Monday, January 6, 2025
What's new

Should Pakistan Buy Y-9 to Serve as a Tanker?

. . .
Y-9 is too slow for refueling tanker. China prefer jet engine plane as tanker. If PAF wants a Y-9 as tanker. PAF needs to foot all the R&D fees for a development of Y-9 tanker. China will not fund such project.
 
.
Fighters lose a lot of fuel just in taking off. Loiter time can make the difference in being able to provide enough aircraft in the fight. In the 1967 Arab-Israeli war; besides the surprise raid on the Egyptian air force; the IDF was better at sustainability of its fleet and effective sortie generation capability. With all of the major motorways Pakistan is building, I hope they are keeping sortie generation and dispersal in mind. As part of Sortie generation; aerial refueling can really help the PAF maintain its numbers in the face of 2:1 odds. the 3 IL-76 tankers are great but they are really big and require major runways to keep operating. The C-130 and its Chinese Equivalent could be landed on the motorways. The C-130 has actually been tested in this manner in Germany and South Korea. These were two countries where war could break out and front line lifting capacity is needed. A Y-9 Tanker variant operated in this manner could help the PAF disperse and fight on again an IAF attack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_strip
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...axidriving_on_Autobahn_DoD_DF-ST-84-09439.jpg
https://nara.getarchive.net/media/a...on-a-highway-between-yongju-and-punggi-4e836b

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/cont...oduct/KC-130J.png.pc-adaptive.full.medium.png
The JF-17 has a Internal Fuel Capacity: 2,329 kg (5,135 lb) (Source: wikipedia)
The Y-9 has a Useful load: 25,000kg (55,090lb) (Source: wikipedia)

The PAF has 20 Fighter Squadrans; 2-3 Y-9 per squadron would allow the PAF to sustain loiter time and be able to concentrate fighter numbers over a larger area, because aircraft would not have to stay close to base to refuel. Operating from the growing Motorway network, both the Fighters, Tankers, and other Y-9's bring in spares and weapons, the PAF could fight on even if they lose all their bases. A robust infrastructure at key "secret motorway bases" would allow the PAF to stockpile spares and weapons nearby. Dual purpose Fuel depots spread throughout the country could in war time, sustain the PAF. (Obviously secret stores of Jet Fuel would have to be co-located with the weapons and spares; or in mobile trucks in secret locations).

PAF is currently digesting the lessons from the latest Shaheen exercise and planning out the next Shaheen Exercise. Motorway Operations should be more and more a part of the Shaheen exercises. It not only benefits Pakistan; but China's ability to disperse and sustain Sortie generation. The experience gained from these operations, will also help market the JF-17 with a Y-9 Tanker and ZDK-03 AWECS as the ultimate combination for a customer to detect, prosecute and sustain the fight.
No.
Better options are available.
 
.
Y-9 is too slow for refueling tanker. China prefer jet engine plane as tanker. If PAF wants a Y-9 as tanker. PAF needs to foot all the R&D fees for a development of Y-9 tanker. China will not fund such project.
Maybe, it will be a good choice for our helicopters in the future.
 
.
Maybe, it will be a good choice for our helicopters in the future.
No, PLAAF top brass think helo aerial refuel is too dangerous. They will not follow US doctrine in this area. Helo will always mean to be short distance. If they wanted Y-9 air tanker or helo aerial refuel. They would have develop it long ago. PLAAF top brass never approved a slow turboprop plane as air tanker. Its not a technology hurdle as demonstrated by China modifying H-6U tanker from H-6 bomber. China can easily modify and produced a aerial tanker version of Y-9 but chooses not too.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...ial-tanker-and-fa-18-hornet-crash-japan-37972
 
.
No, PLAAF top brass think helo aerial refuel is too dangerous. They will not follow US doctrine in this area. Helo will always mean to be short distance. If they wanted Y-9 air tanker or helo aerial refuel. They would have develop it long ago. PLAAF top brass never approved a slow turboprop plane as air tanker. Its not a technology hurdle as demonstrated by China modifying H-6U tanker from H-6 bomber. China can easily modify and produced a aerial tanker version of Y-9 but chooses not too.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...ial-tanker-and-fa-18-hornet-crash-japan-37972
After Z-8L and other heavy helicopters come out, you would find that China will follow US doctrine in this area.
 
.
40-60 Y-9 dispersed throughout the highway network

idea is good, but wouldn;t that be better for PAF to induct 40-60 fighter jets to replace old F-7 and mirages and boost up modern fighter jets..
 
.
idea is good, but wouldn;t that be better for PAF to induct 40-60 fighter jets to replace old F-7 and mirages and boost up modern fighter jets..

Maybe 40-60 is too much, but at least a dozen tankers based towards the western border and getting 48 J-31v2 would be a better mix. Either way, the PAF doesn't just need it aircraft to be capable fighter, but quick to refuel and rearm so they can back in the fight. landing and taking off when the plane is already armed loses a lot of time.

The Y-9 was my suggestion because its turboprop planes would be more fuel efficient over turbofan engines. We have the Turboprop AEW aircraft, MPA Aircraft, transport, etc. If the KC-130 can refuel the F-35, why not a Y-9 to refuel the JF-17 and J-31v2. The Y-9 have a cruising speed of 400 mph (350 knots, 650 km/h). The kc-135 has a cruising speed of 530 mph, so the Y-9 would be slower, but not so much so that it would be dangerous to refuel at that speed.

The Y-9 gives the flexibility to disperse and hide, its cheaper so more can be procured for the cost of one y-20. if one is lost in combat, it will cause less of an impact on operations then a y-20. The y-9 if procured in numbers could also replace the aging c-130 in the PAF fleet and allow for economies of scale to lower costs. The y-9 tanker could also be marketed to future operators of large numbers of JF-17 as a way to leverage the smaller fighters limited range into a lower RCS aircraft with longer range due to in flight refueling. This would make anti-shipping more effective for PAF JF-17, and any other operator.

For example: one of the largest potential sales is the one to Egypt.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/edex-2018-egypt-eyes-jf-17-thunder-block-iii.590333/

The JF-17 combined with the ZDK-03 and Y-9 Tanker would allow them to operate fewer planes but operate more effectively. Anti-shipping would be more effective and long range patrols with less expensive, due to not having to land and take off again. Operating the JF-17 would save them money over operating the more expensive Rafales for workhorse missions, and the Y-9 Tanker would extend the range of the JF-17 to nearly that of the Rafale. Egypt would be able to project its influence over the instability in the Mid-East and Africa, as part of the UN Peacekeeping Missions and African Union Missions.

Egyptian Peacekeeping Forces in Darfur, South Sudan, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Mali, Central African Republic, and Liberia would welcome Air Support if needed. The more West African Air Support needs could benefit from a potential Joint Egyptian-Nigerian Regional Peacekeeping effort. to provide air support. Use of the As Nigeria already plans to operate the JF-17 it would increase their influence in the region and having their and Egyptian JF-17s operating from Nigerian Air Bases would strengthen regional peace efforts and decrease the need for Non-African Interventions in Africa, therefore leading to more regional consensus and peace in the long term. For these Longer range missions, the Egyptians may end up choosing the Y-20; but the Idea of the JF-17 using tankers to support Egyptian and Nigerian Peacekeeping efforts promotes regional nations providing peace in their own regions and ending non-regional interventions.
 
Last edited:
.
I am not sold on the concept of road bases. you need all your fuel facilities and some of the maintenance to be mobile. there is a lot of things that can go wrong in a fast paced combat situation

The theory is sound, but the application is also pretty situational. The whole idea revolves around the concept of defensive dispersal of aerial assets, so as to to mitigate the damage that nuclear and conventional strikes can do. Essentially, the purpose is to make it complicated for an opponent to destroy your Air Force on the ground and thus ensure its endurance in a conflict scenario.

The Swedish in particular had this down to a T, with their Bas (Flygbassystem) 60 & 90 Air Base systems. I'm not sure though how well this applies to the PAF, or where a - non-existent right now - Yu-9 tanker variant is useful, if you consider the alternatives.
 
.
The theory is sound, but the application is also pretty situational. The whole idea revolves around the concept of defensive dispersal of aerial assets, so as to to mitigate the damage that nuclear and conventional strikes can do. Essentially, the purpose is to make it complicated for an opponent to destroy your Air Force on the ground and thus ensure its endurance in a conflict scenario.

The Swedish in particular had this down to a T, with their Bas (Flygbassystem) 60 & 90 Air Base systems. I'm not sure though how well this applies to the PAF, or where a - non-existent right now - Yu-9 tanker variant is useful, if you consider the alternatives.

We could dump the tankers, and just build tons of road bases with spares and fuel trucks in secret bases nearby; the trucks message the plane the location and the planes lands for a quick fill up and resupply. no tankers for the enemy to shoot down.
 
.
very thank you like Y-9,I also like it very much
but in fact I thank EC-130 MC-130 LC-130 is better then Y-9,so if possible PK should get 130 first.
 
.
PAF should opt for new fighters with buddy refueling capability or atleast make JF-17 capable of buddy refueling.
 
.
Y-9 may not be a bad idea, US Marines use KC-130 ( Hercules ) to refuel their F-18s. Too bad funding is an issue or Airbus MRTT wouldn't be a bad idea. C919 will take to mature ( 5+ years ) to be considered for AWACS or MRTT. Does PIA has any surplus Airbus that could sell to PAF ?
 
.


DONOT POST GRAPHIC/BLOODY/DEAD pictures or videos. Will result in an immediate ban.

Write your reply...
Back
Top Bottom