Sweden decides against Hercules replacement, opts for MLU instead

[The Accountant]

Pakistan got four Il-78MP aircraft from Ukrainian surplus aircraft stocks, fitted with removable fuel tanks in the cargo hold and 3 UPAZ-1M 'Sakhalin', (unifitsirovaniy podvesnoy agregat zaprahvki;— standardised suspended refuelling unit), refuelling pods; two on pylons under the outer wings, and the third on the port side of the rear fuselage. (the length of the hose deployed in the airflow is about 26 m, the hose inner diameter is 52 mm, the fuel transfer rate is 900 to 2,200 liters/min). The first of the four aircraft was delivered in December 2009. A total of four Il-78MPs have been delivered to the PAF as of May 2012. The Il-78MP is a multi-role aerial refuelling tanker/transport aircraft, used not only by the Pakistan Air Force but also by the Indian and Chinese Air Forces (besides Russia and Ukraine). Last January, the Pakistan Air Force signed an agreement with Russia's JSC Rosoboronexport for the refurbished of its fleet of Ilyushin Il-78 air-to-air refuelling tanker aircraft at the Russian 360th Aircraft Repair Plant.
IL-78s tank the JF-17, which has a refuelling probe fitted as standard, and the Mirage III/VI Rose aircraft. By contrast, F16 normally tanks via boom to the aircraft's back. So, without acquiring e.g. CFT or wingtank that houses a refuelling probe, F16 can't do hose and drogue refuelling, and KC-130 would be useless.

See CARTS:
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=56
http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article4163.html

Or earlier ART/S:
https://airrefuelingarchive.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/sargent-fletcher-arts-pod-f-16-vista/
https://airrefuelingarchive.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/7a7c4b39d01.pdf.

And, of course, see: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/disc...not-have-in-flight-refuelling-support.455035/

So it means we need modification of both planes and tanker ... apparently it seems like pakistan is not looking for deep strike with f16s ... this role is limited to mirrages and may be some SEAD missions by thunders ... however even for air defense role it is better to increase the loitter time of f16s by using refueler where we can reduce number of tranks and fly with good no of bvr capable flights which can get refueled in a sortie hence increase in loiter time and reduced pressure on sortie rates ...

However this is my wishlist PAF may have better idea of tactical plans and limitations ... may be @Windjammer can better provide insider opinion about the reasons of not getting refueler ability on pakistan f16s .. is it funds, strategy or us approval ...

 

[Taygibay]

“What kind of partnership is [that]?” he asked. “That's the question."

@Taygibay @Louiq XIV Why do I have the strong feeling that he's talking about France ?

Quite possibly and even likely but what of it? I mean,
AFAIK the buy of the KC390 was always dependant on
the Rafale deal, almost a clause of return on investment.

But even for other buys, Brazil hasn't been reliable to
follow through on its acquisitions itself. They didn't input
enough money into either the Foch or the 2000's projects.

I just hope they don't play IST on the Swedish mythical
sea beast for a now retired hu.. carrier or even interfere
with the Griffon E Program negatively, TBTH.

If c130 have refueling capability then why we are not using the same for our f16s ? Is this again uncle Sam's approval issue ?

HC and KC 130s refuel helos. Their top speed of 290 knots
is hard to sustain and that only at high altitude so the real
metrics are 225-240knots which is very very slow for a full
load adorned jet fighter. A fast jet needs a fast refueler.

And great day all, Tay.

 

[Penguin]

HC and KC 130s refuel helos. Their top speed of 290 knots
is hard to sustain and that only at high altitude so the real
metrics are 225-240knots which is very very slow for a full
load adorned jet fighter. A fast jet needs a fast refueler.

And great day all, Tay.

The KC-130 is a multi-role, multi-mission tactical tanker/transport which provides the support required by Marine Air Ground Task Forces. This versatile asset provides in-flight refueling to both tactical aircraft and helicopters as well as rapid ground refueling when required.
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/kc-130.htm

US Marines use it to refuel AV-8B, F/A-18. In the past also A-6, S-3

They've also been used to refuel French air force Dassault Mirage 2000-5 in Africa.
http://www.hoa.africom.mil/story/77...operability-partnerships-mission-capabilities

As well as Panavia Tornado, Eurofighter Typhoon
https://theaviationist.com/tag/kc-130j/

F-35B in future

https://theaviationist.com/2015/03/25/f-35bs-refuel-from-kc130/

 

[Taygibay]

Yes, Penguin, the USA and more precisely the USMC
uses the KC ( and only the KC ) on occasion for fast
jets but with the 2 following caveats :
A- They're the only ones save in emergencies
B- As said before, it happens at low altitude and slow
speed, making it a dangerous proposition in combat
and so mostly kept for a controlled airspace.

Reliable fleet refueling of fast jets comes from tankers
made for the purpose.

I wouldn't recommend that Pakistan tries to set up a
refueling unit for F-16s based on the USMC example.

And a great day to you mate, Tay.

 

[Penguin]

Yes, Penguin, the USA and more precisely the USMC
uses the KC ( and only the KC ) on occasion for fast
jets but with the 2 following caveats :
A- They're the only ones save in emergencies
B- As said before, it happens at low altitude and slow
speed, making it a dangerous proposition in combat
and so mostly kept for a controlled airspace.

Reliable fleet refueling of fast jets comes from tankers
made for the purpose.

I wouldn't recommend that Pakistan tries to set up a
refueling unit for F-16s based on the USMC example.

And a great day to you mate, Tay.

Its probably more cost-efficient using conversions of airliners anyway ;-)
As for the USMC's KC-130, like how they are also used as flying gasstations for ground forces. And with the advent of jet like J-20, whose role is to hunt AWACS and tankers, a stealthy tanker would also be nice. For the air and for the navy that might mean different things though i.e. a large dedicated stealth tanker versus a more compact dedicates stealth tanker drone.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/7012/the-air-force-desperately-needs-a-stealth-tanker

I suppose the same reasons pretty much rules out / limit the viability of V-22 based tankers on carriers or LHA/LHDs?

V-22

• Maximum speed:
  • 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level
  • 305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)
• Cruise speed: 241 kn (446 km/h, 277 mph) at sea level
• Stall speed: 110 kn (204 km/h, 126 mph) in airplane mode

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Specifications_.28MV-22B.29

KC-130J

• Max. Cruising Speed 348 kts / 645 km/h
• Economy Cruising Speed 339 kts / 628 km/h
• Stalling Speed 100 kts / 185 km/h

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-130j-specs.htm

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/05/v-22-refueling-contract-highlights-close-ties-to-f-35/

http://gizmodo.com/bells-newest-tiltrotor-could-finally-fix-the-ospreys-fe-1646800976/1676120011

Incidentally

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/512277-v-22-osprey-air-refuel-f-35bs-cvfs-other-stuff-6.html

 

[Taygibay]

Well, yeah, the Osprey just about had to do refuel of the F-35.
Few Hercules land on carriers although that too was done (sic)
and the pig in a stealth blanket has short legs with full load so
that even for safety on return reasons, this combo had to come.

Do note that the Dave B is using sustentation from its huge fan
and has set its nozzle for extra-lift to fit the slow speed.

As for mission radius, HC130s are best at 27 tons over 900 kliks
but how about KC-30s MRTT ; 111 tons at 1,800 kms /2H loiter?
Flow rates tell a similar story.

It's the good old cycle : new/different capacity vs disadvantages.
Is it needed? Can it fit your tactical book? How much will it cost?

For most nations outside NATO, just getting and using an Il_78 or
an H-6 based capacity is marvelous for fast movers.
Heck, mate I'm sure you followed the helo fiasco with the A400M!
That already sold 4 KC J to us and 2 more likely and Berlin is now
thinking about following suite on account of that. Not so easy ...

All the best to you and yours, Tay.

 

[Penguin]

Do note that the Dave B is using sustentation from its huge fan
and has set its nozzle for extra-lift to fit the slow speed.

Yeah, saw that ;-) Not to mention wheels down.

As for mission radius, HC130s are best at 27 tons over 900 kliks but how about KC-30s MRTT ; 111 tons at 1,800 kms /2H loiter?
Flow rates tell a similar story.

Agre. But, what does this leave for options for the (US) NAVY? Buddy-to-Buddy refuelling F/A-18s aside, S-3 tanker is gone. Can there be a modern day equivalent of KA-3 Skywarrior or KA-6 Intruder?

 

[Taygibay]

Can there be a modern day equivalent of KA-3 Skywarrior or KA-6 Intruder?

Geez, apart from the C-2/E2, what platform could be used?
The S-3 was a decent solution but will we see a naval jet
support aircraft in the future, I seriously doubt it!

And that was predictable since 1994 and Grumman's absorption!

Time to revive Fokker and set them a challenge?
Tot binnenkort! Tay.

 

[Penguin]

Time to revive Fokker and set them a challenge?

http://www.fokker.com/
http://www.fokker-aircraft.info/f28performance.htm
http://www.fokker-aircraft.info/perf-landing42.htm

KC-1 Turbo Trader? KS-3A Viking?
http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/u-s-navy-time-to-bring-back-the-s-3-viking/

 

[Taygibay]

The S-3 should never have left for budgetary reasons alone.
Sad reality!

And awesome pick of a pic

Take care, Tay.

 

[Oldman1]

Just buy some new C-130Js. Way better performance and still cheap compare to upgrading them with would cost millions.

 

[Penguin]

The S-3 should never have left for budgetary reasons alone.
Sad reality!

And awesome pick of a pic

Take care, Tay.

ANd one for quizzing

Erieye demonstrator.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Just buy some new C-130Js. Way better performance and still cheap compare to upgrading them with would cost millions.

A new C-130J is (according to Wiki) 100-120 M$ FY2014.
There will be updates of electronics and other stuff, but no
replacement of structures.
Why do You think buying new is cheaper?

 

[Oldman1]

A new C-130J is (according to Wiki) 100-120 M$ FY2014.
There will be updates of electronics and other stuff, but no
replacement of structures.
Why do You think buying new is cheaper?

Sorry they sell it more expensively to international customers.


US$67.3 million (flyaway cost, USAF, FY2014)[2]
US$100–120 million (avg. cost, international sales)[3][4]