If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Naval Air Refueling Needs Deferred in Air Force Tanker Plan
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...042804,00.html
Will the Air Force fulfill the Navy requirement for simultaneous refueling capability and, if so, when? -HJC |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...042804,00.html Will the Air Force fulfill the Navy requirement for simultaneous refueling capability and, if so, when? -HJC Henry, you need to be a bit more careful in your citations (nothing new about that...). Note that the article indicates: "Naval air forces, including the Marine Corps' 72 F/A-18D fighters, require tankers to refuel more than one fighter jet at a time with the hose reel system." Hogwash. "Require"? How many USN tanker aircraft can feed two receivers at once? The S-3 in tanking mode? Nope. The F/A-18E in tanker mode? Nope. Your article also tries to gloss over the fact that numerous USAF tankers are indeed capable of refueling USN aircraft--all of the KC-10's and whichever KC-135's are fitted with the hose/drogue attachments. The tankers the USAF needs to buy/lease *now* are needed to replace the older KC-135's; their introduction into the force without an initial hose/drogue capability will not be of serious detriment to the USN's capabilities, as the KC-10's and the KC-135R's with hose/drogue will continue to fly missions. Maybe you need to address this in a different manner...perhaps asking if it might be more fair if the USAF agreed to support *all* USN tanking requirements at such time as the USN agrees to actually support all of the USAF's airborne jamming requirements (you seem to have missed the fact that the USN recently cut one of its EA-6 squadrons, despite a continuing shortage of that joint asset...). But you also are missing another factor...if the land-based tankers are so ctitical to USN aviation capabilities, why do you need the CVN's in the first place? If you can get land based tanker support into the fray to support the USN strikers, you are also within range of getting the USAF strikers into the fight, especially the heavies... Brooks |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...042804,00.html Will the Air Force fulfill the Navy requirement for simultaneous refueling capability and, if so, when? Henry, you need to be a bit more careful in your citations (nothing new about that...). Note that the article indicates: "Naval air forces, including the Marine Corps' 72 F/A-18D fighters, require tankers to refuel more than one fighter jet at a time with the hose reel system." Hogwash. "Require"? How many USN tanker aircraft can feed two receivers at once? The S-3 in tanking mode? Nope. The F/A-18E in tanker mode? Nope. Are the Marines still part of the Navy Department? And the KC-767 will be able to carry at least a little more fuel than a Superhornet, or a KC-130J even. Maybe you need to address this in a different manner...perhaps asking if it might be more fair if the USAF agreed to support *all* USN tanking requirements at such time as the USN agrees to actually support all of the USAF's airborne jamming requirements (you seem to have missed the fact that the USN recently cut one of its EA-6 squadrons, despite a continuing shortage of that joint asset...). I've already noted the Air Force shortage of jammers in another thread. Perhaps they should start buying Growlers? But you also are missing another factor...if the land-based tankers are so ctitical to USN aviation capabilities, why do you need the CVN's in the first place? If you can get land based tanker support into the fray to support the USN strikers, you are also within range of getting the USAF strikers into the fight, especially the heavies... Sea basing still needs work on delivering fuel, cargo and people to an OMFTS force. -HJC |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... Kevin Brooks wrote: "Henry J Cobb" wrote in message http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...042804,00.html Will the Air Force fulfill the Navy requirement for simultaneous refueling capability and, if so, when? Henry, you need to be a bit more careful in your citations (nothing new about that...). Note that the article indicates: "Naval air forces, including the Marine Corps' 72 F/A-18D fighters, require tankers to refuel more than one fighter jet at a time with the hose reel system." Hogwash. "Require"? How many USN tanker aircraft can feed two receivers at once? The S-3 in tanking mode? Nope. The F/A-18E in tanker mode? Nope. Are the Marines still part of the Navy Department? What does *that* matter? If it was freakin' *required*, then why all of the fuss to get the F/A-18E into the tanking game? Why is it possible for the USAF to do quite well with single-point tanking, while the USN 9despite its own loooong history of also using single point tanking) would find it so distatsteful (if, that is, you take the author's words as true--which they ain't, in this case)? And the KC-767 will be able to carry at least a little more fuel than a Superhornet, or a KC-130J even. So what? Your "source" says the USN *requires* multi-point tanking capability--and that plainly is NOT the case. Maybe you need to address this in a different manner...perhaps asking if it might be more fair if the USAF agreed to support *all* USN tanking requirements at such time as the USN agrees to actually support all of the USAF's airborne jamming requirements (you seem to have missed the fact that the USN recently cut one of its EA-6 squadrons, despite a continuing shortage of that joint asset...). I've already noted the Air Force shortage of jammers in another thread. And you conveniently missed out on the FACT that the USN was then tasked to provide jamming support for the joint force, eh? Something they have found hard to do--even before they dumped that squadron... Perhaps they should start buying Growlers? Why would the USAF want to buy an aircraft with a known range shortfall for this mission? But you also are missing another factor...if the land-based tankers are so ctitical to USN aviation capabilities, why do you need the CVN's in the first place? If you can get land based tanker support into the fray to support the USN strikers, you are also within range of getting the USAF strikers into the fight, especially the heavies... Sea basing still needs work on delivering fuel, cargo and people to an OMFTS force. You are getting more dense every day... Now, if the USN is so dependent upon land-based tanking, why is the CVN of such tremendous value, given that we could just as well be deploying B-1's, B-52's, and even F-15E's from the same base (or other bases in that area) that the tankers are operating from to perform the missions instead of having a CVN (and attendant resources) lurching around dependent upon land-based air support? Brooks -HJC |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... Kevin Brooks wrote: "Henry J Cobb" wrote in message http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...042804,00.html Will the Air Force fulfill the Navy requirement for simultaneous refueling capability and, if so, when? Henry, you need to be a bit more careful in your citations (nothing new about that...). Note that the article indicates: "Naval air forces, including the Marine Corps' 72 F/A-18D fighters, require tankers to refuel more than one fighter jet at a time with the hose reel system." Hogwash. "Require"? How many USN tanker aircraft can feed two receivers at once? The S-3 in tanking mode? Nope. The F/A-18E in tanker mode? Nope. Are the Marines still part of the Navy Department? What does *that* matter? If it was freakin' *required*, then why all of the fuss to get the F/A-18E into the tanking game? Why is it possible for the USAF to do quite well with single-point tanking, while the USN 9despite its own loooong history of also using single point tanking) would find it so distatsteful (if, that is, you take the author's words as true--which they ain't, in this case)? Kevin, while it's highly unusual for me to support anything that HJC puts forward, I find the article in question pretty accurately reflects the issues. A boom typically has double (or more) the transfer rate of a drogue/fighter-sized probe. That's why the USAF decided to adopt them in the first place, for SAC's bombers, so that refueling took much less time. Single point drogues are better than nothing, but just as the article says, they limit the size of the strike flight (or require far more tankers), because the first a/c to refuel has used up most of the fuel it has received by the time that the last guy is done. From DS on the USN has relied increasingly on USAF and foreign land-based tankers, because their own tankers lack the numbers/offload/loiter/drogue stations to allow them to go far inland with large strikes. The USMC has its KC-130s, which are at least dual-point, but they're limited to perhaps 6 a/c in a flight pre-strike, with four preferred, before they meet the law of diminishing returns. A single-point boom tanker is about the same. It's not that the navy can't use their S-3s or F-18E/Fs exclusively, it's just that they're limited in the size/radius of their strikes when they do so. Given our increasing jointness, it does seem odd that the KC-767 isn't planned to have provision for wing drogues from the get-go. It's clearly an inter-service budget issue, but single point drogues just don't cut it for big strikes; if they did, we wouldn't have fit out those KC-10As and KC-135Rs for wing drogues (Flight Refueling MK.32s IIRC). It's a simple matter of fuel throughput per unit time. Large, land-based drogue tankers should have at least two drogue stations, with three preferred (see the Victor K.2; there was even a USN Convair seaplane with FOUR drogues): http://www.aviation-history.com/convair/tradewind.html Less than two drogue stations is not making use of a large a/c's wingspan. Naturally, they don't all have to be fitted with them all the time, as there is a weight, drag and maintenance penalty, but they sure as hell should be capable of fitting them. Hell, Boeing is even talking about a BWB tanker with two _booms_. That the RAF Tristars don't have wing pods has been a minor scandal for almost 20 years now. They were supposed to get them, and initial cursory engineering evaluations indicated that the wing structure could take them, but when it came time to get serious they found out there were issues that were going to require very expensive modifications (splitting the ailerons or maybe it was the flaps was part of it, IIRR), so they've been stuck with a pair of centerline drogues ever since. That provides redundancy, but doesn't increase the receiver servicing rate. And the KC-767 will be able to carry at least a little more fuel than a Superhornet, or a KC-130J even. So what? Your "source" says the USN *requires* multi-point tanking capability--and that plainly is NOT the case. For most of the deeper missions, including most of the combat missions that have been flown from DS on, they do. If they aren't going very far, and/or are using small strike packages at fairly wide intervals, they don't. Neither has been typical of USN combat ops for the last 14 years. snip But you also are missing another factor...if the land-based tankers are so ctitical to USN aviation capabilities, why do you need the CVN's in the first place? If you can get land based tanker support into the fray to support the USN strikers, you are also within range of getting the USAF strikers into the fight, especially the heavies... Sea basing still needs work on delivering fuel, cargo and people to an OMFTS force. You are getting more dense every day... Now, if the USN is so dependent upon land-based tanking, why is the CVN of such tremendous value, given that we could just as well be deploying B-1's, B-52's, and even F-15E's from the same base (or other bases in that area) that the tankers are operating from to perform the missions instead of having a CVN (and attendant resources) lurching around dependent upon land-based air support? There are obviously ramp space and arrival time/support issues. Clearly you can get a force of tankers in theater a lot faster than a force of tankers PLUS a force of fighters and all their support. The CVWs are already on station with everything but the tanking (and maybe some E-3s/JSTARS). Guy |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. Kevin Brooks wrote: "Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... Kevin Brooks wrote: "Henry J Cobb" wrote in message http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...042804,00.html Will the Air Force fulfill the Navy requirement for simultaneous refueling capability and, if so, when? Henry, you need to be a bit more careful in your citations (nothing new about that...). Note that the article indicates: "Naval air forces, including the Marine Corps' 72 F/A-18D fighters, require tankers to refuel more than one fighter jet at a time with the hose reel system." Hogwash. "Require"? How many USN tanker aircraft can feed two receivers at once? The S-3 in tanking mode? Nope. The F/A-18E in tanker mode? Nope. Are the Marines still part of the Navy Department? What does *that* matter? If it was freakin' *required*, then why all of the fuss to get the F/A-18E into the tanking game? Why is it possible for the USAF to do quite well with single-point tanking, while the USN 9despite its own loooong history of also using single point tanking) would find it so distatsteful (if, that is, you take the author's words as true--which they ain't, in this case)? Kevin, while it's highly unusual for me to support anything that HJC puts forward, I find the article in question pretty accurately reflects the issues. A boom typically has double (or more) the transfer rate of a drogue/fighter-sized probe. Yep. That's why the USAF decided to adopt them in the first place, for SAC's bombers, so that refueling took much less time. Single point drogues are better than nothing, but just as the article says, they limit the size of the strike flight (or require far more tankers), because the first a/c to refuel has used up most of the fuel it has received by the time that the last guy is done. Yep. From DS on the USN has relied increasingly on USAF and foreign land-based tankers, because their own tankers lack the numbers/offload/loiter/drogue stations to allow them to go far inland with large strikes. The USMC has its KC-130s, which are at least dual-point, but they're limited to perhaps 6 a/c in a flight pre-strike, with four preferred, before they meet the law of diminishing returns. A single-point boom tanker is about the same. It's not that the navy can't use their S-3s or F-18E/Fs exclusively, it's just that they're limited in the size/radius of their strikes when they do so. Which is why the USAF will still have the capability of supporting the USN, with both single and dual point refueling. The fact that the 767 won't have that multi-point capability up-front is NOT going to create a critical situation for the USN. Given our increasing jointness, it does seem odd that the KC-767 isn't planned to have provision for wing drogues from the get-go. Not necessarily. The USAF is getting to the desperation point in regards to the 135E's--they are either going to have to poop a lot of money to upgrade them (not the wisest choice, given their age and condition), or they have to get a replacement in the air, and rather quickly. That last part (quickly) seems to merit a sort-of-spiral approach, to me; get them into service ASAP with the boom and single-point drogue (while still having the 135R's in service, some with the multi-point hoses), and then worry about bringing them up to a higher standard later, when the time-crunch is not so critical. It's clearly an inter-service budget issue, but single point drogues just don't cut it for big strikes; if they did, we wouldn't have fit out those KC-10As and KC-135Rs for wing drogues (Flight Refueling MK.32s IIRC). It's a simple matter of fuel throughput per unit time. Which KC-10's and KC-135R's will still be serving, you should add. Correct me if I am wrong, but the aircraft that the 767's are destined to replace, the 135E's, do not have the multi-point refueling capability, either, do they? Large, land-based drogue tankers should have at least two drogue stations, with three preferred (see the Victor K.2; there was even a USN Convair seaplane with FOUR drogues): http://www.aviation-history.com/convair/tradewind.html Less than two drogue stations is not making use of a large a/c's wingspan. Naturally, they don't all have to be fitted with them all the time, as there is a weight, drag and maintenance penalty, but they sure as hell should be capable of fitting them. Hell, Boeing is even talking about a BWB tanker with two _booms_. So what you are saying is that we should delay the program even further than it already has been, so that all of the new aircraft are capable of performing a mission that only a certain portion of the joint force (the USN strikers and whatnot) can receive from them the same level of support...that they can already get from the other aircraft that will be remaining in service? I don't necessarily agree with that analysis (and neither does the USAF, apparently). That the RAF Tristars don't have wing pods has been a minor scandal for almost 20 years now. They were supposed to get them, and initial cursory engineering evaluations indicated that the wing structure could take them, but when it came time to get serious they found out there were issues that were going to require very expensive modifications (splitting the ailerons or maybe it was the flaps was part of it, IIRR), so they've been stuck with a pair of centerline drogues ever since. That provides redundancy, but doesn't increase the receiver servicing rate. And the KC-767 will be able to carry at least a little more fuel than a Superhornet, or a KC-130J even. So what? Your "source" says the USN *requires* multi-point tanking capability--and that plainly is NOT the case. For most of the deeper missions, including most of the combat missions that have been flown from DS on, they do. If they aren't going very far, and/or are using small strike packages at fairly wide intervals, they don't. Neither has been typical of USN combat ops for the last 14 years. Then maybe they need to fork over some bucks for some additional multi-point pods for the KC-135R's... In actuality, that would probably be the best solution anyway--they would get their improved support capability a lot more quickly that way (versus waiting for the 767's to come on line). So is the USN really concerned about the level of tanking support they can count on, or are they just posturing for the purpose of budget fighting? Another thought--the USN has been buying C-40's of late--if they are so keenly worried about their refueling capability, why did they never think about including a secondary tanker role for that aircraft, or that class of aircraft, such that they could help themselves out? Probably not, because that would have required them to spend their own part of the budget pie...much better to have the USAF spend their money, eh? snip But you also are missing another factor...if the land-based tankers are so ctitical to USN aviation capabilities, why do you need the CVN's in the first place? If you can get land based tanker support into the fray to support the USN strikers, you are also within range of getting the USAF strikers into the fight, especially the heavies... Sea basing still needs work on delivering fuel, cargo and people to an OMFTS force. You are getting more dense every day... Now, if the USN is so dependent upon land-based tanking, why is the CVN of such tremendous value, given that we could just as well be deploying B-1's, B-52's, and even F-15E's from the same base (or other bases in that area) that the tankers are operating from to perform the missions instead of having a CVN (and attendant resources) lurching around dependent upon land-based air support? There are obviously ramp space and arrival time/support issues. Sometimes. Believe it or not, I am not in favor of junking the CVN fleet--but neither is the USN making a great case for the CVN's value when they whine about the USAF not optimizing *all* of its tankers to support their needs--especially when at the same time they have proven rather unwilling to resource their own part of the joint package (the EA-6 jammer force) to support all of the USAF's needs (note that the USAF is making serious noises about going back into the jamming business, likely with the B-52 as the initial platform). The USN might want to be careful how far they go in pointing fingers in regards to the 'They are not supporting us like they are supposed to" manner, lest the fickle-finger end up pointing back in their direction. Clearly you can get a force of tankers in theater a lot faster than a force of tankers PLUS a force of fighters and all their support. Can you? I am not sure about that (note how quickly we got the lead squadrons of the 1st TFW into Saudi Arabia in 1990), especially since getting all of those tankers into the theater is only going to do you some good if the fuel for them to haul is also present, or readily available, at that operating location. How much more trouble is it for the USAF to put a force that could easily surpass the per-day delivered-tonnage capability of a CVSG (given your premise that the CVN is having to operate from extended range itself)? Three or four B-1B's or B-52's alone can acheive that. OEF demonstrated the use of both F-15E's and F-16's in conducting pretty long range strike operations (from the PG around Iran, up to Afghanistan and back again, at greater range than the CVN-based strikers were enduring). Worried about an enemy air threat? Then you have your standoff attack systems, along with B-2's. Yes, there are other issues (hauling in the bombs, etc.), but they are not insurmountable (i.e., we still have a surface transport capability, augmented by air transport assets). Should we can the CVN's? No, of course not. But they can continue to operate a few more years with the support of KC-135R's and KC-10's without HAVING to have the 767's *optimized* for their very own use. Brooks The CVWs are already on station with everything but the tanking (and maybe some E-3s/JSTARS). Guy |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Just some observations.
The article is not clear on the fact that the 767 WILL have a drogue on every mission, like the KC-10. It will not have multiple wing pods, only a centerline hose. Hence it does not meet the "simultaneous" capability required by the USN. So why doesn't the AF have this desperately needed requirement? Because the AF uses a boom that can offload fuel 2-3 times a fast, and requires less cycle time? Maybe the USN should consider putting receptacles next to the probes on their fighters, ala the F-101 and F-105. Or buy more KC-130s. The pods on KC-10s are WARPs (Wing Air Refueling Pod) while the KC-135 version is the MPRs (Multi-Point Refueling System). Essentially the same pod but not interchangeable. Curt "Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...042804,00.html Will the Air Force fulfill the Navy requirement for simultaneous refueling capability and, if so, when? -HJC |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"C Knowles" wrote in message om... Just some observations. The article is not clear on the fact that the 767 WILL have a drogue on every mission, like the KC-10. It will not have multiple wing pods, only a centerline hose. Hence it does not meet the "simultaneous" capability required by the USN. The hang up is the use of the word "required". The USN's own tanking assets on board their carriers are single-point hose/drogue assets; for them to "require" that other providers have to perform better is a bit odd, sort of like looking the gift-horse in the mouth (unless the USN wants to pony up the additional bucks required to make the 767 a multi-point platform, something I have not seen them express any desire to do as of yet). Brooks So why doesn't the AF have this desperately needed requirement? Because the AF uses a boom that can offload fuel 2-3 times a fast, and requires less cycle time? Maybe the USN should consider putting receptacles next to the probes on their fighters, ala the F-101 and F-105. Or buy more KC-130s. The pods on KC-10s are WARPs (Wing Air Refueling Pod) while the KC-135 version is the MPRs (Multi-Point Refueling System). Essentially the same pod but not interchangeable. Curt "Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...042804,00.html Will the Air Force fulfill the Navy requirement for simultaneous refueling capability and, if so, when? -HJC |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
Highest-Ranking Black Air Force General Credits Success to Hard Work | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 10th 04 11:06 PM |
us air force us air force academy us air force bases air force museum us us air force rank us air force reserve adfunk | Jehad Internet | Military Aviation | 0 | February 7th 04 04:24 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Air Force announces acquisition management reorganization | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 21st 03 09:16 PM |