Carrier Tanker Option

[[email protected]]

I'm not a TACAIR type (was VS/VP) but I've followed the airborne
tanker discussions with some interest.

It would seem that the options are getting a lot narrower with the
retirement of the S-3.

How about a KC-2? I understand it would be limited (could not
accompany strike packages any great distance). It still would work
overhead Mother. It's an aircraft in the inventory that will stay
there (we presume) for a while. It would also be available for COD
duty (in at least a limited form).

I do not know how many airframes are available. I do not know if
surplus E-2 airframes could be used (maybe another option entirely).

Bill Kambic

[Jeroen Wenting]

The navy has decided (under budget constraints of course) to go for
buddy-pack refueling with F/A-18s.
With them loosing their ASW option after first loosing the
penetration/strike option and now with the retirement of the F-14 the long
range ADF and recce options they're pretty much out of the fight anyway, at
least the naval airpower fight, leaving them as glorified ferries for
Hornets to deployment bases where airfarce tankers can provide tanker
coverage, so they don't need anything else.

> wrote in message
...
> I'm not a TACAIR type (was VS/VP) but I've followed the airborne
> tanker discussions with some interest.
>
> It would seem that the options are getting a lot narrower with the
> retirement of the S-3.
>
> How about a KC-2? I understand it would be limited (could not
> accompany strike packages any great distance). It still would work
> overhead Mother. It's an aircraft in the inventory that will stay
> there (we presume) for a while. It would also be available for COD
> duty (in at least a limited form).
>
> I do not know how many airframes are available. I do not know if
> surplus E-2 airframes could be used (maybe another option entirely).
>
> Bill Kambic

[Mike Kanze]

Bill,

>How about a KC-2?

Makes some sense to me.

Develop a palletized rig (hose reel mechanism, pumps, plumbing, and tankage) that you roll into a "de-seated" C-2 hull. Open the rear barn door and let the hose flail.

A real hillbilly rig, though.

--
Mike Kanze

"There's no such thing as a soul. It's just something they made up to scare kids, like the boogeyman or Michael Jackson."

- Bart Simpson


> wrote in message ...
I'm not a TACAIR type (was VS/VP) but I've followed the airborne
tanker discussions with some interest.

It would seem that the options are getting a lot narrower with the
retirement of the S-3.

How about a KC-2? I understand it would be limited (could not
accompany strike packages any great distance). It still would work
overhead Mother. It's an aircraft in the inventory that will stay
there (we presume) for a while. It would also be available for COD
duty (in at least a limited form).

I do not know how many airframes are available. I do not know if
surplus E-2 airframes could be used (maybe another option entirely).

Bill Kambic

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:27:33 -0800, "Mike Kanze"
> wrote:

>Bill,
>
>>How about a KC-2?
>
>Makes some sense to me.
>
>Develop a palletized rig (hose reel mechanism, pumps, plumbing, and tankage) that you roll into a "de-seated" C-2 hull. Open the rear barn door and let the hose flail.
>
>A real hillbilly rig, though.

Concur. But sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

Bill Kambic

[Charlie Wolf]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:52:38 -0500, wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:27:33 -0800, "Mike Kanze"
> wrote:
>
>>Bill,
>>
>>>How about a KC-2?
>>
>>Makes some sense to me.
>>
>>Develop a palletized rig (hose reel mechanism, pumps, plumbing, and tankage) that you roll into a "de-seated" C-2 hull. Open the rear barn door and let the hose flail.
>>
>>A real hillbilly rig, though.
>
>Concur. But sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do.
Not that I care (I'm retired and thank God I don't have to do those
damn "Duty Sponge" sorties...)

But, why not extend the KS-3's a bit more???
Regards,

>
>Bill Kambic

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:47:27 -0600, Charlie Wolf
> wrote:

>But, why not extend the KS-3's a bit more???

(1) There are no KS-3s.

(2) S-3s are going away for the same reason a KC-2 won't happen: no
money.

(3) The C-2s are old and facing end-of-life issues anyway, with no
replacement in sight. Adding another mission to a worn-out and
over-worked airframe makes no sense.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Roger Conroy]

"Andrew C. Toppan" <actoppan@nospam> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:47:27 -0600, Charlie Wolf
> > wrote:
>
>>But, why not extend the KS-3's a bit more???
>
> (1) There are no KS-3s.
>
> (2) S-3s are going away for the same reason a KC-2 won't happen: no
> money.
>
> (3) The C-2s are old and facing end-of-life issues anyway, with no
> replacement in sight. Adding another mission to a worn-out and
> over-worked airframe makes no sense.
>
> --
> Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
> "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
> Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
>

How about a KV-22? It seems to be the obvious candidate to replace the C-2
(and its variants) anyway.
Unless of course somebody proposes an entirely new aircraft.

[Thomas Schoene]

Roger Conroy wrote:

>
>
> How about a KV-22? It seems to be the obvious candidate to replace the C-2
> (and its variants) anyway.

I've seen it proposed, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort. It's not
terribly fast compared to the jets it would be refueling, and it ends up
not having that much give. IIRC, a Super Hornet in buddy tanker
configuration can actually pass more gas.

I stumbled across one article from last year about the Navy's in-flight
refueling issues with the USAF. It mentions the Navy considering the
V-22 as a recovery tanker, along with the possibility of new C-2s (both
for COD and tanker). Given that they are still making new E-2s (finally
up to E-2D), new C-2s aren't impossible, IMO.

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NL_AFTank_042804,00.html

--
Tom Schoene
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"

[alumshubby]

I'd wondered about that...a while back, I asked on sci.military.naval
about the next airframe for COD, but all I got was the sound of
crickets in the night.

[Charlie Wolf]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 00:17:00 GMT, Andrew C. Toppan <actoppan@nospam>
wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:47:27 -0600, Charlie Wolf
> wrote:
>
>>But, why not extend the KS-3's a bit more???
>
>(1) There are no KS-3s.
I should have put quote marks around it. I know there aren't any
KS-3's, but their mission sure as hell isn't ASW either - and hasn't
been since the early 90's.
Regards,

>
>(2) S-3s are going away for the same reason a KC-2 won't happen: no
>money.
>
>(3) The C-2s are old and facing end-of-life issues anyway, with no
>replacement in sight. Adding another mission to a worn-out and
>over-worked airframe makes no sense.