vivek,vivek_ahuja wrote:I think the whole requirement for the in-flight refueling requirement for the LCA stems from the argument that the IAF wants to have the option for it, should the need arise. Does not mean, however, that they will be using it a lot.Shreeman wrote:My continuing nitpick re. refuelers. All Su30, 29k and in the near future 29s can refuel. There is no delivering fuel at 500nm in the IN/IAF equation. There is no point in doung TFTA equal-equal unless wanting to go fight in south china sea.
Especially given a pathetically small tanker fleet, there is never going to be the luxury of refueling every fighter over the front-line. But if required, the LCA should have that option, no?
In-flight refueling is not just for ferrying flights at long ranges. It is possible that the aircraft engaged in combat and evasive maneuvers might be low on fuel even a couple hundred kilometers from the airbase. In flight refueling gives the pilot and air-force some options in that scenario.
But I do agree that it should be lower down the priority list. Certainly not enough to justify delaying the induction of the aircraft.
-Vivek
My nitpick is the reverse.
The aircraft are plumbed for refueling and getting refueled. Heavy forward deployed tankers are needed for expeditionary campaigns. Otherwise, for your scenario a few Su30 with refueling pods will serve the role fine.
This shortage of il78 type tankers does not envision where they will be used and when. There is not a lot beyond 500km west. Certainly very little beyond 750km. So except for ferrying to far-off exercises, the role for the light aircraft just doesnt warrant X,000 km range. But that is a separate discussion.
My nitpick is, if needed, there are 300 tankers with refueling pods.