"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...042804,00.html
Will the Air Force fulfill the Navy requirement for simultaneous
refueling capability and, if so, when?

Henry, you need to be a bit more careful in your citations (nothing new
about that...). Note that the article indicates: "Naval air forces,
including the Marine Corps' 72 F/A-18D fighters, require tankers to
refuel
more than one fighter jet at a time with the hose reel system." Hogwash.
"Require"? How many USN tanker aircraft can feed two receivers at once?
The
S-3 in tanking mode? Nope. The F/A-18E in tanker mode? Nope.

Are the Marines still part of the Navy Department?

What does *that* matter? If it was freakin' *required*, then why all of the
fuss to get the F/A-18E into the tanking game? Why is it possible for the
USAF to do quite well with single-point tanking, while the USN 9despite its
own loooong history of also using single point tanking) would find it so
distatsteful (if, that is, you take the author's words as true--which they
ain't, in this case)?


And the KC-767 will be able to carry at least a little more fuel than a
Superhornet, or a KC-130J even.

So what? Your "source" says the USN *requires* multi-point tanking
capability--and that plainly is NOT the case.


Maybe you need to address this in a different manner...perhaps asking if
it
might be more fair if the USAF agreed to support *all* USN tanking
requirements at such time as the USN agrees to actually support all of
the
USAF's airborne jamming requirements (you seem to have missed the fact
that
the USN recently cut one of its EA-6 squadrons, despite a continuing
shortage of that joint asset...).

I've already noted the Air Force shortage of jammers in another thread.

And you conveniently missed out on the FACT that the USN was then tasked to
provide jamming support for the joint force, eh? Something they have found
hard to do--even before they dumped that squadron...


Perhaps they should start buying Growlers?

Why would the USAF want to buy an aircraft with a known range shortfall for
this mission?


But you also are missing another
factor...if the land-based tankers are so ctitical to USN aviation
capabilities, why do you need the CVN's in the first place? If you can
get
land based tanker support into the fray to support the USN strikers, you
are
also within range of getting the USAF strikers into the fight,
especially
the heavies...

Sea basing still needs work on delivering fuel, cargo and people to an
OMFTS force.

You are getting more dense every day... Now, if the USN is so dependent upon
land-based tanking, why is the CVN of such tremendous value, given that we
could just as well be deploying B-1's, B-52's, and even F-15E's from the
same base (or other bases in that area) that the tankers are operating from
to perform the missions instead of having a CVN (and attendant resources)
lurching around dependent upon land-based air support?

Brooks


-HJC