From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Aircraft Carriers & In-flight refueling - what's so hard?
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:07:04 GMT
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho


From dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)

In article <BtyIqy.96q@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Mike.Hoffmann@sniap.mchp.sni.de (Mike Hoffmann) writes:
> 
> 
> From Mike.Hoffmann@sniap.mchp.sni.de (Mike Hoffmann)
> 
> Hi!
> 
> The recent thread on China acquiring the technology for in-flight refueling
> has left me a bit bewildered. Same goes for the remarks concerning Aircraft
> carriers.
> 
> So what makes in-flight refueling and AC's so special and difficult that
> the Soviets never really mastered the latter and China just now managed
> to get the former?
> 
> I had thought it was more a matter of training and practise, but the
> remarks made it seem as if it was also a problem that only the high-tech
> West had managed to solve.
> 
> COnfused
> Mike
> -- 
> Mike Hoffmann, Siemens-Nixdorf AG, SNI AP 712  
> INTERNET: Mike.Hoffmann@sniap.mchp.sni.de
> "Bosnia has no oil [as opposed to Kuwait]." (unknown citizen of Sarajevo)
> 
> 
> 

It is in designing the equipment to perform adequately and consistantly
for long periods of time.  To a degree this takes building up a base of
experience to determine the weak points in the equipment and in the procedures
used during these dangerous operations.  For carrier operations, the 
principles used in the steam catapult and the hydraulic arresting gear are
well known, it is in the details of getting all components to function 
properly in the right sequence to ensure the aircraft makes it off the deck
and in stopping before it runs out of deck that the difficulty come in.

Also, the Soviets were more worried about control over and near their own
land.  So there was more emphasis to spend the money needed to develope such
systems, to improve or enhance their current air force rather than expanding
to new environments such as aircraft carriers and in-flight refueling.  It
was interesting to see that on the Discovery Channel last night on "Flight
Command" (?), they were comparing US and Soviet fighters.  It was mentioned
that all new fighters (Su-27,MiG-29,MiG-31) do not have in-flight refueling
because their fighting doctrine was for the aircraft to engage the enemy 
planes within their flight radius from the home airfield.

So I guess it boils down to what is the overall military stragety for a 
country and what equipment and capabilities are needed to carry out that
stragety.  For the US, our stragety clearly dictates the need for carriers and 
in-flight refueling.  The Soviets started on this road, but a major change in
overall military stragety caused by the breakup clearly makes these
unnecessary at this time.  China is looking at a different picture and
seeing the need for these two warfare capabilities.

Don Palmrose
"I'd rather serve on a ship not designed to sink...."




========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: sci.military