E-2 Hawkeye/C-2 Greyhound

[Fre@kshow!!]

The E-2D is coming with a refueling probe. So get ready to take a leak and/or a crap in your seat in the next version. At least in the P-3 we had a bucket.

Hey all, first post, just found the website.

Pissing is no worries in the E-2. Both pilots have relief tubes and the NFO's are just careful not to "rub" on the shared one in the back. Ladies are another story.

I know they're doing work at PAX river getting a Rhino to "give" to a Hawkeye. KC10/KC135's are out, that leaves Rhino's and KC130's. Anybody? I thought they were putting it on because of the max-cat weight restrictions. The E-2D is a lot heavier than the "C". They weren't going to be able to give the "D" as much fuel as the "C", hence the need to tank to maintain the current on-station times.

It does make sense for the safety factor or coming back to the ship low on gas... take a squirt and be safe. But as for extending missions... Would you trust a controller who'd been at it for eight hours? There's a lot more research that need to go into this thing before anybody worries about the probe being used to extend mission times.

 

[mules83]

When is the d model coming out? Or in better words, when is it planned on coming out?

 

[eddie]

The E-2D is a lot heavier than the "C". They weren't going to be able to give the "D" as much fuel as the "C", hence the need to tank to maintain the current on-station times.

Now I'm no aerodynamic engineer, but how did "they" allow that kind of a situation to develop? Operational hazards due to longer missions aside, it seems just plain innefficient for a Hornet to have to launch, pass gass, and recover, just to keep the E-2D aloft for its normal mission duration.

 

[Brett327]

Now I'm no aerodynamic engineer, but how did "they" allow that kind of a situation to develop? Operational hazards due to longer missions aside, it seems just plain innefficient for a Hornet to have to launch, pass gass, and recover, just to keep the E-2D aloft for its normal mission duration.

What would your recommendation be?

Brett

 

[eddie]

What would your recommendation be?

I should have asked a question instead.

Why is the E-2D heavier? (Will look around for the answer in the meantime...)

EDIT: Internet says its got another NFO in the tube + more/larger sensors (bigger engines?).

MY recomendation? Build a new aircraft that can carry all the gadgets and personel, and not have to take "sips" for its normal mission duraction; have the probe as the exception, not the rule to operations. HOWEVER, this is the real world, with $$$. SO, I'm just going to assume its cheaper to have an Hornet pass gas than it is to build/implement "my" new airframe.

 

[TheBubba]

I know they're doing work at PAX river getting a Rhino to "give" to a Hawkeye. KC10/KC135's are out, that leaves Rhino's and KC130's. Anybody? I thought they were putting it on because of the max-cat weight restrictions. The E-2D is a lot heavier than the "C". They weren't going to be able to give the "D" as much fuel as the "C", hence the need to tank to maintain the current on-station times.

Ok... out of curiosity... why are the KC-10/135's a no-go for refueling the E-2D's?

As a guess, I'm gonna get even more specific on the question and ask is it a speed issue?

 

[bunk22]

If they Navy builds the C-2B, it will be a future tanker for the boat. It is going to be designed to carry drop tanks and the ability to refuel other aircraft (and take gas as I understand it).

 

[Brett327]

If they Navy builds the C-2B, it will be a future tanker for the boat. It is going to be designed to carry drop tanks and the ability to refuel other aircraft (and take gas as I understand it).

What's a reasonable top speed for E2/C2?

Brett

 

[Goober]

I should have asked a question instead.

Why is the E-2D heavier? (Will look around for the answer in the meantime...)

EDIT: Internet says its got another NFO in the tube + more/larger sensors (bigger engines?).

MY recomendation? Build a new aircraft that can carry all the gadgets and personel, and not have to take "sips" for its normal mission duraction; have the probe as the exception, not the rule to operations. HOWEVER, this is the real world, with $$$. SO, I'm just going to assume its cheaper to have an Hornet pass gas than it is to build/implement "my" new airframe.

The new radar will add more weight. Ultimately it comes down to max launch/trap weights. It's really no different than heavy strikes launching with less gas to increase the bomb load weight and then tanking airborne to top off. The D will not have an extra NFO in the tube. Rumors of having a 4th operator position at the copilot station, but no word as to whether it'll be a pilot or NFO. Personally, I'd rather have the 2nd pilot.

 

[eddie]

The new radar will add more weight. Ultimately it comes down to max launch/trap weights. It's really no different than heavy strikes launching with less gas to increase the bomb load weight and then tanking airborne to top off. The D will not have an extra NFO in the tube. Rumors of having a 4th operator position at the copilot station, but no word as to whether it'll be a pilot or NFO. Personally, I'd rather have the 2nd pilot.

Where is the variable in launch weight?

 

[Goober]

Ok... out of curiosity... why are the KC-10/135's a no-go for refueling the E-2D's?

As a guess, I'm gonna get even more specific on the question and ask is it a speed issue?

Yep. Exactly. We'd be hellbent for leather to keep up, although if they're feeling lucky/dangerous, I suppose anything's possible. Basket's a basket.

What's a reasonable top speed for E2/C2?

We're talking 320 high-end for a Hummer. Can't speak for the COD.

 

[HooverPilot]

If they Navy builds the C-2B, it will be a future tanker for the boat. It is going to be designed to carry drop tanks and the ability to refuel other aircraft (and take gas as I understand it).

As a former S-3 bubba and now a COD bubba, I have several problems with this.

1. Do you want high priority parts and pax from shore, or do you want a tanker? You cannot do both in the same flight (tanking is too dangerous for pax to be onboard).

2. The airwing/ship should never ever be dependent on a tanker coming from shore, you just get screwed too much. That means they will have to buy even more C-2B's and keep some of them on the ship. There goes the plan for cutting down the # types of aircraft on the ship & the good deal COD Det.

3. The C-2B would also have to get some seriously stronger engines (more than the -427). The Viking did all it's tanking at 250 and the Hornets didn't like being that slow, they want 275-300 KIAS. Most of the tanking was done below 7K at the ship, but if you are going to do mission tanking, it will be in the mid 20's. The C-2 just isn't able to get the IAS to be a good tanker up that high.

It's just my opinion, but I think making the C-2B a tanker isn't a good idea.

 

[Brett327]

Yep. Exactly. We'd be hellbent for leather to keep up, although if they're feeling lucky/dangerous, I suppose anything's possible. Basket's a basket.


We're talking 320 high-end for a Hummer. Can't speak for the COD.

We tank a lot slower then that off a 10 or 135. What would be the limitation if you could take?

Brett

 

[squeeze]

Hell... we're limited to 300 kts with the probe extended.

 

[Brett327]

Hell... we're limited to 300 kts with the probe extended.

As you know, my probe is always ready for action, supersonic if required.

Brett