Jump to content

F-18E/F mission emphasis


Recommended Posts

Personally I would think the Greyhound would make a pretty good Texaco. Put a bigass fuel bladder inside and toss a hose out the ramp.

I wonder if it could go fast enough? As the recieiving jet took on gas and got heavier, it might not be able to fly that slow!!! :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Greyhound is probably too slow and too big, plus the props might cause some disturbing airflow behind the plane.

You need to be able to rdvz with the fighters sometimes, or escort them a little ways before topping them off. Even the Viking is a little slow for this.

Also, how many dedicated KC-2's could you realistically keep on a carrier deck?

What should have been done IMHO, is procure the KS-3 as the KA-6 was phased out. They saw this coming years in advance and had time to prepare for it. But because of lack of forsight and underappreciation of the impact of the Hornet's introduction to the fleet, they chose to politically marginalize the Viking's mission, disrupt the entire community of an outstanding and very valuable aircraft, and jack the bird to pass gas. As someone who is very familiar with what the S-3B can do, it is sickening. Let me tell you what they have chosen to give up in the S-3.

- an aircraft with the range and the ability to deliver antishipping missiles farther from the CVBG than any other platform.

- the broadest ESM coverage of any aircraft in the wing, allowing for greater emitter classification.

- the only ISAR radar platform in the wing. With ISAR, a radar blip becomes a dynamic, shapeshifting image of a ship. A trained operator can classify this image down to fine naval class from a LONG ways off, well out of ANY surface combatants air defense engagement ring. When I say long range, think in excess of AWG-9 lock up range.

- as previously mentioned, fixed wing indiginous ASW capability.

Any of these capabilities are important. When you combine them all in a single platform, you have in the S-3 a versatile, "force multiplying" aircraft that has the ability to patrol large areas of ocean and detect and engage threats far away from the ship. Its sensor ability and range and the tactical weapons employment capability of the fast movers are a wonderful combination. The Viking's capabilities should have been guarded and kept in the fleet as long as possible, and it should have eventually been replaced with a new aircraft of even greater capability. Has anyone here ever heard of the CSA? The Common Support Aircraft concept was supposed to replace the S-3, the E-2, KA-6, and EA-6B. The leading design was a Viking derivative. If the CSA program had been pursued, then we would not be in a situation where we have had to give up so much tactical capability for what amounts to logistial support for the dominant airframe on the deck. When you have nothing but Hornets, then everything revolves around the Hornet's needs. When the leadership has flown mostly Hornet's, then their attitude is a Hornet attitude. Oh, and don't talk to me about money. The Navy gave up on the NATF to fund the A-12, then gave up on that. In the end, we had to fall back on a redesign of a late 1970s aircraft. Meanwhile, the USAF is getting F-117s, B-2s, and F-22s.

Now, having ranted on about this, I have to say I have always loved the Hornet. I saw a YF-17 fly a demo at Langley AFB when I was 18/19. When I heard the Navy was going to develop it, I thought it was wonderful. I have always loved the hooded LEX and canted tails (a first) look. It's range/payload problem made many people very critical of it. I am glad to see that the aircraft is finally getting some respect, and the SuperHornet is performing in the fleet better than many had expected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

- Ballpark #'s but a 5-wet Rhino is about 60,000lbs (I think they take a 65k cat shot because of the drag) and they run around 22k of give to start. Varies depending on what the squadron uses for fuel requirements.

- It is a common practice to have a couple organic tankers join on the "big wing", as the limiting factor tends to be how many folks you can get refueled at any time. Commonly called "hose multipliers".

- It's still a Hornet, it gets used like a Hornet. Why the heck would we limit the missions it does for no reason? There are few enough strike assets in a modern CVW when you take out the tanker configured jets.

- S-3's. USW was a moot point - essentially, without a sub or a P-3 available to do long term tracking (subs are rare and P-3's are too busy doing "TV Helicopter" duties elsewhere, you are not going to "just find" a sub with an S-3 or SH-60B. USW, like mine warfare was/is/will continue to be written off by the Navy because the skills are perishable, cost money to maintain and are "not sexy". Other than the F's getting mid-cycle dips in while doing plane guard, that is about it.

- Chinese sub's pic. Yeah. Good for them. Whatever.

- S-3 ESM. The new systems in the E-2 HE2K, MH-60R and ICAP III (essentially the same system in all 3) are awesome and about 8 generations ahead of the S-3.

There are some areas where the S-3 is missed, but life goes on....

HTH

Spongebob

Link to post
Share on other sites
S-3's. USW was a moot point - essentially, without a sub or a P-3 available to do long term tracking (subs are rare and P-3's are too busy doing "TV Helicopter" duties elsewhere, you are not going to "just find" a sub with an S-3 or SH-60B. USW, like mine warfare was/is/will continue to be written off by the Navy because the skills are perishable, cost money to maintain and are "not sexy". Other than the F's getting mid-cycle dips in while doing plane guard, that is about it.

So very true. You definitely do not go out and open ocean hunt for a sub. It takes a host of coordinated national assets, but even with a bunch of assets, an aggressive ASW/USW(whatever you call it these days) posture is dicey and very expensive. Unless there is a direct subsurface challenge to the CVBG concept (ala cold war), the mission will continue to get ignored for the reasons you indicated.

22Km give on a Rhino? That is amazing. I think we could only carry 15.7 and that was with Aero 1Ds. Internal was 10.5.

Link to post
Share on other sites
- an aircraft with the range and the ability to deliver antishipping missiles farther from the CVBG than any other platform.

- the broadest ESM coverage of any aircraft in the wing, allowing for greater emitter classification.

- the only ISAR radar platform in the wing. With ISAR, a radar blip becomes a dynamic, shapeshifting image of a ship. A trained operator can classify this image down to fine naval class from a LONG ways off, well out of ANY surface combatants air defense engagement ring. When I say long range, think in excess of AWG-9 lock up range.

- as previously mentioned, fixed wing indiginous ASW capability.

Any of these capabilities are important. When you combine them all in a single platform, you have in the S-3 a versatile, "force multiplying" aircraft that has the ability to patrol large areas of ocean and detect and engage threats far away from the ship. Its sensor ability and range and the tactical weapons employment capability of the fast movers are a wonderful combination. The Viking's capabilities should have been guarded and kept in the fleet as long as possible, and it should have eventually been replaced with a new aircraft of even greater capability. Has anyone here ever heard of the CSA? The Common Support Aircraft concept was supposed to replace the S-3, the E-2, KA-6, and EA-6B. The leading design was a Viking derivative. If the CSA program had been pursued, then we would not be in a situation where we have had to give up so much tactical capability for what amounts to logistial support for the dominant airframe on the deck.

It was great to see how Nathman and the rest of the gang at N88 didn't care about any of the above because of funding (and the need to make room for VFA assets) after the Big Bear was gone and we started sailing in a bathtub instead of an ocean. Life goes on... maybe I will go fly an S-3 with my buddy at NASA.

CSA was stillborn the second it was hatched. That was a real treat to watch.

Atis

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and don't talk to me about money. The Navy gave up on the NATF to fund the A-12, then gave up on that. In the end, we had to fall back on a redesign of a late 1970s aircraft. Meanwhile, the USAF is getting F-117s, B-2s, and F-22s.

And how much will it cost to replace a CVN when and if things get nasty and someone with subs is able to get close enough to reach out and touch the carrier because no-one was available to be out looking for the threat?

It could happen, with the right adversary. The JMSDF is endlessly proud of their ability to get subs within strike range of US carriers in war games - even when the US side knows they are out there and is trying to find them. It would be a Kaiten mission for sure if it was for real, but 1 diesel sub for 1 CVN? Not too bad a trade in the grand scheme of things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On occaison, I've seen instances where the air wing tanker will hit a big wing to top off while the strike package was off doing it's thing. I think in our first trip to OEF that happened a few times - you'd have one S-3 near the coast (which was about 100 nm from the boat) and they'd top off from a big wing and be available to help the -18Cs get to the ship. Often the S-3 up near the coast would have "drug" some strike fighters up that way, before they went feet dry (there would be more big wing - USAF, RAF and Armee de l'Air - further over the beach to help them cover their long on station times). Back near the boat there'd be another S-3 doing recovery tanking.

They might also just want more hoses available for whatever reason...

- It is a common practice to have a couple organic tankers join on the "big wing", as the limiting factor tends to be how many folks you can get refueled at any time. Commonly called "hose multipliers".

Thanks for the follow-up guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...