Unfortunately, when judging the evolution of how these systems came to be and how the party lines got divided, you have to. The USAF made absolutely the right decision in going to boom when it did. It simplified things in a lot of ways. It’s easier to design aircraft with boom receptacles than probes in the nose. You don’t need to cram it somewhere in the nose. It can go anywhere that’s convenenient. You don’t need fuel lines running through the nose or retractable hinged assemblies.

Sure, I’m not saying “all boom, all the way”. Never did. Neither did the USAF. I do think that the boom has been superior for the USAF since it’s inception, especially for large aircraft. I think that with 20/20 hindsight the KC-135 should have had hose & drogue pods since the 60s. The F-111 was good for boom, as were all the bombers. Heck, even the F-15 seems fine with the boom, but I agree that P&D improves as you go lower down the size scale. F-16s could just as easily have had probes and by the 1980s at the latest KC-135s should have had wing pods for hose & drogue.

That having been said, if you were going to pick wrong, F-16s with boom is a far better option than C-130s with probe, to say nothing of bombers. The USAF decided that boom was the way to go which required them to develop a proper tanker, the KC-135. That is–to this day–the standard by which all others are measured.

I think that just about everyone here can agree that a modern tanker needs to have 1 boom and 2 hose & drogue pods. Given the fact that the USAF has greater experience with both systems than any other service in history, and the results of those experiences show that the boom has fewer disadvantages than advantages for the missions being performed, I think that the USAF is absolutely the authority on the matter.

The USAF operated what, around 400 hose & drogue-equipped tankers (not counting the “Iron Maiden”) in the past 60+ years? Anyone else come close to that?

It’s not because the USAF has the “cult of boom” as Arthur alluded to in post #35 and swerve joked about in post #37. It’s because they’ve tried both…a lot and found that the boom is superior to probe and drogue for their needs.

Cheers,

Logan

I agree to a point but I do think that in SAC there was a cult of boom and Tac air lost out because of this.

Indeed the US has lots of experience with booms and drogue but how can you ignore the vast experience of airforces like the RAF with drogue refueling of Tac air.

Many airforces are happy with drogue refueling you can’t dismiss them.

China to Buy 150 Helicopters From PZL Swidnik

China will buy 150 helicopters from Poland’s PZL Swidnik over 10 years under an agreement signed between the Polish aircraft firm and China’s Jiujiang aeronautics plant, PZL Swidnik confirmed Feb. 27.

“It is a framework agreement for co-operation over a decade. We will deliver three types of helicopters: PZL Sokol, PZL Kania and SW-4, according to orders that will be specified on a yearly basis,” PZL Swidnik spokesman Jan Mazur told AFP.

A standard version PZL Sokol helicopter costs $4 million dollars (2.6 million euros), while a SW-4 costs less than a million dollars.

“We also intend to assemble our PZL Sokol machines in China,” Mazur said, but declined to provide further details.
Full Story

Well that is an interesting development considering China is already building helicopters of a similar class for example the zhi-11.

This isn’t the long range desert patro screaming out of the darkness in jeeps, it’s not even the SAS attacking Pucaras that were in the open at an improv field on Pebble, this is a secure military installation with over a thousand men in it. I doubt they’d even see the hangers let alone destroy the planes.

Well I don’t know the exact defence situation at MPA but I would bet fences, CCTV, thermal cameras, regular dog patrols, foot patrols by the Regiment and possibly even ground radar (http://www.drs.com/PDF/DataSheets/MSTAR%20web.pdf). Of course thats even before you get on the base, I would recon there is close protection of the QRA sheds with the Typhoon being moved between different ones to keep things nice and confusing.

Well whatever the reasoning for doing it there will be many an airforce globally who will celebrate this development if it allows them more time to decide on a purchase.

Maybe, and one could take some Harpoon from another. But LY-60s just a 5 round launcher, manually reloaded…

Indeed but it would be an easy installation process for what is a fairly small box launcher and its better then nothing. Finally its effectively free with only the cost of bolting it all on.

I thought it was a six round launcher?

I don’t think Pakistan will get a vessel with a half decent anti air capability until they get the Milgem or the enlarged P-22 variant.

Small combat value? Discounting a very good ASW capability and reasonable gun armament there.

Assuming the Mk13 won’t be restored to functioning condition, parking 1x RAM 21-round launcher on top of it and 2×4 Harpoon on racks forward of the bridge gets you a ship with capability superior to the Type 21 (which have either SAM and 30 cannon, or SSM and Phalanx) and roughly comparable to the F22P. It would not be a big investment.

I would still argue the cheapest and easiest solution is to install one of the LY-60N box launchers and associated fire control radar as its removed from one the Type21 Tariq class.

The last 4 out of 8 FFG-7’s of Turkish Navy are due to receive CMC modernization (GENESIS) plus SMART S Mk2 and Mk41 VLS for ESSM. It is also known that Turkish (plus Raytheon) and Pakistani navies are discussing the possibility of exporting GENESIS to future Pakistani FFG-7’s. If this occurs, there is a good chance that Pakistani FFG-7’s may receive GENESIS mod and maybe Mk41 modification with or instead of Mk13… Just thinking out loud…

That would make lots of sense especially with the Pakistani purchase of a variant of the Milgem corvette. As I said earlier I think Pakistans main interest in the Perry class is the ASW fit rather then its anti air capabilities.

On a side note the specification and cost of those Milgem corvette is highly attractive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFJdUUP3UDA

So, since August 2009 refurb cost went up from 65 to 78 million dollar, and increase of 13 million dollar. Wonder what that 20% extra covers …

Interesting overview of the class: http://www.destroyerhistory.org/coldwar/oliverhazardperryclass.html

Below: McInerney in current state. Check out the location of the Mk13: I dont thinkg the entire launcher was removed, just the launcher arm (and the rest sealed). My bet is that is can (and will) be reinstated.

Indeed thats how it works, all the below deck stuff is still there, actually I’m sure that I read somewhere that removing all the below deck stuff causes structural issues.