China air force refuels warplanes in the sky

[Zarvan]

(Photo source:81.cn)

(Photo source:81.cn)

(Photo source:81.cn)

(Photo source:81.cn)

(Photo source:81.cn)

(Photo source:81.cn)

(Photo source:81.cn)

(Photo source:81.cn)


China air force refuels warplanes in the sky - Global Times

 

[Skull and Bones]

J-10 looks gorgeous on the first pic.

 

[JH@45]

Its look awesome..

 

[Manindra]

that's for demonstration purpose only. It's not practical.
Do you why there's no image of air tanker?

In first picture wing of tanker is shown.
These images taken from refueling tanker aircraft so obiviously image would not shown.


And I am not able to understand your unpractical comment , these are refueling are done by regularly by all airforces & effective for long range mission.
Even buddy refueling done by Flankers & Fulcrums
IAF Mirage 2000 getting refueled from IAF Su-30 MKI

Russian two-seater carrier-borne MiG-29KUB buddy-refueling an Indian MiG-29UPG

 

[BoQ77]

demonstration purpose again.
tell me how practical all of above refuel ?

photo taken from the third aircraft

 

[Manindra]

demonstration purpose again.
tell me how practical all of above refuel ?

It increase combat radius more than twice if it would refueled mid air.
Like Su-30 which vietnam have range of 3,000 km but with mid air refueling it can be 10,000 km
We have Awacs which can patrol more than twice, thanks to air refueling.

Note Air refueling probe attached to it.

Every combat Aircraft IAF operate (except MIG 21) have IFR probe & every combat pilot need to qualify for mid air refueling.

 

[BoQ77]

The thread about J-10 so I will share my view on J-10, I didn't say that air refueling in overall is bad.

1. J-10 is land based, short range fighter, combat radius : 500km
2. The only suitable tanker is H-6U, total quantity in PLAAF: 20
It's still ok if H-6U is bigger but unluckily, it has very limited volume of tanker. which actually is external tanker pod.

This tanker has very old engines and consumes too much oil only for itself. In the ideal situation
the H-6U fly 1 hour to frontline to refuel for 2x J-10 as maximum, and takes another hour to return home before itself run out of fuel.
It's very different from a KC-10, KC-135 which is more practical.

It increase combat radius more than twice if it would refueled mid air.
Like Su-30 which vietnam have range of 3,000 km but with mid air refueling it can be 10,000 km
We have Awacs which can patrol more than twice, thanks to air refueling.

Note Air refueling probe attached to it.

Every combat Aircraft IAF operate (except MIG 21) have IFR probe & every combat pilot need to qualify for mid air refueling.

 

[rcrmj]

can mod get rid-off this disgusting viet away from any Chinese threads```endless nonessential and brainless questions?

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

not retractable?

 

[Manindra]

The thread about J-10 so I will share my view on J-10, I didn't say that air refueling in overall is bad.

1. J-10 is land based, short range fighter, combat radius : 500km
2. The only suitable tanker is H-6U, total quantity in PLAAF: 20
It's still ok if H-6U is bigger but unluckily, it has very limited volume of tanker. which actually is external tanker pod.
This tanker has very old engines and consumes too much oil only for itself. In the ideal situation
the H-6U fly 1 hour to frontline to refuel for 2x J-10 as maximum, and takes another hour to return home before itself run out of fuel.
It's very different from a KC-10, KC-135 which is more practical.

Then they should get rid of their old tanker & either develop new tanker or buy IL 78.
Tanker fault does not make Air to Air unpractical.

 

[BoQ77]

Then they should get rid of their old tanker & either develop new tanker or buy IL 78.
Tanker fault does not make Air to Air unpractical.

By now, they can't get rid of that old. If they do so, there wont' be any mid-air refueling photo.
That's why it takes long time for them to practically do it, but demonstration purpose only now.

 

[Deino]

@BoQ77 !

Honestly, take this as an advice and even more change Your behaviour here !

Most of Your posts are either simply strange since the answer to Your question is most often already known or with a little consideration it can easily be answered, or Your post are provocative and often share a much too simple-minded black & white view. If one item has this it can this and if it lacks that it can't. The basic understanding that we are here not playing quartet and even more that the modern aerial warfare is far more complex than to compare range, thrust, weapons load etc. seems to be fully beyond Your understanding !!??

Otherwise You are simply trolling around !

Just take a look at Your claims posted here: Why should this IRF be only for demonstration ? Why is an old tanker simply useless and even more makes any air to air combat even less useful ? No-one denies that the HU-6 is limited and not comparable to any other modern tanker, but at least it is a tanker that can fully refuel a J-10 ...

Following that logic all Air Forces without any IFR-capability - including Vietnam's AF - are simply useless ?

Even more Your sources on range, weapons, avionics seem to be only based on Wikipedia ...

Again please take this advice ...
All the best,
Deino

 

[BoQ77]

Actually, I expect to see your new tools. PLAAF is big and need big tanker fleet.
For example, IL-78 Midas in action.

I agree, Have old ones still better than have NONE. I never denied that. never said that's useless, but less practical.

Do you agree that in someone view, it's less practical than a real air tanker should be?

 

[GS Zhou]

Actually, I expect to see your new tools. PLAAF is big and need big tanker fleet.
For example, IL-78 Midas in action.

I agree, Have old ones still better than have NONE. I never denied that. never said that's useless, but less practical.

Do you agree that in someone view, it's less practical than a real air tanker should be?

I started to doubt what is your intention to stay at a Chinese defense forum? You just did one thing here: claim every thing China owns as useless, or inferior, but with no logic or convincing hard facts to support!

Just like this post, why you think HU6 is useless? It has room for future development, that is true. But we could hardly link this to "useless", it at least is a domestically-made tanker that could fuel J10. If this is useless, then tell me, how should we describe the Vietnam Airforce that has NO tankers at all? or how should we describe a country that completely dependent on imports for modern warfare??

 

[BoQ77]

I started to doubt what is your intention to stay at a Chinese defense forum? You just did one thing here: claim every thing China owns as useless, or inferior, but with no logic or convincing hard facts to support!

Just like this post, why you think HU6 is useless? It has room for future development, that is true. But we could hardly link this to "useless", it at least is a domestically-made tanker that could fuel J10. If this is useless, then tell me, how should we describe the Vietnam Airforce that has NO tankers at all? or how should we describe a country that completely dependent on imports for modern warfare??

I must correct you "I didn't think it is useless", all from you guys Chinese members call it by that