I am stating that neither Boeing nor Airbus have demonstrated or shown any intention on demonstrating probe & drogue and Boom refulling simultaneously,neither boasted about having that capability.
And how do you know user/customer has seen that Boeing or Airbus has the capability of simultaneous refulling using both methods?
Who told? What's your source?
---------------------
So far its either 1 aircraft refulling at one time using boom.
Or
Or 1-3 fighters refulling at one time using P&D.
These are choices customers get, they choose either of these methods based on plethora of factors including commonality factors.
So far its only your words, that say we will see pics of simultaneous refuelling involving both methods in the future.
I would appreciate if your point conveys original content that can add value to the discussion happening instead of conveying whatever media slop you heard from outside.
You shared Handley Page Victor K2's pic with 3 drouge system which i'm very much aware through documentaries. It is capable of refuelling 3 jets same time & articles, videos state it has often done that, but a pic or clip is not available to public. To recheck, I googled if it demonstrated reuelling 3 jets same time & Google AI said YES, BUT, PHOTOS DEPICT ONLY PAIR OF JETS. You could do the google search, no need to depend on others for spoon feeding. This is casual chat forum, most members are enthusiasts, very few could be journalists, historian, blogger, DoD, Ex-DoD, connected to DoD. Keep realistic expectations.
So that capability was researched, tested, made, sold to users but pic/vid not available to public.
But if u hav a pic/vid to share, that would be very nice.
Now if 3 jets could operationally refuel same time at same level, then the middle jet could refuel at lower level safely. That's obvious & military is not oblidged to show 100% capabilities of any platform to public.
Now if same querry is put up with KC-46A & A330 MRTT then also result says YES, but pics/vids not available yet.
The panel on top of IFRP seems pretty flush to my eyes.
Same case there for f35, its hard to distinguish the panel when IFRP is retracted
A very shallow theory, not taking into account that you can make the IFRP flush with rest of the surface when retracted, F35 already demonstrated it.
That's another assumption, f35 has already demonstrated in real life about having an IFRP that is flush with rest of the surface when retracted.
Human eyes are compared to be equivalent of 576 megapixels camera. Latest cellphones have 200 MP cam.
But vision blurs more rapidly with distance compared to RF waves & a good RF reciever is far more stronger. We see that IFRP edges bcoz light from some source (sun) struck it & reflected back to our eyes, similarly RF waves would strike the edges & reflect back in some direction, the edges are made angled to reduce RCS return to same source. But RF waves from some other source could strike & reflect to a reciever. So if the IFRP is not there then there is no reflection.
And F-22 demonstrated lowest RCS bcoz of less surface discontinuities, bumps, gaps, etc contributing to low RCS along with other things.
You specifically emphasized boom being a more safer methods for pilot.
Where? Quote it. My point was lower RCS improving pilot survival. But both methods have their dangers.
As for your hypothetical scenerio, even if we assume it is operationally viable, is the benifit worth the cost? We don't have any large bombers to refuel half way around the world.
Even our AWACS that will need refulling within Indian mainland are small EJ145 based ones already modified with an IFRP instead of a receptacle.
Our needs are quite regional, there will be few scenarios where large IAF aircrafts will need refulling, Probe&drogue being fine for those rare cases.
Its not like we have a situation where we can afford to buy niche capabilities, our tanker fleet is pretty stretched and whatever small quantity of tankers we will buy will have to be compatible with vast amount of platforms we have in service, in that case the only way we get boom system is if we pay extra to get our tankers modified for both probe&drogue and boom & also modify our future jets with a receptacle in the back for questionable benifits at best.
we also don't need to maintain operational viability with NATO members.
One of the main reason for boom to exist outside of USA is either the country operates US jets that have receptacle built in or for nato compatibility reasons.
For us none of these reasons work.
> How many times will you ask same question is different ways & how many times would i state multiple benefits, the increased pilot survival with reduced RCS being the biggest benefit?
> We're talking about 5gen AMCA, like F-22, there's no need to talk about bombers, AWACS, NATO, etc.
> Like i said - Among 1.5 billion Indians, 8 billion+ Earthlings, every forum member, engineer, pilot, employee, citizen doesn't imagine future exactly same way. Hence multiple companies, products, ideas.
> Few scenarios & rare cases are not ZERO. I'm talking about those + AMCA + some projects/ideas which i feel our DoD should do or done already.
> For those nations, NATO compatibility could be reason, but for me reduced RCS to improve pilot survival is the reason.
> IFRP is just 1 of many things which need to be removed or repositioned to reduce RCS.
> Your priority is to reduce cost at expense of pilot's life risk, while my priority is spend little more money to reduce RCS & increase pilot survival chances.
So you accepted ucav are not an excuse for demanding boom refulling, as either of the two methods can be used depending on variables , good job
So your negating your earlier point and agreeing that both systems will have their own complexities needing auto-aid, good job
.
good job for you
for not worried about reducing pilot risk & saving a costly UCAV by sincerely understanding stealth airframe design & optimization, but using -ve word 'excuse', twisting my statements & direct me, frame me like a scapegoat.
Different arrangement for different platform means dynamic mixed solution, not self negation, but you wan't to spin the web of conflicting narrative & get self-entangled.
You can't ignore those variables - UCAV shape & size & if the IFRP will be put on spine.
My aim is to reduce RCS, not oppose drogue system. At 1st i opined to have boom-receptacle system, but thereafter i only shared tha auto-refuelling aids for both systems + new idea of IFRP on spine which AFAIK is subtle & neither any American X-jet has demonstrated i guess, nor Indians would hence i have to fall back & incline towards boom system.
Just like boom have all these, IFRP also have their own design points & systems, like Refueling probes are engineered with shear rivets (or shear pins) at the nozzle tip, These rivets are designed to fail—intentionally breaking the valve off—if the side or vertical loads on the probe become too high.
Position Indicators: Electronic sensors monitor exactly how far the probe has entered the drogue.
Load Protection: Systems like Eaton's Weak-Link Load Protection provide real-time data to help prevent stress overloads.
Etc.
That's very good. It increases safety of drogue system, but still the additional RCS remains compared to its absence.
Oh, there's definitely a possibility, the argument was about the operational needs & operational benifits that will make the possibility feasible.
You have failed to provide any credible point to support its feasibility, at last leaning back to the fact that its a *possibility* .
Again -ve words, framing, narrative & accusations?
Please stop personal comments & focus on your understanding & opinion only.
You asked if there's a possibility of IFRP & i agreed as per the European systems affecting FCAS Vs GCAP, that doesn't relate to my success/failure, i'm not giving university exam here or presentation to DoD.
I gave many points which you don't wan't to consider any. You have failed to understand or accept improving pilot survival by geometric RCS reduction. But you can agree/disagree, keep your opinion, i don't have any probs. Polite replies can continue otherwise not worth.
just like a stealth jet is costlier than previous gen, pilot's life is priceless, so i would vouch for-
, Thandai
, Cold coffee
with icecream
I hope others're having too, but personal comments should be avoided.
