PAF Air Refueling Capability

[Signalian]

@Quwa

can you tell Maximum range of IRST please?

Range limiting factors?

 

[khanasifm]

I think (read somewhere) Chinese probe and pod on h6k and j10 are copies of British or Israeli system and may be nato compliant h6 is not compatible to refuel SU or Russian origin or j16 series a/c

AAR from Europe may be available but I think $$$$ is needed besides other factors

For PAF it's not high priority buy to have capability on a platform available for future export sales it is a high priority

 

[DesiWarrior]

@Quwa

can you tell Maximum range of IRST please?

Range limiting factors?

I think it's kind of hard to find reliable data about ranges of different systems especially in the absence of a uniform target to test against. I have found this range data on Defense Issues which is a good reference to work with.

PIRATE

PIRATE is used by Eurofighter Typhoon, and it entered service in 2007. Its lead contractor is Selex ES. Selex holds the bulk of Western experience in IRST systems, and is also a sole supplier of the Skyward G IRST. Thales, another member of the Eurofirst consortium, also has extensive experience in the area.

PIRATE is a dual-band system (3-5 and 8-10 microns), combining long range detection capability of the longwave IRST with high resolution and all-weather performance of midwave one. It can track more than 200 targets, and has 140* field of regard in azimuth, with -15* depression angle. Sensor head weights 48 kg, with 60 kg (?) total weight.

Detection range against a subsonic fighter-sized target is 90 km from the front and 145 km from the rear. It has an ID range of 40 km, and can track a maximum of 200 targets. It is stated to be capable of passive ranging. Its ability to provide infrared image (which can be shown on cockpit displays and HMD) can, aside for ID purposes, also be used to help with flight operation in low visibility conditions.

(Note that range figures for Western IRSTs are most likely measured/estimated against Su-27, a massive aircraft with no IR signature reduction measures.)

Skyward G

Skyward G is a new IRST intended for use in Gripen E/F, and represents a technological improvement (in both hardware and software) over older PIRATE IRST it is based on. It is a staring imaging IRST. It is also smaller, with sensor head weighting 30 kg. Like PIRATE, it is a dual-band system covering midwave and longwave infrared bands, and can provide IR image on pilot’s helmet. Scan coverage is 160* in azimuth and 60* in elevation.

Skyward is stated to be capable of detecting all aircraft flying faster than 300-400 kts from skin friction alone – irrespective of any exhaust plume or engine IR signature reduction measures. Range for such detection is unstated.

OSF

OSF is an optical sensors suite used by Dassault Rafale. It consists of an IRST sensor and a video camera. Like PIRATE, its IR sensor is dual-band, using 3-5 and 8-12 micron bands.

Detection range against a subsonic fighter-sized target is 80 km from the front and 130 km from the rear (at 20.000 ft; 110 km at low altitude). Optical camera has ID range of 45 km, while IRST has an ID range of 40 (?) km. It was reported to have locked on a turboprop Transall through thin cloud cover.

EOTS

EOTS is a staring IR sensor. Unlike above IRST systems, it is primarily intended for ground attack, as a replacement for various IR targeting pods. As a result, it is a single-channel midwave IR system, limiting its detection performance against nonafterburning targets and in air-to-air role but providing all-weather performance. It weights 200 lbs / 90.7 kg.

It is also obsolete when compared to modern IR pods used by US Navy (in particular, newest versions of Sniper and Litening pods), being more than a decade old as of 2015. In fact, it is basically an internal version of Sniper XR pod which entered service in 2006, and has low resolution and detection range when compared to the Legion pod. From Sniper XR demo, it appears that identification range is 24 kilometers against fighter aircraft, though the aircraft in question was on the ground, and 45 kilometers against an airborne business jet, showing ID performance at most comparable to PIRATE. This suggests lower maximum detection range as PIRATE likely uses midwave channel for identification, but also has longer-ranged longwave channel. That being said, actual detection range performance may be better than suggested here. Its configuration also allows it quicker scan speeds than with traditional IRSTs.

OLS-27

OLS-27 is used on Su-27 fighter, and has a maximum range of 70 km.

OLS-30

OLS-30 is used on Su-30 fighters. Maximum detection range might be as high as 90 km, and weights 200 kg.

Range Limiting Factors

Due to relatively shorter wavelength, infrared search and track systems are more sensitive than radar to adverse weather conditions. While IRSTs can detect even relatively cool targets through thin cloud cover, detection range is reduced (more than it is in case of radar), and thicker clouds can significantly degrade detection range. As a result, IRST is most useful for air superiority fighters, which typically operate at 30.000 ft and above – well above normal cloud cover and in relatively thin atmosphere. Only clouds typically present at altitudes above 8 km (~26.000 ft) are those of cirrus variety, which are IR transparent. While dense cumulonimbus clouds can reach extreme heights (60.000-75.000 ft), it is very rare; vast majority does not reach above 20.000 ft. They are also very hazardous to aircraft (especially those of stealth variety), with frequent lightning discharges and large hailstones ranging from 0.5 to 5 cm in diameter, which can damage aircraft’s skin. (Source is again Defense Issues)

Throwing out a theory and thought-exercise.

Could the PAF acquire 1 or 2 A330 MRTTs in the next 3 to 5 years?

At $250 million USD a unit, there is no doubt that these are very expensive platforms. However, they are also very capable. Besides being able to engage in hose/drogue (JF-17 et. al) and boom-type refuelling (F-16), they can be configured for various special mission roles, among them disaster-relief, basic cargo, and even personnel transport (300+).

Given that the F-16 fleet is being expanded (albeit incrementally), would it be a wise decision to begin acquiring A330 MRTTs? Not only can these aircraft provide IFR to the F-16s, but they can also serve the JF-17 and any other hose/drogue-based aircraft, including transports, AEW&C and other ISR systems.

Moreover, a brand-new A330 MRTT could serve the PAF for many decades. In the long-term, the PAF could simply need around 3 A330 MRTTs to support its operations, and these could be acquired on an incremental basis, perhaps every 3-5 years.

I was wondering how hard it is to equip our current IL-78 fleet with the flying boom system? As our engineers were able to install FLIR systems for C-130's indigenously, can't they undertake this change if given the resources? It would provide the ability for our F16's to refuel from current IL-78 and thereby saving precious revenue that would be used to buy a dedicated platform for F16's.

 

[nomi007]

as no. of F-16s are increasing
PAF need to add some kc-135

as we are using AMERICAN kc-135 for long journeys
see
On Jul. 19, six Pakistani AF F16C/D Block 52+ combat jets landed at Lajes Field, Azores, along with two USAF KC-135R Stratotanker aerial refuelers from McConnell AFB.

 

[Quwa]

I think it's kind of hard to find reliable data about ranges of different systems especially in the absence of a uniform target to test against. I have found this range data on Defense Issues which is a good reference to work with.

PIRATE

PIRATE is used by Eurofighter Typhoon, and it entered service in 2007. Its lead contractor is Selex ES. Selex holds the bulk of Western experience in IRST systems, and is also a sole supplier of the Skyward G IRST. Thales, another member of the Eurofirst consortium, also has extensive experience in the area.

PIRATE is a dual-band system (3-5 and 8-10 microns), combining long range detection capability of the longwave IRST with high resolution and all-weather performance of midwave one. It can track more than 200 targets, and has 140* field of regard in azimuth, with -15* depression angle. Sensor head weights 48 kg, with 60 kg (?) total weight.

Detection range against a subsonic fighter-sized target is 90 km from the front and 145 km from the rear. It has an ID range of 40 km, and can track a maximum of 200 targets. It is stated to be capable of passive ranging. Its ability to provide infrared image (which can be shown on cockpit displays and HMD) can, aside for ID purposes, also be used to help with flight operation in low visibility conditions.

(Note that range figures for Western IRSTs are most likely measured/estimated against Su-27, a massive aircraft with no IR signature reduction measures.)

Skyward G

Skyward G is a new IRST intended for use in Gripen E/F, and represents a technological improvement (in both hardware and software) over older PIRATE IRST it is based on. It is a staring imaging IRST. It is also smaller, with sensor head weighting 30 kg. Like PIRATE, it is a dual-band system covering midwave and longwave infrared bands, and can provide IR image on pilot’s helmet. Scan coverage is 160* in azimuth and 60* in elevation.

Skyward is stated to be capable of detecting all aircraft flying faster than 300-400 kts from skin friction alone – irrespective of any exhaust plume or engine IR signature reduction measures. Range for such detection is unstated.

OSF

OSF is an optical sensors suite used by Dassault Rafale. It consists of an IRST sensor and a video camera. Like PIRATE, its IR sensor is dual-band, using 3-5 and 8-12 micron bands.

Detection range against a subsonic fighter-sized target is 80 km from the front and 130 km from the rear (at 20.000 ft; 110 km at low altitude). Optical camera has ID range of 45 km, while IRST has an ID range of 40 (?) km. It was reported to have locked on a turboprop Transall through thin cloud cover.

EOTS

EOTS is a staring IR sensor. Unlike above IRST systems, it is primarily intended for ground attack, as a replacement for various IR targeting pods. As a result, it is a single-channel midwave IR system, limiting its detection performance against nonafterburning targets and in air-to-air role but providing all-weather performance. It weights 200 lbs / 90.7 kg.

It is also obsolete when compared to modern IR pods used by US Navy (in particular, newest versions of Sniper and Litening pods), being more than a decade old as of 2015. In fact, it is basically an internal version of Sniper XR pod which entered service in 2006, and has low resolution and detection range when compared to the Legion pod. From Sniper XR demo, it appears that identification range is 24 kilometers against fighter aircraft, though the aircraft in question was on the ground, and 45 kilometers against an airborne business jet, showing ID performance at most comparable to PIRATE. This suggests lower maximum detection range as PIRATE likely uses midwave channel for identification, but also has longer-ranged longwave channel. That being said, actual detection range performance may be better than suggested here. Its configuration also allows it quicker scan speeds than with traditional IRSTs.

OLS-27

OLS-27 is used on Su-27 fighter, and has a maximum range of 70 km.

OLS-30

OLS-30 is used on Su-30 fighters. Maximum detection range might be as high as 90 km, and weights 200 kg.

Range Limiting Factors

Due to relatively shorter wavelength, infrared search and track systems are more sensitive than radar to adverse weather conditions. While IRSTs can detect even relatively cool targets through thin cloud cover, detection range is reduced (more than it is in case of radar), and thicker clouds can significantly degrade detection range. As a result, IRST is most useful for air superiority fighters, which typically operate at 30.000 ft and above – well above normal cloud cover and in relatively thin atmosphere. Only clouds typically present at altitudes above 8 km (~26.000 ft) are those of cirrus variety, which are IR transparent. While dense cumulonimbus clouds can reach extreme heights (60.000-75.000 ft), it is very rare; vast majority does not reach above 20.000 ft. They are also very hazardous to aircraft (especially those of stealth variety), with frequent lightning discharges and large hailstones ranging from 0.5 to 5 cm in diameter, which can damage aircraft’s skin. (Source is again Defense Issues)



I was wondering how hard it is to equip our current IL-78 fleet with the flying boom system? As our engineers were able to install FLIR systems for C-130's indigenously, can't they undertake this change if given the resources? It would provide the ability for our F16's to refuel from current IL-78 and thereby saving precious revenue that would be used to buy a dedicated platform for F16

That'd require altering the core IL-78 platform, not within our financial or technical means, and not something that is feasible to begin with. Long-term, I'd reckon the PAF would love something like the Airbus MRTT or Pegasus.

 

[Bratva]

That'd require altering the core IL-78 platform, not within our financial or technical means, and not something that is feasible to begin with. Long-term, I'd reckon the PAF would love something like the Airbus MRTT or Pegasus.

 

[Thorough Pro]

Why do we need a whole new aircraft? Can't we just make a boom and fit to IL76 so that it can serve both planes. Having two separate tankers for two fighter would be problematic If both F-16's and JF-17's were to go on a joint mission that required mid air refuelling, having two separate setups would require two tankers for one mission.

Throwing out a theory and thought-exercise.

Could the PAF acquire 1 or 2 A330 MRTTs in the next 3 to 5 years?

At $250 million USD a unit, there is no doubt that these are very expensive platforms. However, they are also very capable. Besides being able to engage in hose/drogue (JF-17 et. al) and boom-type refuelling (F-16), they can be configured for various special mission roles, among them disaster-relief, basic cargo, and even personnel transport (300+).

Given that the F-16 fleet is being expanded (albeit incrementally), would it be a wise decision to begin acquiring A330 MRTTs? Not only can these aircraft provide IFR to the F-16s, but they can also serve the JF-17 and any other hose/drogue-based aircraft, including transports, AEW&C and other ISR systems.

Moreover, a brand-new A330 MRTT could serve the PAF for many decades. In the long-term, the PAF could simply need around 3 A330 MRTTs to support its operations, and these could be acquired on an incremental basis, perhaps every 3-5 years.

What's so technical in a boom? It's just a telescoping fuel pipe, if the task is given to PAF engineers, they can certainly develop one

That'd require altering the core IL-78 platform,
within our financial or technical means, and not something that is feasible to begin with. Long-term, I'd reckon the PAF would love something like the Airbus MRTT or Pegasus.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Why do we need a whole new aircraft? Can't we just make a boom and fit to IL76 so that it can serve both planes. Having two separate tankers for two fighter would be problematic If both F-16's and JF-17's were to go on a joint mission that required mid air refuelling, having two separate setups would require two tankers for one mission.





What's so technical in a boom? It's just a telescoping fuel pipe, if the task is given to PAF engineers, they can certainly develop one

This would be exceptionally unorthodox. Yes, there's a logical fallacy in "can't be done now if hasn't been done before", but I am not confident enough in saying it would be relatively easy or straightforward. In fact, I can't recall a single rear-ramp aircraft configured for boom-type refueling, though Embraer apparently indicated that it was planning to do it with the KC-390. They have since stepped away from that claim. If funding for a feasibility study could be done, the PAF ought to consider it.

 

[nomi007]

Discussion: Why Pakistan’s F-16s do not have in-flight refuelling support
Foreword: This is not a news story, but a piece for the purpose of discussion. The details offered in this article as well as in subsequent parts are not authoritative pieces of information, but rather, perspectives on the Pakistan Air Force’s options in terms of in-flight refuelling aircraft.

For the Pakistan Air Force (PAF), the F-16 serves as both its current qualitative driver (in terms of bringing new air warfare technologies to the fleet) and mainstay multi-role fighter.

Besides serving in the front as the PAF’s principal long-range air defence asset (which is gradually being supplemented with the JF-17), the F-16 has also been a major counterinsurgency (COIN) strike asset in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).

With a total of 74 F-16s (i.e. 18 F-16C/D Block-52+, 45 F-16A/B Block-15 Mid-Life Update, and 13 F-16A/B Block-15 Air Defence Fighter), it is interesting to observe that the PAF does not possess an in-flight refuelling tanker that could support this key force. In fact, when the PAF’s F-16s are deployed overseas to participate in exercises, such as Red Flag and Anatolian Eagle, they require in-flight refuelling support from U.S. Air Force (USAF) KC-135 Stratotankers.

If one is wondering why the PAF’s IL-78 tankers cannot be used to support the F-16s, the answer lies in the fact that the F-16s utilize a different aerial refueling system than what the IL-78 is configured to use. The IL-78s refuel using the hose-and-drogue method, which is designed with a trailing hose with a receiver basket at its end, which connects to an external refuelling probe on the receiver.

The PAF’s Mirages – and in the short-term JF-17s – refuel using the hose-and-drogue method. On the other hand, the F-16s require a refuelling boom, which connects to a fuel receiver system in the fuselage. The main benefit behind boom-refuelling is the higher rate of fuel transfer. However, only U.S. designs utilize this method, the rest of the world – from the Western Europeans to the Chinese – depend on hose-and-drogue, which is simpler to integrate onto receiver as well as tanker platforms.

When the PAF began pursuing an in-flight tanker, it was fully aware of the F-16’s specific needs. It was for this reason that the PAF had originally hoped to secure the Airbus A310 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) system for its fleet. The Airbus A310 MRTT was introduced in the early 2000s for the German and Canadian forces. Airbus Defence and Space (then known as the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company or EADS) utilized existing A310s for the MRTT modification, which imbued the airliner with not only a boom refueling probe but also wing-mounted hose-and-drogue probes.

The A310 MRTT was a comparatively low-cost option (considering the offering was primarily modification and added subsystems for surplus A310 airliners). Unfortunately for the PAF, Airbus had pivoted away from A310 MRTT and instead began to exclusively push the A330 MRTT.

While based on the Airbus A330 airliner, the A330 MRTT is offered as a new-built solution. In other words, the airframe is built with in-flight refuelling and military airlift tasks from the onset. While a very capable platform, the A330 MRTT was – and still is – a prohibitively expensive system for the PAF. The complete approximate unit cost of each A330 MRTT sits at $250 million U.S.

The PAF could have sought surplus KC-135s from the U.S., but shaky defence ties, as well as the prospect of dealing with heavily aged airframes, would have put a stop on that road. In effect, the PAF’s F-16s have been left with no in-flight refuelling support, which in some respects caps the fighter from achieving better operational potential. Without in-flight refuelling, the F-16s would have to depend on external fuel pods in order to undertake extended-range or long-endurance flights. These pods force a cost in having fewer available hardpoints for air-to-air and/or air-to-surface munitions.

The PAF’s plans for addressing this issue are not known. In fact, it simply may not pursue a solution at all. However, it may be worth – for discussion’s sake – exploring the idea of a new dual-configuration tanker (i.e. one capable of hose-and-drogue and boom-refuelling). The upfront cost of the A330 MRTT is certainly high, but other considerations ought to be made as well.

First, the A330 MRTT would not be restricted to just supporting the F-16s, it can support the PAF’s hose-and-drogue assets, such as the JF-17, as well.

Second, the A330 MRTT airframe is that of a commercially popular airliner, so it is an inherently fuel-efficient design. In fact, the A330 is powered by two turbofan engines (in contrast to the IL-78’s four), so the overall fuel demand of the A330 MRTT should be less than that of the IL-78. The airline aspect could also render the availability of spare parts and maintenance support a relatively low-cost effort.

Third, the A330 MRTT can carry passengers or cargo in addition to fuel. In other words, if the PAF deploy a fighter unit for exercises, a lone MRTT unit could (potentially) be sent to provide tanker support as well as serve as a general transport. Granted, this is conditional on a number of factors, such as the location of the exercise (e.g. a single MRTT to provide complete support for Red Flag may be unrealistic).

Granted, the PAF’s scope of acquisitions is not wide at this time. In fact, unless the PAF opts to configure its next-generation fighter for boom refuelling, the long-term utility of pursuing a boom-type tanker will diminish as F-16s are retired. Unless there is an infusion of additional – and fresher – F-16s, the necessity for the A330 MRTT for the sake of its boom-refuelling capability is limited. If the PAF is to consider this system, it would be on the basis of fuel efficiency, versatility, and maintenance costs (though this would require one to assume the IL-78 is costlier to maintain). Furthermore, the A330 MRTT is a platform the PAF could operate for many decades, which may help offset the high upfront price.
http://quwa.org/2016/10/11/discussion-pakistans-f-16s-not-flight-refuelling-support/

 

[nomi007]

 

[TOPGUN]

Discussion: Why Pakistan’s F-16s do not have in-flight refuelling support
Foreword: This is not a news story, but a piece for the purpose of discussion. The details offered in this article as well as in subsequent parts are not authoritative pieces of information, but rather, perspectives on the Pakistan Air Force’s options in terms of in-flight refuelling aircraft.

For the Pakistan Air Force (PAF), the F-16 serves as both its current qualitative driver (in terms of bringing new air warfare technologies to the fleet) and mainstay multi-role fighter.

Besides serving in the front as the PAF’s principal long-range air defence asset (which is gradually being supplemented with the JF-17), the F-16 has also been a major counterinsurgency (COIN) strike asset in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).

With a total of 74 F-16s (i.e. 18 F-16C/D Block-52+, 45 F-16A/B Block-15 Mid-Life Update, and 13 F-16A/B Block-15 Air Defence Fighter), it is interesting to observe that the PAF does not possess an in-flight refuelling tanker that could support this key force. In fact, when the PAF’s F-16s are deployed overseas to participate in exercises, such as Red Flag and Anatolian Eagle, they require in-flight refuelling support from U.S. Air Force (USAF) KC-135 Stratotankers.

If one is wondering why the PAF’s IL-78 tankers cannot be used to support the F-16s, the answer lies in the fact that the F-16s utilize a different aerial refueling system than what the IL-78 is configured to use. The IL-78s refuel using the hose-and-drogue method, which is designed with a trailing hose with a receiver basket at its end, which connects to an external refuelling probe on the receiver.

The PAF’s Mirages – and in the short-term JF-17s – refuel using the hose-and-drogue method. On the other hand, the F-16s require a refuelling boom, which connects to a fuel receiver system in the fuselage. The main benefit behind boom-refuelling is the higher rate of fuel transfer. However, only U.S. designs utilize this method, the rest of the world – from the Western Europeans to the Chinese – depend on hose-and-drogue, which is simpler to integrate onto receiver as well as tanker platforms.

When the PAF began pursuing an in-flight tanker, it was fully aware of the F-16’s specific needs. It was for this reason that the PAF had originally hoped to secure the Airbus A310 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) system for its fleet. The Airbus A310 MRTT was introduced in the early 2000s for the German and Canadian forces. Airbus Defence and Space (then known as the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company or EADS) utilized existing A310s for the MRTT modification, which imbued the airliner with not only a boom refueling probe but also wing-mounted hose-and-drogue probes.

The A310 MRTT was a comparatively low-cost option (considering the offering was primarily modification and added subsystems for surplus A310 airliners). Unfortunately for the PAF, Airbus had pivoted away from A310 MRTT and instead began to exclusively push the A330 MRTT.

While based on the Airbus A330 airliner, the A330 MRTT is offered as a new-built solution. In other words, the airframe is built with in-flight refuelling and military airlift tasks from the onset. While a very capable platform, the A330 MRTT was – and still is – a prohibitively expensive system for the PAF. The complete approximate unit cost of each A330 MRTT sits at $250 million U.S.

The PAF could have sought surplus KC-135s from the U.S., but shaky defence ties, as well as the prospect of dealing with heavily aged airframes, would have put a stop on that road. In effect, the PAF’s F-16s have been left with no in-flight refuelling support, which in some respects caps the fighter from achieving better operational potential. Without in-flight refuelling, the F-16s would have to depend on external fuel pods in order to undertake extended-range or long-endurance flights. These pods force a cost in having fewer available hardpoints for air-to-air and/or air-to-surface munitions.

The PAF’s plans for addressing this issue are not known. In fact, it simply may not pursue a solution at all. However, it may be worth – for discussion’s sake – exploring the idea of a new dual-configuration tanker (i.e. one capable of hose-and-drogue and boom-refuelling). The upfront cost of the A330 MRTT is certainly high, but other considerations ought to be made as well.

First, the A330 MRTT would not be restricted to just supporting the F-16s, it can support the PAF’s hose-and-drogue assets, such as the JF-17, as well.

Second, the A330 MRTT airframe is that of a commercially popular airliner, so it is an inherently fuel-efficient design. In fact, the A330 is powered by two turbofan engines (in contrast to the IL-78’s four), so the overall fuel demand of the A330 MRTT should be less than that of the IL-78. The airline aspect could also render the availability of spare parts and maintenance support a relatively low-cost effort.

Third, the A330 MRTT can carry passengers or cargo in addition to fuel. In other words, if the PAF deploy a fighter unit for exercises, a lone MRTT unit could (potentially) be sent to provide tanker support as well as serve as a general transport. Granted, this is conditional on a number of factors, such as the location of the exercise (e.g. a single MRTT to provide complete support for Red Flag may be unrealistic).

Granted, the PAF’s scope of acquisitions is not wide at this time. In fact, unless the PAF opts to configure its next-generation fighter for boom refuelling, the long-term utility of pursuing a boom-type tanker will diminish as F-16s are retired. Unless there is an infusion of additional – and fresher – F-16s, the necessity for the A330 MRTT for the sake of its boom-refuelling capability is limited. If the PAF is to consider this system, it would be on the basis of fuel efficiency, versatility, and maintenance costs (though this would require one to assume the IL-78 is costlier to maintain). Furthermore, the A330 MRTT is a platform the PAF could operate for many decades, which may help offset the high upfront price.
http://quwa.org/2016/10/11/discussion-pakistans-f-16s-not-flight-refuelling-support/

There has to be a way PAF can do something about it but isn't , beats me.

 

[Windjammer]

A thirsty Mirage lining up to top up, note the Mirage applying air brakes.

 

[fjavaid]

when we will see a JFT filling up ..mid air ..hmmm

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

Shows the gross incompatibility in safe flying envelope of Mirage and IL.

A thirsty Mirage lining up to top up, note the Mirage applying air brakes.

View attachment 385428

when we will see a JFT filling up ..mid air ..hmmm

There will be lot of pictures, but when we will see an actual wet coupling and fuel transfer? A fully serviceable IL, a fully serviceable UPAZ, and SOPs built and successful IFR camp? Long live photo wars.

 

[Windjammer]

Shows the gross incompatibility in safe flying envelope of Mirage and IL.

That too but it's also done for the benefit of the camera ship.