A slightly modified S-3 redone as a KS-3 would be a nice addition though and it would save some wear and tear on the SH's.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Question about the changes in Naval aviation over the last 20 years.
- Thread starter WEGL12
- Start date
A slightly modified S-3 redone as a KS-3 would be a nice addition though and it would save some wear and tear on the SH's.
WEGL12
VT-28
Doesn't TOPGUN cover many of these issues along with current strategies in air to ground tactics? I guess this would be more the "hands on" training for the pilots but I don't know if they develop new strategies there or not. TOPGUN has always been sort of a mystery to me so I am not sure exactly what takes place there.
WEGL12
VT-28
It may be possible to modified a C-2 into a KC-2 model. The only limiting factor I can see is the flight speed may be a bit on the low side. But with some modification it would be able to carry a higher capacity than any other carrier based aircraft. Just a thought.
Sure the decision saved a bit of money, but taking organic fix-winged ASW assets away from the carrier was not the best idea even though it secured funding and ensured that VP won't be going away. Helo's don't have range or the speed needed to do a lot far from the ship they take off from and look at how many aircraft it takes to run 24 coverage on a single target in an AOR. With our limited, and often unreliable assets, we can't be everywhere. We may be decent at what we do but even our best crews aren't that good at ASW compared to those guys who got to do it constantly during the cold war (nothing beats real life experience and we don't get a ton of that these days). P-8 will solve part of the reliability problem for a while, and eventually capability will increase but BAMS isn't going to change any of that and takes money away from manned assets that could be used in ASW.
As much as the community hates to admit it, we're not the greatest thing since sliced bread when it comes to ASW. Treating us as such without acknowledging our limitations will only continue to set the stage for disappointment for those who think we are.
C-2s are old and are well overdue for a replacement. There aren't nearly enough of them to do both missions, and you're probably right about the speed. Props are pretty much always slower then jets, which may not be a huge deal when operating around the boat when everyone is relatively low and going relatively slow, but good luck trying to get that to work elsewhere when the tanker can't keep up with the guys they're supposed to be giving gas to.
R1 talks a lot of "smack"…but I missed his specific comment on this^^^.
What he probably said was something more like: "The Tomcat was built at a unique time…with a unique emerging threat that needed a counter. The F-14 was that counter…for so long as that threat existed…and honorably morphed into something else (e.g., Bombcat) late in its life. When the times and threats changed, and the threat of massed Backfire and Blinder raids against the fleet waned, the Navy had choices to make, and for many reasons, not the least of which were affordability, maintainability, cost per flight hour, credible and very effective capability against the "now" threat environments, the Navy elected…for very understandable reasons…to go "all in" on the Hornet community (originally designed/intended as a replacement for the A-7 and F-4 aircraft…NOT the A-6 or the F-14...) with it's potential for reasonably economical upgrade and continued enhancement, as "the new normal". Hornets of all shapes and sizes seem to have carried the water for us admirably since the legacy VA and VF communities went the way of the buffalo." Or words to that effect...
Now, if there is yet an emerging "new threat" (I guess we agree there is…)…Tomcats and Intruders aren't the answer. (Oh, the humanity!) The new stuff headed to a flight line or a carrier deck near you hopefully is, in concert with the most capable airplanes and aircrews flying right now.
Hint: If you fly through 2 or 3 perfectly good missile envelopes to get into a knife fight in a phone booth with some crowd-pleasing air show aerobatic aircraft with weapons…you're going it wrong.
This^^^: "Learn it. Know it. Live it." ~Brad Hamilton
Hmmm... maybe a bit of nostalgia by an ancient mariner, but wouldn't the trusty ol' KA-3 "Whale" still be viable today? Lots of give-away, and it sure extended the range & saved the a$$ of countless tacair jets (including USAF), back in the Vietnam era. Too much deck space?... I dunno, we always found room for them.
BzB
WEGL12
VT-28
I could see that as a possibility as well. I don't see age of the airframe being a big issue when talking about a tanker roll. Main concern would be deck space like you mentioned but the KA-3 would solve the problem of range, capacity and, airspeed. Also if I am not mistaken the carrier air wing currently has fewer airplanes than back during Vietnam so this frees up space to add a tanker even if it is large airframe. But on the flip side I can see where the Navy wants to keep some free space in case they need to add an extra squadron to the air wing. Another drawback, I heard the A-3 was a hard airplane to fly mostly because it was underpowered but that problem could be fixed by upgrading the engines.
I'm not proud to say this, but I know a couple of raptor drivers. As homo as they may be (and man are they homo, but more of a dikey subaru save the whales homo than a "too wong fu" homo) they both say that if they end up going to the merge it is because they, and everyone else in their element, did more than one or two things horribly wrong.
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
Way to go, Hamilton!!
Since the age of the airframe resulted in the A-3s being banned from carrier ops prior to thier actually being retired, I'd say it was a big issue.
WEGL12
VT-28
I meant more of a newly built KA-3 but the age of the airplane design shouldn't be a major issue. The plane doesn't have to be completely redesign but take the original design with new engines. Sorry the way I originally said that it implied reusing the old airplanes.
Why would we reopen the line for a modernized 1970 Chevy Caprice when for the same price we could have a new designed Chevy Impala? (And realistically we don't have the $$ for either)
Speaking of the A-3 airframe, I was always amazed at the "oil-canning" diagonal wrinkles that appeared on both sides of fuselage just below & aft of the cockpit... just after tensioning on the catapult as the cat stroke began. I questioned their airframes Chiefs about that, and was told that it was a design feature to relieve skin stresses in the cat hook areas, during the acceleration down the cat.
BzB
