SHAH ALAM: Atlas Refuels Flanker. RMAF has published pictures of an Airbus A400M Atlas refueling a Sukhoi Su-30MKM Flanker, on its Facebook page.
This was the first time, RMAF had shown the compatibility of the Flanker with the A400M Chobham’s refueling pods although Malaysian Defence had reported that Flanker had been cleared with the Boeing Super Hornet F/A-18D Hornet and BAE Systems Hawk 208 to perform AAR on the Atlas.
RMAF Atlas conducting air to air refueling with a Flanker. RMAF
From RMAF.
In-flight refueling is the process of transferring aviation fuel from one military aircraft to another during flight.
Tactical locations are often long distances from supporting airfields, which means aircraft may require refueling midflight. Operating a specialized from A400M, In-flight Refueling Specialist pump jet fuel into aircraft in need of fuel. These highly trained experts must have a steady hand and nerves in order to complete this remarkable and crucial task so we can continue to successfully complete all of our missions.“Enroute In-flight Refuelling performed by Su30MKM from No 11 Sqn over South China Sea in support of East Malaysia Operation.”
The air to air refueling picture was taken as six Flankers from the 11th Squadron flew from the Gong Kedak airbase to Labuan airbase together with the Atlas. It is conceivable that some of the Flanker drivers need to be certified with air to air refueling hence it was performed underway.
The Flankers, according to RMAF, are in Labuan for their annual live firing exercise at the Kota Belud air to ground range. The exercise, not named, starts from July 28 to August 9, according to RMAF. RMAF said the firing exercise – air to air as well as air to ground – will also involved the Hornets. The A400M will also be used together with the C-130H Hercules for transport and supply though for AAR, it will be done solely by the Atlas. The Beechcraft B200T will be used for range clearance, together with ships from the RMN and APMM, likely for the air to air firings.
It is unclear what kind of ordnance will be used during the exercise though missiles are likely to be used during the air to air phase. The last time I went to the Kota Belud range the Flankers dropped Russian general purpose bombs, the Hornets 20mm guns and the Hawks, rockets.
–Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (30)
Great pictures from TUDM!
Thanks for sharing them.
On the deployment.
I believe the MKMs are more than capable to fly non-stop to labuan from gong kedak without refuelling. This is just for in flight refuelling recurrency and a chance for a great photo ops! The A400M main task is probably to transport ground suppport equipment of the MKMs to Labuan.
How does the refuelling probe will effect the aircraft structure? Does the aircraft are fit enough to withstand all the extra load? İs it made to carry the refuelling probe?
Reply
Not much affect on the Flanker.
The Atlas was designed from the start to do air to air refueling. It is still unable to do AAR for helicopters which was a requirement. It is likely the French are getting C130J for helicopters AAR
The MKMs certainly have the internal fuel capacity for direct flights to Labuan (they were after all designed for long range interceptions and to escort Soviet bombers from the Kola Peninsular all the way past the Norwegian coast into the North Sea) but depending on the circumstances (I.e. whether it’s an operational tasking, a ferry flight and whether it’s carrying any loads) they might not fly with full tanks.
No doubt the A400Ms will be used to ferry gear to support MKM deployments to Labuan but it’s hoped that some parts are already stocked in Labuan. Therein lies a major problem when one operates different types. If we only operated a single type; the prepositioning of spares and ordnance at various bases would be much easier.
In times of conflict if Butterworth was hit and Hornets returning from a sortie had to divert to Gong Kedak: this would be a problem as Gong Kedak (unless we had catered for the eventuality - unlikely given our resources) would not have any parts, ordnance and support personnel to turn around the Hornets.
"this would be a problem as Gong Kedak (unless we had catered for the eventuality – unlikely given our resources) would not have any parts, ordnance and support personnel to turn around the Hornets."
True. In theory we can "cross" preposition items for at least some types, but given the modest quantities we buy of most things, it might not be worthwhile (or even possible).
This situation will only get worse when we introduce yet another type in the LCA. If it comes from one of our current suppliers then it might have some parts and procedures in common, if it comes from an entirely different country we can forget about this.
"unlikely given our resources"
An indication of our resources would be the delay in overhauling the MKMs.
@ AM
The situation does not get worse with LCA. Actually it will improve as the LCA will eventually replace 3 types of platform (MB-339, hawk, MiG-29).
Another note
Our MKM also can function as a tanker. Although other air forces uses russian AAR pod with their flanker, our MKM uses cobham AAR pod not unlike those on the KC-130H and A-400M.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/budyre.jpg
"Actually it will improve as the LCA will eventually replace 3 types of platform (MB-339, hawk, MiG-29)."
Yes, assuming we buy enough to meet our operational and training requirements to replace existing types at the outset.
Otherwise, our existing trainers and attack platforms will have to soldier on until the day comes that we have bought sufficient numbers of LCA, if it comes at all.
It also assumes that the RMAF is satisfied with the LCA in the roles intended for it- capabilities, availability, cost effectiveness and so on. We've seen how some types did not live up to expectations which led the RMAF to rely on other, in some cases older, types.
The Cobhams were bought to enable MKMs on operational sorties to do circuitous routes on their way to the target. This would require more fuel that flying in a straight line, especially when loaded with ordnance.
..., - “The situation does not get worse with LCA”
It doesn’t go away with the fact that we’ll still have Hornets, MKMs and LCAs : all different types, requiring different spares/parts.
It’s good that the LCA will replace certain types but the harsh reality is that we’ll still have to stock on the different spares/parts needed and that if any particular type has to operate away from it’s home base for extended periods; this will be a problem - unless we had the time to plan accordingly. Yes
Now of course the way around this would be to operate a single combat type. This would solve a lot of problems but we still desire a high/low end mix and our policy is to not be too reliant on one supplier.
@ Azlan
Even if we do away with LCA, we would still need a LIFT platform.
We need LCA because of operating cost constraints. We would probably be good if we just have 1 fighter type, but as a country that is mainly non
aligned, we need to hedge our bets. Compunded with our unique situation straddling 2 sides of the south china sea, we also need something with long endurace, something the MKM has.
Even if we reduce our types to just 3 (LCA/LIFT, MRCA, MKM) it is still not as many as our neighbours such as thailand and indonesia.
I should add that we buy a modest amount of parts and ordnance not only because of budget constraints, but because we operate only 8 or 18 of X type. When each of our fleets is so small, it's hard to justify a large inventory, one that can be worthwhile prepositioning at other bases.
At this point, we don't yet know how many aircraft there will be in the initial batch of LCA, when a follow on batch will come or if it will come at all, or if batch 2 will have different specs from batch 1.
As I said, it is too early to predict that we will have the "luxury" of retiring older types even after the LCA enters service.