Air Refuelling / Air Tankers

[MastanKhan]

I was visiting our sister web site 'pakdef org' and the discussion about air refuelling was on and I realized that most of our young people have no clue why it is so important, so I decided to write a couple of lines on this board. Others can pitch in.

An average fighter aircraft in the paf inventory burns about 30% to 40% of its fuel just on take off alone and the rest of the fuel is used to fly around. The mig 21 / F 7 is notorious for its short flight time-----for the reason that it has a gas guzzler engine, which burns a horrendous amount of fuel upon take off and once when it is in air, it still guzzles gas as if fuel was going out of style. For that reason, the loiter time for the mig 21 is nothing to write home about. Remember the 1973 Ramazan war between egypt and israel----none of the egyptian mig 21's could fly into israel. They barely could fly around for 1/2 hour in the air.

What an air refueller can do is that as a fighter or a bomber takes off, they get hooked up and fill up the tanks. It is easier on the plane to take off with less fuel with a comparatively lesser load. As much I have read, in the U S navy, the moment the aircraft takes off from a carrier, it gets hooked up with a refueller for a fill up rightaway.

Even though pakistan's own territory is not that wide, a fully fuelled fighter interceptor would be of more use, because it could stay in the air for a lot longer time than the adversary which would be flying in hot.

An air refueller is a force multiplier where lesser number of planes and pilots can do the the job.

 

[sigatoka]

I was visiting our sister web site 'pakdef org' and the discussion about air refuelling was on and I realized that most of our young people have no clue why it is so important, so I decided to write a couple of lines on this board. Others can pitch in.

An average fighter aircraft in the paf inventory burns about 30% to 40% of its fuel just on take off alone and the rest of the fuel is used to fly around. The mig 21 / F 7 is notorious for its short flight time-----for the reason that it has a gas guzzler engine, which burns a horrendous amount of fuel upon take off and once when it is in air, it still guzzles gas as if fuel was going out of style. For that reason, the loiter time for the mig 21 is nothing to write home about. Remember the 1973 Ramazan war between egypt and israel----none of the egyptian mig 21's could fly into israel. They barely could fly around for 1/2 hour in the air.

What an air refueller can do is that as a fighter or a bomber takes off, they get hooked up and fill up the tanks. It is easier on the plane to take off with less fuel with a comparatively lesser load. As much I have read, in the U S navy, the moment the aircraft takes off from a carrier, it gets hooked up with a refueller for a fill up rightaway.

Even though pakistan's own territory is not that wide, a fully fuelled fighter interceptor would be of more use, because it could stay in the air for a lot longer time than the adversary which would be flying in hot.

An air refueller is a force multiplier where lesser number of planes and pilots can do the the job.

The problem is that such refueling planes present a juicy target for Indian bombers to destroy on the ground. Purchasing expensive easily destroyed refuellers for pathetic mig-21's that should be scrapped anyway doesnt seem like a progressive strategy.

Secondly Pak. airforce's strategy is to deny Pak. air superiority to India, why exactly does Pak. planes need the ability to strike deep in Indian soil when it is struggling to fulfil its basic mission?

Purchasing these refuelers might in fact encourage PAF to start thinking of using the few valuable fighters to strike deep within India which will leave Pak. airspace very vulenerable. The 1971 preemptive airstrikes by Pak. have proven that the lessons of 1964 of Israel in destroying airforce on the ground is bunk. India's airforce is well dispersed and its best planes are placed in reinforced structures and well guared with SAM's and AA guns.

Purchasing refuelers might encourage the PAF along this foolish strategy when it already lacks the budget to defend Pak. airspace.

 

[Munir]

I do not agree with you. Tankers can not only provide longer range, more ordnance (your getting airborne or runway gets shorter) but also add quality time for CAP and can help an aircraft low on fuel but has to find alternative base...

If yuor bases are toasted then you better have more fuel in the air otherwise those planes can sit and sleep on the burning tarmac.

Like any other asset it is a potential target. But if that is a reason not to get more flexibility ot offensive power then why buying any arms?

 

[MastanKhan]

Sigatoka,

Mig 21 is not the only plane that uses a lots of fuel on take off. All planes do that. That was just an example.

Deep strike missions are carried out with just 2 or 3 planes and not the whole fleet----I think that the PAF can afford to do to send a couple of them inside enemy territory at a time.

In the 1973 ramazan war, if egyptian airstrikers could have gotten into israel, there would have been a different face to the combat. Interestingly, none of the nations fighting israel had the capability of striking the heartland with their air assets.

 

[blain2]

I was visiting our sister web site 'pakdef org' and the discussion about air refuelling was on and I realized that most of our young people have no clue why it is so important, so I decided to write a couple of lines on this board. Others can pitch in.

An average fighter aircraft in the paf inventory burns about 30% to 40% of its fuel just on take off alone and the rest of the fuel is used to fly around. The mig 21 / F 7 is notorious for its short flight time-----for the reason that it has a gas guzzler engine, which burns a horrendous amount of fuel upon take off and once when it is in air, it still guzzles gas as if fuel was going out of style. For that reason, the loiter time for the mig 21 is nothing to write home about. Remember the 1973 Ramazan war between egypt and israel----none of the egyptian mig 21's could fly into israel. They barely could fly around for 1/2 hour in the air.

What an air refueller can do is that as a fighter or a bomber takes off, they get hooked up and fill up the tanks. It is easier on the plane to take off with less fuel with a comparatively lesser load. As much I have read, in the U S navy, the moment the aircraft takes off from a carrier, it gets hooked up with a refueller for a fill up rightaway.

Even though pakistan's own territory is not that wide, a fully fuelled fighter interceptor would be of more use, because it could stay in the air for a lot longer time than the adversary which would be flying in hot.

An air refueller is a force multiplier where lesser number of planes and pilots can do the the job.

Mastan,

Most people on Pakdef who are in the know and have been around are fully aware of the balancing act that PAF has to do with max. take off weight and the fuel and the need for the IFR. PAF already has plans to induct this capability (difficulty is to standardize the IFR system and methodology after getting approval from suppliers as this is considered a strategic capability).

For PAF, IFR is a force multiplier in the face of a numercally superior IAF. Persistance in the air (prolonged loiter times) is what IFR gets you. So for PAF, deep strike is not the primary issue. 36 of the new F-16s to be acquired will have CFTs which provide them with ample fuel to perform deep strike missions inside of India should the need arise. So aggressive posture against India is not the primary reason for PAF to acquire IFR capability. It is primarily a defensive need.

 

[MastanKhan]

Blain,

You are correct about the non-offensive posture and deep strike is not the primary goal but it still it is. It brings in an un-predictability in our offensive capability that our enemy does not want to face. What holds the enemy back is not the enemies ability but what surprise we have in stock for his advancing columns.

Blain, where have we met before!

 

[blain2]

Sir I have been frequenting (awara gardi :smile these places of ill-repute like PDF, PFF, and Pakdef for sometime (mods, I am just joking). I am sure we must have exchanged ideas on one of the above.

Regards

 

[Zeeshan S.]

There is a news i believe that Air Marshal is trying to upgrade Mirage to have air refuelling capablity and PAF is in talk with Ukraine regarding the air refullers. I will later post the options that PAF will have in this regard.

 

[Kaiser]

The PAF is currently gonna go for the Ukrainian IL-76 air to air refueler, but only after it gets a decent number of modern fighters in its inventory that have the capability to refuel.

This has been confirmed by the air chief on janes and dawn

 

[EagleEyes]

I have always liked IL-76! Its much cheaper than C-130, but there could be a problem with spare parts. Do you know if Ukraine has ability to manufacture these aircrafts and its spare parts? Just need some conformation.

 

[Neo]

I have always liked IL-76! Its much cheaper than C-130, but there could be a problem with spare parts. Do you know if Ukraine has ability to manufacture these aircrafts and its spare parts? Just need some conformation.

Isn't China able to build spareparts?
IL-76 is deployed with PLAAF in great numbers, they must have secured supply lines before selecting this platform for their tanker and Awacs programme.

 

[waz]

I have always liked IL-76! Its much cheaper than C-130, but there could be a problem with spare parts. Do you know if Ukraine has ability to manufacture these aircrafts and its spare parts? Just need some conformation.

The main supplier of spare parts for the IL-76 is the Tashkent Aircraft Production Corporation in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. Spare parts should not be a problem seeing as the Ukraine has invested money and time into the company in order to keep it’s fleet up and running.

Here is a video of the aircraft



http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircr..._Ukraine_-_Air_Force_Aviation_Video-1383.html


But guys just a thought is anyone else worried about its safety record? It has been involved in a great deal of accidents of late and I am worried about the implication for the PAF with it providing such a pivotal role [Air to air refuelling]. But then again the Indians and Chinese are using this craft to mount their AWACS……

 

[sulaimandaud]

Is there any link that PAf is aquireing these refullers

 

[Keysersoze]

Is there any link that PAf is aquireing these refullers

The was an interview with the ACM a few months back. If you search the threads you will find it. He stated that the IL-76 was being purchased.

 

[su-47]

so how many are goona be purchased, and when will delivery start?