I've been gone for quite a while (retired AWC - 1992) but I still
don't fully understand why they are throwing away the S-3's?? Seems
it's the answer to several of the things that have been mentioned in
this thread...
Regards,

On 21 Mar 2004 00:29:56 -0800, (sid) wrote:

Looks like the need for more than single seat fighters is becoming an
issue again. From the April Seapower:
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/apr_04_16.php
"Boeing's Ted Herman, business development manager for the F-18
program, told Sea Power the Super Hornet tanker helps "extend the
legs" of the strike aircraft and does not compromise on aerodynamic
performance.

But the Navy is not entirely content with the Super Hornet as a
tanker. While converted to refuel, the jet is not carrying weapons for
strike missions. Fitzgerald said the Navy would consider a replacement
for its C-2 logistics aircraft that may offer refueling capability.
The C-2 replacement would either be the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor or the
next model C-2. The Navy begins to retire the current fleet of C-2s in
2014.

"We are thinking about whether we just have C-2 replacement planes for
logistics, or whether we should buy some more that would be available
for recovery refueling," Fitzgerald said."

Instead of a C-2ish aircraft, I would suggest a modern analogue to
what was arguably the most sucessful "CSA" the Navy produced:

http://www.a3skywarrior.com/featurep...Det1_NG616.jpg

And this "CSA" could carry up to 12,500 lbs of ordnance internally and
had an *unrefueled* combat range of better than a 1000nm. Fifty years
later there is gushing praise for 4000 lbs and 600 nm.

http://www.a3skywarrior.com/cogdell/drop.jpg