"End of an era: USN's Tomcats make their final approach before decommissioning"

Jason,

My AIMD ECM shop was top notch. We did major maintenance on the ECM gear
from all the squadron aircraft. I was the night supervisor and had a great
group of guys. Made working 16 to 18 hours a day bearable. Don't remember
VAST. We worked on ALQ100, ALE25, APR25 and 27 ALQ41 - I think those
numbers are correct. There was a separate shop for the VAQ EA6Bs and a
radio shop.

Jim

Jason H wrote:

We had, if I recall, a grand total of three no-fly days the entire time we
were in-theatre. For three months, damn near non-stop, we flew planes from
1100 to 0100 or 0200. I know this because I was on that deployment, working
in one of the avionics shops. When we weren't flying, we had the alert 15s
posted on cats 1 and 2. If we weren't flying, we were ready to. So, to
answer your question, yes, it is quite possible for a CVW to maintain at
least a 75% FMC (fully mission capable) status flying day after day after
day after day after FRIGGIN DAY. It wasn't fun though. I'd like to think us
ATs in AIMD had something to do with that :-).

Jason, thank you for your answer! It looks it worked very similarly to
USS Abraham Lincoln/CVW-14 scenario from 2002, I've heard a bit of.


EA-6Bs have been forward deployed for a while, I know our Shadowhaks
(VAQ-141) replaced another group of prowlers from the carrier we relieved
(can't remember which one) and the prowlers from the Reagan replaced ours.
Forward-deploying the hornets, though, was new. As far as I know, we're the
only carrier that's done that.

The carrier must have been Nimitz, with CVW-11 (including VAQ-135 Black
Ravens) on board. Some CVWs borrowed their VAQ unit to Al Asad or
Iwakuni, but this was at the time when their whole CSGs were not
deployed.


KC-10s and KC-135s can hold a hell of a lot more fuel than an S-3 or a KA-18
can. However, the KA-18 (my name, don't know if that's the real name) can
hold a surprising amount of fuel. They look pretty funny with 5 fuel tanks
on them.

Yes, but they are a joint asset - neither USN, nor USMC ones.

Best regards,
Jacek

Jason H wrote:

We had, if I recall, a grand total of three no-fly days the entire time we
were in-theatre. For three months, damn near non-stop, we flew planes from
1100 to 0100 or 0200 [...]
EA-6Bs have been forward deployed for a while, I know our Shadowhaks
(VAQ-141) replaced another group of prowlers from the carrier we relieved
(can't remember which one) and the prowlers from the Reagan replaced ours.
Forward-deploying the hornets, though, was new. As far as I know, we're the
only carrier that's done that.

Well, I think about the Marine Hornets stationed at Al Asad then...
They must have had a very similar role like Tomcats and Hornets from
the Boat? Or were they operating in the different area of
responsibility?


KC-10s and KC-135s can hold a hell of a lot more fuel than an S-3 or a KA-18
can. However, the KA-18 (my name, don't know if that's the real name) can
hold a surprising amount of fuel. They look pretty funny with 5 fuel tanks
on them.

The tanker-configured Super Hornets keep the same designation - F/A-18E
or F/A-18F - it is only a matter of 480 USGal. fuel tanks and ARS-301
buddy refueling store attached to the weapon stations.

I remember that some years ago there was an idea for land-based
Navy-owned tankers - for example KC-135s configured with the
hose-and-drogue system. KC-10A with its double refueling system (boom
for USAF a/c, hoses for USN/USMC and other NATO fighters) - being able
to switch between those two systems even in-flight somehow improved the
situation.

I wonder if the Navy's new maritime patrol jet (with a good loitering
time = a lot of fuel onboard) could be useful for that role...

Best regards,
Jacek