It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

And you thought J-STARS was the best

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2004 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I agree with you, sweat. I can't remember how many times I've heard military planners and lecturers saying that "low intensity conflict is the face of future warfare." Riiiiiight.




posted on May, 7 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Buddy tanking is a TERRIBLE idea.


I think the Navy is starting to realize that its tanking capabilities are insufficient. I read recently that they've asked the competitors in the Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA) program to provide information on the feasibility of including refueling capability in their designs. The MMA is a replacement for the P-3 Orion and EP-3 land-based patrol aircraft, so the new plane would still be a land-based tanker rather than part of a carrier wing. The competitors for the MMA contract are Lockheed Martin offering an upgraded P-3 variant and Boeing offering a version of the 737.

www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by aerospaceweb

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Buddy tanking is a TERRIBLE idea.


I think the Navy is starting to realize that its tanking capabilities are insufficient. I read recently that they've asked the competitors in the Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA) program to provide information on the feasibility of including refueling capability in their designs. The MMA is a replacement for the P-3 Orion and EP-3 land-based patrol aircraft, so the new plane would still be a land-based tanker rather than part of a carrier wing. The competitors for the MMA contract are Lockheed Martin offering an upgraded P-3 variant and Boeing offering a version of the 737.

www.globalsecurity.org...


They are asking if the ability to be refueled can be incorporated into the design. It would be able to use a AF style of refueling system, vice the navy probe and drogue. That would allow the aircraft to stay on station longer, or take off with a higher payload and then immediately refuel in flight.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by aerospaceweb

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Buddy tanking is a TERRIBLE idea.


I think the Navy is starting to realize that its tanking capabilities are insufficient. I read recently that they've asked the competitors in the Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA) program to provide information on the feasibility of including refueling capability in their designs. The MMA is a replacement for the P-3 Orion and EP-3 land-based patrol aircraft, so the new plane would still be a land-based tanker rather than part of a carrier wing. The competitors for the MMA contract are Lockheed Martin offering an upgraded P-3 variant and Boeing offering a version of the 737.

www.globalsecurity.org...


The upgraded P-3 won the contract.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Wow, a P-3! THAT'LL fit on an aircraft carrier!

Seriously, the Navy is not supporting it's capabilities to the fullest. If they really want to overestimate their aircraft's capabilities, then I feel sorry for the pilots that have no place to land when they're at joker fuel, 50 miles from the carrier and unable to land because of an on-deck accident.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 10:36 AM
link   
These type of aircraft were never ment to fit on an aircraft carrier. You need a larger aircraft to do the job.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
They are asking if the ability to be refueled can be incorporated into the design. It would be able to use a AF style of refueling system, vice the navy probe and drogue. That would allow the aircraft to stay on station longer, or take off with a higher payload and then immediately refuel in flight.


Hmmm, the way I read the article, it sounded like the Navy wanted to use the MMA as a refueling tanker, but I suppose I could've misread it. Your explanation makes more sense.


Originally posted by jetsetter
[The upgraded P-3 won the contract.


I don't think that's correct. I haven't heard of any final selection being made. In fact, the latest press release on Lockheed's site indicates that the've just unveiled their proposal, and the article is only 1 month old.

www.lockheedmartin.com...

The story also says, "The contract for the next phase, System Development and Demonstration (SDD), is scheduled for contract award in June 2004." At SDD, they usually downselect to one contractor who will go on to complete a full-scale design.

I'm going to a conference next week, and there are a few presenters on P-3 topics. Maybe they'll have some updated information on the MMA. There's also a briefing on the "Aerodynamic Characteristics of the Quad Tiltrotor," which I believe someone was asking about in another thread.

[Edited on 10-5-2004 by aerospaceweb]



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   
What about the S-3? it can go on carriers and refuel



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
What about the S-3? it can go on carriers and refuel


The S-3 is due to be retired relatively soon, possibly within the next couple of years.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
What about the S-3? it can go on carriers and refuel


That's what this discussion has been about so far. The S-3B does not dispense enough fuel. It's very costly and ineffective to fly an aircraft that ends up dispensing very little fuel.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetsetter
These type of aircraft were never ment to fit on an aircraft carrier. You need a larger aircraft to do the job.


The KA-6D Tanker could dispense 24,000 lbs of fuel just for refueling other aircraft. That's A LOT of fuel. And it could fit on an aircraft carrier!



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
The KA-6D Tanker could dispense 24,000 lbs of fuel just for refueling other aircraft. That's A LOT of fuel. And it could fit on an aircraft carrier!


True, but the airframes were already approaching the limit of their wing life. To re-wing all of them would have cost too much money.

Also, the A-6 was getting to be a real maintenance pig. It was better to let it go.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Id rather have a maintenance heavy tanker than no tanker at all.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
Id rather have a maintenance heavy tanker than no tanker at all.


Then join the rest of us in the hopes that they build a dedicated version of the CSA (or whatever they are calling it now).


ppp

posted on May, 13 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   
"Tanking also prevents the S-3B from doing other missions. I mean, don't tell me the U.S. Navy is depending on the U.S. Air Force to send it's precious KC-135s to tank the Navy jets!"

This is why the US Navy and Marines love the RAF and hate the USAF.

A better solution would be to put more fuel on the combat aircraft and/or make them more efficient!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join