares!
@hiddenshadow4473
4 ай бұрын
I swear this guy is my CIA agent. every time I think of something that's interesting he makes a video about it.
@scubasleeve3497
2 ай бұрын
I think USAF planes can refuel using both the boom and drogue. It's unlikely a USAF plane would ever refuel from a Navy refueler.
@melangellatc1718
Ай бұрын
The F-8 Crusader had a retractable receptacle...
@flickingbollocks5542
4 ай бұрын
How do the dtogue actually hook onto the probes?
@devrim-oguz
2 ай бұрын
They used the name boomer, but didn’t name the seat of the operator as boombox
@TFT-bp8zk
2 ай бұрын
“Cannot even fly across the Atlantic” like you’re so disappointed it doesn’t have the range of an airliner.
Пікірлер: 545