Chinese Master Inflight Refueling

[Fly Navy]

The Chinese believe that ultimately, to ensure their political ands social survival, they must win out over the USA. Whether that means either economically or militarily - they'd very much like to see our ability to compete for resources drastically reduced.

There is only so much aerable land and fresh water, and petroleum reserves folks.

Don't underestimate the Chinese Hegemony - think we won't go to war with them in the next 20-100 years? Think again.

And business IS war. Never forget.

 

[Flash]

I doubt Israel has much of a need for in-flight refueling. You could fly the width of the country in 10 minutes; there's really not much to be gained unless you're staging tankers outside their airspace. That'd explain why they're so big on slapping conformal fuel tanks on their fighters.

Israel has a pretty good need for in-flight refuelling, just check out where they have done operations in the past:

Entebbe hostage rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe

Strike on the PLO headquarters in Tunisia: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstr...ternational/Countries and Territories/Tunisia

Excercises: http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/hangar/2005/mapleflag/maple.htm

Picture of Israeli tanker: http://www.aviaphoto.ru/planes/Boeing/707/300/260/3

And while it may or may not be necessary for Israeli strike planes to refue on the way to strike possible Iranian nuclear sites, it sure would not hurt.

Other countries that have aerial tankers:

UK
France
Netherlands
Turkey
Italy (KC-767's ordered)
Japan (KC-767's ordered)
South Africa
Singapore
Canada
Saudi Arabia
Germany (A310's)
Argentina- They used KC-130's pretty effectively to refuel their A-4's and Super Etendards on the way to strike the British fleet in the Falklands

 

[Fly Navy]

Did the Israeli's refuel on their strike on Osiraq?

 

[Flash]

Did the Israeli's refuel on their strike on Osiraq?

No, the F-16's carried tanks.

 

[eddie]

Other countries that have aerial tankers:

Japan (KC-767's ordered)

When did this happen? How did they get around Article IX?

 

[Brett327]

When did this happen? How did they get around Article IX?

Same way they did while supporting OEF and OIF.

Brett

 

[HH-60H]

When did this happen? How did they get around Article IX?

I am not too sure of the Japanese constitution, but what I have observed and heard is that they stay away from things that are overtly offensive, even if they have to play the name game, and call a weapon system something less offensive (pun intended). For instance: the JSDF is building what anyone else would call a helicopter (or light aircraft) carrier (except the US because of our amphibs, but same idea). It's a ship that has a lot of helicopters (and maybe eventually Harriers) that they can take around the world. But naming something a "carrier" connotes an offensive capability, so to get around this they are naming it a "helicopter destroyer." Whatever the fvck that is.

 

[Fly Navy]

I am not too sure of the Japanese constitution, but what I have observed and heard is that they stay away from things that are overtly offensive, even if they have to play the name game, and call a weapon system something less offensive (pun intended). For instance: the JSDF is building what anyone else would call a helicopter (or light aircraft) carrier (except the US because of our amphibs, but same idea). It's a ship that has a lot of helicopters (and maybe eventually Harriers) that they can take around the world. But naming something a "carrier" connotes an offensive capability, so to get around this they are naming it a "helicopter destroyer." Whatever the fvck that is.

Same name game the Soviets used regarded helicopters carriers in the Black Sea.

 

[eddie]

I am not too sure of the Japanese constitution, but what I have observed and heard is that they stay away from things that are overtly offensive, even if they have to play the name game, and call a weapon system something less offensive (pun intended). For instance: the JSDF is building what anyone else would call a helicopter (or light aircraft) carrier (except the US because of our amphibs, but same idea). It's a ship that has a lot of helicopters (and maybe eventually Harriers) that they can take around the world. But naming something a "carrier" connotes an offensive capability, so to get around this they are naming it a "helicopter destroyer." Whatever the fvck that is.

Interesting. I had always been under the impression that inflight refueling was prohibited outright and specifically. Guess not...

Japanese Harriers; this would be a natural outgrowth of a helicopter carrier, but are there any present plans to procure them? Anyone?

 

[Brett327]

Interesting. I had always been under the impression that inflight refueling was prohibited outright and specifically. Guess not...

Prohibited by what? Their constitution, which was written before IFR was invented?

Brett

 

[HooverPilot]

Prohibited by what? Their constitution, which was written before IFR was invented?

Brett

This photo shows that early attempts at IFR started before WWII, so IFR predates the Japanese constitution. :icon_tong

 

[Brett327]

This photo shows that early attempts at IFR started before WWII, so IFR predates the Japanese constitution. :icon_tong

I knew some smart guy was going to come up with something like that. Was it something that was in use in the fleet at the time and thus a consideration for policy? That's right - thank you.

Brett

 

[Fly Navy]

Are those the Key Brothers? They pioneered IFR here in Meridian.

That's right, I've been here long enough to know the trivia.

 

[Flash]

I am not too sure of the Japanese constitution, but what I have observed and heard is that they stay away from things that are overtly offensive, even if they have to play the name game, and call a weapon system something less offensive (pun intended). For instance: the JSDF is building what anyone else would call a helicopter (or light aircraft) carrier (except the US because of our amphibs, but same idea). It's a ship that has a lot of helicopters (and maybe eventually Harriers) that they can take around the world. But naming something a "carrier" connotes an offensive capability, so to get around this they are naming it a "helicopter destroyer." Whatever the fvck that is.

Much like the Brits called their Invincible-class carriers 'Through-deck Cruisers'
to get around opposition to building carriers. Though the Japanese would not be able to carry much on their DDH's, they will only be able to carry 11 aircraft (planned) and they would only be 13/14,000 tons.

Here is a link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/ddh-x.htm

 

[HooverPilot]

I knew some smart guy was going to come up with something like that. Was it something that was in use in the fleet at the time and thus a consideration for policy? That's right - thank you.

Brett

I knew what you meant but had to get the jibe in.