|
CarForumPoster posted:MQ-25 is a carrier plane, its supposed to replace the job the refueling Hornets are currently doing. You could call it a “common support” aircraft and spend 30 years hemming and hawing over it!
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:If we already have a refueling hornet why do we need a new platform to.... Refueling using superhornets is limited in capability and every hornet doing refueling duty is not doing other combat missions. And they get extra fatigue/hours when used as a tanker all the damned time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:If we already have a refueling hornet why do we need a new platform to.... Because, as I understand it, it's not a Hornet for refueling, it's a Hornet carrying special external tanks for refueling. It's not optimal and replacing it is a good move.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Seems like that would be a good use for hornets near the end of life. Spare parts, pilots, the whole shebang already on the carrier. gently caress it just make a F35 refueled version instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
They are significantly worse than a dedicated platform though. and I suspect $/hour for an old hornet is probably worse than a new lower performance UAV.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Seems like that would be a good use for hornets near the end of life. Spare parts, pilots, the whole shebang already on the carrier. The problem is that the only hornets that can do it are the newer model hornets. So superhornets are reaching SLEP ahead of schedule in order to tank both newer and legacy model hornets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
And the amount of fuel a Hornet can carry is not much, it's a really limited tanker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The problem is that the only hornets that can do it are the newer model hornets. So superhornets are reaching SLEP ahead of schedule in order to tank both newer and legacy model hornets. Lordy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
It’s also particularly fuel hungry from the canted pylons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Alaan posted:It’s also particularly fuel hungry from the canted pylons. And two high performance engines. There are a lot of ways a UAV makes a ton of sense for a tanker. Going to a place and flying in a circle is pretty well within the UAV core competency, and being subsonic and flying wing means a lot more fuel fraction and loiter time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Alaan posted:It’s also particularly fuel hungry from the canted pylons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:MQ-25 is a carrier plane, its supposed to replace the job the refueling Hornets are currently doing. I believe the C-2 is supposed to be on its way out also, to be replaced with a V-22 Osprey derivative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:And two high performance engines. You could probably even do the UAV tanker thing entirely autonomous, with zero outside control and thus no sigint/jamming vulnerability. The act of refueling is the most complicated part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:You could probably even do the UAV tanker thing entirely autonomous, with zero outside control and thus no sigint/jamming vulnerability. The act of refueling is the most complicated part. And drogue+chute makes that much easier on the tanker side.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Why did the Navy stop using the S-3s for refuelling? That has to be better than using a Hornet with tiny wing tanks?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Why did the Navy stop using the S-3s for refuelling? That has to be better than using a Hornet with tiny wing tanks? Because S-3's were old as dirt, the line was closed in 1978. There was a proposal to new-build an upgraded S-3 specifically as a tanker, a few years ago but didn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Because S-3's were old as dirt, the line was closed in 1978. There was a proposal to new-build an upgraded S-3 specifically as a tanker, a few years ago but didn't happen. And proposals to revamp them as CODs that weren't as lethal as the C-2s as well as having the ability to carry F-35 engines...but that had the disadvantage of being both cost-effective and complicated, so instead the CMV-22B is the future of COD. Because carriers (and their strike group) being forced to operate for extended periods in littoral areas because the Osprey's got short legs and can't be pressurized makes a lot of sense to someone who's getting serious quid pro quo to ensure it happens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
I just assume the CMV-22 was chosen since it was the easiest to go through the procurement process for because the department of the navy was already buying them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And drogue+chute makes that much easier on the tanker side. Ehhhh... Not really. You can get away with less monitoring of the drogue system, but all the logistical problems of running a multi-ship refueling op are still there. If you switch to pre-programmed Autistic Mode tankers to counter MIJI threats, then the pilots actually have to hit their AR times and control points as planned, and the number of pilots I can count on to reliably do that in peacetime, much less a shooting war, can be counted on one hand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
The masculine of jihadi is jihado.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I believe the C-2 is supposed to be on its way out also, to be replaced with a V-22 Osprey derivative. Yep. Posted a few pages back but good read in case anyone missed it: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16535/confessions-of-a-c-2-greyhound-carrier-onboard-delivery-pilot
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:sHaving said that, there's only 187 f22s and I'm sure they're spread out around the place, and not all of them can be available at the same time, and there's the issue of airframe flight hours, so I could maybe see an f117 reactivation Oh my god I just blacked out and woke up thinking I was on a school bus listening to a 7th grader trying to impress a bunch of 5th graders with his awesome airplane knowledge that's based solely on the coverart of Popular Mechanics
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
That is a very serious aviation related Internet takedown
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Will the MQ-25 require a catapult to launch or will it be able to take off from a ski-jump? Asking for a friend.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
^If you want it to have enough fuel for even fly itself, cat.CarForumPoster posted:MQ-25 is a carrier plane, its supposed to replace the job the refueling Hornets are currently doing. The E-2 line is still running. Godholio fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
Godholio posted:^If you want it to have enough fuel for even fly itself, cat. Guess we'd better start up the Osprey K.1 line for Big Lizzie then...
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Godholio posted:^If you want it to have enough fuel for even fly itself, cat. Now trying getting an additional few dozen E-2 tanker variants ordered without every other aircraft company up to and including Sukhoi and Shaanxi throwing a fit about ethics in naval aviation procurement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
bewbies posted:That is a very serious aviation related Internet takedown "Seriously dude the SR-71 in the Smithsonian and the two at Edwards are still airworthy and just in "dry storage." All they need is to be fueled up and they are ready to fly."
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Kebbins posted:"Seriously dude the SR-71 in the Smithsonian and the two at Edwards are still airworthy and just in "dry storage." All they need is to be fueled up and they are ready to fly." Wasn't this literally the plot to the RAF's Black Buck missions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Wasn't this literally the plot to the RAF's Black Buck missions? The planes themselves were still in service (just), it was just the refueling systems that needed to be ...acquired... from museums. See Black Buck 4 for one of the consequences. And XV230 for the long term consequences of hastily retrofitting refueling systems to an aircraft and then just assuming the system is fine for 35 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Saw this on reddit re MQ-25 "The Navy's goal for the aircraft is to be able to deliver 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of fuel to 4-6 planes at 500 nmi (580 mi; 930 km)" the first hit on google says a KA-6 was good for about the same.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
The SR-71s were able to go live in the early 90s per Skunk Works but that ship has sailed by now. They offered to do so for Gulf War 1 but SecDef thought it was mainly a ploy to keep them in service post war as well and shot it down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Kebbins posted:"Seriously dude the SR-71 in the Smithsonian and the two at Edwards are still airworthy and just in "dry storage." All they need is to be fueled up and they are ready to fly." Slo-Tek posted:Saw this on reddit re MQ-25 "The Navy's goal for the aircraft is to be able to deliver 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of fuel to 4-6 planes at 500 nmi (580 mi; 930 km)" the first hit on google says a KA-6 was good for about the same. That's 3/4 of the capability of a KC-135 flying a similar profile, and they want it out of a carrier aircraft. I'd call that optimistic, and I think your source is full of poo poo, since the MTOW for an A-6E was only about 60,000lbs and I don't think the entire jet was composed of fuel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I had a stupid Airman insist that every static display was actually in reserve status and could be returned to flight worthy status in a wartime emergency. I replied that I didn't think we had many B-25 pilots, or spare parts, left. Well, technically the Midway is still considered a mobilization asset by the Navy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
Never forget; for Black Buck, a critical part for the in-flight refuelling for one of the aircraft had to be recovered from an Officers Mess where it was being used as an ashtray.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That's 3/4 of the capability of a KC-135 flying a similar profile, and they want it out of a carrier aircraft. I'd call that optimistic, and I think your source is full of poo poo, since the MTOW for an A-6E was only about 60,000lbs and I don't think the entire jet was composed of fuel. huh, I skimmed over the 4 to 6 airplanes bit. Suspect they meant 15,000lbs split 4 to 6 ways. Could also be random numbers bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Well, technically the Midway is still considered a mobilization asset by the Navy. I saw a great documentary about how the Missouri was reactivated using a mostly-WWII-veteran crew as recently as 2012.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Suspect they meant 15,000lbs split 4 to 6 ways. Yeah, that's a bit more reasonable, but also kind of lovely, since a Superbug burns 8.6klbs/hr per unclassified planning factors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Well, technically the Midway is still considered a mobilization asset by the Navy. Are you serious? I can think of a lot more disasters caused by keeping ships in service than I can think of victories caused by keeping ships in service. Just off the top of my head, the Aboukir disaster, the Iowa explosion, the Battle of Coronel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
Memento posted:I saw a great documentary about how the Missouri was reactivated using a mostly-WWII-veteran crew as recently as 2012. They reactivated it and put to sea in under 4:52 as well!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 06:42
|
|
