Korea to purchase 4 airborne tankers

The Korea Times ^ | 2013-11-27 | Kang Seung-woo

[sukhoi-30mki]

Korea will purchase four in-flight refueling tankers from 2017, the nation’s arms procurement agency said Wednesday.

The decision comes amid the growing importance of improved airborne operations due to China’s self-declared controversial Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ).

According to the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), the military decision-making committee, chaired by Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin, decided to import four aerial refueling tankers.

It usually takes two to three years before finalizing the delivery of four aircraft.

“We intend to give public notice of a bid in January 2014 and select a final bidder within the same year after going through a comprehensive evaluation,” DAPA spokesman Baek Youn-hyeong said in a briefing.

The tender is estimated at over 1 trillion won ($942 million).

Currently, Airbus Military’s MRTTA330 and Boeing’s KC-767 are seen as potential candidates for the acquisition.

Since 1993, the Air Force has sought to deploy aerial tankers to refuel fighter jets in midair and help expand the operational range of F-15K and KF-16 combat jets, but budget constraints prevented it from acquiring the aircraft.

The decision comes as territorial disputes in Northeast Asia are flaring up, recently sparked by China’s newly-claimed airspace.

Last week, China unilaterally announced the creation of its ADIZ over the East China Sea that partly overlaps with Korea’s own zone and includes Ieodo, a submerged rock that is Korean territory. China said all aircraft entering the zone must report to Chinese authorities and follow their instructions, or face interception. Ieodo serves as the foundation for a Korean ocean research station.

However, the Ministry of National Defense said its aircraft will fly over Ieodo as usual without informing China, which may cause a military conflict.

However, if Korea scrambles its F-15Ks in the event, it will only be able to carry out operations there for up to about 20 minutes.

Using tankers, their operation time can be extended up to more than an hour.

“In-flight refueling tankers will enable Korea’s fighter jets to execute operations over Ieodo or Dokdo for more than one hour,” the spokesman said.

“In addition, they are expected to help warplanes boost their capabilities by being loaded with more weapons than fuel.”

China has 10 refueling tankers, while the Japan Air Self-Defense Force currently has four KC-767Js and plans to add four more.

ksw@koreatimes.co.kr,

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


Is there a common "refueling mechanical interface" that fits US, Japanese and South Korean military aircraft ?


.

[Blood of Tyrants]

There is probably a NATO standard that US allies use.

[Yo-Yo]

Is there a common "refueling mechanical interface" that fits US, Japanese and South Korean military aircraft ?

There are two types of refueling interfaces: Boom, and Hose & Drogue.

The USAF uses Boom refueling, and the US Navy and just about the rest of the world not flying USAF-type aircraft use Hose & Drogue. South Korea and Japan both fly variants of the F-15, which uses the Boom refueling method.

The USAF should have specified that the F-35A be capable of refueling both ways. The F-35B and F-35C for the USMC and US Navy use Hose & Drogue refueling.

Boom refueling is much faster but requires very specialized tanker aircraft. Hose & Drogue refueling can be done from many types of aircraft with a relatively simple underwing or underbelly pod.

All Western ally aircraft use a common refueling drogue size, and all former Soviet states (including China) use a different sized drogue.

[rbmillerjr]

The Chinese are going to expedite the Asian buildup to Counter Chinese actions like this.

[MHalblaub]

Boom refueling is only much faster for aircraft like a B-52 or B-2 that can handle such flow of fuel.

US fighter aircraft used the boom refueling system due to the fact of an existing fleet of tanker aircraft with booms. The internal fuel system of fighter aircraft can not handle the fuel flow provided by boom refueling. So the difference between boom or hose is marginal for fighter aircraft.

Advantage of hose system is that up to 3 fighter aircraft could be refueled at once.

[Yo-Yo]

Do you know what the difference in contact time is for the two methods, on average? Is it easier to fly the boom or to stab the basket?

[MHalblaub]

“Is it easier to fly the boom or to stab the basket?”

According to overall use of the boom I guess it is much more easier to use the basket.

“Do you know what the difference in contact time is for the two methods, on average?”

According to this source the difference is huge:
“by refueling two fighters [via drogue] simultaneously, the time that the fighters spend refueling can be reduced by approximately 75 percent.”
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6702/m1/1/high_res_d/RL32910_2005May11.pdf