On 2 Feb 2005 14:20:26 -0800, wrote:

Well - an S-3 has pretty good legs..
True, but they are all on the their way to some quiet retirement spots
in the desert.

With 2 drops they can fly about 7.5 on max conserve. That m*ight be
to
low fuel warning lights though....

Its arguable that an aircraft in the vein of a Spad would have been a
much more suitable platform to have orbiting over Fallujah than what is
now available. While youir point about the Hoovers' long legs is a good
one, how many War Hoovers were waiting overhead to drop when the
Marines called?
Point conceded. I was only commenting on the original point
regarding ability to stay aloft - not necessarily on the ability to
drop bombs --- which, BTW, the S-3 is capable of doing, but I don't
believe anyone in their right mind would task them to do so....
Regards,



How dependent is carrier air on land based assets such
as tanker and ELINT today? Answer is: pretty much completely.
That's a particularly awkward issue in these tight budget times
considering that the traditional big selling point of carriers has
always been their ability to function *without* (the now absolutely
essential) land based support.
In 1961 the typical airgroup could boast an effective *unrefueled*
radius of 2000nm carrying a 12000 lb weapon(and that internally to
boot). Can a 2005 vintage CVG even match half of that 1961 era
unrefueled combat radius and deliver ordinace the size of a ~5000 lb.
GBU-37?