E-2 to certify inflight refueling/wet wing

The Navy will be certifying the E-2 fleet for inflight refueling, as well as adding a "wet wing" for land based operators.

They have currently flown the E-2D with a probe and made several dry contacts as well as transferred fuel on the ground through the system. Later this year they will start directly with wet contacts. All E-2Ds after aircraft 31 will come off the line with the probe, better seats for long endurance missions, and low visibility formation lights.

Northrop is also developing a so called wet wing, in which fuel is carried in the wings. This would be available for operators that fly the aircraft from land bases. This would increase the time on station from 5 hours to 7 hours.

www.flightglobal.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Those poor, poor souls. The current, unrefuelable version of the Hawkeye already takes off first and lands last during cyclic ops. And the flights are around 5 hours. In flight refuelling, because 5 hours isn't long enough. OMG. It's no picnic in there. It's tight. I can't imagine peeing next to your copilot after flying 6 hours, still strapped in. And there are mixed crews in there, so you're gonna whip out Mr. Happy, in the cold air of 20k feet, to pee into a bag. Man, the Navy is sexy.

a reply to: cosmania

This isn't going to amount to much. They haven't got anything big enough to tank an E-2 that flies off a carrier.

Try 10 hours in a SH-3 Sea King. We lowered a hoist to a frigate, pulled up a fuel line and refueled while flying behind a moving ship. Twice.

a reply to: JIMC5499

I just puked a little bit there. 2 ideas:

Helicopters

10 hours

****blech*****

a reply to: JIMC5499

Off the carrier no, but it does open up sending them to land bases and augmenting the E-3s, and remain on station longer.

It's also a huge deal for countries like Japan that fly them solely from land bases.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I just want a picture of a Hornet re-fueling an E-2. Talk about wrong.

a reply to: JIMC5499

I'm sure there will be when they start certification. They'll have to plug to just about every tanker type out there.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I always wondered why the Navy didn't just buy some larger tankers and just land base them. Too much redundancy with the AF?

a reply to: Bfirez

That and the Navy would have to spend a lot of money building the infrastructure for them, move people out of other fields and train them, etc.

a reply to: cosmania

You want poor souls... try 9 people on a B-52H from Barksdale AFB to Diego Garcia non-stop...

Hate your life doesnt even begin to cover that flight..

a reply to: Irishhaf

Especially the ones stuck in those godawful jumpseats that have a metal seat pan and about 1/16th of an inch of padding.