US Navy Swaps UCLASS for Carrier-Based Aerial-Refueling System???

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Zaphod58

They need to dust off the S-3 Vikings and use them as dedicated tankers.

Exactly what came to mind as I was reading through this thread.

Guess the Viking is not gee whiz enough for the wonder boy game playing crowd.

I see nothing wrong using a proven airframe that nobody could claim is not up to serving the role very well.

a reply to: Phoenix

The last two flying Vikings are gone. And parts are going to get harder and harder to get if they were to bring them back from the Boneyard.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Why did they never build a C2 tanker variant? Would it have been too heavy to get off the deck?

a reply to: Bfirez

They were too busy with the COD mission. They fly a lot of parts, pieces, and people back and forth. And it would have been expensive for not a lot more gain than buddy pods get you.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That's the usual case now days. Too bad as Viking fits much criteria mentioned up thread.

Using drones assumes no one will ever be able to inrerfere, crack or take control of the electronics.

To me that's folly to believe as much history points to the opposite.

Certainly not any expert as many here are but it's not hard to see shortsighted policy and tendency to over engineer what should be straight forward solutions.

Seems this should have been addressed more than a decade back.

a reply to: Phoenix

They're a lot harder to hack than people realize, and any tanker based uav isn't going far from the ship. The amount of offloadable fuel is tiny compared to a land based tanker. They're going to stay near the ship so aircraft coming home can get enough fuel for a couple more attempts at the deck, or to get to the nearest land base if they can't get on the deck.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Explanaion understood Zaph,

Basically naval aviation mission from carrier is hobbled to topping F/A 18 tanks outbound/inbound and cruise range derived from doing that minus combat allowance.

Would seem to this armchair Admiral it'd been better to have dedicated tanker A/C to extend strike ranges by magnitudes over what's proposed in this thread.

I like idea of independent carrier strike capability beyond 1000 mile range without Air Force tanker support if needed.

Keep potential adversaries guessing, especially keeping in mind we are doing fewer CBG sorties and having reduced availability of carriers themselves.

Lack of a naval tanker airframe seems to take that off table, am I wrong?

a reply to: Phoenix

They use Air Force and Allied tankers. The problem is that to do that you need a huge airframe. The KC-135 can offload almost 30,000 gallons of fuel, moving 6 fighters from Hawaii to the West Coast. That's more fuel than a carrier based aircraft can carry in its own tanks, let alone offload.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yup, understand how they do right now with AF support.

I just have opinion naval forces should have what they formerly had with Intruder type tankers which gave truly independent capability to the CBG without any other outside assistance.

I see need for the carriers to standoff at further distances than in past.

In a conflict with a first world, maybe even second world opponent the big AF tankers are a prime target that needs it's own protection.

Sure what we do now is fine for fighting insurgents and third world but that may not remain the case.

a reply to: Phoenix

The closest the Navy has come to an independent tanker system was the A-3 and even that was limited. Any kind of buddy pod system is going to give you a top off and that's about it.

How about fitting out a C-160,like a C130 but a bit smaller

a reply to: Blackfinger

Same problem with putting a C-130 on the deck. You're going to lose a TON of deck space, and you can't put it in the hangar.

Same problem with putting a C-130 on the deck. You're going to lose a TON of deck space, and you can't put it in the hangar.

Unless you find an aircraft designer who is an expert in origami But that leads down another rabbit hole.

a reply to: Blackfinger

Don't you start! Atleast give me a better hint than that...

a reply to: Bfirez

Ever seen a Viking or larger aircraft folded up in the hangar? It does kind of look like origami.

Geometry is cool Get a rectangle and cut it in half diagonally.
The rabbit warren

a reply to: Zaphod58

CBARS RFP expected later this year (we've heard THAT before) and they are keeping the RAQ-25 designation for it. Wuh?

Now the Navy is just messing with us.

Its a Tanker.

It can also do some recon.

And very limited strike.

damnit. stop it!

I wonder when they will give up and just go back to saying " hey lets just use the X-47b platform"..

a reply to: Blackfinger

Doubt it. The max fuel the X-47 could carry, once its been weaponized, is 4500 lbs. An KS-3B would have been 29k lbs fuel. There's a lot to be done.