Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Indian AF Air Refueling System: Nato Or Russian?  
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4681 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6621 times:

The topic basically is my question. What air refueling system does the Indian AF use, the western or the Russian one ?

I ask this because I know the Indian AF has IL-78 tankers, but apparently those refueled Jaguars on ferry flights to Alaska where they took part in an exercise.

To my knowledge, the 2 systems are not compatible. So which sytem is it ?


Exceptions confirm the rule.
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3927 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6611 times:

There is no 'western' air refueling system.

The USAF, Israelis, Dutch, Turks and Singaporeans (I think) use the boom system.

Everone else - the British, US Navy, French, Russians, Indians and others - use the probe and drogue system. Not sure if Russian and Western probes and drogues are normally fully compatible, but it can't be too difficult.

Peter



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineAseem From India, joined Feb 2005, 2046 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6595 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 1):
Everone else - the British, US Navy, French, Russians, Indians and others - use the probe and drogue system. Not sure if Russian and Western probes and drogues are normally fully compatible, but it can't be too difficult.

IAF has a potpourri of Russian, French and British aircrafts, so it makes sense to fall into the latter category.
Moreover, with Boeing and Lockheed in contention for the 126 aircraft IAF order, it will be interesting to see how the systems are modified. Shouldn't be that difficult.
Strange USAF and US Navy use different systems. Does it affect joint operability? And why was it allowed to happen in the first place?
rgds
VT-ASJ



ala re ala, VT-ALA ala
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3927 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6591 times:

Quoting Aseem (Reply 2):
Strange USAF and US Navy use different systems. Does it affect joint operability?

Yes it does. Drogues can be fitted to USAF boom tankers I think, but USN tankers cannot refuel AF fighters and bombers.

Quoting Aseem (Reply 2):
And why was it allowed to happen in the first place?

The boom system allows more rapid fuel transfer I suspect, and was considered more suitable for Strategic Air Command bombers.

The hose and drogue system is more flexible. Drogues don't require a boom operator and are easy to install on smaller aircraft. As such it suits carrier aviation, and smaller air forces better.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Voortmans Dirk
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Lofting




The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3927 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6583 times:

Quoting Aseem (Reply 2):
Moreover, with Boeing and Lockheed in contention for the 126 aircraft IAF order, it will be interesting to see how the systems are modified. Shouldn't be that difficult.

The IAF is considering the F-16? Actually, I think it might be bit of a headache to bolt a refuelling probe on the F-16. The aircraft's boom receptacle is far behind the cockpit as you can see in Dirk's picture. The probe needs to be in front, so the pilot can steer it into the drogue.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6501 times:

The Problem the IAF faces is a stoppage of Supplies from the US,in case of sanctions.Whereas the Russian & French wont.
A good site on the IAF


regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4681 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6474 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 1):
There is no 'western' air refueling system.

The USAF, Israelis, Dutch, Turks and Singaporeans (I think) use the boom system.

Everone else - the British, US Navy, French, Russians, Indians and others - use the probe and drogue system. Not sure if Russian and Western probes and drogues are normally fully compatible, but it can't be too difficult.

With western system I meant the (small) western hose and drogue system.

IIRC, this western system and the comparable Russian one have different fuel flow rates etc. So what has the Indian AF done to manage this ?



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3927 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6423 times:

Hi A342,

Sorry that I misunderstood your question, you knew more already than I do.
The western hose and drogues are smaller than the Russian ones?

Size can obviously be a problem, but why would a different fuel flow rate be a problem? The probe on the receiving aicraft is nothing but a tube, isn't it?



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineMissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6397 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 3):
USN tankers cannot refuel AF fighters and bombers.

They could once. USAF F-105 & F-4 were compatible with both boom/receptacle & probe/drogue systems.

F-105 probe



Can you hear me now?
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4681 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6358 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 7):
The western hose and drogues are smaller than the Russian ones?

Hose and Drogue systems:

Small western system for fighters: up to 1600 liters/hour

Big western system, mostly used for transport aircraft: up to 2400 liters/hour

Russian system: up to 2700 liters/hour.

Look at this website for information about Russian air refueling:

http://www.zvezda-npp.ru/english/06.htm

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 7):
Size can obviously be a problem, but why would a different fuel flow rate be a problem? The probe on the receiving aicraft is nothing but a tube, isn't it?

It is more than a tube. There are connectors, ventiles and such things. Looking at the differnt fuel flow rates for western and Russian systems, there could very well be differences in size for the probes and drogues.
Foe example, the Russian probe might mot fit into a western drogue as this would be too small, hence no fuel could be transferred. This may also be valid the other way round.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2207 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6299 times:

The six IAF IL-78MKIs use a probe and drogue setup with a Severin/UPAZ refuelling system consisting of three refuelling points - 2x underwing and one on the fuselage rear port side. The refuellng ports are standardized across various western and Russian aircraft in the fleet, from MiGs and Sukhois to Jaguars and Mirages. See http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/AAR.html .


India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6275 times:

Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 8):
They could once. USAF F-105 & F-4 were compatible with both boom/receptacle & probe/drogue systems.

I don't think the 105s were fitted with boom receptors, and not all Phantoms were (only from the E on I believe).

It was around that time the USAF switched from probe/drogue to boom refueling so some aircraft would have been able to accept both systems.
It was however decided that feeding a hose with a basket through the boom when needed was cheaper.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5689 posts, RR: 44
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 6188 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

OK.. the facts here may be dimmed with time as it is many years since I read this.

I recall reading once that many of the support functions of Soviet military equipment, things like external power connectors, refuellng points etc (even some ammunition) was built to NATO standards(or at least to be compatable with)

Was this done because the planners of the day foresaw the day when all would be living in peaceful coexistence? Hell no, it was done so that the forces of the Soviet Union could utilise the equipment left behind as they steamrollered across Europe.

The airborne refueling systems likely fall into that category as well..not an expert on flow rates and how adjustable they are though.



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6084 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 11):
I don't think the 105s were fitted with boom receptors, and not all Phantoms were (only from the E on I believe).

It was around that time the USAF switched from probe/drogue to boom refueling so some aircraft would have been able to accept both systems.
It was however decided that feeding a hose with a basket through the boom when needed was cheaper.

Actually Missedapproach put up a photo of the F-105's probe.

But a little history here.

The USAF started using the Probe and Droge system for their aircraft refilling fighters such as the F-84 and F-100 from converted B-29 and B-50 Bombers.

However Lemay and hes Strategic Air Command wanted a higher fueling rate so in the early 1950's for their jet bombers such as the B47. So they had the boom system developed and it was employed on some of the converted bombers and on the new KC-97's they where ordering. The generals at (Tactical Air Command) where happy with the droge system which was adequate for filling the smaller fighters they operated, so their aircraft stayed with it until somebody finally got the smart idea for the Air Force to standardize on the boom system.

So a lot of times when you look at a 1950's aircraft you can tell who it was developed for SAC or TAC based on the fueling system. It isn't a fullproof method thorugh. There are examples of F-84G's with SAC with a wingtip probe for a fueling droge instead fof the SAC boom fueling system some aircraft also had. A lot of that had to do with the location the aircraft was assigned. This is because the aircraft where assigned to Korea and Japan and boom tankers where not available in those operating areas.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineHT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6525 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6081 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 9):
Small western system for fighters: up to 1600 liters/hour

I doubt that the stated flowrate given per "hour" is correct ...
Are those figures "per minute" ?
-HT



Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4681 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6045 times:

Quoting HT (Reply 14):
Quoting A342 (Reply 9):
Small western system for fighters: up to 1600 liters/hour

I doubt that the stated flowrate given per "hour" is correct ...
Are those figures "per minute" ?

Oops, yes of course that´s per minute. Sorry for the mistake and thanks for correcting me.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Indian AF Air Refueling System: Nato Or Russian?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air Refueling (Boom System) posted Sun Nov 25 2001 02:28:44 by LY744
Air-To-Air Refueling Over ORD posted Fri Sep 17 2004 16:41:55 by Airfinair
Increase In ANG/AF Air Traffic? posted Thu Nov 14 2002 22:46:51 by Msh744
Air Force Base In Or Near Travis, California posted Sun Nov 3 2002 17:01:18 by Airlinelover
Russian Air Force Tu-134 Crash By Simferpool posted Tue Jul 11 2006 09:49:28 by Sovietjet
Saudi Arabia AF : A330MRTT Or KC767? posted Sat Jun 3 2006 11:33:02 by FCKC
Usaf Air Tanker/Refueling Questions posted Fri Mar 10 2006 18:33:38 by TropicBird
Russian AF To Do Stunt-flying In China For Big $$$ posted Wed Mar 1 2006 23:16:00 by USAFHummer
Upper Or Lower Door On Air Force One? posted Fri Feb 3 2006 18:03:25 by TK787
Do The Marines Or Air Force Use ABDUs? posted Sat Nov 19 2005 20:41:23 by AGM114L

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format