Indonesia & South Korea Cooperating in Jet Fighter Projects?

[Ananda]

Ananda, IMHO, there is nothing unusual with Probe and Drogue mid-air refueling which is prevalent on most non-US aircraft like the Su-30. Kindly note that USN fixed wing aircraft like the Hornet also use the Probe and Drogue system. Even certain F-5s have been modified to use the same method of mid-air refueling.

Indonesia's F-16s OTOH require a Boom and Receptacle system for mid-air refueling, which is really a USAF standard.

OPSSG, I think the speculations (at least in several forum that I've seen) on the compatibility of US Tankers with Russian Fighters is on whether Russian Probe system will fit US or Western Drouge..vice versa..

I believe when we got the F-16, there's interest in our Air Force to also get KC 135 or Modified B 707 with Boom systems. It fell down with US Embargoes and Asian Crisis.
I believe there's also currently interest to get new tankers to replaces those oleh KC 130 B, but whether with Boom or standard Probe-Drouge system will still be seen on possibility of us getting more F 16 or not.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Indonesia's F-16s OTOH require a Boom and Receptacle system for mid-air refueling, which is really a USAF standard.

Yep the difference between the 2 really comes down to flow rates and flexibility.

Boom refuellers are designed primarily to refuel large aircraft and have extremely high flow fuel rates, higher in fact than fighters can actually receive...

Hose and drogue are designed for fighters and the fuel rates match the rate at which the fighter can receive the fuel.

USAF however had a large fleet of aircraft requiring boom refuelling, so it made sense to standardise on the boom.

USN and Europe, however which did not have the requirement that USAF has, opted for hose and drogue and benefit from the fact that 2 fighters can usually hook up to these types of systems.

A fascinating subject, really...

 

[Ananda]

Yep the difference between the 2 really comes down to flow rates and flexibility.

Boom refuellers are designed primarily to refuel large aircraft and have extremely high flow fuel rates, higher in fact than fighters can actually receive...

Hose and drogue are designed for fighters and the fuel rates match the rate at which the fighter can receive the fuel.

AD, With our Flankers fit well with our KC 130, seems to me the Russian Probe & Drogue system actually follow the same standard as the western system (I have to assuyme that since the US/Western use this system first). It might be just how to regulate the fuel flow rates to match the Russian fighters absorbtion level.

USN and Europe, however which did not have the requirement that USAF has, opted for hose and drogue and benefit from the fact that 2 fighters can usually hook up to these types of systems.

I also heard (from Discovery Channel actually) that boom system also more tollerant with harsh wheather conditions..do you agree with that ?

 

[swerve]

...
USAF however had a large fleet of aircraft requiring boom refuelling, so it made sense to standardise on the boom. .....

Not according to the people running tactical air, who protested at the time. But Strategic Air Command controlled the tankers, & was more politically powerful. The nuclear deterrent (pre-ICBMs . . .) had absolute priority.

What made sense was standardising on tankers with both, a boom plus underwing hoses. SAC deliberately chose not to, as it didn't see any necessity for refuelling fighters, considering it a diversion of its tankers from their main purpose, refuelling nuclear bombers.

 

[swerve]

Indonesia's F-16s OTOH require a Boom and Receptacle system for mid-air refueling, which is really a USAF standard.

Any F-16 which can accept conformal fuel tanks can now use probe & drogue AAR. A CFT with a built in probe is now available.

 

[OPSSG]

Ananda, Aussie Digger & swerve,

As usual, it is a pleasure reading and responding to your posts, as I always learn something new from you guys.

Not according to the people running tactical air, who protested at the time. But Strategic Air Command controlled the tankers, & was more politically powerful. The nuclear deterrent (pre-ICBMs . . .) had absolute priority.

What made sense was standardising on tankers with both, a boom plus underwing hoses. SAC deliberately chose not to, as it didn't see any necessity for refuelling fighters, considering it a diversion of its tankers from their main purpose, refuelling nuclear bombers.

IIRC, a number of USAF KC-135s have been equipped with probe & drouge pods (over and above their boom & receptacle system) to enable them to conduct AAR with NATO and navy aircraft. These probe & drouge pods can be transferred.

Indonesia's F-16s OTOH require a Boom and Receptacle system for mid-air refueling, which is really a USAF standard.

Any F-16 which can accept conformal fuel tanks can now use probe & drogue AAR. A CFT with a built in probe is now available.

swerve, thanks for the clarification, I did not know about a CFT with a built in probe is now available. BTW, according to Ananda, the Indonesian air force has 6 x F-16As that are still working. As such, buying a CFT is a future option for the Indonesian air force, if they are interested in buying more F-16s.

In the case of the RSAF, our KC 135Rs are equipped with both the probe & drogue (for our F-5s) and the boom & receptacle systems (for our F-16s).

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

SY, the link in my previous post is from Antara, thus it's the recent exercise conducted by our air forces. I put it because there's still speculations on compatibility of Russian Fighthers with US/Western tankers.

What our airforces already showed that there's no problem in matting Russian Fighters with US Tankers. I think the speculations come up due before us and maybe Malaysian (I forgot if Malaysia has KC 130 too or not), other Russian fighters users usually do not have US build tankers.

Sorry, i read too fast, i tought you said "It's little bit out of topic, just want to know that Flankers... "

Yes, TDUM has two C-130T tankers, formal C-130H-MPs converted by AIROD, as far as i know....
Afaik our two KC-130Bs are also converted by AIROD from standard C-130B...

 

[swerve]

IIRC, a number of USAF KC-135s have been equipped with probe & drouge pods (over and above their boom and receptacle system) to enable them to conduct AAR with NATO and navy aircraft. These probe & drouge pods can be transferred.

Also, there are KC-10 tankers, which have both booms & hoses, & there is a hose fitting which can be attached to a boom, to enable a tanker with only a boom to refuel probe- equipped aircraft, though that has the disadvantage of only being able to refuel one aircraft at a time, thus negating a major advantage of large hose-equipped tankers.i.e. the ability to conduct simultaneous refuellings.

The fact that all these measures have been adopted shows the error of the original decision to go all-boom. IMO, the ideal situation for the USAF would be a tanker fleet with both booms & hoses, all large aircraft to have receptacles for booms, & tactical aircraft & helicopters (where appropriate - not all helicopters) to have probes. And I'd like the RAF to have the same.

But we digress . . .

 

[Aussie Digger]

AD, With our Flankers fit well with our KC 130, seems to me the Russian Probe & Drogue system actually follow the same standard as the western system (I have to assuyme that since the US/Western use this system first). It might be just how to regulate the fuel flow rates to match the Russian fighters absorbtion level.



I also heard (from Discovery Channel actually) that boom system also more tollerant with harsh wheather conditions..do you agree with that ?

Booms would probably be more stable for refuelling aircraft in harsher weather conditions, given the flexible hoses employed in podded drogue systems, but then altitude plays a part too (ie: refuelling above the "harsh weather").

If the TNI-AU has demonstrated a capability to refuel SU-30 from KC-130, then, yes, it would seem the Russians may indeed have a similar standard to the West, or TNI-AU ordered Western spec probes with their SU-30's, or the KC-130's were modified to Russian specs...

A bit hard to tell really, though it could be the case...

 

[Falstaff]

If the TNI-AU has demonstrated a capability to refuel SU-30 from KC-130, then, yes, it would seem the Russians may indeed have a similar standard to the West, or TNI-AU ordered Western spec probes with their SU-30's, or the KC-130's were modified to Russian specs...

The latter must be correct, as the russian system has different (metric) dimensions than the (british) western system. However, this shouldn't be a problem, as the flow rates are similar if somewhat higher for the Cobham system and can be regulated accordingly.
Very fascinating stuff really, I remember reading a lengthy Flug Revue article about it, I'll try to find and scan it.

 

[Ananda]

If the TNI-AU has demonstrated a capability to refuel SU-30 from KC-130, then, yes, it would seem the Russians may indeed have a similar standard to the West, or TNI-AU ordered Western spec probes with their SU-30's, or the KC-130's were modified to Russian specs...

From what I heard in here, our SU 30 actually coming from standard Irkhustk production batch (that should go to China). Thus seems I'm kind to incline we still use standard Russian probe. Which make sense since we can only afford few Falnkers at this moment and a few dozen at best, it's not really cost effective to tailor them like the Indians and Chinese did.

What made sense was standardising on tankers with both, a boom plus underwing hoses. SAC deliberately chose not to, as it didn't see any necessity for refuelling fighters, considering it a diversion of its tankers from their main purpose, refuelling nuclear bombers

Swerve, I once saw a photograph of Franchie KC 135 with rubber hose/probe attach in the boom. I believe this may be the same system that Singaporean KC 135 uses in tanking their F 5 as like OPSSG says..This in my oppinion extend the complexity and reduce flexibility on tanking your fighther fleet if you have to tanking receptacle fighters and probe ones in same theather of operations.
Thus I agree that the future tankers should have both boom and underwing hose/drouge stations. This will help many SEA nations that ussually use US, European or Russian fighters. I read that Australians new Airbus 330 tankers will have this ability, can you or AD confirm this ?

With Europeans uniformly uses Probe and Drouge, I still do not understand why new airbus tankers need to have booms..except to cater for US market or probabbly tanking US AF fighters in the joint operations...Still the US have huge tankers fleet...don't seems to be neccesary for new European tankers also having booms...

 

[swerve]

Yes, the Australian tankers will have both, like the Italian KC-767s.

Booms can deliver fuel at higher rates. This doesn't matter for fighters, as hoses can usually deliver fuel as fast as a fighter can accept it, but it is a big advantage for larger aircraft. Air-air refuelling of transport aircraft (C-17, C-130, A400M), large maritime patrol aircraft (Nimrod, P-8), & even tankers, is useful - and booms are a better way to do it. The USAF adopted it for refuelling its bombers, for precisely that reason.

 

[Ananda]

Indonesian C-130 Crash

Off topic, and news without links or comment.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/news-postings-threads-topics-8355/

NOTICE/WARNING:

Continuous news postings on different threads are turning them into RSS news ribons. After discussion with the other moderators here is what has been decided:

1. News without poster's comments will be deleted.

2. Comments such as "Hey guys good news ... we are buying this ... doing that ..." do not contribute anything to discussion, hence they will no longer be counted as 'contributory comments' & such post will be deleted.

3. Try not to post full news. Just post the 1st paragraph & the link of the source.

Failure to comply with above follows the same punishment as before = 3 warnings & a week's ban. In addition the thread will also be locked.

 

[Ananda]

Off topic, and news without links or comment.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/news-postings-threads-topics-8355/

Sorry, but I think under the news I already put my comment and thought. Next time I will only put the link to the sources. Thanks.

 

[Ananda]

DEFENSE STUDIES: Kerjasama Pesawat Tempur dengan Korea : Tahun 2012 Disain Selesai Dilanjutkan dengan Prototipe
Defence Media Centre - Korea Selatan Tawarkan Kerjasama Jasa Pelatihan Bagi TNI AU

According to Indonesian Ministry of Defence, the talk still continue with South Korea for developing Fighther jets. The road map is hoped for prototype development after 2012.
Seems indicating derivative of T 50.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

DEFENSE STUDIES: Kerjasama Pesawat Tempur dengan Korea : Tahun 2012 Disain Selesai Dilanjutkan dengan Prototipe
Defence Media Centre - Korea Selatan Tawarkan Kerjasama Jasa Pelatihan Bagi TNI AU

According to Indonesian Ministry of Defence, the talk still continue with South Korea for developing Fighther jets. The road map is hoped for prototype development after 2012.
Seems indicating derivative of T 50.

Great news,thanks, ya mudah2an rencana ini tidak dimundurkan/batalkan.
I really want to know what sort of aircraft it will become. A licenced T-50 copy, or a simple and cheap poor-third-world-country K8 like plane.

 

[Ananda]

Great news,thanks, ya mudah2an rencana ini tidak dimundurkan/batalkan.
I really want to know what sort of aircraft it will become. A licenced T-50 copy, or a simple and cheap poor-third-world-country K8 like plane.

Heard from DI sources, the initial talk was infact to jointly build COIN version of KT-1 or what the South Korean called KO-1. However there's debated now in Defence Ministry on the continues need for COIN Fighter, since now the Army already equiped with MI-35. Perhaps this's one of the reasons why planed for Super Tucano's as OV-10 replacements still on hold.

Uncorfimed sources says this proposed join ventures with South Korea supposed to produced fighters after 2015 for replacement of Hawk 200, thus seems it should be more capable than upgraded K8.
While Airforce keen to have additionals F 16 for F 5 replacement. Thus if this correct than the plan is:

2 sq of A4 replaced by SU 27/30
1 sq of F 16 will be upgraded and get 6 more fighters
1 sq of F 5 will also be replaced by F 16
2 Sq of Hawk 200 (and possible additional new sq's) will be replaced by proposed Joint Venture Fighters with South Korean (circa after 2014).

Air Force need to replace Hawk Mk 53 and OV 10 soon, and like the sources say, there's still debated on the need of COIN's now. Well the army wants the money for COIN will be directed to them for getting More MI 35 and MI 17.

 

[Ananda]

Possible being Offered to South Korea or other DI CN 235 customers

DI will developed further CN 235 ASW. After they have developed CN 235 MPA, DI's team with Turkey Aerospace have developed ASW variant. Base on the work in the Turkey, DI's will further developed ASW variances wich aimed on existing CN 235 users in Asia Pacific.

With regards on South Korean joint ventures, this perhaps can also be offered to South Korea.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ANTARA News: PT DI to build CN-235 anti-submarine aircraft

PT DI to build CN-235 anti-submarine aircraft
Saturday, July 11, 2009 19:55 WIB | International | | Viewed 333 time(s)

CN-235 anti-submarine airplane (ANTARA/alutsista.blogspot.com/*)Bandung, W Java (ANTARA News) - State-owned Indonesian aircraft industry PTDI is to develop a CN-235 anti-submarine airplane which would be a new variant of its CN-235 turbo-prop aircraft, PTDI president director Budi Wuraskito said.

Wuraskito said here on Saturday Indonesia already had the needed technology and qualified human resources. "They have the experience to assemble and modify aircraft of that type," he said.

He said PTDI had enough human resources to produce anti-submarine aircraft.
About 40 PTDI engineers had been involved in the production of anti-submarine airplanes in Turkey, he said.

He said they returned to Indonesia four months ago after completing their assignment in Turkey. "We already have the technology for the production of such aircraft," he said.

PTDI was now able to design and produce the CN-235 MPA, a maritime patrol aircraft which had become one of PTDI`s most salable products.

He said PTDI would soon develop the CN-235 anti-submarine plane. A number of countries had already expressed interest in purchasing PTID`s anti-submarine products. One of them was Malaysia.

Thumbnails from http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/search/label/ANGKATAN LAUT

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

DI will developed further CN 235 ASW. After they have developed CN 235 MPA, DI's team with Turkey Aerospace have developed ASW variant. Base on the work in the Turkey, DI's will further developed ASW variances wich aimed on existing CN 235 users in Asia Pacific.

With regards on South Korean joint ventures, this perhaps can also be offered to South Korea.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ANTARA News: PT DI to build CN-235 anti-submarine aircraft

PT DI to build CN-235 anti-submarine aircraft
Saturday, July 11, 2009 19:55 WIB | International | | Viewed 333 time(s)

CN-235 anti-submarine airplane (ANTARA/alutsista.blogspot.com/*)Bandung, W Java (ANTARA News) - State-owned Indonesian aircraft industry PTDI is to develop a CN-235 anti-submarine airplane which would be a new variant of its CN-235 turbo-prop aircraft, PTDI president director Budi Wuraskito said.

Wuraskito said here on Saturday Indonesia already had the needed technology and qualified human resources. "They have the experience to assemble and modify aircraft of that type," he said.

He said PTDI had enough human resources to produce anti-submarine aircraft.
About 40 PTDI engineers had been involved in the production of anti-submarine airplanes in Turkey, he said.

He said they returned to Indonesia four months ago after completing their assignment in Turkey. "We already have the technology for the production of such aircraft," he said.

PTDI was now able to design and produce the CN-235 MPA, a maritime patrol aircraft which had become one of PTDI`s most salable products.

He said PTDI would soon develop the CN-235 anti-submarine plane. A number of countries had already expressed interest in purchasing PTID`s anti-submarine products. One of them was Malaysia.

Thumbnails from DEFENSE STUDIES: ANGKATAN LAUT

Thanks for the news! We really need ASW aircrafts.... Indigenious made is the best solution!

 

[anan]

To summarize, are the Indonesians buying KT-1s? Are they buying T 50s (or light fighter A 50 versions)?

How do the KT-1s compare to the A29 super tucanos from Brazil and the AT6 from the US?

What is Korea's annual production capacity for KT-1s. How much of that is already earmarked for existing orders?