What's new

PAF, USAF conduct joint Air Refuelling Exercise

we needed a boom refeler here is the machine but how many jets it can refuel plz reply and give info how many they can refuel in one sortie
No way to tell...

KC-135 Stratotanker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the 1980s the first modification program re-engined 157 Air Force Reserve (AFRES) and Air National Guard (ANG) tankers with the Pratt & Whitney TF-33-PW-102 engines from 707 airliners retired in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The re-engined tanker, designated the KC-135E, was 14% more fuel efficient than the KC-135A and could offload 20% more fuel on long duration flights. (The difference is that the A-model weighed only 104,000 lb empty, while the E-model weighed 115,000 lb empty. But the maximum takeoff weight was not increased for the E-model. Therefore, the A-model could takeoff with 200,000 lb of fuel, while the E-model could only takeoff with 190,000 lb of fuel.)
Not every receiving aircraft will be refueled with the same load. Those later in the refueling queue will take on the most when their turn come. Not only that, inexperienced pilots will take the longest to 'hook up' and master refuelers, usually NCOs, can spot them within a few seconds and will try to compensate.

Turbulence can also make it difficult to refuel...Especially if the refuel operation is using drogue...

Aerial refueling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Drogue subject to turbulence and aerodynamic forces (bow wave) of approaching aircraft.
With the drogue method, the refueler have no way of compensating for aerodynamic forces upon the drogue itself. The 'hook up' burden is entirely upon the receiving pilot. The more turbulence there is, the longer the entire refueling operation, the more fuel will be taken by those later in the queue. So there is no definitive answer to your question.
 
here's another pic of the exercise



dca27eedb28e221ac95e7ea5d482a407.jpg

Hey, that is classified man!
Our stealthy, super-cruising CNG fitted fighter has not been publicly announced yet.
:lol:
 
Hey, that is classified man!
Our stealthy, super-cruising CNG fitted fighter has not been publicly announced yet.
:lol:

bwahahahahah. You remembered =D


as for this picture, that was the world-record setting "Question Mark" which set duration records long before WW2:

Look at the guy at the bottom manhandling the hose. Those guys were tough - they did what they had to. Imagine getting whipped across the face by that thing!
 
lol r u kidding me ...do u expect uncle sam to give us the best they got or new equipment btw neither we can afford a new one

just out of curiosity i wonder if they have any extra ones lying around (used ones) which they could provide under excess defence articles program

big question is (and sorry to bring it up as its already been discussed) --- what do we do for the F-16s?

the israelis managed to make conversion kit...


obviously, the boom is a superior method to deliver fuel than the basket. Back in the 1950's, when AA refueling was in its infancy, the US Air Force was most concerned about refueling its nuclear bombers like the B-52. Because the boom is a solid pipe, it can be pressurized much higher, and the fuel flow is 3X greater than the basket. The US Navy, not having bombers, chose the basket.

my question to any MP is --- would our tanker aircrafts have the 'guide lights' (fore-aft, up-down) that illuminate when contact is made? Or is it all just good eye coordination and quick calculation for the pilot?
 
KC135 are being replaced - they will be replaced soon - PAF options include converting the B707s or the Airbus 310 in our inventory till the US agrees to transfer a KC135 or PAF purchases a Airbus from France.
 
in the medium run, why dont we get the KC-135 which they will be replacing?

or have they completed their service lives?
 
in the medium run, why dont we get the KC-135 which they will be replacing?

or have they completed their service lives?

wat u r asking,i have posted it b4 KC-135 are costing USAF alot in maintainance and becoming headache for them thats y they are replacing them .It will not b a wise idea for PAF to go for them as their maintainance cost will b much more higher than their purchasing one for cost details u can check my post in previous pages
 
PHOTOSHOPED.
even this picture of the mirage3-583 refueling prototype-1 is very old and there was no sign of Il-78 in PAF when refueling probe of mirage was yellow.:P
cae3e68752c2173549ca7876bf777fcb._.jpg

The prob was yellow when this very same mirage was fitted and latter on the whole aircraft got a new paint job.
 
Back
Top Bottom