USN Tanker Aircraft

[Gman]

For years during the cold war at the height of the USN's power, especially with Naval aviation, the A6 usually was used as a tanker, even having a dedicated variant from what I can recall, KA6 something or other.  I know the S3 Viking was also at times used for this.  These were both large and I would assume stable from what I've read of them, platforms from which to refuel fighters and attack birds from.  Now, since these planes are gone, and the Common Support Aircraft, which was to replace the S3 Viking, the A6 Tanker type, the COD delivery hauler, as well as the airframe used for the E2C Hawkeye's future replacement, was cancelled, like everything else in the US DOD except the F35.

Now this is what is done.  What is wrong with this picture, heh.  Isn't it a waste of a potential fighter or striker if the USN was ever to get into a serious scrap in the future?  To tie up a valuable fighter with fuel tanks and hoses, in order to support other fighters...it seems like such a waste of resources, not to mention the F18 is NOT known for having the best range in the world, so how can it be an effective tanker itself for other aircraft?  Any USN types here know if there is any plans to make a dedicated, or at least improved tanker for the USN?

[TheCrazyOrange]

Wrong thread 

[JunkyII]

Funny thing is the Prowler are being replaced by a F18 variant the Growler as the USN electronic warfare platform.

[artik]

For years during the cold war at the height of the USN's power, especially with Naval aviation, the A6 usually was used as a tanker, even having a dedicated variant from what I can recall, KA6 something or other.  I know the S3 Viking was also at times used for this.  These were both large and I would assume stable from what I've read of them, platforms from which to refuel fighters and attack birds from.  Now, since these planes are gone, and the Common Support Aircraft, which was to replace the S3 Viking, the A6 Tanker type, the COD delivery hauler, as well as the airframe used for the E2C Hawkeye's future replacement, was cancelled, like everything else in the US DOD except the F35.

Now this is what is done.  What is wrong with this picture, heh.  Isn't it a waste of a potential fighter or striker if the USN was ever to get into a serious scrap in the future?  To tie up a valuable fighter with fuel tanks and hoses, in order to support other fighters...it seems like such a waste of resources, not to mention the F18 is NOT known for having the best range in the world, so how can it be an effective tanker itself for other aircraft?  Any USN types here know if there is any plans to make a dedicated, or at least improved tanker for the USN?

Note: this thread is interesting but VERY close to get into politics - I'd suggest to keep the discussion on different planes advantages over "other" things

Actually using a pod for the F-18E that converts it to the tanker is a very smart move and now I'll explain why.

The major problem that even the best carrier based tanker is far from KC-135 or even KC-130. For example KC-130 takes about 70,000lb of payload. Even if you take C-2 its payload only about 20,000lb - because it operates from a carrier. If you convert for example V-22 to a tanker you'll get the 20,000lb as well. IIRC with the KA-6 you get approximately the same numbers.

Note all these are dedicated tankers that use hangar space and can't play another roles.

Let's assume you want to send about 16 F-18s to a long range mission and lets assume they need to refuel to 600gal external tanks to continue the mission i.e. 8,000lb each F-18 (which isn't much at all) - which gives you about 128,000lb of fuel - you'll need about 6 tankers for such a mission or 1 tanker per 3 planes. If you want to scale it up to for example 32 birds you need to have all these tankers. In such a case you'll be better bringing KC-135 as it would be much more rational.

Now with buddy refueling you can scaleup easily. F-18E comes with built in support of buddy refueling. You put a pod and you get a tanker, you remove the pod you can operate it as fighter/attacker. Now even assuming that you'll need 1 F-18E tanker on every 2 F-18E in strike pack - you can scale it up easily. You convert 16 F-18Es to tankers 32 F-18 to attackers and get it done.

Need more range? Make 16 tankers and 16 F-18s.

Basically you can trade the size of the pack for the range - it is very flexible. With designated tankers you don't have such a flexibility - their either aren't used for shorter range operations or limit the long range strike pack size.

Same did Russian navy with MiG-29K and Indian navy that bought them - they support buddy refueling:



So, to me, it looks like quite a smart move - multi-role planes on a limited carrier deck is always an advantage. Not talking about budget savings.

[artik]

BTW for marines, creating tankers from V-22 is quite a smart move because it is just an installation on ordinary V-22 and it really help their F-35B with limited range, and Marines using V-22 in any case for other missions. Also if Navy would use V-22 on their own it would be useful as well.



(see: http://www.newslittle.com/2013/09/06/v-22-osprey-angles-toward-aerial-tanker-jobs/)

[MK-84]

This subject is getting old.































 

[GScholz]

As Artik says if you have limited number of total available aircraft, like on a carrier, it is beneficial to make most of them multirole combat planes, instead of specialized non-combat. Buddy refueling replaces some non-combat types thus increasing the total offensive/defensive potential of the carrier air wing.

[Puma44]

What is wrong with this picture, heh.  Isn't it a waste of a potential fighter or striker if the USN was ever to get into a serious scrap in the future?  To tie up a valuable fighter with fuel tanks and hoses, in order to support other fighters...it seems like such a waste of resources, not to mention the F18 is NOT known for having the best range in the world, so how can it be an effective tanker itself for other aircraft?  Any USN types here know if there is any plans to make a dedicated, or at least improved tanker for the USN?

(Image removed from quote.)

There's nothing wrong with this picture considering the ability, in a critical fuel situation, to pass enough fuel to get the receiver on board the carrier vs flaming out, ejecting, losing the fighter for sure, and possibly the pilot, BN, and EWOs.

[Gman]

Thank you Capt Obvious Puma.  What was meant by "what's wrong with this picture", obviously, is that the A6 platform for 30+ years was the tanker, and the fighter refueling it in this picture was typically the recipient, obvious role reversal compared today, and this pic where an EA6B is tanking from a Hornet.  

Considering the room on a CVN that is NOT being used with most carrier air wings, adding 10+ dedicated tanker birds would free up the buddy system fighters do to fighter like tasks - there is plenty of room for them now, it's just a $ issue, as the common support aircraft was supposed to do specifically that, act as a tanker to relieve the current Hornet buddy system aircraft.  I can link in about a dozen articles from various defense weeklies if anyone doesn't feel like googling it themselves.  

The USN is considering using the new unmanned aircraft as a tanker as well.  The Super Hornet can only carry about 2500 gal of fuel, and that is with every tank loaded.  When doing so, the service life of the airframe is drastically reduced, and currently nearly 1/4 of all US Hornet flights are as tankers, so this is not doing the longevity of the fleet any favors at all, not to mention taking 25 percent of the CAP and strike power away from the carrier air wing.  The Hornets aren't known for range to begin with, albeit it is a much faster tanker than the previous dedicated birds, or even any other option, but speed isn't that critical for a tanker. 

I've posted in the V22 thread about them tanking, I've seen it before, and it's a good idea IMO for the USMC, as their variant of the F35 will have a little less range than the Navy's F35C, although it will have a lot more range than the Harrier ever did.  Perhaps the USMC will put some V22 tankers aboard the CVN's air wing as a detachment, which could take some  of the stress of the Hornet fleet so far as acting as tankers goes.

Good article here, there are dozens more out there from the last few months, tankers seem to be popular subjects for the Navy right now.

http://news.usni.org/2014/04/01/uclass-used-tanker-carrier-air-wing

[Puma44]

Thank you Capt Obvious Puma.  What was meant, obviously, is that the A6 platform for 30+ years was the tanker, and the fighter refueling it in this picture was typically the recipient, obvious role reversal compared today, and this pic where an EA6B is tanking from a Hornet.  

Considering the room on a CVN that is NOT being used with most carrier air wings, adding 10+ dedicated tanker birds would free up the buddy system fighters do to fighter like tasks - there is plenty of room for them now, it's just a $ issue, as the common support aircraft was supposed to do specifically that, act as a tanker to relieve the current Hornet buddy system aircraft.  I can link in about a dozen articles from various defense weeklies if anyone doesn't feel like googling it themselves.  

Perhaps the Hornet tanker role has something to do with the number of Hornets in the fleet vs the number of EA-6s.  Do you have duty time in the Navy and on CVNs?

It appeared you were missing the obvious and needed it explained.  Maybe a little clarity in your meaning in the future.  

[Serenity]

Considering the room on a CVN that is NOT being used with most carrier air wings, adding 10+ dedicated tanker birds would free up the buddy system fighters do to fighter like tasks - there is plenty of room for them now, it's just a $ issue

I'm not a SME by any means, nor do I have any real fleet time, but my understanding of sending the COD to go land on shore anytime the carrier is close enough would lead me to believe that space is a little tighter than you're suggesting. I'm not saying it isn't doable, but if the CAG would rather have the COD ashore, he probably wouldn't keep it around just to be a tanker.

[Gman]

Rgr that Puma, I just thought it was an obvious joke is all.

Serenity, right now the average wing that deploys has 20+, sometimes more, slots available for more aircraft.  Remember during the cold war of the 80s and early 90s, when there were at least 24 F14s, 24 F18s or 24 A7s, 12 A6 medium attack, 4 KA6D tankers, 4-6 E2C AEW, 4 EA6B EW aircraft, 10 S3 Vikings, 6 Helos, 1 or 2 RF8 Recon aircraft, sometimes an electronic intel platform like the Ea-3B, and then 1 or 2 CODs.  We're talking 90+ aircraft back then.  Now, a modern carrier air wing has 4 squads of fighter/attack aircraft of 10-14 per sqd, usually mid to high 40-ish aircraft, 4 or 5 EW aircraft, either EA6B or Growlers, 4 E2C AEW/Awacs, 2 CODs, and...that's it, other than the helos, which vary greatly, and often are split among other ships of the task force group, but call it around 10 helos on board the CV itself.  We're talking as few as 55 aircraft, even less sometimes if USMC F18C squads of 10 are aboard, and 10 helos.  You can see how the numbers compared to 20 years ago show that it is around 1/3 less airframes on board, what with the 28 birds of the A6/S3/Recon variety being gone now.  Believe it, there is LOTS of room on a CVN compared to days gone by, the F14 with the oversweep storage wings had a pretty large storage footprint compared to the folding wing Hornets, so that is another factor giving even more room.

In a wartime footing, a CV air wing could easily add 2 or 3 more squadrons of various aircraft, so far as room and space is concerned.  It must have been something, to see those cold war era CVN groups operating with all those aircraft on board, talk about tight squeeze.  Some of the exercises of the late 80's had 2 CVNs, 2 CV's, and an allied carrier like the French or Brits along.  Controlling that airspace must have been hectic, with over 350 potential aircraft to keep track of both on deck, and when they were aloft. 

[GScholz]

They will add a lot of aircraft in the near future. When the F-35C is ready. Everything being done now is just a stopgap measure. US Navy aviation is in a transitional period.