Chinese J-10 AAR Training
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Chinese J-10 AAR Training
Not sure what the value of pulling the basket back and forth on strings in the hangar is.....
Alert 5 » Watch how J-10B pilots train for aerial refueling - Military Aviation News
Alert 5 » Watch how J-10B pilots train for aerial refueling - Military Aviation News
Probably not. In my experience, AAR simulation is not like the real thing and negative training. Not sure of the value of the string business either - there seems to be a lot of 'basket chasing' when they do it for real.
Agreed, Dan! The 'prodding' program in the VC10K simulator was useless and simply made pilots think that they'd never be able to achieve contact in the real aeroplane.
In that video, the clip of the broken, flailing hose is actually an AMX refuelling from an ItAF B707. What it doesn't show is that, about a second before contact the hose suddenly moved forward, the brake came on, the operator didn't put the red light on - so the AMX pilot made contact against a hard hose. Hence the hose failed to move in and the resulting 'wave' came back and broke the drogue connection. Also the wire from the hose flailed against the AMX canopy, badly cracking it - I can't remember whether that caused a decompression, but I gather that the nose looked like it had been riddled with bullets when the jet was inspected after landing...
I see the Chinese pilots have adopted the classic tactic of achieving the pre-contact position by passing quickly through it, then chasing the basket...
In that video, the clip of the broken, flailing hose is actually an AMX refuelling from an ItAF B707. What it doesn't show is that, about a second before contact the hose suddenly moved forward, the brake came on, the operator didn't put the red light on - so the AMX pilot made contact against a hard hose. Hence the hose failed to move in and the resulting 'wave' came back and broke the drogue connection. Also the wire from the hose flailed against the AMX canopy, badly cracking it - I can't remember whether that caused a decompression, but I gather that the nose looked like it had been riddled with bullets when the jet was inspected after landing...
I see the Chinese pilots have adopted the classic tactic of achieving the pre-contact position by passing quickly through it, then chasing the basket...
CCTV Channel 7 is the military channel on national Chinese television and is available to anybody. They have the best looking presenters, all in uniform, of the entire network.
During my years in China I would like to watch it as it would show historic films, both documentary and fictional, of the battles that the Chinese fought during and after the Japanese occupation. The history of the War of Liberation was always illustrated with the usual cheering crowds and flag waving.
The channel was also an easy way of lecturing conscripts. You could pass the morning watching how to load and sight a 105mm. howitzer and then see how to strip and reassemble an assault rifle.
Channel 7 has been going for twenty years in my experience. The UK Forces TV has got to get some time in.
During my years in China I would like to watch it as it would show historic films, both documentary and fictional, of the battles that the Chinese fought during and after the Japanese occupation. The history of the War of Liberation was always illustrated with the usual cheering crowds and flag waving.
The channel was also an easy way of lecturing conscripts. You could pass the morning watching how to load and sight a 105mm. howitzer and then see how to strip and reassemble an assault rifle.
Channel 7 has been going for twenty years in my experience. The UK Forces TV has got to get some time in.
The USAF originally needed the boom system so that thirsty USSR-bound B-52s could be refuelled at a much greater rate than is possible with the probe-and-drogue system.
Other large aircraft also use the boom method, due to the high onload rate and reduced time in contact.
But for fighters taking relatively small fuel onloads, the time between successive contacts of a receiver formation can be more critical than the actual time in contact, particularly if the receivers can take fuel at a decent rate... Hence 2 pods will be preferable to one boom and this also provides some system redundancy. Nevertheless, all fighter-type aircraft destined for the USAF and client states persist with the boom system, whereas USN and European receivers use the probe-and-drogue system. Some tankers, such as the KC-10 and (one of these days, perhaps...
) the KC-767A Pegasus and some KC-135 have both systems - as do most A330MRTT variants except AirTanker's Voyager...at present 
But the worst of all options is the infamous BDA - a short hose attached to the boom. I only prodded against that once - in a 3-tank 8-missile Q fit F-4 without having had the benefit of any dual or even a briefing. I did actually manage it, but the inbound Bear had decided to turn back to Mother Russia...
Other large aircraft also use the boom method, due to the high onload rate and reduced time in contact.
But for fighters taking relatively small fuel onloads, the time between successive contacts of a receiver formation can be more critical than the actual time in contact, particularly if the receivers can take fuel at a decent rate... Hence 2 pods will be preferable to one boom and this also provides some system redundancy. Nevertheless, all fighter-type aircraft destined for the USAF and client states persist with the boom system, whereas USN and European receivers use the probe-and-drogue system. Some tankers, such as the KC-10 and (one of these days, perhaps...
) the KC-767A Pegasus and some KC-135 have both systems - as do most A330MRTT variants except AirTanker's Voyager...at present But the worst of all options is the infamous BDA - a short hose attached to the boom. I only prodded against that once - in a 3-tank 8-missile Q fit F-4 without having had the benefit of any dual or even a briefing. I did actually manage it, but the inbound Bear had decided to turn back to Mother Russia...
I have seen that BDA fit several times BEagle and it always looks jury-rigged somehow and difficult for the receiver to use.
For some reason fuel loads, endurance, and AAR are topics that have always fascinated me. The comment by a Lightning F.2A pilot that he routinely had unrefueled endurance times of one hour sticks with me for some reason, if one hour is "exceptional" what did an early F.3 manage, 45 minutes ?
In spite of (failed) innovations like HEF we never seem to have improved much on good old fashioned kerosene and all the limitations that come with it.
Sorry, I'll stop rambling.
For some reason fuel loads, endurance, and AAR are topics that have always fascinated me. The comment by a Lightning F.2A pilot that he routinely had unrefueled endurance times of one hour sticks with me for some reason, if one hour is "exceptional" what did an early F.3 manage, 45 minutes ?
In spite of (failed) innovations like HEF we never seem to have improved much on good old fashioned kerosene and all the limitations that come with it.
Sorry, I'll stop rambling.
