To Drop External Tanks, or Not?

[+Dave]

Nope, that is just incorrect. At least in the Air War over Bosnia and currently Air Support in Afghanistan, drop tanks are not dropped as a habit.

 

I just found this discussion at keypublishing http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=56511 which has some interesting infos

 

 

 

Unconfirmed number, but if true - over 65.000EUR per tank. Even if we cut that in half for older designs, at 30.000EUR it far exceeds the price of unguided ordnance.

 

Obviously in an all-out Russia vs. West engagement economics matter less, but it's also a question of supply. In peacetime, I doubt that any squadron has more than six tanks per plane on store.

 

Last, if you are air refueling, it seems at least some AC can fuel up the tanks too. So having them on the way back might mean one less stop for fuel.

 

Well I am sure with all the years of actual military flying Jug did, that is SOP, so I would be hard pressed to dispute him.

 

I really think it depends on what is going on. If it's a shoot and scoot, then I do not see them dropping them but if its going to be a furball then yep they have to go.

 

Spoken by a pilot whose "external tank" was a specialized version of a KC-135

 

 

OMG So very true.

[Helmut_AUT]

Well I am sure with all the years of actual military flying Jug did, that is SOP, so I would be hard pressed to dispute him.

 

I really think it depends on what is going on. If it's a shoot and scoot, then I do not see them dropping them but if its going to be a furball then yep they have to go.

 

I didn't know about and didn't meant to question his real life experience, but times can change too. When I was at Maching AB in 2005 (or 2006) as Aviation Journalist I learned from real German Tornado pilots that "drop tanks" are not as habit dropped and hadn't been used that way in the '95/'96 Bosnia ECR/Recce missions either.

 

Obviously it depends on the enemy you are facing, and I'm also sure DTs got more expensive with every AC Generation. The newest EF Typhoon tanks for example have fuel pumps internal and a ton of other gadgets.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Helmut_AUT

[+Dave]

As a recce pilot, there is no way I see them dropping their tanks for anything. They have to go in fast, slow down, get the pics and then get the hell out of dodge. I would think they need every drop of fuel they can get.

[Helmut_AUT]

I think in today's wars "economics" play a much bigger factor too. The cost of every guided munition has to be justified. The aim is not just to get the mission done, but to get it done in a way that it doesn't cost more than the value of the target you hit. And if you are flying super-high tech supersonic drop tanks with all kinds of integrated fuel management stuff around, they become a factor too.

 

For Vietnam Era and '79 "Hot Cold War" scenarios, economics certainly were less of a topic. I recon that's what Jug was referring to. Still would love to know how many fuel tanks per squadron were in store in 1978 West Germany, today it's not uncommon to have just a bunch of tanks, not even enough for every aircraft in the squadron at the same time.

[+hgbn]

I don't punch them until them until I have to.

 

Me too. Hate to run of of gas. But I dont think twice if needed..

[Rodent]

Just because it feels like it makes more sense I try to waste as little as possible, even if the game does not penalize me for being wasteful. If I take off with external tanks I try to land with them too. And I try to take a little bit extra care to not get into a situation where I will need to drop them, but if I know for certain I will need the manouverability or speed then I will drop them however.

 

 

Wow I guess my post was not very helpful at all, but I had to post something because, well, I missed being here

[Lt. James Cater]

As a recce pilot, there is no way I see them dropping their tanks for anything. They have to go in fast, slow down, get the pics and then get the hell out of dodge. I would think they need every drop of fuel they can get.

 

When doing Recce missions, to me at least, it comes down to a variety of factors depending on things such as aircraft flown, mission area, threat level etc, etc. I know in ODS flying RF-4Cs i rountinely dropped tanks before beginning a low level full burner pass over the target. When safe enough, i went to high altitude to enconomize on fuel going home.

 

In RF-84s, the tanks only came off in a life or death emergency.

 

Right now i'm in an A-7D during the WOE79 campaign and tanks are dropped during every deep strike. However, they tend to be either empty or damn near due to some roundabout routes that we have been using on the missions.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Lt. James Cater

[DarthRevan]

Is the DTs affect implemented in the Thirdwire series?

[+331Killerbee]

Is the DTs affect implemented in the Thirdwire series?

 

If You mean, "Do they effect the Flight Profile?" Yes. Case in point. Try seeing Your Takeoff Distances with External Tanks versus not having them. You'll see a major Difference.

 

Some Navy External Drop Tanks are generalized. the Standard 300gal Drop Tank used on A-4's is the same 300gal used on A-1's, A-6's, EA-6B's, A-7's and AV-8B's. The Fins are adjustible and can be added depending on Airframe Type. The "Stam Pipes" are quickly removed and replaced for the piticular Fuel-Air Valve used in the Aircraft being loaded. This "Standardization" is to save space while the Aircraft is operating on Carrier Deployments.

 

Economics is really not a Factor when dealing with Drop Tanks. The U.S. Military Stockpiles many Drop Tanks per Type of Aircraft. Actually, about 24 Tanks are produced for one Aircraft that come off a Factory Floor. The major problem is "Re-Supply". Most Deployments take this in account and Pre-Deploy Stocks well ahead of Sorties being carried out. Same as Pre-Deployment of Ordnance Stockpiles.

 

 

As far as dropping the Tanks, I'd have to defer to the "Ones in the Know" that have actually done it. It makes sense to Me to drop the $250 Dollar Drop Tanks to save My 3 Million Dollar Plane and My Butt........

 

331KillerBee

[MigBuster]

I think in today's wars "economics" play a much bigger factor too. The cost of every guided munition has to be justified. The aim is not just to get the mission done, but to get it done in a way that it doesn't cost more than the value of the target you hit. And if you are flying super-high tech supersonic drop tanks with all kinds of integrated fuel management stuff around, they become a factor too.

 

For Vietnam Era and '79 "Hot Cold War" scenarios, economics certainly were less of a topic. I recon that's what Jug was referring to. Still would love to know how many fuel tanks per squadron were in store in 1978 West Germany, today it's not uncommon to have just a bunch of tanks, not even enough for every aircraft in the squadron at the same time.

 

 

 

Well 1 factor no doubt - but if there was more of a threat (particularly in the air ) in the modern wars more tanks would have been jettisoned. Certainly some of the F-15s in 1991 dropped the tanks before firing Sparrows.

 

 

The Israelis in the 1960s jettisoned their tanks for fun when there was a reported enemy jet nearby according to pilots - and dropped so many it had to be restricted to only when a confirmed Arab jet was sighted due to supplies getting low.

[EricJ]

Nope, that is just incorrect. At least in the Air War over Bosnia and currently Air Support in Afghanistan, drop tanks are not dropped as a habit.

 

Yeah because it's not expected for the Taliban to start flying anytime soon, plus having those tanks is nice for when they're covering your patrol

[Caesar]

For Navy F-14's if the tanks were on at launch, they stayed on during flight with little leeway for jettison.

 

"Unlike WWII and Korea and even Vietnam, intentional jettisoning of external tanks was not SOP with the Tomcat. As soon as [there] were enough tanks to go around, everyone carried them and the ship did not carry enough to allow them to be jettisoned on a combat vector breaking with practices of the past. You literally had to get permission of the embarked flag to punch them off unless it was an emergency. The aircraft obviously maneuvered better without them, but some COs decided that pilots needed to know how to fight with them on so as soon as workups began, they'd go on and stay on through deployment. Other COs would pull them off whenever opportunity allowed it, but it was SOP for them to be on whenever Tomcats were deployed as that 4000 lbs of gas went a long way." -LCDR "Hey Joe" Parsons USN (Ret.), F-14 RIO.

[Jug]

If You mean, "Do they effect the Flight Profile?" Yes. Case in point. Try seeing Your Takeoff Distances with External Tanks versus not having them. You'll see a major Difference.

 

Some Navy External Drop Tanks are generalized. the Standard 300gal Drop Tank used on A-4's is the same 300gal used on A-1's, A-6's, EA-6B's, A-7's and AV-8B's. The Fins are adjustible and can be added depending on Airframe Type. The "Stam Pipes" are quickly removed and replaced for the piticular Fuel-Air Valve used in the Aircraft being loaded. This "Standardization" is to save space while the Aircraft is operating on Carrier Deployments.

 

Economics is really not a Factor when dealing with Drop Tanks. The U.S. Military Stockpiles many Drop Tanks per Type of Aircraft. Actually, about 24 Tanks are produced for one Aircraft that come off a Factory Floor. The major problem is "Re-Supply". Most Deployments take this in account and Pre-Deploy Stocks well ahead of Sorties being carried out. Same as Pre-Deployment of Ordnance Stockpiles.

 

 

As far as dropping the Tanks, I'd have to defer to the "Ones in the Know" that have actually done it. It makes sense to Me to drop the $250 Dollar Drop Tanks to save My 3 Million Dollar Plane and My Butt........

 

331KillerBee

Got that right, Killer Bee. Cost benefit comparison. My drop tanks ($250 each), my jet ($25,000,000), my sweet pink young ass ($50,000,000 - self estimate). Push comes to shove, jettison the tanks, more push comes to shove, jettison the jet.

 

My only real fighter time was with the Brazilian AF flying F-5Es out of Santa Cruz airbase. There was no doubt among that crowd (and they were some really good pilots), toss the tanks just prior to the merge. It, evidently, is not an economic, supply, or fuel issue. It is all about gaining the edge. If I am so much dust, who cares if I kept my tanks or not. If I walk home without the jet, who cares if the extra drag, or g limits with the tanks, or whatever else can be thought of. It only takes one time where you are so scared the crew chief has to spend some two hours extracting the seat cushion from where you sucked it up your ass, and all of the little things come into sharp focus. Trust me boys and girls, been there, done that, and don't want to go back.

 

Thanks for the disparaging remarks about my recce experience v.s. real fighter time. No offense taken and the jibe was appropriate. I'd like to know EZLead's opinion (a real fighter jock with real combat time). Bye the bye, U-2's don't air refuel and the big pods you see on the wings are not gas tanks. Buffs, on the other hand, did air refuel and if it was a SIOP mission, you literally could demand off load of all the fuel onboard the tanker....all of it. Tankers were, indeed, expendable fuel tanks.

[Jug]

Well 1 factor no doubt - but if there was more of a threat (particularly in the air ) in the modern wars more tanks would have been jettisoned. Certainly some of the F-15s in 1991 dropped the tanks before firing Sparrows.

 

 

The Israelis in the 1960s jettisoned their tanks for fun when there was a reported enemy jet nearby according to pilots - and dropped so many it had to be restricted to only when a confirmed Arab jet was sighted due to supplies getting low.

As I recall the Israelis have a pretty good Air-to-Air record. Think they were looking for all the edge they could get....??

[gbnavy61]

Air-to-air, any tanks are off by the merge.

 

Air-to-ground, I may dump them at the IP, I may not - depends on what I'm flying, what I'm attacking, and what I've got slung underneath. If it hits the fan, though, I'll punch them off.

 

Of course, if you fly a Crusader, you don't have this dilemma. TMF 'Saders get great mileage, too.

[jomni]

You can also drop your tanks and hope you hit some enemy on the head.

[Oswald Bastable]

I decided what I really needed to be able to do is see the fuel gauge.

I was able to find some hi-Rez gauges for the f100 in the downloads section.

Now I can see what I have to work with.

[Helmut_AUT]

Is the default F-100 Gauge hard to read? Never flew that one for more than a test yet.

 

Speaking of Fuel Gauges, can someone explain the F-4F one? What are the sectors above the numeric counter and needle?

[bwild]

Is the default F-100 Gauge hard to read? Never flew that one for more than a test yet.

 

Speaking of Fuel Gauges, can someone explain the F-4F one? What are the sectors above the numeric counter and needle?

 

From the F-4J NATOPS:

 

A combination (counter-sector) fuel quantity indicator is in the upper right corner of the pilot's instrument panel. On aircraft 158355at and up and all others after AFC 506, a fuel quantity indicator is installed on the left side of the RIO's main panel. The forward cockpit indication is more dependable than the aft cockpit indication. Therefore if a discrepency occurs between the two indications , the forward indicator is more likely to give the best reading. The counter unit of the gage(s) continuously indicates the total usable fuel quantity (with readings multiplied by 10) in all internal tanks. The sector portion of the indicator(s) simultaneously indicates the total usable fuel quantity in fuselage cells 1 through 6 only, with readings multiplied by 1000. Fuselage cell 7 and internal wing fuel quantities are not indicated on the sector portion of the indicator(s).

[Fubar512]

Is the default F-100 Gauge hard to read? Never flew that one for more than a test yet.

 

Speaking of Fuel Gauges, can someone explain the F-4F one? What are the sectors above the numeric counter and needle?

 

Helmut,

 

The AI will let know when you're approaching bingo fuel, by saying to you "Request you check joker" :yes:

[Viggen]

That's what they mean when they say that? I thought it meant "Hey dummy, I'm joker here. Send me home!"

[Gr.Viper]

The AI will let know when you're approaching bingo fuel, by saying to you "Request you check joker"

I thought "check joker" means "prepare to glide".

[Lt. James Cater]

The one aircraft that you really have to think hard about dropping tanks while flying is the Javelin.

 

This is hands down the most voracious fuel guzzler i've ever flown. No matter how close the enemy is, ALWAYS keep your tanks until they are completely empty.

[Gr.Viper]

This is hands down the most voracious fuel guzzler i've ever flown.

How do AIs manage? They stop fighting when low on fuel.

[Helmut_AUT]

Helmut,

 

The AI will let know when you're approaching bingo fuel, by saying to you "Request you check joker" :yes:

 

Thanks. I generally have no problem calculating bingo from the distance to last waypoint (#8) and true airspeed reading, or just by knowing the Phantom does about 400 knots at 80% Fan RPM at about 4000pounds per hour and engine.

 

I was hoping the "sector gauge" would show external fuel, like it's on the F-15 and I think A-10. Seems the only indication about external on the Rhino is when your internal starts ticking down.