New Aussie Air to air Refuellers.

[Aussie Digger]

Agreed, we shouldn't look too far ahead. The FA-22A itself may not even enter service yet, if the US GAO has it's way... I think we do need to maintain a qualitative air combat capability over our neighbours though. I'm not sure the JSF will provide that in a pure air to air combat though. It is afterall primarily designed as a "bomb truck" not a front line Air Superiority fighter. I realise integrated packages are more important than the relative advantages of one aircraft type over another, but a qualitative edge (such as that provided by the F-22) plus the overall superiority of the force would be best for us (and worst for them...)

 

[gf0012-aust]

Stats: New Aussie Air to air Refuellers.

The A330 MRTT will have a total fuel capacity of 139,090 litres.

The hose and drogue pods installed under each wing each would have a flow rate of 1500 L/min,

The hose/drum unit (HDU) in the lower centre fuselage would provide up to 2270 L/min.

Eg, the F/A-18A/B has an internal fuel load of 6,056 L. Assuming that the MRTT unloads only 50% of it's total load it will be able to FULLY top-up 11 RAAF Hornets.

If the fuel off-loaded per Hornet was on average around half the internal Hornet load, or about 3,000 L per top up, then double the number of Hornets it could service from only 50% of it's own load!

If the centre Refueling point is a boom, then it will be evacuating fuel at 2 x the rate of a hose setup



Raw numbers

A330 MRTT total internal fuel load = nearly 23 RAAF Hornets internal fuel load

 

[Aussie Digger]

Maybe you should send that to Carlo Kopp. He's advocating between 20-25 AAR's for the ADF!!!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Maybe you should send that to Carlo Kopp. He's advocating between 20-25 AAR's for the ADF!!!

No thanks, I have enough friends already...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yeah and at the risk of being sued for libel, I think he's insane...

 

[Salman78]

Hey Aussie.. Do u know how many tankers are involved in this deal ?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hey Aussie.. Do u know how many tankers are involved in this deal ?

5

 

[Tasman]

Tankers for helicopters

This is another revival of an old thread. Hmm... The last post was a bit more than 'six months ago' Magoo!

Does anyone know what is the current thinking in the RAAF regarding the supplementing of the new KC-30B MRTTs with tanker versions of the Hercules. The The timing seems right as Air 8000 in the Defence Capability Plan, provides for the replacement or upgrade of C-130Hs not replaced by the C-17s. This would enable the air force to provide tanker support for its Chinooks and MRH90s?

Magoo has said in another thread that the Chinook would need to be upgraded to CH-47F standard and that the MRH90s will be plumbed for AAR but will likely not be fitted, initially at least, with the probe unless we get some C-130 tankers as well. If this was done and 4-6 KC-130Js were acquired I think it would be a huge force multiplier for the ADF helo fleet. I guess they could also supplement the new KC-30B MRTTs with refuelling other assets.

What are the limitations of a turboprop aircraft like the KC-130J re the refuelling of fighters like the Hornet and SH?

Cheers

 

[Falstaff]

What are the limitations of a turboprop aircraft like the KC-130J re the refuelling of fighters like the Hornet and SH?

Speed. The Herc just isn't fast enough and fighters can't fly slow enough to really make it safe.
It used by the USMC in this role though. See KC-130 at globalsecurity.org...

 

[Magoo]

This is another revival of an old thread. Hmm... The last post was a bit more than 'six months ago' Magoo!

Does anyone know what is the current thinking in the RAAF regarding the supplementing of the new KC-30B MRTTs with tanker versions of the Hercules. The The timing seems right as Air 8000 in the Defence Capability Plan, provides for the replacement or upgrade of C-130Hs not replaced by the C-17s. This would enable the air force to provide tanker support for its Chinooks and MRH90s?

Magoo has said in another thread that the Chinook would need to be upgraded to CH-47F standard and that the MRH90s will be plumbed for AAR but will likely not be fitted, initially at least, with the probe unless we get some C-130 tankers as well. If this was done and 4-6 KC-130Js were acquired I think it would be a huge force multiplier for the ADF helo fleet. I guess they could also supplement the new KC-30B MRTTs with refuelling other assets.

What are the limitations of a turboprop aircraft like the KC-130J re the refuelling of fighters like the Hornet and SH?

Cheers

Although not an official requirement yet, there is amove underway to get another six or so C-130Js which would replace the C-130Hs in the next few years, withe the possibility that these would be configured as tankers.

Much of the assessment work being done now is final numbers along with the Caribou replacement (C-27J or C-295) and whether to go for short fuselage versions a la US Marine Corps, or to be lead customer on a long fuselage version which no one else has done yet. I suspect the short version may end up being the successful solution.

Falstaff - the refueling speed for a conventional jet powered tanker is probably around 350 knots at altitude, whereas a C-130J can refuel a jet at around 280-300...not alot of difference really and the USMC do it comfortably all the time with their Hornets. The advantage of the prop-powered tanker is it can slow to 130 knots and 7-8000ft for helos.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Todjaeger]

Although not an official requirement yet, there is amove underway to get another six or so C-130Js which would replace the C-130Hs in the next few years, withe the possibility that these would be configured as tankers.

Cheers

Magoo

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the RAAF had a dozen C-130H Hercs that it was looking at either SLEPing or replacing. I would definately see new C-130Js should have at least a few KC variants, though from what I've read, there doesn't seem to be much performance difference (cargo wise) between a reg. C-130J and a KC-130J in transport mode. Time will tell I suppose.

-Cheers

 

[Falstaff]

Falstaff - the refueling speed for a conventional jet powered tanker is probably around 350 knots at altitude, whereas a C-130J can refuel a jet at around 280-300...not alot of difference really and the USMC do it comfortably all the time with their Hornets.

As far as I know, the J-Herc can refuel at speeds up to 270knots, which is an improvement over older variants.
I didn't mean to say it's impossible or can't be done, it's just that fighter jets don't "feel" too comfortable at low speeds and altitudes, esp. when your plane's getting a lot heavier. There's just more room left in your flight envelope. And I think 80-100 knots do make a difference. My car doesn't even go that fast

 

[Turk]

Air to Air refuelling planes are so important.

 

[Falstaff]

Hi, Turk. I appreciate your passionate posting but I think it would be better not to use one liners which make no sense. Sorry, I honestly don't know what you want to say.

 

[rjmaz1]

Air to Air refuelling planes are so important.

Buying aircraft that dont require inflight refuel is more important.

Air to Air refueling is important only if you purchased the wrong aircraft for the mission it is to perform.

Super Hornets to perform strikes against Indonesia would need alot of tankers, or they could use million dollar cruise missiles which starts getting expensive really quick. It will work but not that well.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Buying aircraft that dont require inflight refuel is more important.

Air to Air refueling is important only if you purchased the wrong aircraft for the mission it is to perform.

Super Hornets to perform strikes against Indonesia would need alot of tankers, or they could use million dollar cruise missiles which starts getting expensive really quick. It will work but not that well.

Yes, so many countries are convinced of this idea aren't they. Why do you think that is perhaps?

FYI, JASSM's come in at a lot less than $1m per round...

 

[phreeky]

Buying aircraft that dont require inflight refuel is more important.

Air to Air refueling is important only if you purchased the wrong aircraft for the mission it is to perform.

Why can't air to air refueling be integrated as part of a complete solution to a capability requirement?

 

[Tasman]

Buying aircraft that dont require inflight refuel is more important.

Air to Air refueling is important only if you purchased the wrong aircraft for the mission it is to perform.

I am trying to think of what aircraft wouldn't benefit from air to air refuelling.

With strike missions AAR allows aircraft to get airborne with maximum weapons load, top up, and then head off to the target. The USAF even does this with B52s. A bomber may have a max bomb load of say 40,000kg but that doesn't mean it could take off with that weapon load and maximum fuel.

For air defence AAR enables a CAP to stay airborne longer in an emergency.

AAR can also 'rescue' aircraft that get caught up in combat situations longer than planned and become low on fuel before returning to base. They may also lose fuel through combat damage.

Even if an air force has aircraft that can perform some missions without refuelling there will be others where the mission capability is expanded enormously with in flight refuelling. This includes helicopter operations.

Super Hornets to perform strikes against Indonesia would need a lot of tankers, or they could use million dollar cruise missiles which starts getting expensive really quick. It will work but not that well.

I know you've suggested before that the RAAF should acquire B-1Bs for long range strike but even if the RAAF wanted them the overwhelming evidence I've seen on this forum suggests they wouldn't be available. The last time a government looked like buying large bombers (the B-47E Statojet offer in 1963) the air force breathed a collective sigh of relief when the offer was turned down. Don't you think that there is a message in the fact that the RAAF, whose pilots' lives would be on the line, don't want a heavy bomber and believe that aircraft like the F-35 and the SH are the best aircraft to do the job they have been given? As for weapons, if air launched cruise missiles save the lives of even one pilot, I think they’re worth every penny.

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

Buying aircraft that dont require inflight refuel is more important.

Air to Air refueling is important only if you purchased the wrong aircraft for the mission it is to perform.

And what does one do, when the mission is to fly an aircraft over long distance? Say a transport ferrying troops/equipment/supplies/whatever? Air to air refueling allows the flight time/range or an aircraft to be extended. Whether it's something going slowly around in circles loitering (like a AP-3C Orion, or the E-737 Wedgetail) or a C-130 Hercules or C-17 Globemaster carrying cargo into Afghanistan, the ability to refuel while in flight given an air force greater flexibility. Even if it isn't used in a particular mission where it might be useful, having the capability gives more Options. And expecting to be able to use internal fuel & drop tanks to get all fielded aircraft anywhere one might desire them to be is unreasonable. After all, how many fighter aircraft can, without in-flight refueling, make an ocean crossing? Granted, there are spots where the continents might be close, but land-hopping requires access to airfields, fuel and overflight permission. Not something even remotely safe to assume.

Assuming that in-flight refueling will only be used for fighters or on strike missions is to discount much of what the capability allows.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

And what does one do, when the mission is to fly an aircraft over long distance? Say a transport ferrying troops/equipment/supplies/whatever? Air to air refueling allows the flight time/range or an aircraft to be extended. Whether it's something going slowly around in circles loitering (like a AP-3C Orion, or the E-737 Wedgetail) or a C-130 Hercules or C-17 Globemaster carrying cargo into Afghanistan, the ability to refuel while in flight given an air force greater flexibility. Even if it isn't used in a particular mission where it might be useful, having the capability gives more Options. And expecting to be able to use internal fuel & drop tanks to get all fielded aircraft anywhere one might desire them to be is unreasonable. After all, how many fighter aircraft can, without in-flight refueling, make an ocean crossing? Granted, there are spots where the continents might be close, but land-hopping requires access to airfields, fuel and overflight permission. Not something even remotely safe to assume.

Assuming that in-flight refueling will only be used for fighters or on strike missions is to discount much of what the capability allows.

-Cheers

I think you have covered this issue superbly Todjaeger. AAR is a massive force multiplier than can be applied in practically every area of military aviation. I think it could also have civil applications for Australia. It could, for example, provide emergency refuelling of aircraft servicing bases in Antarctica, although the aircraft concerned would have to be modified for this.

Cheers