Tanker

Special operations MH-47 Chinooks offloading fuel to other aircraft in the air is one possible future scenario that U.S. Army Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is eyeing as it begins to work out what the future Block III iteration of the twin-rotor helicopter might look like. While hypothetical at this stage, a Chinook capable of operating as an aerial refueling tanker could help address the command’s lack of organic tanker capacity and support its future air assault strategies.

Speaking at the annual SOF Week conference, senior SOCOM officers provided updates on the current status of the highly modified MH-47Gs that provide the heavy-lift muscle for the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, or 160th SOAR, the famous Night Stalkers. As we have reported in the past on multiple occasions, these highly capable aircraft are frequently noted with different modifications cropping up around their airframes.

At this stage, however, SOCOM is beginning to draft possible requirements for the next iteration of special operations MH-47G — the Block III — expected to come online starting around 2032.

“Currently, we’re in Block II,” explained Sean Godfrey, product manager for the MH-47 at Army Special Operations Aviation Command. “We do not currently have what the Block III looks like, but that aircraft’s not going anywhere. It’s going to have to get upgraded over time.”

“Those next big things that we have to figure out would be how to get more out of the system,” Godfrey continued. “That would have to be enabling the aircraft to go further into more environments.” Another area of interest is increasing options for putting modular equipment on and off the aircraft, he added.

“That increased modularity to be able to rapidly take things on and off the aircraft to reconfigure it very quickly, to meet our mission requirements, is something that we’re always looking at,” added Dr. Steve Smith, SOCOM’s program executive officer for Rotary Wing.

“Anything that we do going forward, we’re going to try to make it as modular as possible. We want to go plug things in when we need them, unplug them, and take them off the aircraft when we don’t need them.”

Even with an aircraft offering the performance and capacity of the MH-47, preserving the allowable combat load is always at a premium. Increased modularity might include removing certain protection systems for operations in more-permissive environments, to give operators additional load. The same could be said for navigational systems, as well.

Smith continued: “There might be cases where I want to fill that aircraft with as much fuel as possible, and maybe that MH-47 becomes a flying FARP, and I put it somewhere, and we refuel other aircraft off of them.”

A FARP, or Forward Arming and Refueling Point, is essential for operating from austere forward bases along (or beyond) the battle lines.

This is already a key mission for the MH-47, with the 160th using these aircraft in “Fat Cow” configuration. Filled with extra tanks, the Chinook then serves as a gas station on the ground for other rotary-wing aircraft. This was a tactic famously used in the Bin Laden raid.

At a FARP, aircraft can quickly receive fuel and weapons, even without shutting down their engines. As a result, they can accelerate the fight by dramatically increasing sortie rates, or FARPs can extend the combat range of an aircraft. When it comes to just adding fuel, refueling in mid-air is an even more efficient way of doing this.

“Maybe, maybe we can do in-air refueling off of an MH-47,” Smith mused.

While he admitted that he was “just throwing stuff up against a wall,” at this point, Smith also acknowledged that having more modular systems could make that possible.

“Aerial refueling is an amazing capability,” Smith continued. “It allows us to do a lot of things, but that affects your allowable combat load, right? So, is there a way to do something modular for aerial refueling, so that the system could come on and off quickly, so that would allow us to get maybe something in country, rapidly reconfigured, and then do something else.”

For the Army, the demands for greater range and ability that cover those distances faster are seen as critical capabilities, particularly in the context of any future fight against China across the sprawling expanses of the Pacific.

According to Smith, SOCOM is already looking at the possibility of porting mission equipment from its forthcoming MV-75A Cheyenne II tiltrotors onto the MH-47 Block III, and potentially even the Block II or Block III MH-60 fleets. However, he admitted that, at this stage, there is no funding appropriated for this, or even a formal requirement.

When it comes to making Block III a reality for the MH-47, this would likely follow the same procedure that is currently used to produce special operations Chinooks.

For the MH-47G Block II, specifically, Godfrey explained that the procedure starts with selecting a legacy aircraft, some of which are now more than 60 years old. SOCOM then removes all the mission equipment and software equipment, Godfrey continued, and flies the aircraft to Delaware. Here, the aircraft is essentially torn apart, and the parts to be used are recapitalized and returned to the Boeing production line. After a multi-year process, the Chinook re-emerges as a black-painted MH-47 and then goes to have all its mission equipment fitted. Then it is delivered to the unit.

Once in SOCOM service, Smith explains that “We’re constantly trying to figure out the best ways to increase range, increase payload, increase speed, reduce weight, all while somehow holding flight-hour costs low. And all these things aren’t rolling in the same direction.”

The MH-47’s need for range is an enduring one and is reflected in its regular use of in-flight refueling itself, using the probe-and-drogue method, as also employed by SOCOM MH-60s. Already, the MH-47 features massive sponson fuel tanks compared to the standard Chinook, making them the longest-range assets of the 160th.

But whether or not some kind of palletized or modular aerial refueling capacity comes to the Chinook remains to be seen.

Expanding the “Fat Cow” role and taking the MH-47 tanker to the air would be very enticing for SOCOM. It would give them their own air-to-air refueling assets, rather than relying totally on the Air Force MC-130/HC-130 fleets. As it is, providing fuel at FARPs can be a very high-risk mission for SOCOM, considering they are often working in contested territory. If the same aircraft could be adapted to refuel MH-60s and MH-47s in the air, they would not have to land in some scenarios, and the Army wouldn’t need to call upon external refueling assets, which might not be available or cannot be risked.

It is also worth noting that questions have also emerged about how the Army will ensure there is adequate tanker capacity to support its aerial-refueling-capable MV-75s. As delivered, all Cheyenne IIs will have the capacity to have a probe fitted, the Army has confirmed, even those in non-SOCOM units, although the exact mix of how many ‘big Army’ MV-75s will get the probe and how many won’t is yet to be determined. Bell, the MV-75’s prime contractor, and the Army have both suggested that tanker drones like the U.S. Navy’s forthcoming MQ-25 Stingray could help extend the Cheyenne II’s reach. An adapted MH-47 could provide another answer, although one with drastically different performance.

Recent operations in South America and in the Middle East have underscored the need for long-range missions by Special Operations Aviation Command. The prospect of a potential conflict with China across the vast expanses of the Pacific means that longer-range platforms, of all kinds, are an increasing area of interest, and the 160th’s heavy-lifting, far-flying Chinooks are no exception.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

A South Korean vessel has successfully passed through the Red Sea and is currently en route home, marking the fourth oil shipment of its kind, the oceans ministry said Friday.

The arrival comes as Seoul has been scrambling to bring in oil through alternative routes amid the ongoing blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

After loading oil shipments at Saudi Arabia’s Yanbu Port, the ship passed through the Red Sea at around 11:00 a.m., the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries said. Details of the vessel’s movement were withheld due to safety reasons.

The ship is the fourth Korean oil carrier to transit the waterway that connects the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean via and Suez Canal since the country began using the waterway to avoid the Strait of Hormuz.

That water lane has effectively been blocked by Iran for over a month.

The first Korean ship to take the alternate route since the war began arrived at a port in the southwestern city of Yeosu on Thursday, carrying some 2 million barrels of oil, according to sources familiar with the matter. The ship had left the Red Sea last month.

Two more Korean oil carriers successfully passed through the Red Sea earlier this week.

The ministry said it will continue efforts to stabilize oil shipments to the country and take steps to ensure the safety of Korean vessels and crew members navigating through the region.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Israel’s first Boeing KC-46A Pegasus tanker — now given the Hebrew name Gideon, after a biblical judge and military leader — has completed its first flight in the United States, with delivery expected soon. As we have discussed in the past, new tankers that can provide additional refueling capacity to support its operations are much in demand with the Israeli Air Force.

New imagery of the first flight of an Israeli KC-46 — with national markings yet to be applied — came just one day after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hinted at plans to develop “groundbreaking Israeli-made aircraft,” as well as referencing the approval for two additional fighter squadrons. As you can read about here, these will be made up of F-15IA and F-35I Adir jets, providing an eventual total of four squadrons of F-35Is and two of F-15IAs.

Announcing the first flight of an IAF KC-46, the Israeli Ministry of Defense said the tanker would be delivered to Israel in “approximately one month.” It is the first of six examples on order as part of what the ministry describes as a “wide-scale force buildup program.”

Back in 2020, the U.S. State Department approved the potential sale of eight KC-46s to Israel, with the entire package having an estimated price tag of $2.4 billion.

In 2022, the U.S. Department of Defense awarded Boeing a $930-million contract for the first four KC-46s for Israel. At this time, it was said that deliveries were due before the end of 2026.

On the back of very heavy utilization of its aging Boeing 707 Re’em tanker fleet in operations against Iran, as well as for other long-range combat missions and domestic ones, Israel added two more KC-46s to its order last year.

The Israeli Ministry of Defense says that the KC-46 will be equipped with Israeli systems and adapted to the operational requirements of the IAF. It is unclear what systems will be added, but Israel has a long history of adapting foreign-made aircraft with locally made equipment, and its tankers have been no exception.

One strong possibility is that the KC-46s will be equipped to serve as a command-and-control station and communications node. The current 707 Re’em tanker carries a satellite communications suite to provide critical, secure beyond-line-of-sight communications with appropriately equipped tactical aircraft like the F-15 and F-16, and command centers far away. This is especially important for long-range strike operations.

Were Israel to order more KC-46s, this would not be entirely surprising.

Currently, the IAF is assessed to field no more than seven 707 tankers.

The 12-day war against Iran in 2025 had already led to questions about the IAF’s aerial refueling capacity, and the U.S. government was forced to deny — despite claims to the contrary — that it had provided additional tanker support for the operation.

U.S. Air Force tankers also arrived at Ben Gurion International Airport in Israel in significant numbers earlier this year, when the United States and Israel launched combined strikes against targets across Iran.

Bearing in mind the problems of various kinds that have beset the KC-46 program as far as the U.S. Air Force is concerned, the IAF will be happy that the first delivery is still on track for 2026, in line with the original schedule.

At the same time, it’s not entirely clear how the KC-46s will be outfitted.

In the past, it was expected that they would be delivered with the next-generation version of the critical Remote Vision System (RVS) that has proven so challenging to perfect. Ironically, the Israeli 707s that the KC-46 will replace have long used a locally developed RVS that has apparently proven very effective, and which you can read more about here. We have reached out to Boeing for more details on that feature.

With its existing tanker fleet (and with or without U.S. refueling support), the IAF has demonstrated that it can sustain a remarkably high tempo of operations, striking multiple targets across great distances, as well as supporting combat air patrols and multiple other requirements.

Now, with its first KC-46 Gideon set to arrive in the coming weeks, the Israeli Air Force will begin the start of a long-awaited modernization period for its aerial refueling capacity, ultimately allowing the withdrawal of the antiquated 707.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

May 4 (Asia Today) — Pan Ocean beat market expectations in the first quarter, helped by strong performance in its LNG and tanker businesses.

Pan Ocean said Monday its preliminary first-quarter sales rose 8.3% from a year earlier to 1.51 trillion won ($1.03 billion), while operating profit increased 24.4% to 140.9 billion won ($95.8 million).

The results exceeded market forecasts of 1.46 trillion won ($989 million) in sales and 132.2 billion won ($89.8 million) in operating profit.

Compared with the previous quarter, sales rose 2.2% and operating profit increased 8%. Analysts said expansion of the company’s LNG-focused business portfolio helped defend earnings despite the seasonal shipping slowdown.

By business segment, tanker operating profit rose 41.5% from a year earlier to 28.1 billion won ($19.1 million), supported by strong medium-range tanker market conditions. The LNG business posted 47.2 billion won ($32.1 million) in operating profit, up 49.7%, helped by fleet expansion and higher utilization.

The bulk segment, including grain operations, continued to grow from a year earlier, but profitability weakened from the previous quarter because of spot voyage losses caused by geopolitical risks from U.S.-Iran tensions and rising oil prices. Bulk operating profit totaled 54.7 billion won ($37.2 million).

The container segment posted 9 billion won ($6.1 million) in operating profit, down 42.9% from a year earlier, as oversupply pushed freight rates lower.

Pan Ocean said its strategy of diversifying into LNG and tankers to manage shipping market volatility has begun to show results.

“We will continue efforts to strengthen our ability to respond to market changes, expand our business portfolio and secure stable profitability,” a Pan Ocean official said. “At the same time, we will establish our position as a sustainable company through active ESG management.”

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260504010000408

On April 20, the United States fired at and then seized an Iranian-flagged container ship close to the Strait of Hormuz in the northern Arabian Sea, amid its blockade of Iranian ports.

It was similar to a scene which played out in the 1980s during the so-called Tanker War between Iran and Iraq, during which both countries fired on each other’s tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, seeking to cripple each other’s economies.

As naval tensions rise again in the Strait of Hormuz – this time between Iran and the US – we break down what happened in the 1980s and examine the parallels and differences between the situations then and now:

How the 1980s Tanker War played out – a timeline

The war between Iran and Iraq began in 1980 when then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein launched a full-scale invasion of Iran following Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution.

In 1984, this war reached the Gulf when Iraq attacked Iranian oil tankers, seeking to cripple its oil-revenue-dependent economy. Iran retaliated by firing at oil tankers belonging to Iraq and its allies in the Gulf.

According to a report by the University of Texas’s Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law, Iran also threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz then, but did not do so since its own economy, already crippled by the war, was dependent on exporting oil to the rest of the world through it.

In November 1986, when Iran struck Kuwait’s ships, Kuwait asked for foreign help. The former Soviet Union was the first to respond and helped escort the nation’s ships in the Gulf.

The US, led by then-president Ronald Reagan, launched Operation Earnest Will in July 1987, also seeking to protect tankers in the Gulf and render more assistance than Moscow. The operation involved reflagging Kuwaiti tankers with the US flag so they could legally sail under US protection.

According to an article by the Veterans Breakfast Club, a US-based website which shares experiences of former US military veterans, during Washington’s very first escort mission in July 1987, a reflagged tanker hit an Iranian mine in the Gulf.

“The convoy continued, but the incident made clear that the United States had entered a shadow war with Iran at sea,” the article said.

“Over the next fourteen months, dozens of US warships rotated through the region escorting tankers and protecting shipping lanes. US forces also conducted special operations to hunt Iranian mine-layers at night and conducted strikes against Iranian military positions and ships. The mission wasn’t a small one, consuming 30 US Navy ships at one time,” the article added.

Then in April 1988, the US frigate USS Samuel B Roberts was damaged by an Iranian mine in the Strait of Hormuz. Historian Samuel Cox, writing for the US Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC), noted in 2018 that by the end of 1987 that vessel was so badly damaged, that “the only thing actually holding the ship together was the main deck”.

So, the US launched Operation Praying Mantis, seeking to destroy Iranian vessels.

The tanker war eventually ended in August 1988, following a United Nations-brokered ceasefire agreement between Iran and Iraq.

Cox noted that by the end of 1987, “Iraq had conducted 283 attacks on shipping, while Iran attacked 168 times. Combined, the attacks had killed 116 merchant sailors, with 37 missing and 167 wounded, from a wide variety of nationalities.”

“Initially, there was great concern that the attacks would cut off the vital flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf, but all they really did was drive up insurance rates. The world’s need for oil was so great, that over 100 dead merchant seamen was apparently an acceptable price,” he wrote.

What is happening in the Strait of Hormuz now?

The current hostilities between the US and Iran in the Strait of Hormuz began when Tehran, whose territorial waters extend into the strait, closed passage to all vessels after the US and Israel began bombing the country. On March 4, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) declared that it was in full control of the strait, and ships would need to get clearance from them to pass through it.

Shipping through the strait collapsed by 95 percent, sending the price of oil – 20 percent of global supplies of which are shipped this way – soaring above $100 a barrel.

Iran, through its imposition of control over who passes through Hormuz, has for almost eight weeks now, determined which vessels can exit the strait from the Gulf into the Gulf of Oman.

At first, Iran indicated that it would allow “friendly” ships to pass if they paid a toll. On March 26, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Iran’s state TV: “The Strait of Hormuz, from our perspective, is not completely closed. It is closed only to enemies. There is no reason to allow the ships of our enemies and their allies to pass.”

Vessels from Malaysia, China, Egypt, South Korea, India and Pakistan passed through the strait through most of March and early April.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) provided these vessels with an alternative route through the Strait of Hormuz to avoid potential sea mines. US officials, including Donald Trump, have said mines have been placed there by Iran, although it has not officially confirmed or denied this.

But on April 13, alarmed that Iran was continuing to ship its own oil out of the strait, the US imposed a naval blockade of all Iranian ports. Since then, US Central Command has said US forces have directed 33 Iran-linked vessels to turn around or return to an Iranian port.

On Monday, the US military fired on and then captured the Iranian-flagged container ship Touska close to the Strait of Hormuz in the northern Arabian Sea, and, a day later, detained another oil tanker sanctioned for transporting Iranian crude oil as it sailed in the Bay of Bengal, which links India and Southeast Asia.

In a post on social media after detaining the Touska, the Pentagon wrote: “As we have made clear, we will pursue global maritime enforcement efforts to disrupt illicit networks and interdict sanctioned vessels providing material support to Iran – anywhere they operate.
International waters are not a refuge for sanctioned vessels.”

Since the US naval blockade of Iranian ports began, Tehran, which was earlier allowing vessels from “friendly” nations to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, has further tightened its grip on the strait.

Justifying the decision not to allow any foreign ships to pass until the US ends its naval blockade on April 19, Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref said the “security of the Strait of Hormuz is not free”.

“One cannot restrict Iran’s oil exports while expecting free security for others,” he wrote in a post on X.

Last Saturday, Iran reportedly fired at two Indian-flagged merchant vessels in the strait. The IRGC said the two ships were attacked because they were “operating without authorisation”, according to state media reports.

Then, on April 22, Iran captured two container ships seeking to exit the Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz after firing on them and another vessel.

What are the parallels between the two wars?

Just like during the Tanker War of the 1980s, shipping has been severely disrupted by the US-Israel war on Iran, upending global oil and gas prices.

According to an April 17 article by the World Economic Forum, from the mid-1980s when the Tanker War took place, to the start of the new millennium, a barrel of crude oil averaged $20.

On Friday, while a ceasefire between the US and Iran was in effect, a naval battle was still playing out in the Strait of Hormuz, and Brent crude, the international benchmark, topped $106 per barrel. During open warfare between the US, Israel and Iran in March and early April, oil rose as high as $119 per barrel.

Mines in the sea are another problem common to both time periods.

While vessels were damaged by mines during the 1980s Tanker War, there has so far been no report of vessels being damaged by mines in the current war. However, the risk is the same.

US President Donald Trump has said the US will ramp up efforts to remove mines from the Strait of Hormuz. This has not begun yet, however.

According to CNN, there are only a few US minesweeping ships in the Gulf. The US Navy also told the broadcaster that four dedicated minesweepers stationed in the Gulf region were decommissioned last year.

John Phillips, a British safety, security and risk adviser and former military instructor, told Al Jazeera: “There are some clear parallels between the current situation in Hormuz and the Tanker War of the 1980s. In both cases, the basic idea is the same: pressure at sea can have effects far beyond the water itself.

“A relatively small amount of naval disruption, whether that means mining, harassment of shipping, missile threats, or attacks on tankers, can create real strategic and economic consequences, especially in a chokepoint like the Strait of Hormuz. So in that sense, the original Tanker War is a useful reminder of how vulnerable global trade can be when the maritime domain becomes part of a wider political or military confrontation.”

What are the differences between the two wars?

During the Tanker War, the US escorted ships to protect them from Iranian attacks and also deployed vessels to remove mines. NATO countries like the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Italy also joined.

But in the current standoff in the Strait of Hormuz, US allies like the UK and other NATO nations have refused to join Washington in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, or begin minesweeping operations, fearing they will be dragged into the war.

In a post on Truth Social in early April, the US president took aim at allies, “like the United Kingdom”, which, he said, have “refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran”, telling them to either buy US fuel or get involved in the rapidly escalating war.

“You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!” Trump wrote.

The framework of the US-Israel war on Iran is different from that of the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, experts say.

“In the 1980s, the Tanker War was part of the broader Iran-Iraq War, so the shipping attacks were tied to a much larger land conflict between two regional armies. Today, the situation is more about Iran’s standoff with the United States and its allies, and the maritime activity is less about asymmetrical war at sea and more about deterrence, signalling and the threat of escalation,” said Phillips.

“The military lesson, really, is that Hormuz is still one of those places where limited actions can have outsized effects, but the modern setting is more fast-moving, more technologically advanced and potentially more volatile than the original Tanker War,” he added.

Analysts have also pointed out that, unlike in the 1980s, Iran is currently stronger when it comes to withstanding attacks and naval blockades by the US.

In the Tanker War, Iraq was militarily supported by Western allies, while Iran was under a US arms embargo imposed in 1979 after the Iranian revolution. While this gave Iraq a military advantage, Iran’s IRGC used asymmetric warfare tactics by striking Iraq’s allies’ ships and oil tankers.

Experts also say that since the 12-day war between Iran and Israel last year, Tehran has shifted its military doctrine from one that is primarily about defensive containment to an explicitly offensive asymmetric posture.

“Iran today appears more structurally aggressive in doctrine where it is formally embracing earlier and more extensive use of regional missiles, drones, cyberattacks and energy coercion [when energy resources and infrastructure are targeted or cut off], but is operationally constrained by battle damage, sanctions and internal instability,” Phillips, the risk adviser and a former military chief instructor, told Al Jazeera in an interview on March 2.

A former US ambassador to Bahrain, Adam Ereli, also told Al Jazeera that Iran and the IRGC have “revolutionary fervour”, which means they can “survive”.

“They can tolerate pain for a lot longer than I think most American decision-makers and planners calculate,” he said.

The Department of War has released a video it says shows US forces boarding a sanctioned tanker in the Asia Pacific region as part of their efforts to disrupt vessels providing support to Iran.

President Lee Jae Myung on Friday shared a news report that a South Korean oil tanker exited the Red Sea, marking the first shipment of crude oil to the nation since the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

Earlier in the day, the nation’s fisheries ministry reported that the tanker carrying crude oil from Saudi Arabia exited the Red Sea, as the Strait of Hormuz has been effectively closed amid the prolonged war in the Middle East.

“It is good news that our vessel is transporting crude oil via the Red Sea for the first time since the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz,” Lee wrote in his social media post.

He described the safe passage as a “valuable achievement” made possible through close coordination among relevant ministries and the dedication of seafarers under difficult circumstances.

“The government is mobilizing all available resources to address the crisis stemming from the war in the Middle East,” Lee said, pledging to safeguard people’s livelihoods and national interests.

South Korea has been exploring ways to ship crude oil via the Red Sea, an alternative route, as the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime chokepoint, has been effectively closed amid the Middle East conflict.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.