ATP-56 and ARSAG: One Procedure for All

You will learn why NATO tankers and receivers often come from different nations and why that mix makes common procedures necessary. The short answer is that tankers stay national property, apart from the NATO-owned Multinational Multi Role Tanker Transport Fleet, and the two refueling systems cannot connect with each other, so planning has to bridge the gap.

Why did Cold War assumptions leave NATO short of tankers?

During the Cold War you would have found a narrow view of air to air refueling. The requirement was limited to the support of long range strategic forces because many NATO nations, certainly the European members, worked under the assumption that their forces would operate very close to home. After the Cold War that picture changed. NATO became increasingly engaged in expeditionary operations, and in training and exercises, beyond its traditional North Atlantic geographical domain. As a consequence you see an increased requirement to satisfy a greater number of receivers at extended ranges. Nations bought new receiver capable aircraft, but there was no corresponding increase in tanker assets. In 2002 NATO recognized that overall shortfall in the Prague Capabilities Commitment. Current policy still holds individual nations ultimately responsible for the training, maintenance and deployment of their forces to and from an area of operations, which is why every deployment plan has to account for where its refueling will come from.

What does the Flight Plan actually try to do?

Think of the Flight Plan as guidance, not as an order book. It sets out guidelines for improving interoperability between nations, reviews current NATO capabilities, identifies problems in standardization and discusses future considerations. It also presents a catalogue of current and future NATO assets and examines a broad range of issues likely to impact future planning and execution. Its stated effort is to increase awareness and, ultimately, standardization and interoperability across the Alliance. The document combines studies previously carried out by the JAPCC and updates those findings. The equipment and systems covered include all tanker aircraft and the systems that support them, including mission planning, basing and training. Issues are examined under effects, resources, future requirements, future employment concepts, additional roles and steps taken to enhance interoperability. The authors state that the document is by no means prescriptive and does not serve as a panacea to address all issues.

Why does national ownership shape every refueling you plan?

When you look at a tanker on a ramp, you are looking at a national asset under national command and control, unless it flies for the NATO-owned Multinational Multi Role Tanker Transport Fleet. That includes civilian tankers contracted by a nation or nations. National assets can be provided for the benefit of NATO upon national approval, and NATO holds one tanker fleet of its own: the Multinational MRTT Fleet, owned by NATO and managed by the NATO Support and Procurement Agency. During crises and conflicts, transfer of authority of tanker assets follows the NATO generation of forces procedure. For you as a planner this explains why refueling is critical to both the success of a deployment and any concurrent operations. It helps deploy forces in a timely manner, in minimizing both the logistical footprint and the chances of ground aborts during transits, and in maintaining a high tempo of operations. With expeditionary challenges, the role of refueling as a force multiplier has become increasingly important because it adds to the combat radius of attack, fighter and bomber aircraft and lets patrol aircraft remain airborne longer, which can reduce the number of aircraft needed for a given mission.

How do boom and drogue force planners to choose?

You have to choose hardware before you choose timing, because the probe and drogue system is not compatible with flying boom equipment and that creates a problem where mixed forces are involved. The flying boom is a rigid telescoping tube with movable flight control surfaces that a boom operator extends and inserts into a receptacle on the receiver. If you study rigid boom operation you see why it offers faster fuel transfer but requires a dedicated operator station. All boom equipped tankers named in the plan context, such as the KC-135 Stratotanker, KC-10 Extender and KC-46 Pegasus, have a single boom and can refuel one aircraft at a time with that mechanism. The alternative is a flexible hose that trails from the tanker, stabilized by a drogue, sometimes called a basket, shaped like a shuttlecock. If you study how the hose and basket work you see a receiver probe, rigid or pivoted retractable on the nose or fuselage, fly into the funnel and open a valve after mating. Hoses connect to a hose drum unit that reels the hose when not in use. The valves most commonly used are to a NATO standard originally developed by Flight Refuelling Limited in the United Kingdom and deployed in the late 1940s and 1950s, which lets drogue equipped tankers from many nations refuel probe equipped aircraft from other nations. The categories behind that choice are explained in the Air to Air Refuelling Flight Plan as part of effects and resources. Some tankers carry both worlds. The KC-10 has both a flying boom and a separate hose and drogue system on the centerline at the tail, so only one can be used at once, yet all types of probe and receptacle equipped aircraft can be served in a single mission without landing to install an adapter. Many KC-135 aircraft carry dual under wing attachments known as Multi Point Refueling System units, while some KC-10 and A330 MRTT aircraft have similar under wing pods. USAF KC-135 and French KC-135FR boom equipped tankers can also be field converted with a special adapter unit that places a hose and drogue at the end of the boom. Tankers with multipoint hose systems can serve two or more aircraft at once, which can cut time spent refueling by as much as 75 percent for a four aircraft strike package.

Why do bilateral agreements still matter under NATO command?

You might expect that once tankers transfer to NATO, paperwork disappears. It does not. Agreements between providers and receivers are driven by bilateral memoranda of understanding. Legal, financial, technical and operational specifics must be coordinated between nations for each combination of tankers and receivers, even when operating as NATO transfer of authority assets. That is why a receiver clearance is never generic. It also explains why the influence of NATO on national buying decisions is limited. NATO influence is restricted to the NATO Defence Planning Process, where through the Defence Requirements Review it can influence or encourage nations to prioritize investments. Alliance priorities and Standardization Agreements are considerations, but nations acquire and operate weapon systems on the basis of national interests and priorities. For you this means interoperability work moves through persuasion, common documents and agreed interfaces rather than through central ownership.

Who writes the rules inside NATO?

The authors of the Flight Plan are air refueling subject matter experts working in the NATO Air to Air Refueling Coordination Cell, Combat Support Branch, at the JAPCC. That office was initially established in 2001 as a result of MCM 217(98). Manpower constraints within the NATO Commands led to the cell being formed within the Reaction Force Air Staff at Kalkar. In 2004 the functions of that staff were no longer relevant in the newly transforming NATO structure and it was disestablished. In its place the JAPCC was formed in 2005 with an office of air refueling experts based on the model of the coordination cell. The JAPCC confirmed that it would continue carrying out the functions of the cell and submitted to Allied Command Transformation a revision of MCM 217 (Revised 2006). As the experts were already in post, the JAPCC decided that one of its first transformation projects for Headquarters Allied Command Transformation would be Enhancing NATO Air to Air Refueling Interoperability. In summary it is a 10 year project improving interoperability by developing Allied Tactical Publications and Standardization Agreements, covered in detail in Chapter 7 of the Flight Plan. The office continues to advise NATO on a wide range of refueling matters and remains the only office in NATO dedicated to refueling issues and staffed by refueling experts.

What will you not find in this unclassified plan?

You can read this plan without a clearance because the report is not classified and its discussions, findings and recommendations are not based on classified information. The text notes that reference to classified holdings may be required to support more detailed discussions and recommendations that go beyond the information presented there. The JAPCC page does not publish the full text of the tactical publications themselves. What you do get is the reasoning you need for mission logic. Because the receiver is topped off in the air, a combat aircraft can take off with less fuel to keep maximum takeoff weight, carry a full combat payload and top up once airborne, which helps when operating from airfields with shorter runways where a choice between range and payload would otherwise apply. The cost of equipment on tanker and receiver and the need for very close line astern formation flying explain why there are no regular civilian inflight refueling activities. Usually the aircraft providing fuel is specially designed for the task, although refueling pods may be fitted to existing designs for probe and drogue.

About the Joint Air Power Competence Centre: The Centre hosts the only NATO office dedicated to air refueling issues and staffed by air refueling experts in its Combat Support Branch. It was formed in 2005 to continue the work of the earlier coordination cell at Kalkar and to advise NATO on refueling matters. There you find the Flight Plan with guidelines for interoperability, a catalogue of current and future assets, and a Chapter 7 summary of the 10 year project on tactical publications and agreements. You can open the plan and check Chapter 7 against a photo of any tanker to see which boom, hose or pod fit your receiver needs.