JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Maxpane]

View attachment 621671

thats a true beauty

 

[mshan44]

 

[Hassan Guy]

View attachment 622184

The Air force has gotta start looking at some low cost aerial refuelers, did we build a fighter jet to carry fuel tanks or weapons? The JF-17 is already far from having a heavy MTOW.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

The Air force has gotta start looking at some low cost aerial refuelers, did we build a fighter jet to carry fuel tanks or weapons? The JF-17 is already far from having a heavy MTOW.

The options are limited, but the PAF could exercise a little creative thinking. So, one option I'd toy with is buying a bunch of parked ex-airliner A330s for cheap. Next, go to Ukraine and figure out a way to turn those into hose-and-drogue refuelers using the UPAZ pod. It'll take some work for re-routing the A330s' plumbing and lots of testing/re-testing for sure, but could end up being much cheaper than off-the-shelf MRTTs.

Otherwise, the PAF can also speak to Embraer for the C390; each one is $200 m all in with a 12 year support package. So $16.7 million per year per plane isn't bad, and it'll drop further once acquisition costs are dealt.

The cool thing about the C390 is that it uses the same engine as the A320, so it's fuel-efficient and relatively low-cost to maintain. By acquiring 6~8 of those, you have tankers and transports to support the C-130s.

Either way, the benefit of using an airliner for refueling is that you get much better fuel use efficiency than the IL-78, so it'll support more fighters per sortie.

 

[Safriz]

The options are limited, but the PAF could exercise a little creative thinking. So, one option I'd toy with is buying a bunch of parked ex-airliner A330s for cheap. Next, go to Ukraine and figure out a way to turn those into hose-and-drogue refuelers using the UPAZ pod. It'll take some work for re-routing the A330s' plumbing and lots of testing/re-testing for sure, but could end up being much cheaper than off-the-shelf MRTTs.

Otherwise, the PAF can also speak to Embraer for the C390; each one is $200 m all in with a 12 year support package. So $16.7 million per year per plane isn't bad, and it'll drop further once acquisition costs are dealt.

The cool thing about the C390 is that it uses the same engine as the A320, so it's fuel-efficient and relatively low-cost to maintain. By acquiring 6~8 of those, you have tankers and transports to support the C-130s.

Either way, the benefit of using an airliner for refueling is that you get much better fuel use efficiency than the IL-78, so it'll support more fighters per sortie.

I seen something like that in 2012 Farnborough air show. An old airlines converted into air refueling tanker.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I seen something like that in 2012 Farnborough air show. An old airlines converted into air refueling tanker.

Airbus did it for a time with the A310 MRTT. But if we buy old A330s and take them to Ukraine (who is selling us the UPAZ pods for the IL-78), it'll take some serious -- and un-approved -- modification work.

 

[Shah_Deu]

The options are limited, but the PAF could exercise a little creative thinking. So, one option I'd toy with is buying a bunch of parked ex-airliner A330s for cheap. Next, go to Ukraine and figure out a way to turn those into hose-and-drogue refuelers using the UPAZ pod. It'll take some work for re-routing the A330s' plumbing and lots of testing/re-testing for sure, but could end up being much cheaper than off-the-shelf MRTTs.

Otherwise, the PAF can also speak to Embraer for the C390; each one is $200 m all in with a 12 year support package. So $16.7 million per year per plane isn't bad, and it'll drop further once acquisition costs are dealt.

The cool thing about the C390 is that it uses the same engine as the A320, so it's fuel-efficient and relatively low-cost to maintain. By acquiring 6~8 of those, you have tankers and transports to support the C-130s.

Either way, the benefit of using an airliner for refueling is that you get much better fuel use efficiency than the IL-78, so it'll support more fighters per sortie.

Me just being curious, since our Mirage Vs are meant to be deep strike fighters with less electronics and more space for fuel, cant we modify a couple of mirage Vs with 3 large drop tanks to serve as buddy aerial refuellers or even the JF-17Bs with little modification to act as buddy air refullers just as the rafales and FA-18s are utilized in the refuelling capacity? A supplimentary air refuelling solution wont get any cheaper than this, or am i missing something here? Cheaper and clever innovations as such will free up our precious money to be spent elsewhere and reduce the work load from our main dedicated refuellers!

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) @airomerix @Windjammer

 

[Safriz]

Likewise BE-200 from Ukraine can be very good gunships like that C-130 with cannon mounted on the side.
Even better because of its top mounted engines.
Brand new aircraft costs 70 million.

 

[The Raven]

We were talking with Airbus back in the early/mid-2000s for converting A310s into MRTTs but the deal fell through for a number of reasons, including costs. I remember talking to an Airbus guy at the 2006 Farnborough airshow about it, the plan was to integrate refuelling boom (for our Vipers) as well as Cobham hose pods.

The C390 is an extremely attractive asset, very flexible, cost effective, easy to maintain, and no political baggage.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

We were talking with Airbus back in the early/mid-2000s for converting A310s into MRTTs but the deal fell through for a number of reasons, including costs. I remember talking to an Airbus guy at the 2006 Farnborough airshow about it, the plan was to integrate refuelling boom (for our Vipers) as well as Cobham hose pods.

The C390 is an extremely attractive asset, very flexible, cost effective, easy to maintain, and no political baggage.

The Airbus story was an issue of bad timing, basically.

The A310 MRTT was the ideal package, well within our costs and needs. However, once it cleared the A330 MRTT for use, it nixed the A310 MRTT as an option. Obviously, the A330 MRTT was too costly (at $250-300 m per plane), and unfortunately, there literally is no other option for a boom-type tanker (giving Airbus DS leverage).

But I agree, if the goal is to just support the JF-17 and Mirages (hose-and-drogue), then the C390 looks like a good package. It might not be as versatile a transport as the Hercules, but I think it could share in the C-130s' transport duties in most parts of Pakistan. Moreover, it can take up the tanker role pretty well.

Seriously, $200 m an aircraft with a 12-year support package isn't bad.

 

[Lone Ranger]

The Airbus story was an issue of bad timing, basically.

The A310 MRTT was the ideal package, well within our costs and needs. However, once it cleared the A330 MRTT for use, it nixed the A310 MRTT as an option. Obviously, the A330 MRTT was too costly (at $250-300 m per plane), and unfortunately, there literally is no other option for a boom-type tanker (giving Airbus DS leverage).

But I agree, if the goal is to just support the JF-17 and Mirages (hose-and-drogue), then the C390 looks like a good package. It might not be as versatile a transport as the Hercules, but I think it could share in the C-130s' transport duties in most parts of Pakistan. Moreover, it can take up the tanker role pretty well.

Seriously, $200 m an aircraft with a 12-year support package isn't bad.

IMHO Pakistan should join an-178 program with TOT and customize it according to our needs

 

[Philip the Arab]

IMHO Pakistan should join an-178 program with TOT and customize it according to our needs

Ukrainian aircraft projects are known for failing spontaneously.

 

[HRK]

The Airbus story was an issue of bad timing, basically.

The A310 MRTT was the ideal package, well within our costs and needs. However, once it cleared the A330 MRTT for use, it nixed the A310 MRTT as an option. Obviously, the A330 MRTT was too costly (at $250-300 m per plane), and unfortunately, there literally is no other option for a boom-type tanker (giving Airbus DS leverage).

But I agree, if the goal is to just support the JF-17 and Mirages (hose-and-drogue), then the C390 looks like a good package. It might not be as versatile a transport as the Hercules, but I think it could share in the C-130s' transport duties in most parts of Pakistan. Moreover, it can take up the tanker role pretty well.

Seriously, $200 m an aircraft with a 12-year support package isn't bad.

Would it be possible if we go for some second hand A-310 and get it convert with third party .... ??

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Would it be possible if we go for some second hand A-310 and get it convert with third party .... ??

Maybe, but at this point the A330 is more common and better supported commercially.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Airbus did it for a time with the A310 MRTT. But if we buy old A330s and take them to Ukraine (who is selling us the UPAZ pods for the IL-78), it'll take some serious -- and un-approved -- modification work.

Unapproved? Does Airbus exercise that kind of control over the civilian jetliners it sells to other countries?

I would think that it should be like what Pak did with ATR 72...as in once the jet is purchased...the buyer can do whatever they please. That's just my assumption bcuz I've never read anywhere any news related to Airbus exercising stringent controls on their civilian jets.