Soviet air-to-air refueling capability?

[Stephan Wilkinson]

Why have the Soviets/Russians never bothered to develop air-to-air refueling capability? Yes, I know that an Ilyushin tanker prototype recently flew, but that puts them about 70 years behind US and British technology. It seems odd that since one of the MiG-21's major failings was its super-short legs, they never bothered to allow it to refuel in flight.

Did the Soviets always assume their maximum missions would be 45 minutes long? Or am I missing some important Soviet aircraft that did have refueling capability?

[Joe Scheil]

Historically the Soviet air Forces did not have to project power, or keep fighters aloft in Indian country for prolonged periods, and have always operated very differently from the USAF. As point defense aircraft expecting hoards of escorted (or not) US Bombers, their aircraft designs were generally based on defensive doctrine. Interceptors vs. escort fighters. That said the Soviets have been air refueling as long as we have, and with the same equipment, their first tanker being a modified Tu-4.

Selling their weapons now requires them to add the ability for the purchaser to “project power” across borders and oceans. They are doing so. I would not say they are 70 years behind. The KC-46 has its own issues, and drags a hose just like the IL-78.

..I wouldn’t say we are too far ahead.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus

Oh! The MiG-21 was the best fighter of her generation, with almost 11,500 built, and still lethal today. An amazing design. And all fighters have short legs when the fight is on......

Attachments

1621C67C-E2D1-492B-B4DE-AD0CBD543888.jpeg (17.04 KiB) Viewed 1047 times

Last edited by Joe Scheil on Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:10 pm, edited 5 times in total.

[eze240]

What I've found surprising with the KC-46 has been the rather strange desire the air force seems to have, to buy an inferior version of an aircraft that's already inferior to the KC-10....
If you look at it... The KC-46 is basically a 767-200...with the fuel capacity and engines of a 300....
Then there's the issue of having things like manual doors, etc...claimed to be for cost savings, but in reality they cost more for the engineering than just keeping the standard 767 parts...
You would think they would have simply ordered off shelf 767-300F aircraft and added tanker equipment... Even then, the KC-10, while not as fuel efficient as a 767, can carry substantially more fuel and cargo and can fly further....
While I know they would never do it, the air force would probably save money if they bought up all the DC-10 and MD-11 airframes they could and rebuilt them...I'd bet they could do at least two rebuilds for each new KC-46....they could even change the KC-46's to use the better 300 airframe and buy fewer over a longer term...
As to the Russians, I think they tend to be slow to accept change...aerial refueling tends to go against their normal doctrine, at least for fighters....they seem to have been making a lot of progress in refining the process, I think it will only be a short time before they begin really embracing the concept more...

[sandiego89]

Ez, bigger is not always better. Yes the KC-10 (and the Airbus that won, then lost to the KC-46) is larger, but you do not always need that much capacity. It is not efficient to fly a huge tanker to top of a few fighters for example. The first phase of the USAF tanker replacement is to replace KC-135s that are way past their prime. A larger tanker may come later on the next phase.

I can assure you it would not be cheap in the long run to outfit clapped out DC-10’s and MD-11’s for the mission. Old patched together airframes take gobs if money and manpower to keep going, just like the 135, F-14, etc. and then you only get a few more years out of them. The MD-11 is also a death trap.

The miles of extra wiring on the KC-46 also suggest she will be far more capable that a basic tanker.

As for the soviets, they have been tanking for decades, but as pointed out above are not as expeditionary as the USAF, that often must deploy to other continents to reach the battle spaces.

[Joe Scheil]

I always hoped for a used 777-300 tanker design. Super pretty jet, huge cabin, awesome Global Logistics machine. Unfortunately nobody else thought she would be a good idea. Tankers always seem to be a mismatch anyway....

Attachments

[Joe Scheil]

And for a classic Russian Warbird.....

Attachments

[Joe Scheil]

Actually, seems little has changed....

Attachments

CD29378A-8890-46F3-9363-2C55D973334D.jpeg (17.04 KiB) Viewed 995 times

A9CBD72E-6777-4B8B-A9AC-56C172EAEB6A.jpeg (24.85 KiB) Viewed 995 times