Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, wings and engines. Its derived from the E2 is it not?

 

I guess I see an area for optimized savings with the common support aircraft concept. Buddy tanking from an F18 is less ideal than tanking from a dedicated platform with more capacity. a larger cargo bird that can carry out COD or tanking tasks would be useful I think.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Support_Aircraft

Link to post
Share on other sites

The common support aircraft idea had merit, but it makes no sense now that two of the key roles have been filled. Just the E-2D program alone was sufficient to deep six it IMO. The E-2D is an excellent aircraft and the MV-22 will be an adequate COD with a large established spare parts stream and unique capabilities. As for fueling, clearly that needs to be addressed too given the fatigue to F-18s. I had thought it might be worth having a larger COD squadron and adding refueling to the MV-22s role - there is an established pallet system that has been tested for this. However the USN is going with the MQ-25. I suspect using turbofan drone will greatly extend the range and altitude of refueling, so long run it is probably a better path that also allows for CV based drone operational experience to be built. I suspect the MQ-25 attrition rate will be high initially.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Whale actually operated off Essex-class carriers! I've seen an overhead photo of an Essex with 3 (!) A-3s parked aboard, but alas my Google-fu is weak.

I did find this shot on the A-3 Association site https://www.a3skywarrior.com/ready-room/a-3-history.html :

FlightOps_0003-600.jpg

Navy202-600.jpg

Note the A-3 just abaft the island...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The A-5/RA-5 was also a big aircraft.

General characteristics

Crew: 2
Length: 76 ft 6 in (23.32 m)
Wingspan: 53 ft 0 in (16.16 m)
Height: 19 ft 5 in (5.91 m)
Wing area: 701 sq ft (65.1 m2)
Empty weight: 32,783 lb (14,870 kg)
Gross weight: 47,631 lb (21,605 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 63,085 lb (28,615 kg)


A3J-1s_VAH-7_CVAN-65_NAN11-62.jpg

F-14 for comparison

nim-3-156624-RA-5C-US-Navy-AJ-602-RVAH-6

Edited by rmgill
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Like the Canadian Bear Trap system but with a fuel pipe? Hmmm.....seems kinda dangerous. Pump JP8 into the cargo compartment of the aircraft? :o

JP5. Don't want low flashpoint fuels at sea.

 

I am genuinely curious, why is this? If it is a low Flashpoint, does that make it more flammable, and therefore more hazardous aboard a ship?

 

 

 

-K

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Whale actually operated off Essex-class carriers! I've seen an overhead photo of an Essex with 3 (!) A-3s parked aboard, but alas my Google-fu is weak.

I did find this shot on the A-3 Association site https://www.a3skywarrior.com/ready-room/a-3-history.html :

FlightOps_0003-600.jpg

Navy202-600.jpg

Note the A-3 just abaft the island...

That I did not know. Its wingspan must have been almost the beem of the ship.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Like the Canadian Bear Trap system but with a fuel pipe? Hmmm.....seems kinda dangerous. Pump JP8 into the cargo compartment of the aircraft? :o

JP5. Don't want low flashpoint fuels at sea.

 

I am genuinely curious, why is this? If it is a low Flashpoint, does that make it more flammable, and therefore more hazardous aboard a ship?

 

 

 

-K

 

 

Never served, but yes that is my understanding. The same way Navy bombs all have an ablative coating on them even when otherwise they are identical to USAF bombs. Extra safety steps learned after Forestal and Enterprise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am genuinely curious, why is this? If it is a low Flashpoint, does that make it more flammable, and therefore more hazardous aboard a ship?

 

 

 

-K

That's exactly it. "Low flashpoint" has a flashpoint below 60°C and fuels intended for use at sea are generally "high flashpoint". Stowages for low flashpoint fuels normally have extra protective measures (for bulk tanks) or a quick dump system (for jerry cans). Usually only necessary to carry low flashpoint fuels for petrol (gasoline) outboards or motor vehicles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I know Ryan. Now tell me you are entirely ok with something the size of a A3D landing on a carrier today?

 

The reason why it was built is that atomic weapons were so damn big, it was about the only thing it could carry one any range. Technology moves on. So in time it will for the Hawkeye, and I warrant the only reason it has not is that the USN are not exactly flush with funds to develop a replacement. They want a on deck tanker, ASW aircraft and a LR strike aircraft. There is no money for those either.

And it's not even a Nimitz. :P

 

c-130-lands-aircraft-carrier.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the larger supertankers / ULCC, if they had similar amounts of deck overhang as a Nimitz, would be able to operate two C-130 abreast (one on runway, one in deck park area) with enough space for safety clearances.

Of course, you'd have a big, lumbering thing built to commercial specs with a top speed of only 16 knots if that's useful for anything...

Edited by Burncycle360
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh I know Ryan. Now tell me you are entirely ok with something the size of a A3D landing on a carrier today?

 

The reason why it was built is that atomic weapons were so damn big, it was about the only thing it could carry one any range. Technology moves on. So in time it will for the Hawkeye, and I warrant the only reason it has not is that the USN are not exactly flush with funds to develop a replacement. They want a on deck tanker, ASW aircraft and a LR strike aircraft. There is no money for those either.

And it's not even a Nimitz. :P

 

c-130-lands-aircraft-carrier.png

 

 

 

I know, but imagine doing that on a deck chocker with Tomcats and Vikings. Erm, not. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...