Tanker Tracks

[132ndEvo]

In the new training mission we should keep the tanker tracks on top of each other. The KC-135 and KC-135MPRS can be on top of each other and seperated by 3,000 ft. And our transit corridors should have intersections where the tankers are orbiting. It will prevent tankers form entering live ranges like they do now.

[Gabykhan]

Regarding tankers in general, I would say:

Mandatory:

• recovery tanker with every CVN during departure/recovery window
• variety of tankers with performances/caracteristics able to accomodate all types of aircraft

Important:

• dedicated AAR areas with tanker tracks that remain within these areas
• standard track length of 15' for a full pattern, so that we can predict tanker's behaviour
• possibility to have several tankers in a close proximity to the intermediate/advanced training areas, in order to accomodate refuelling of large packages in a limited time (e.g. 2 x MPRS + 2 x Boom).

Nice to have:

• in the intermediate/advanced training areas, tankers with limited fuel and station time to force better fuel planning
• all types of tankers, in order to be able to train on a variety of situations (eg: low level KC-130)

[RedDog132nd]

I'd add proper tanker speed according to receiver if at all possible 280kts for F-16 is a bit on the slow side. 300kts would be better, Raises question;

• can tanker adapt speed depending receiver (A-10?)
• do we need/want to assign specific tracks for slower receivers?

[132nd-Erro]

Is it possible to add F-menu items to request tanker speed?

[000Ready000]

Could we have maybe two tanker tracks for the A-10? To be able to hit a tanker whenever we visit either a southern or a northern A/G Range. 12.000ft 265Kts N-S track. One north of Lodingen, one south of Rockland.