Are they expected to help out USAF and other NATO forces? That's the only reason I can think of.
Are they expected to help out USAF and other NATO forces? That's the only reason I can think of.
The number of refueling aircraft is very reasonable. Refueling aircraft are the most fundamental force multiplier in aerial operations because they determine battlespace presence. Ground and naval forces may have limited mobility when short on fuel but they are already taking control of position by their mere presence and in many instances can sufficiently defend that position. That is not true of aircraft.
Aircraft are present in battlespace only when they are at altitude. On the ground they count as ships in port or troops in barracks - they are force in being that can join the battle but isn't there yet. To stay in the air aircraft have to expend fuel and that limits not only how far they can fly but for how long they can fly.
For example an F-16 without spare tanks can fly for approx 1,5-2hours. To remain on station for 4 to 8 hours two or more refuelings are necessary. If you want to refuel on the ground the not only do you make your aircraft vulnerable but also waste time and energy because significant amount of fuel is expended by gaining altitude at high speed to reduce time on the ground.
So the fewer aircraft you have the more an aerial refueler can expand the total time at altitude per flight. 24 aircraft with refueling can stay in the air for as long as 72 or 96 aircraft without refueling. Also since takeoff and landing are straining the machine it does to a degree influence availability of aircraft due to breakdowns.
The notion that refueling aircraft are not essential is mostly product of Russian propaganda. Russians don't really understand either aerial or naval operations and in general struggle with any expeditionary mindset - which is plainly clear in Ukraine - so they program their air force and navy as "air army" and "sea army" and then make use of propaganda to justify those decisions. In public debate on the internet where majority of voices are angry keyboard warriors that mindset simply overpowers the correct and rational approach that was developed through actual practice of aerial and naval logistics.
When you look at Ukraine one of the biggest problems VKS is dealing with is the lack of aerial refueling aircraft to keep CAPs in the air for longer than their usual ~3-4hr maximum duration. Su-35s and MiG-31s have to constantly take off and land. Compared to how USAF resolved CAP in Desert Storm by maintaining long duration patrols of 2-3 pairs of F-15s at altitude at any given time - due to the extensive use of refueling (and spare tanks which Flankers can't use!) - this is extremely inefficient.
Britain also benefits from having larger number of refuelers for any Falklands scenario. The bombing run from the war was an unbelievably elaborate dance of buddy-buddy refueling. If there's any crisis in that region - or anywhere else at significant distance - those additional 2-3 refuelers available (which requires approx. 6 aircraft for rotation) will be of utmost value, because they will not reduce the baseline availability for other RAF operations.
So RAF is essentially buying 2-3x the usual number of refuelers for local operations. For example Italian Air Force has 4 B767 refuelers. On the other than French Air Force has similarly 12 A330 MRTTs due to similar requirements and commitments.
War is not about having a large number of expensive gadgets. It's about being to use them to their full potential with maximum efficiency.
Most likely booms are not a requirement for RAF.
F-35B use probe-and-drogue because they don't have the fuel tank that A variant has because that space it taken up by the VTOL fan.
Typhoons also use probe-and-drogue.
Nobody needs E-7s, P-8s or RC-135 to fly for longer than the usual flight durations because the crew can't handle it. Those crews have extremely high task load and can only work efficiently for a specific period of time.
C-17s is a heavy transport plane and has already long range with large payload so a refueler that could meaningfully assist a C-17 would have to first carry the fuel to the point of refueling which makes the whole exercise pointless.
A400 uses probe-and-drogue.
The Flanker has way more fuel capacity than either the F-16 or F-15. In most cases it does not need external fuel tanks to do the same missions. Su-35 internal fuel capacity is 11,500 kg. F-15 internal fuel capacity is 6,103 kg. It is basically half. F-16 internal fuel capacity is 3,200 kg which is again half of the F-15. And basically a quarter of the Su-35. This is somewhat mitigated with more modern F-15 and F-16 variants having conformal fuel tanks.
The whole modern doctrine of the VKS requires them to operate over vast distances across Russian territory. The MiG-31 was designed to cover Russia's massive exposed northern coastline against US bomber aircraft. It was designed to do that while operating with afterburner enabled most of the time. It needs to not only intercept targets at high speed at huge distances, it also is expected to act as an air based extension of the radar network to increase coverage against opposing aircraft. For that it needs to have huge fuel capacity. It can carry 16,130 kg internal fuel, and unlike what you said, it can carry external tanks. As can the Su-35 for that matter.
The F-16 and F-15 were optimized for fighting against the Warsaw Pact in Europe at short distances. So they minimized weight as much as possible to increase their combat agility and speed. Over reliance on external fuel tanks and aerial refueling was required to operate at larger distances. The Soviets designed an aircraft to operate at similarly low combat ranges with a similar optimization tactic i.e. MiG-29.
Made much worse by the Harrier's lackluster payload capability in general.
The A330 MRTT can carry both the boom and the probe on the same aircraft. The ones used by the Australians have that capability. That the UK did not request it to be configured like that just tells you more about the MoD and British government's usual poor sense of cost savings than any sensible way to generate requirements would.
And yet you seem to think a fighter pilot is immune to fatigue. A Su-35 has a single seat for a single crewman. And all of those aircraft have co-pilots and can carry multiple crews just fine. They can rotate crews without going back to base unlike the Su-35. But you think the Su-35 should stay in the air for prolonged periods while those aircraft cannot due to crew fatigue. Right.
Last edited:
Well it depends on mission duration and intensity. Though I must admit I haven't read about CAP durations, so I don't know whether there is a coverage issue in Ukraine, and whether their operations are efficient or not.
I don't think anyone is questioning the benefits of refueling aircraft, and yes, more multipliers is better, but that depends on what kind of missions you see in your future. I don't really see the benefit of having more refueling aircraft when the RAF's future mission is going to be patrolling its own airspace. An airspace that's surrounded by allies.
Like I alluded before, I can certainly see the benefits if UK is going to be a major participant in future coalition expeditionary operations, but many people think that those (including me) aspirations are really dumb when we consider the size of their economy and their natural strategic interests.
The high number of refueling aircraft looks as silly as their two carriers.
My understanding is that pilot fatigue is a big issue at the 4hour mission mark. For example:
1. the Flanker airframe was designed for missions up 3.75 hours
2. the Tornado airframe for missions up to 4 hours.
British stratospheric UAV PHASA-35 tested in the USA. The British company BAE Systems has completed testing in the United States of the PHASA-35 stratospheric UAV. During the tests, PHASA-35 climbed to a height of just over 20 km and spent 24 hours there. The PHASA-35 UAV systems are powered by solar panels, so it can stay in the sky for as long as possible without the need to land to charge the batteries, theoretically even a year. The UAV is able to serve as a kind of “flying base station” for mobile operators, helping to cover hard-to-reach places with a cellular network signal and 5G Internet, and the drone will also help establish communications in disaster areas. The drone can also be used for military purposes by equipping it with reconnaissance equipment. Due to the high flight altitude, not all air defense systems will be able to hit the drone. The PHASA-35 UAV weighs only 150 kg, has a wingspan of 35 meters and can carry a 15 kg payload.
They have two carriers...two nonworking carrier. One that got cannibalized for parts before completion and the other that got messed up and is in dry dock...
Last edited by a moderator:
Not a single true thing (except that they have 2 carriers) in the entire post.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are right for one thing, they have one carrier in the water and is not taking water yet again. Gone out of dry dock in late july 2023.
I don't understand what you are trying to say but as of right now both HMS QE and HMS PoW are active and both are currently at Portsmouth naval base.