Tanker Ops

Message
Author
Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Tanker Ops

#1 Post by Cacophonix » Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:20 pm

The more I read about the role of mid air refueling to extend the range of aircraft such as the one manned Lightning in QRA (Quick Reaction Alert) flights to intercept Soviet aircraft at the height of the Cold War, the more questions I have about the technicalities of the symbiotic relationship between the short ranged Lightning and the Victor tankers supporting them.

The questions are many and varied but the primary one I have is how did the fighter navigate to the tanker which would need to be flexible in its general orbit to allow for the different intercept flight profiles needed to engage an elusive prey? How did the crews co-ordinate the complex long range aerial tango leading up to the complexities of the mid air mating ritual? Surely the hard pressed Lighting pilot couldn't have been expected to juggle the complexities of flying an intercept while still monitoring the ever changing position of the tanker. Did the tanker monitor the position of the fighter and thus provide vectors to a rendezvous when the call for more fuel came.

Any light on these vexed questions by one of the cognoscenti that post here would add greatly to the dim illumination provided by the low powered bulb in my mind.


Caco

Sisemen

Re: Tanker Ops

#2 Post by Sisemen » Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:43 pm

Standard tanker towlines over the North Sea. And lots of practice!

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12986
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: Tanker Ops

#3 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:48 pm

Lightning was before my time - hopefully BOAC will be along to fill you in - but I can give you some of the techniques which were used in the Phantom/Tornado F3 era, many of which were in use in Lightning days.
Firstly, the duty tanker normally sits on a designated towline at a briefed altitude, which will be chosen depending on the expected threat. For QRA, the tanker is scrambled at the same time as the fighters for pop-up threats, and sometimes earlier if the threat is anticipated. Some clever Fighter Controller type works out the tanker launch window so that it's in the right place when the fighter hauls off the threat after intercept for his first 'drink'.
The tanker goes round a racetrack, and all being well will be at known points on the track at known times. This eases everybody's task a lot, especially if one is out of GCI range, or running silent procedures.
The join up can be done by GCI, aided by air-air TACAN in both tanker and fighter, which gives mutual range only. If the tanker was off the racetrack towline, one common method was to have the tanker and fighter head toward each other, offset slightly, e.g. a 180 x 8, 180 degrees out in heading, with tracks offset by 8 miles. Then, at a set A_A TACAN range (I think it was 12 miles), the tanker would do a 180 turn, which left the fighter about 2 miles in trail behind the tanker when it rolled out, ideal for final closure.
The tankers had no means to detect the fighter position directly, but a good tanker nav could know both bogey position, and fighter position relative to the bogey, by monitoring GCI and keeping a plot going. If fuel were very short for the fighter, permission might be given to the tanker to expedite the joinup. I have experienced it the other way round on exercises, where the tanker, monitoring GCI, would peel off the towline with the fighters still plugged, and commence the intercept. The fighters would be radar standby whilst refueling to avoid frying the tanker crew, but one could follow along with the nav kit. Then, typically at 70 nm, the tanker would give you the signal to unplug, you'd drop back, he'd start turning to head back, you'd fire up the radar, find the bogey just where you wanted him, and carry on the intercept. All this could be done silently, and at night, with GCI (Ground radar, Magic, or boats) broadcasting bogey positions.

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17209
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Tanker Ops

#4 Post by Boac » Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:42 pm

Quite a topic, Caco - and Fox has covered most of it. A lot of my QRA was in the Iceland/Faroes gap (out of Leuchars) and we were very grateful for the rapid reaction of the Marham based tankers since by the time they got there we were often 'getting twitchy' and possibly looking at a div to KEF. The only saving grace was that the 'traditional' Bear intercepts were 'telegraphed' by Norway or USAF QRA to give fighter control time to bring the tanker up to readiness (while we often slumbered 'peacefully' in our immersion suits. :)) )

The 'Bear/Badger' intercepts were tanker accompanied (eventually) and the tanker would sit a few miles off to the side while we did the David Bailey bit with our (hand held!) camera and we could 'nip off' for a quick plug (normally in VMC). Dark time a bit more complicated. The rendevous then would be simple visual, but in the case where the tanker was 'en-route' to us we would do what Fox said, but normally keeping the tanker going towards the target which we had had to leave to refuel and setting up our own join with our on-board A to A Tacan as described on the way back to target.

The absolute best 'arse-twitcher' I had was a no-notice winter scramble at 0200 to chase a high-speed pop-up 'departing' target (afterwards thought to be a Backfire). At around range 30 I was given steady increases in requested speed (with the target kindly matching them....) and we got to the point at about M1.6 where I had to ask 'why' and what was I to do but 'a tanker was on its way' and I was ordered to pursue if necessary 'to fuel exhaustion' - gulp. Eventually I knocked it off myself since it was fruitless (ready to be shot at dawn!) and made the best turn I could south-west towards the coming Victor. A 'Fox' type intercept (turning the tanker on my call) and I arrived behind with a 'real' 10 minutes of fuel remaining. Initial attempts to stick my bit in hers failed due to 'tension' in the cockpit and I remember thinking 'if you don't relax and stick it in you will be in the North Sea' in 5 minutes (hopefully in a dinghy, but at 0300 in February...) and - we mated. I met the Ops Officer many years later when we both flew for Astraeus (an old 'mate') and he told me he was 'under orders' from well above to direct me, and he did know what he was asking! Never got to the bottom of it all.

Tanker crews could do no wrong in my book! We even used to let them use our Squadron porn libary when they were holding 'Q' at Leuchars - that's how much we valued them. :ymdevil:

Since we are in 'war story land', another anecdote. Somewhere in 'the gap' alongside a Bear after about 4 hours or so and with no Tacan lock (and thus reluctantly admitting to being 'uncertain of position' :)) ) I asked the tanker nav for 'pigeons to KEF' (in case I screwed up the next tank) which he duly gave, but in the meantime Ivan in the port blister had waved a map at me and pointed at some position or other.... =))

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12986
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: Tanker Ops

#5 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:46 pm

The Four Great Lies of History
1. Of course I love you
2. The cheque's in the post
3. The tanker's airborne
4. XXX

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: Tanker Ops

#6 Post by Cacophonix » Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:48 pm

Thanks for those useful responses chaps. The Ground Controller seems to have been key in orchestrating the timing of the tanker flight along the towline and TACAN/ GCI integral to success thereafter. One point that does make me wonder is if these towlines were standard then clearly by probing, the Soviets could start to work out along what tracks a tanker might be expected to fly, and therefore adopt a strategy to either adjust their inbound tracks or even shoot the tanker down if the bogey was escorted.. It must have required the ability of a four dimensionsal chess player to stay ahead in this game.

Fascinating stuff.

Just noted Boac's response which I will read and digest. Fox having read your very detailed response, thank you, and Boac's similarly detailed one it seems things didn't change that much between the Lightning to Tornado generations.

Caco

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12986
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: Tanker Ops

#7 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:56 pm

Towlines were standard for normal daily use, with others designated for exercises if necessary. Wartime towlines would have been different, and were never used in peacetime. This was true for a lot of procedures and basing, not just towlines. Ask BOAC about Harrier hides.
Tankers were HVAA - High Value Air Assets - and therefore positioned to minimise the threat but maximise the utility. Under certain circumstances, they might be allocated their own fighter escort, and I have flown this role for both tankers and AWACS on exercise.
The Sovs had a standard attack plan for a HVAA, using 108 fighter aircraft. :-o Two or four Tornados would be allocated to defend it. :-ss

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17209
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Tanker Ops

#8 Post by Boac » Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:57 pm

Re Tanking - for a long time in 'the old days' it did not seem the tankers took any notice of contrail forecasts and it seemed we had to work hard to persuade them to tow (operationally) out of trails as we felt even more vulnerable/visible.

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12986
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: Tanker Ops

#9 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:08 pm

They'd been cured of that by the time I started tanking - thanks!
The F3 was hard to learn to tank, mainly because the recommended procedure wasn't good, but very straightforward once you mastered the 'cheat' technique.
However Tornados, being turbofan-engined, could not tank high, so we had our own struggle with persuading them to come down. Certainly our early meetings with them got a bit of a Narfuk country-boy response "We bain't be doing that round yere. Never heard of the like!". You probably had the same.
I recall attempting to tank at 25k in a full 'Q' fit, and needing both burners to top off, which was a total pig to control (and therefore, as I discovered when I landed, prohibited in the Aircrew Manual - oops!).

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: Tanker Ops

#10 Post by Cacophonix » Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:21 pm

Tanker crews could do no wrong in my book! We even used to let them use our Squadron porn libary when they were holding 'Q' at Leuchars - that's how much we valued them.

Since we are in 'war story land', another anecdote. Somewhere in 'the gap' alongside a Bear after about 4 hours or so and with no Tacan lock (and thus reluctantly admitting to being 'uncertain of position' ) I asked the tanker nav for 'pigeons to KEF' (in case I screwed up the next tank) which he duly gave, but in the meantime Ivan in the port blister had waved a map at me and pointed at some position or other....
Porn and humorous Russians. As always I am flabbergasted, if not in awe, at the humour you guys showed under the most trying of circumstances and the sheer guts it must have taken to operate at such long range in such hostile, physical, geographical and military, environments with such a minimal fuel endurance, relying on the tanker lifeline and equally important ground controllers to get back to Blighty,particularly in the fuel limited Lightning, although I imagine the Phantom and then the Tornado weren't that much better Fox?

At the risk of sounding impertinent I must ask Sisemen if he was Fighter/Radar Controller in this whole setup. He always hides his light under a bushel or under his RAF hat.

Again thanks to all who posted here. Your humouring of this inquisitive but absolutely interested South African is much appreciated.

Caco

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12986
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: Tanker Ops

#11 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:44 pm

Being turbofan-engined meant the Tornado had much better fuel margins than the Lightning, and together with better nav kit and lack of leaks meant it was better than the Phantom also. So, mostly not a problem.
For example, I think the Lightnings would tank eight or nine times when deploying UK-Cyprus, the Tornado would tank once.
That said, one had to burn a lot more on high supersonic intercepts than the other two, so they needed to be watched very carefully. And of course, because you could go further, you would be deployed further out for longer, waaay out over the Atlantic, so one would still end up occasionally screaming for the tanker. And being two seat and designed for it, they'd leave you up for longer too. I've had 5 tanks on one exercise, about five and a half hours airborne, day-night, and many guys did more than 7 hours on one sortie. You'd often end up using more than one tanker, and sometimes on different towlines.

I don't know how many BOAC would have to deal with, but with bigger formations, and bigger aircraft needing more fuel, one would often end up with a big queue off the wing of the tanker - I was number 9 once - with several aircraft types. There would often be the need to allow guys to queue jump just for a quick drink so they had enough fuel to join back in the queue and wait their proper turn - it was quite a little dance at times.

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: Tanker Ops

#12 Post by Cacophonix » Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:00 pm

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:44 pm
Being turbofan-engined meant the Tornado had much better fuel margins than the Lightning, and together with better nav kit and lack of leaks meant it was better than the Phantom also. So, mostly not a problem.
For example, I think the Lightnings would tank eight or nine times when deploying UK-Cyprus, the Tornado would tank once.
That said, one had to burn a lot more on high supersonic intercepts than the other two, so they needed to be watched very carefully. And of course, because you could go further, you would be deployed further out for longer, waaay out over the Atlantic, so one would still end up occasionally screaming for the tanker. And being two seat and designed for it, they'd leave you up for longer too. I've had 5 tanks on one exercise, about five and a half hours airborne, day-night, and many guys did more than 7 hours on one sortie. You'd often end up using more than one tanker, and sometimes on different towlines.

I don't know how many BOAC would have to deal with, but with bigger formations, and bigger aircraft needing more fuel, one would often end up with a big queue off the wing of the tanker - I was number 9 once - with several aircraft types. There would often be the need to allow guys to queue jump just for a quick drink so they had enough fuel to join back in the queue and wait their proper turn - it was quite a little dance at times.

I assume that with a 9 long queue with different aircraft types, the drogue was standardised and could handle all without any changes to the connection required?

Fox reading between the lines it seems the Tornado was not as sprightly at altitude and had nowhere near the ceiling of either the Phantom or the Lightning, or am I jumping to conclusions here?

So many questions, so little time.

Caco

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12986
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: Tanker Ops

#13 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:15 pm

Standard probe coupling, yes; usable by all NATO aircraft with the facility, including USN but generally not USAF. Around Gulf War time, it became possible to use a USAF boom tanker if it had a mini-drogue fitted on the end of the boom, but that had to be fitted on the ground, and then the fuel flow rate was slow and it couldn't be used by boom aircraft, so this was rarely done. The Hercules was used in the Falklands, and its slow speed meant a bigger basket, but with the same coupling in the centre.
The Tornado couldn't get much above 33,000 ft in dry power. Once you plugged the burners in, there was no problem operating high, but one wouldn't have the fuel to just sit up there - you only went up for intercepts. It handled very nicely up there, except the stall margins were very sharp indeed. You could do 67 degree bank turns all day at M1.5, but try 68 degrees and you'd stall and lose 6,000 feet just like that. The ceiling for normal ops was 50,000 feet, driven mainly by aircraft pressurisation, and not having your blood boil if you had to eject. The early Lightning pilots had pressurised suits available, I believe, but by the 1980's the skyflash missile on Phantom and Tornado could climb the rest of the way up to a real high-flying Sov for you. You can clearly see the curvature of the Earth from a little over 50,000 feet, and looking straight up through the canopy you can see stars in the daytime - there is so little air left above you.
I do know of crews who have had the jets up to silly altitudes, generally from either following the steering dot too high, or just "How high can it go, Mister?". Phantoms and Tornados could get up to about 70,000 feet, but would be coming back down very shortly afterwards, normally with at least one donk out. I know a Lightning guy who wing-overed over the top of a U-2, but that was hushed up for a lot of reasons. It was not deliberate, he told me, he thought it was something else and didn't notice it all getting dark around him. That was a little over 80,000 feet.

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17209
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Tanker Ops

#14 Post by Boac » Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:21 pm

To pick up on Fox's post about queing at the pumps, this from another thread here:

"Another WIWOL anecdote - I was No 4 in the 23 Sqn Lightning 'display' team. The squadron deployed to Neuberg a d Donau and it was arranged the 4-ship would lead in for a display on arrival. We set off and met the tanker off Kent to find both wing-tip hoses u/s, requiring tanking from the centre-hose, thus roughly half the refuel capacity. Lowest guy gets first suck, and of course, while he is sucking, next guy gets towards 'short' and no 1 comes off the nipple early. You can now build the scenario. A valiant attempt (no wise-cracks about it being a Victor, please =)) ) at getting enough fuel for the display (in a reducing spiral!), but we finally sent the tanker home and arrived at Neuberg with a lower fuel than we would have had if we had just gone in a straight line with no AAR. No 'display'. Undercrackers changed. :))

User avatar
Undried Plum
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 7308
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 8:45 pm
Location: 56°N 4°W

Re: Tanker Ops

#15 Post by Undried Plum » Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:28 pm

Black Buck was a fiendishly complicated fuelling plan.

Here's a highly simplified version of the plan:
Image

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17209
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Tanker Ops

#16 Post by Boac » Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:40 pm

Yes - you all set off with 'the plan' and then Murphy strikes! A brilliant effort.

User avatar
ian16th
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 10029
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 9:35 am
Location: KZN South Coast with the bananas
Gender:
Age: 87

Re: Tanker Ops

#17 Post by ian16th » Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:48 pm

Finding Tankers.

When we were doing the early trials with Valiants, we had an experimental air-to-air version of Rebecca/Eureka.
This was made by Marconi and was known as Rebecca Mk X and Eureka Mk X.
To increase sort range accuracy, this kit worked with 'Acorn' valves ay 1000M/H.
On 214 we had 4 a/c fitted with Rebecca , 2 of them were fitted with Eureka.
This kit appears to have been a failure as I never heard of it after I left 214 and was posted to Akrotiri.

I recently had a discussion with an American friend, he had drawn my attantion to an experimental stealthy drone that is being developed for AAR.
I questioned the logic of this, as I was aware that one of the requirements is that a tanker needs to be found.
Cynicism improves with age

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12986
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: Tanker Ops

#18 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:59 pm

With the Tornado F3 came nav kit which meant the tanker could be reliably found without anything emitting, VMC, day or night. GPS should make it a doddle,
IF the tanker's where it's supposed to be...

I found the most remarkable thing about AAR was the ability to do it on silent procedures. I thought it epitomised the professionalism and ingenuity of everyone involved, including those who drew up the SOPs and designed the gear, that one could just pitch up next to a tanker cockpit in the middle of the night, in the middle of nowhere, catch his attention with hand signals, be signalled back, then use the mini-traffic lights on the back of each pod to run the procedure, and finally slope off back to where you were patrolling. Quite magical really.

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17209
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Tanker Ops

#19 Post by Boac » Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:25 pm

ian - there are, as fox says, other ways of finding a tanker, but I guess they all need some sort of data transmission.

Heavens - in the Lightning force we used to slide back the DV window and sniff the air for Avtur fumes... :D

User avatar
CharlieOneSix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5005
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:58 pm
Location: NE Scotland
Gender:
Age: 79

Re: Tanker Ops

#20 Post by CharlieOneSix » Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:58 pm

Fascinating thread, guys - really enjoying it!
The helicopter pilots' mantra: If it hasn't gone wrong then it's just about to...
https://www.glenbervie-weather.org

Post Reply