CSA Redux?

[sid]

Looks like the need for more than single seat fighters is becoming an
issue again. From the April Seapower:
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/apr_04_16.php
"Boeing's Ted Herman, business development manager for the F-18
program, told Sea Power the Super Hornet tanker helps "extend the
legs" of the strike aircraft and does not compromise on aerodynamic
performance.

But the Navy is not entirely content with the Super Hornet as a
tanker. While converted to refuel, the jet is not carrying weapons for
strike missions. Fitzgerald said the Navy would consider a replacement
for its C-2 logistics aircraft that may offer refueling capability.
The C-2 replacement would either be the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor or the
next model C-2. The Navy begins to retire the current fleet of C-2s in
2014.

"We are thinking about whether we just have C-2 replacement planes for
logistics, or whether we should buy some more that would be available
for recovery refueling," Fitzgerald said."

Instead of a C-2ish aircraft, I would suggest a modern analogue to
what was arguably the most sucessful "CSA" the Navy produced:

http://www.a3skywarrior.com/featurephotos/Mar04/VAQ130_Det1_NG616.jpg

And this "CSA" could carry up to 12,500 lbs of ordnance internally and
had an *unrefueled* combat range of better than a 1000nm. Fifty years
later there is gushing praise for 4000 lbs and 600 nm.

http://www.a3skywarrior.com/cogdell/drop.jpg

[damron]

What a nice surprise, to jump on a newsgroup and see a plane my father
crewed in.

[Thomas Schoene]

sid wrote:
> Looks like the need for more than single seat fighters is becoming an
> issue again. From the April Seapower:
> http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/apr_04_16.php
> "Boeing's Ted Herman, business development manager for the F-18
> program, told Sea Power the Super Hornet tanker helps "extend the
> legs" of the strike aircraft and does not compromise on aerodynamic
> performance.
>
> But the Navy is not entirely content with the Super Hornet as a
> tanker. While converted to refuel, the jet is not carrying weapons for
> strike missions. Fitzgerald said the Navy would consider a replacement
> for its C-2 logistics aircraft that may offer refueling capability.
> The C-2 replacement would either be the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor or the
> next model C-2. The Navy begins to retire the current fleet of C-2s in
> 2014.
>
> "We are thinking about whether we just have C-2 replacement planes for
> logistics, or whether we should buy some more that would be available
> for recovery refueling," Fitzgerald said."
>
> Instead of a C-2ish aircraft, I would suggest a modern analogue to
> what was arguably the most sucessful "CSA" the Navy produced:
>
> http://www.a3skywarrior.com/featurephotos/Mar04/VAQ130_Det1_NG616.jpg
>
> And this "CSA" could carry up to 12,500 lbs of ordnance internally and
> had an *unrefueled* combat range of better than a 1000nm. Fifty years
> later there is gushing praise for 4000 lbs and 600 nm.
>
> http://www.a3skywarrior.com/cogdell/drop.jpg

An A-3 size airframe would be handy for tanker duties. and could maybe also
serve as a carrier-based mini-MC2A (combined AWACS/ELINT aircraft).
Developing this would be relatively straightforward, assuming some money can
be found.

The problem comes when you try to make it a bomb dropper too. That demands
a lot of more expensive design choices to keep the aircraft survivable
against modern defenses (signature reduction, weapon delivery systems, etc.)
That's not going to be affordable at all.

Sure, a new A-3 could carry more bombs, but it woudn't strike more targets
at once, which two or three JSFs can do.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[Charlie Wolf]

I've been gone for quite a while (retired AWC - 1992) but I still
don't fully understand why they are throwing away the S-3's?? Seems
it's the answer to several of the things that have been mentioned in
this thread...
Regards,

On 21 Mar 2004 00:29:56 -0800, (sid) wrote:

>Looks like the need for more than single seat fighters is becoming an
>issue again. From the April Seapower:
>http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/apr_04_16.php
>"Boeing's Ted Herman, business development manager for the F-18
>program, told Sea Power the Super Hornet tanker helps "extend the
>legs" of the strike aircraft and does not compromise on aerodynamic
>performance.
>
>But the Navy is not entirely content with the Super Hornet as a
>tanker. While converted to refuel, the jet is not carrying weapons for
>strike missions. Fitzgerald said the Navy would consider a replacement
>for its C-2 logistics aircraft that may offer refueling capability.
>The C-2 replacement would either be the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor or the
>next model C-2. The Navy begins to retire the current fleet of C-2s in
>2014.
>
>"We are thinking about whether we just have C-2 replacement planes for
>logistics, or whether we should buy some more that would be available
>for recovery refueling," Fitzgerald said."
>
>Instead of a C-2ish aircraft, I would suggest a modern analogue to
>what was arguably the most sucessful "CSA" the Navy produced:
>
>http://www.a3skywarrior.com/featurephotos/Mar04/VAQ130_Det1_NG616.jpg
>
>And this "CSA" could carry up to 12,500 lbs of ordnance internally and
>had an *unrefueled* combat range of better than a 1000nm. Fifty years
>later there is gushing praise for 4000 lbs and 600 nm.
>
>http://www.a3skywarrior.com/cogdell/drop.jpg

[gizmo-goddard]

"Charlie Wolf" > wrote in message
...
> I've been gone for quite a while (retired AWC - 1992) but I still
> don't fully understand why they are throwing away the S-3's?? Seems
> it's the answer to several of the things that have been mentioned in
> this thread...

It would be. My best guess would be that the Hornet Mafia, wanting to use
the Hornet for anything and everything wouldn't allow NAVAIRSYSCOM to even
consider any other airframe.

__!_!__
Gizmo
"Welcome to NAVAIRSYSCOM, owned and operated by McDonell-Douglas, er Boeing"

[sid]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message .net>...
> > http://www.a3skywarrior.com/cogdell/drop.jpg
>
> An A-3 size airframe would be handy for tanker duties. and could maybe also
> serve as a carrier-based mini-MC2A (combined AWACS/ELINT aircraft).
> Developing this would be relatively straightforward, assuming some money can
> be found.
> The problem comes when you try to make it a bomb dropper too. That demands
> a lot of more expensive design choices to keep the aircraft survivable
> against modern defenses (signature reduction, weapon delivery systems, etc.)
> That's not going to be affordable at all.
>

There was a little blurb in AvWeek some time ago about the USN
revisiting the idea of putting a refueling capability on the E-2s
after some experiences in OIF. Wouldn't it be nice to have a
trappable refuelable MC2 that could keep up with the strike package (I
know, it would take way too much money for the ASEA style antennas to
make that happen).
I hesitate to open this can of worms...But what the hell. Faced with
S-400, FT-2000, and ultra long range AAM threats, MC2A style aircraft
will need susceptability reduction as well in the not too distant
future. The idea that these aircraft can off unfettered in benign
bastions and still do the job is one potential adversaries are
actively attempting to dispell:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/s400triumph.htm
http://www.stormpages.com/jetfight/wwwboard/2359.html
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/airdefence/ft2000.asp
So that money may be required no matter what a decade from now.
Indeed, the Air Force is already looking at the BWB and MACK concepts
for use as a stealthy KC-X aircraft in the 2015 timeframe.

> Sure, a new A-3 could carry more bombs, but it woudn't strike more targets
> at once, which two or three JSFs can do.

What such an aircraft would offer is the abilty to loiter with more
bombs per airframe, and also potentially carry something bigger than
2000 lb limit CVWs are saddled with today. And wouldn't it be nice for
a carrier capable aircraft to deliver 8000 lbs out past 1000 nm
unrefueled....But like you said, money for this won't be forthcoming.

Thread drift: Did you that the A-3 was known to have even carried
small cars...

[sid]

(sid) wrote in message >...
> Looks like the need for more than single seat fighters is becoming an
> issue again. From the April Seapower:
> http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/apr_04_16.php
> "Boeing's Ted Herman, business development manager for the F-18
> program, told Sea Power the Super Hornet tanker helps "extend the
> legs" of the strike aircraft and does not compromise on aerodynamic
> performance.
>
> But the Navy is not entirely content with the Super Hornet as a
> tanker. While converted to refuel, the jet is not carrying weapons for
> strike missions. Fitzgerald said the Navy would consider a replacement

Here is a realted tidbit in the current AvWeek...
Navy plans to continue dominating the world's oceans despite tight
budgets will require, among other things, strategic aerial tanking
that, in turn, will drive experiments with launching KC-130s from
large-deck aircraft carriers, Rear Adm. Jay M. Cohen, chief of naval
research, says at the annual Navy League convention here. The idea is
to give Navy and Marine aircraft what Cohen terms "overland persistent
tanking."

Wonder how the Hornet Mafia would take to this...

[Peter Kemp]

On 12 Apr 2004 13:59:03 -0700, (sid) wrote:

(sid) wrote in message >...
>> Looks like the need for more than single seat fighters is becoming an
>> issue again. From the April Seapower:
>> http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/apr_04_16.php
>> "Boeing's Ted Herman, business development manager for the F-18
>> program, told Sea Power the Super Hornet tanker helps "extend the
>> legs" of the strike aircraft and does not compromise on aerodynamic
>> performance.
>>
>> But the Navy is not entirely content with the Super Hornet as a
>> tanker. While converted to refuel, the jet is not carrying weapons for
>> strike missions. Fitzgerald said the Navy would consider a replacement
>
>Here is a realted tidbit in the current AvWeek...
>Navy plans to continue dominating the world's oceans despite tight
>budgets will require, among other things, strategic aerial tanking
>that, in turn, will drive experiments with launching KC-130s from
>large-deck aircraft carriers, Rear Adm. Jay M. Cohen, chief of naval
>research, says at the annual Navy League convention here. The idea is
>to give Navy and Marine aircraft what Cohen terms "overland persistent
>tanking."

Some problems with using a KC-130 are....
a. getting them off the deck with a decent load
b. conducting any other ops while the damn thing is on the deck
(you're not going to be striking a Herc into the hangar without a lot
of sawing).

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[sid]

Peter Kemp > wrote in message >...
> On 12 Apr 2004 13:59:03 -0700, (sid) wrote:
>
> (sid) wrote in message >...
> >> Looks like the need for more than single seat fighters is becoming an
> >> issue again. From the April Seapower:
> >> http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/apr_04_16.php
> >> "Boeing's Ted Herman, business development manager for the F-18
> >> program, told Sea Power the Super Hornet tanker helps "extend the
> >> legs" of the strike aircraft and does not compromise on aerodynamic
> >> performance.
> >>
> >> But the Navy is not entirely content with the Super Hornet as a
> >> tanker. While converted to refuel, the jet is not carrying weapons for
> >> strike missions. Fitzgerald said the Navy would consider a replacement
> >
> >Here is a realted tidbit in the current AvWeek...
> >Navy plans to continue dominating the world's oceans despite tight
> >budgets will require, among other things, strategic aerial tanking
> >that, in turn, will drive experiments with launching KC-130s from
> >large-deck aircraft carriers, Rear Adm. Jay M. Cohen, chief of naval
> >research, says at the annual Navy League convention here. The idea is
> >to give Navy and Marine aircraft what Cohen terms "overland persistent
> >tanking."
>
> Some problems with using a KC-130 are....
> a. getting them off the deck with a decent load
> b. conducting any other ops while the damn thing is on the deck
> (you're not going to be striking a Herc into the hangar without a lot
> of sawing).
>
> ---
> Peter Kemp
>
I'm just passing along what the Admiral had to say...
Since Boeing is so wrapped up with wanting to continue finding uses
for their geriatric aircraft types (767 and 737), they may as well
reopen production of the A-3.

[Tiger]

gizmo-goddard wrote:

>"Charlie Wolf" > wrote in message
...
>
>>I've been gone for quite a while (retired AWC - 1992) but I still
>>don't fully understand why they are throwing away the S-3's?? Seems
>>it's the answer to several of the things that have been mentioned in
>>this thread...
>>
>
>It would be. My best guess would be that the Hornet Mafia, wanting to use
>the Hornet for anything and everything wouldn't allow NAVAIRSYSCOM to even
>consider any other airframe.
>
>__!_!__
>Gizmo
>"Welcome to NAVAIRSYSCOM, owned and operated by McDonell-Douglas, er Boeing"
>
>
Ah, the F/A -18 Hornet "the Swiss Army knife of airplanes." A jack of
all trades & master of none!
Does it play the "Green Hornet" theme song on engine starts? :-P