A fighter will not need aerial refueling for 99% of its flight time, so one could argue that the idea of AAR itself superfluous. Right upto the point where a (statistically improbable) war begins. Or an overseas Op Khukri type contingency comes up. Meanwhile, the boom-equipped refuelers remains quite capable of refuelling the 280 odd Su-30s, 40 odd Mirages & already ordered Tejas.shiv wrote:Fact. Those 22 aircraft will not need air refuelling for 99% of their airframe lives in their service in India. While our existing fighters - 280 odd Su-30s, 40 odd Mirages right now can do with refuelling and projected, already ordered numbers of Tejas will need that more than ever. I a
If you buy an aircraft for the next 40 years, its hardly wise to limit its capabilities to what was required 10 years ago.I do not mean this personally about you, but this actually is the language used by salespeople. Predict the future where it suits them. Numbers of Tejas will grow. What else will grow we don't know.
Yeah it doesn't work like that. The marginal cost of lugging baggage around isn't what they're charging you for at the check-in counter. If it were they'd be charging a 90 kg passenger, Rs 10,000 over what they charge a traveller weighing only 50 kgs.The aircraft and its sellers will not be hampered one bit. We are going to pay the price for lugging around and maintaining several 100 kgs of unnecessary weight for 99.99% of ops. On civilian aircraft every kg costs Rs 250 now. Multiply that by 500 for every flight of a refueller with a useless boom - 1.25 lakhs per flight.
You don't put a basket on the probe, it goes on the end of the hose. The hose is separate and the boom is separate (ref: illustrations). Aircraft equipped with receptacles use the boom, the rest use the drogues with their probes.shiv wrote:Most small aircraft are unable to take the high rate of flow offered by the boom system - one more useless redundant feature waiting for those 20 odd aircraft for their 1 in 100 flight need to refuel midair. And if the boom is used with a basket to attach to a probe - the imagined advantage of fast refuelling, use in turbulent conditions and refuelling huge aircraft vanishes.
By this logic air refuelling is unnecessary. But given the difference in (unrefuelled) radius of action of Tejas - say 350-500 km and Su-30 (1500 km) the Tejas would require more refuelling than the Su-30 in a mixed aircraft sortie.Viv S wrote: A fighter will not need aerial refueling for 99% of its flight time, so one could argue that the idea of AAR itself superfluous.
Yes - but other than P-8s which belong to the navy ALL other aircraft that allow refuelling have probes and none have boom receptacles. I do not foresee boom receptacle being installed as a standard in any IAF aircraft for the next 40 years and in any case fighters do not allow the rate of fuel transfer that a boom offers.Viv S wrote: Also, that the IAF & IN's fleets will continue to grow is pretty much a given. The plans for the AWACS & further P-8s are known. As the fighter fleet grows (55 squadron objective), the need for force multipliers will also grow proportionately.
Indeed and this would be standard operating procedure in many situations. But that is not an argument in favour of a boomViv S wrote: In fact, using the same <weight ∝ induced drag ∝ operating cost> logic one can say that since a KC-46 at 50% fuel weighs 130,630 kg, losing 500 kg would improve the fuel burn by 0.38%. That's about $40 per hour, (generously) assuming $10,000/hr in fuel expenses.
But that hose simply takes away the fast refuelling advantage of the boom. The basket waves about in turbulence and the advantage of boom in turbulent air is nullified. That aside when 95 plus % of aircraft have probes and cannot use boom refuelling there is no use having one.Viv S wrote:You don't put a basket on the probe, it goes on the end of the hose. The hose is separate and the boom is separate (ref: illustrations). Aircraft equipped with receptacles use the boom, the rest use the drogues with their probes.shiv wrote:Most small aircraft are unable to take the high rate of flow offered by the boom system - one more useless redundant feature waiting for those 20 odd aircraft for their 1 in 100 flight need to refuel midair. And if the boom is used with a basket to attach to a probe - the imagined advantage of fast refuelling, use in turbulent conditions and refuelling huge aircraft vanishes.
In addition to the P-8, the C-17s & C-130Js have boom receptacles (albeit, in addition to a probe in the latter case). The F-16s contending for an IAF contract, do as well. If exercised, the same options open up for the A-330 AWACS and indeed even the AURA & AMCA.shiv wrote:By this logic air refuelling is unnecessary. But given the difference in (unrefuelled) radius of action of Tejas - say 350-500 km and Su-30 (1500 km) the Tejas would require more refuelling than the Su-30 in a mixed aircraft sortie.
Yes - but other than P-8s which belong to the navy ALL other aircraft that allow refuelling have probes and none have boom receptacles. I do not foresee boom receptacle being installed as a standard in any IAF aircraft for the next 40 years and in any case fighters do not allow the rate of fuel transfer that a boom offers.
You don't use the hose & the boom at the same time. When you're refueling a P-8I you use the boom, when you're got a Rafale lined up, you keep the boom retracted and extend the hose.But that hose simply takes away the fast refuelling advantage of the boom. The basket waves about in turbulence and the advantage of boom in turbulent air is nullified. That aside when 95 plus % of aircraft have probes and cannot use boom refuelling there is no use having one.
Wrong thread Austin..?Austin wrote:Python-6 AAM ?
Hmm no , Something IAF can look at as it operates Python-4/5 , This seems to be a bigger missile compared to P-4/5 but also has mutimode guidace AESA/IIR , Likely it will have anti-BVR missile capabilityJayS wrote:Wrong thread Austin..?Austin wrote:Python-6 AAM ?
Yes very likely , David sling on which python 6 is based has been very successful in dealing with mrls and other type targets , should be good in anti bar and anti-Bm roleSingha wrote:i wonder if they are aiming to take a shot at Tochka or "Frog" type SRBMs that hezbollah might used in a conflict... the F16s could roam around and attempt to interdict in boost phase itself, then leave it to arrow and iron dome for high alt and terminal phase.
Only on the Spyder ground based system. No A2A application. It was trialed on Tejas but will not move forward. Almost every vendor is developing and evolving something that can be covered in Intl Thread.Austin wrote:Hmm no , Something IAF can look at as it operates Python-4/5 , This seems to be a bigger missile compared to P-4/5 but also has mutimode guidace AESA/IIR , Likely it will have anti-BVR missile capabilityJayS wrote:Wrong thread Austin..?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1238&p=2248047#p2248047Austin wrote:Yes very likely , David sling on which python 6 is based has been very successful in dealing with mrls and other type targets , should be good in anti bar and anti-Bm roleSingha wrote:i wonder if they are aiming to take a shot at Tochka or "Frog" type SRBMs that hezbollah might used in a conflict... the F16s could roam around and attempt to interdict in boost phase itself, then leave it to arrow and iron dome for high alt and terminal phase.
India won't change over to a flying boom for its fighter fleet, since none of its existing types can be refueled by a boom and receptacle method. However, there are types in the IAF and IN inventory that cannot be refueled by a probe and drogue method. Which means, if you want to extend their range, you'll need a tanker with the capability of using a boom. That is why there is a very high possibility that this tanker contest will make a boom one of the mandatory requirements. Will also serve the IAF's purpose in further pushing the Il-78M from any chance of participating in the contest and winning on cost grounds.shiv wrote:Probe and drogue and flying boom are different systems. Boom is rigid and gives high flow rates - but only 1 a/c can be refuelled at at a time. Probe and drogue is a hose, lower flow rate, can feed multiple aircraft and can be adapted for buddy-buddy refuelling. I don't see India changing over to flying boom anytime soon.
No, what he means is that tankers like the A-330MRTT and KC-46A can use wing-mounted hoses with drogues, for probe equipped airplanes, while also retaining the big boom for those airplanes that have a receptacle. IAF C-130Js can use both their probes or the receptacles in order to be refueled. the F-16 Block 70 was to be offered with the CARTS system for allowing probe and drogue refueling, while also retaining the regular F-16 style receptacle for boom based refueling. CARTS was demonstrated to the IAF as part of the MRCA contest itself.shiv wrote:You mean a hose/basket will get attached to the end of a boom for the C-130. I'll believe that if and when I see a flying boom tanker in the IAF so I think it is simply speculation.Viv S wrote:
So an IAF tanker will be capable of refueling a C-17 or P-8 with its boom and a Su-30/Tejas/Rafale through its hose. The C-130 & conceived SEF might be able to use either.
IAF C-130s have a probe and do not need a separate receptacle for boom unless weight and space have been wasted by having a receptacle too.
Refuelling Navy P-8s over the sea is not something the I foresee the IAF planning for, and given the fact that the P-8 has a patrol time of 8-10 hours - grabbing an IAF tanker for refuelling seems an unlikely event to me. However our latest friends Amreeka could refuel them over the sea I guess, if the need arises.
So are you basically saying that the IAF will ASK for a refueler that doesn't carry a boom and will need to be specifically modified for that purpose? And specifically lose the flexibility of being able to refuel 2 types, the C-17 and the P-8I based on the logic that they may not generally need refueling?shiv wrote:Having it and not needing it would be a ludicrous waste like a man buying tampons for himself.That probe on the C-130J would be as much a waste as a 100% useless boom waiting for a call from the Indian navy for refuelling a P8IViv S wrote: Better to have it and not need it rather than to need it and not have it. It doesn't stop the aircraft from regular hose-and-drogue refueling.
The IAF will need refuelling for Tejas aircraft that will come in numbers. Lugging around a useless boom and operator is a choice that I am wiling to bet the IAF will not make. Here is something that we will know in a few years - I am willing to wait and see. It is highly unlikely that the IAF will go and select a tanker aircraft with 33% of its refuelling potential wasted on 2% of its aircraft inventory - or worse, doing it as a "sacrifice" for the navy.
The sort of tanker you are talking about is great for NATO. Not for the IAF
I am "basically" saying nothing more than indicated by the data available to both you and me.Kartik wrote: So are you basically saying that the IAF will ASK for a refueler that doesn't carry a boom and will need to be specifically modified for that purpose? And specifically lose the flexibility of being able to refuel 2 types, the C-17 and the P-8I based on the logic that they may not generally need refueling?
I think that reading the RFI, if its ever released to the public will clear that out- the IAF will very likely, IMO, go with the boom if its part of the refueling setup as of now. Makes no sense to spend or ask for a specific useful capability to be deleted.
,,er This is the helicopters thread but since you have made the allegation..Indranil wrote:Is the HS748 are the worst utilized resource in our services? With so much airframe life left in them, wonder if HAL should have re-engined them and coverted them into more useful roles than "communication and logistics". Things that come to mind:
Thank you - hadn't seen that update.Zynda wrote:GoI wants C295 to be part of MII. I think Tata was chosen to be the preferred partner for assembly but Airbus (& Tata) are insisting that 56 would be not economical...they want GoI to push up the orders to at least around 100 or so...I guess the deal is stuck in limbo.
HS-748 in LehSingha wrote:Can the hs748 do hot and high ops to border areas?
Even then perhaps its ceiling is half that of a business jet which we use for elint role
An32 has much more powerful engine
Its a plane which could perhaps have obviated the do228 if developed properly with new engines
It is understandable that the Herk aircrew were overwhelmed by the majesty of Ladakh mountains and by the approach and landing patterns of the IAF aircraft. Every Indian pilot, civil or military goes thru the same feelings. But it is not such an extraordinary procedure with 270 degree turns onto final approach, and 90 degree turns to ‘dodge peaks and abutments’. It is pertinent to state here that the procedures made by the pioneers of our transport fleet way back in the late 40s and early 50s are still followed in 2002. What was good enough and safe for a Packet in 1956, is good enough for the Il-76 in 2002. The IL 76 sticks to the same heights for entry into the Leh valley from the south as it has been for the AN-12 since 1961. The heights for downwind for Packets, Daks, AN-32s, AN-12s, HS-748s, Boeing 737s and fighter aircraft, is exactly the same for an approach and landing on RW 07. Surely it cannot be as dangerous and difficult as made out to be by the Herk pilots.
No it wasn't the airframe's issue. It was the fault of the brackets that held the radome in place. Those failed and the antenna hit the tailplane, causing the crash.Philip wrote:Don't forget thtat the Avro was the ill-fated AEW platform that took not just the crew but the cream of the team working on the desi AEW aircraft.The airframe was supposedly found to be too weak for the radome in the investigation.
The most astonishing feat of service life endurance will likely be by the KC-135 tankers in USAF service. Based on the Boeing 707 platform, there was a recent report that stated they could be kept in service till the reach the age of 100 years !!Indranil wrote:Answered that question a few posts above. They had an average of 80,000 hours of airframe life left in them. They are currently flying 350 hours a year.The age of the airfame is not the problem here. How long have the B-52s been flying? They are supposed to fly till 2040! Making IAF agree was a problem earlier because HAL was trying to kill the Avro replacement program with this proposal. But, this is not how it should have placed it IMHO. It is a proposal to use the aircraft to its full potential. It is a good aircraft with a good record.
The Air Force projected that E and R models have lifetime flying hour limits of 36,000 and 39,000 hours, respectively. According to the Air Force, only a few KC-135s would reach these limits by 2040, when some aircraft would be about 80 years old. The Air Force estimated that their current fleet of KC-135s have between 12,000 and 14,000 flying hours on them-only 33 percent of the lifetime flying hour limit.[13]
Between 1993 and 2003, the amount of KC-135 depot maintenance work doubled, and the overhaul cost per aircraft tripled.[28] In 1996, it cost $8,400 per flight hour for the KC-135, and in 2002 this had grown to $11,000. The Air Force’s 15-year estimates project further significant cost growth through fiscal year 2017. KC-135 fleet operations and support costs are estimated to grow from about $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2003 to $5.1 billion (2003 dollars) in fiscal year 2017, an increase of over 130 percent, which represents an annual growth rate of about 6.2 percent.[29]
In 2006, the KC-135E fleet was flying an annual average of 350 hours per aircraft and the KC-135R fleet was flying an annual average of 710 hours per aircraft. The KC-135 fleet is currently flying double its planned yearly flying hour program to meet airborne refueling requirements, and has resulted in higher than forecast usage and sustainment costs.[30] In March 2009, the Air Force indicated that KC-135s would require additional skin replacement to allow their continued use beyond 2018.[31]