Pakistan F-16 Discussions 2

[khanasifm]

https://airrefuelingarchive.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/sargent-fletcher-arts-pod-f-16-vista/

Pakistan could come up with a fuel tank solution like the ART/S one here without having to modify the F-16s but range is not an issue anyways

For some reason no airforce has adopted the solution

 

[GriffinsRule]

For some reason no airforce has adopted the solution

Probably because ones that require specific AAR tankers have no issues acquiring them.

 

[krash]

Hi, is it possible for us to bit the broom refuling technology and incorporate it in our existing tankers? So the tankers could perform both types of reguling broom and

Hi, is it possible for us to aquire and incorporate the broom refuling system in our existing tankers, so they can perform both types of ( probe-drogue, broom) refuling for f-16s and mirages/thunders ?

That is a technical question I don't have the knowledge to answer. But I haven't heard or read about any tanker that has both type of probes.

The A330 MRTT / KC-30A can be fitted with pods for Probe-Drogue on the wings and the fuselage, and with a Boom on the fuselage. Before flight, if you fit the Probe-Drogue pods on the wings and the Boom pod in the fuselage then you can refuel both types of aircraft in the same flight.

The below RAAF KC-30A is configured as above. The boom is retracted.

Our IL-78 refuelers are also fitted with a poded drogue-probe system which can be removed if the aircraft needs to be used as a cargo carrier. Hence, at least theoretically, a podded boom system could be developed for the IL-78. None exist as of yet.

You can also attach probe-drogue adapters at the ends of the booms of the KC-10 and the KC-135 but can't have them refueling both types in the same flight.

 

[Viper27]

Airbus has just successfully tested the C-295 as a tanker. Alan Warnes retweeted an official Airbus video showing a successful drogue connection. May be PAF can look into this considering we already operate the shorter version for transport.

 

[Haris Ali2140]

The A330 MRTT / KC-30A can be fitted with pods for Probe-Drogue on the wings and the fuselage, and with a Boom on the fuselage. Before flight, if you fit the Probe-Drogue pods on the wings and the Boom pod in the fuselage then you can refuel both types of aircraft in the same flight.

The below RAAF KC-30A is configured as above. The boom is retracted.

Our IL-78 refuelers are also fitted with a poded drogue-probe system which can be removed if the aircraft needs to be used as a cargo carrier. Hence, at least theoretically, a podded boom system could be developed for the IL-78. None exist as of yet.

You can also attach probe-drogue adapters at the ends of the booms of the KC-10 and the KC-135 but can't have them refueling both types in the same flight.

@aliyusuf @Quwa @Trailer23

 

[mshan44]

 

[WiderMan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1223360517110214658

 

[araz]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1223360517110214658

But no HOBS to slave it to!!!.
On a more inquisitive note I wonder what the thoughts currently are on the utility of HOBS when we are mostly wanting to engage in BVR? IS it simply a case of "we will play with it when we get it" or "Naah not worth the money". Secondly if we were to get the A Darter would we be allowed to use it on the 16s or not? I strongly suspect the US will then tell us to buy some 9Xs.
A

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

But no HOBS to slave it to!!!.
On a more inquisitive note I wonder what the thoughts currently are on the utility of HOBS when we are mostly wanting to engage in BVR? IS it simply a case of "we will play with it when we get it" or "Naah not worth the money". Secondly if we were to get the A Darter would we be allowed to use it on the 16s or not? I strongly suspect the US will then tell us to buy some 9Xs.
A

The US will not allow the PAF to integrate anything to the F-16 without US permission. If the US does allow it though, the PAF would need to select something that is proven to work from the F-16, and benefits from OEM-backed updates/maintenance. So, the only option (aside from AIM-9X) is the IRIS-T, and that has been offer since 2006 via Germany. Of course, if the US doesn't allow it, then the PAF can't take up the offer.

That said, if the PAF wants to pursue a new F-16 deal, it'll make sure to add AIM-9X or IRIS-T to the package. If not additional F-16s, then through a F-16V upgrade.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

That said, if the PAF wants to pursue a new F-16 deal, it'll make sure to add AIM-9X or IRIS-T to the package. If not additional F-16s, then through a F-16V upgrade.

Why not get AIM120D instead. Its a BVR era now. Atleast we can say Meteor is tilting the balance in India's favour so we can have AIM120Ds

 

[mshan44]

 

[The Accountant]

View attachment 603766

using AMRAAM in wingtips. Interesting.

Hence PAF strategy is to engage more and more in BVR combat and to not things move to WVR combat

 

[baqai]

using AMRAAM in wingtips. Interesting.

Hence PAF strategy is to engage more and more in BVR combat and to not things move to WVR combat

or maybe have JF-17's running second layer of point defence while Falcon's (till the time block 3 and AESA is available) use the AMRAAMS

 

[The Accountant]

or maybe have JF-17's running second layer of point defence while Falcon's (till the time block 3 and AESA is available) use the AMRAAMS

May be, but 27th Feb proved that even for point defence BVR is the key.

 

[MIRauf]

I remember watching "Buck Rogers in 25th Century" and flying "Thunder Fighter" in space attacking invading forces, engaging in VLRAAM ( thousands of miles away. ) Fast forward about 40 years and we have JF-17 Thunder ready to engage hostiles with VLRAAM ( PL-15 ) not thousands miles away but over 100+ Miles.