Template talk:United States Military Aerial Refueling Aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] US ties?

The L-1011, KC-30/A330 MRTT, and KC-767 really don't have any US military ties at the moment. I suggest expanding this template to include other large tankers and rename to Military Aerial Refueling Aircraft or Military Tanker Aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur. I'd also suggest adding groups for separating full-time cargo/tankers from those used for other roles. - BillCJ (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buddy tankers

The basic definition of a buddy tanker is when a fighter or attack plane carries a refueling pod in order to refuel another fighter or attack plane, usually of the same type, as in A-4 to A-4. A-4 s and A-7s never, to my knowledge, carried the "KA" designation, and neither type was assigned this role as part of it's regular duties. One exception was that A-4s were sometimes deployed on the older Essex class ships which did not have the full SCB-125 modifications to operate heavier aircraft, such as the CVS ships pressed into duty off of Vietnam. Tankers from other carriers would generally be the main tankers for these A-4s, but buddy tankers were also used to give the these CVSs an organic tanking capability.

Aircraft used to refuel other aircraft types, such as the AJ Savage refueling F-8 Crusaders, weren't usually called "buddy" tankers, to my knowledge. This is certainly the case for the KA-3B and the the KA-6D, both of which were dedicated tankers, hence the "K". The KA-6D was capable of carrying bombs in a daylight role, but I don't know if any were ever used for that. THe last 2 on the list, the S-3 and the F/A-18E/F, are being used as tankers as a regular part of their other duties, not just on an ad hoc basis as with most buddy tankers.

Finally, just about any modern combat craft is capable of carrying a buddy tank, and I would hate to see people adding every fightr or attack craft to ever carry a refueling pod, even if it was just on time. Even if we just list US types, that list could get pretty long. As such, I think it makes sence to limit the types listed here to just those used in the tanekr role full time, either as a dedicated task, or as part of a number of other tasks. - BillCJ (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)