Chinese Air Force (PLA-AF) News and Discussion
- Thread starter ngatimozart
- Start date
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The only issue I can think of is the rear cargo door/ramp of the C-17, C-390, and C-130. The C-130 is a drogue refueller only AFAIK. Does that somehow make a boom setup problematic? I don't know.
I'm sure that Embraer & Northrop Grumman are aware of that. 
Images published by Embraer, but they're early ones. The final solution may be different.
KC-390 for the US depends on a solution for the refueling boom
Images published by Embraer, but they're early ones. The final solution may be different.
KC-390 for the US depends on a solution for the refueling boom
The KC-130 is primarily operated by the USMC. Do the US Marines operate any aircraft that are refueled by boom?
Why would they fit a boom if they don’t need it?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
No, the F-35C, F-35B, and their legacy Hornets use the drogue setup on the KC-130. My comment related to the cargo-door/ramp setup used by military airlifters and their suitability for boom operation, especially the C-17. If the C-17 could have doubled as a refueller, its production run could have been longer. Many users now would add to their fleets, especially the USAF which is really flogging their fleet.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
That would be my conclusion as well but if a boom option was available that didn’t break the bank then if this option kept the C-17 line open longer not a bad option IMHO. The RCAF should have 8-10 not 5. The other 5eyes would like more….especially NZ with none! I think the RCAF will have 9 MRTTs, 7 and 2 more C-17s with a boom refueling option, a decent trade-off…just two cent option.
C-97 was derived from the B-50 bomber, which (like the B-29) was developed into both hose & drogue & boom equipped tankers.
Still probably more straightforward than fitting a boom to an aircraft with a rear ramp, but Embraer thinks it can do it. The tail behind the ramp is thought big enough to carry a boom, & Embraer has published pictures showing such an arrangement.
Terran
Well-Known Member
Who says it wasn’t?
MDC reveals KC-17 cargo/tanker details - FlightGlobal
Guy Norris/LOS ANGELES McDONNELL DOUGLAS (MDC) has unveiled details of proposed KC-17 cargo/tanker versions of its C-17 transport, which could form the bulk of as many as 50 aircraft predicted as potential foreign military sales. Details of the aircraft configuration were given to senior British...
the C17 program when it started overlapped the KC10. Both types used the same engine type but the three engine was more efficient on fuel for the mission. Short take off and landing using in these transports comes at a cost of fuel economy. When the C17 program was wrapping up, well it was clear the USAF was looking to start replacing the KC135, the twin engine configuration was proven and it meant not having to slow delivery of the cargo aircraft for the tanker. Boeing had no reason to fight after all they were the leading contender for a replacement and by then were absorbing MD with either the 767 or 777. The C130 Was the exception predominantly by need. Meant to support rotary wing aviation with the occasional fixed wing. Because of the development level of NATO and US bases with equipment for loading and unloading of cargo The C17 could serve for oversized cargo with limited issues . Yet NATO had well proven on Transport Logistics side of the MRTT class tankers. Cargo could be loaded and unloaded as the bases had the container lifters and equipment even on civilian airports.
On the other side of the Iron Curtain, Russia and China were not in the same position. They needed to use their tactical cargo aircraft for Tanker and AWACs platforms. Although the Soviets had “commercial” airliners The production rates were lower and the Russian fields especially military were rougher. Fuel economy was less important than short take off and landing especially as the Russians assumed that there landing strips were going to be bombed anyway. Besides it allowed them to streamline their logistic and maintain operations at bases that were by NATO standards rough and poorly equipped. With only access to cargo loading facilities at very specific locations they needed roll on roll off.
The PLA was even rougher. Until the 1970s they were more or less stagnant at best. After the Sino Soviet division China still wasn’t in a position to be making its own choice. They started shopping westward but After the fall of the Soviet union and the events of the Tiananmen square massacre the Chinese military turned back to the Russians for modernization with the longer term aim of independence. As they sourced both East and West technologies they hit limits. The West would sell them airliners and some even radars and systems but with limited ability to make their own modifications. The Russians were happy for the hard currency and willing to let them do as they pleased but they didn’t have a wide range of options. They were dependent upon the Russians and at the time former Soviet states for the bulk of their aviation host aircraft or the designed there in without an alternative.
In the modern day they have started to develop such however the C919 is predominantly a foreign aircraft with issues of Technical data. The Y20 is Chinese with only a limited foreign components allowing more control. The Y9 and Y15, Similarly are not subject to foreign control laws.
On that subject one thing of note is that the PLA in all its aircraft lacks Boom refuel. They have over the decades shown the occasional image with a boom but none of their aircraft have receptacles for it. They are all Probe and Drogue.
Last edited: