PLA AEW&C, SIGINT, EW and MPA thread

[SanWenYu]

I read online that Probe-and-drogue approach to aerial refueling doesn't work well on the big planes since those planes need a lot more fuel and Probe-and-drogue approach cannot supply that much fuel per second. That's why US air force uses the flying boom approach to refueling.

Does that mean Chinese approach to aerial refueling will not work on planes like the KJ-500 and H-6 bombers?

Then what do you think the refuelling probes on these aircrafts are for? Are you suggesting that they are fake for just showings?

 

[tamsen_ikard]

Then what do you think the refuelling probes on these aircrafts are for? Are you suggesting that they are fake for just showings?

Maybe they are less-efficient/takes a really long time to finish refueling due to slow refueling speed.

 

[Blitzo]

I read online that Probe-and-drogue approach to aerial refueling doesn't work well on the big planes since those planes need a lot more fuel and Probe-and-drogue approach cannot supply that much fuel per second. That's why US air force uses the flying boom approach to refueling.

Does that mean Chinese approach to aerial refueling will not work on planes like the KJ-500 and H-6 bombers?

No.

Boom is better than probe and drogue in this case (refueling large aircraft) but probe and drogue remains viable, and will far superior to having no aerial refueling capability.

 

[gelgoog]

It just takes longer to refuel. It isn't impossible to do it. The Soviets only used probe and drogue and it was fine for them. Only the USAF uses the boom system anyway, no other air force uses it.

 

[Tomboy]

It just takes longer to refuel. It isn't impossible to do it. The Soviets only used probe and drogue and it was fine for them. Only the USAF uses the boom system anyway, no other air force uses it.

USAF also operates the worlds largest bomber force since the 50s, broom is the most optimal for large aircraft. PLAAF has been doing research on broom refueling for a while now and could possibly use broom refueling for future aircraft like H-20 and new super heavy transport considering these aircraft likely will have such massive fuel capacity that broom system will have a sizable advantage over the drouge system. Perhaps future YY-20Bs might be like KC-46s that both have a refueling boom at the tail and also have two wing mounted drogue system.

tl;dr currently H-6/KJ-3000/KJ-500As are not nearly large enough to the point where flying boom has a sizable advantage over conventional drogue and probe but with larger aircraft like H-20 and superheavy transports, flying boom is a better option especially if PLAAF plans to operate a large fleet of these aircraft.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Iirc the advantage of broom isn't really fuel transfer rates, rather it turns refuelling from a display of skill into routine procedure.

 

[GiantPanda]

I read online that Probe-and-drogue approach to aerial refueling doesn't work well on the big planes since those planes need a lot more fuel and Probe-and-drogue approach cannot supply that much fuel per second. That's why US air force uses the flying boom approach to refueling.

Does that mean Chinese approach to aerial refueling will not work on planes like the KJ-500 and H-6 bombers?

Obviously it does work since they put a refueling probe on the KJ-500A.

 

[gelgoog]

Probe and drogue can be used for large strategic bombers as well.



Boom refueling is just because of legacy USAF equipment.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

Probe and drogue can be used for large strategic bombers as well.

View attachment 156072

Boom refueling is just because of legacy USAF equipment.

its not because of legacy.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/107h3xn
Booms have 3-4 times better flow rate. So, a 10 minute refueling with a boom on a bomber will become 30-40 minute long slog with a drogue. Its doable but incredibly risky and tiring to be refueling for that long.

 

[gelgoog]

Right. The USAF was heavily influenced by Strategic Air Command requirements. But ever since ICBMs became commonplace bomber fleets shrank. It is questionable having such a special use case determine the requirements.