Q'ns about retired airframe

[Renegade One]

Thanks a lot. BTW, Robert Dorr wrote the A-7B and C could be used as CAP fighters from the boilered carriers when the wind over deck was not enough for F-14As to be catapulted. Is it right? If so - was it a legacy of parental design of F-8?

"Boilered carriers"...I like that.

I suppose it's possible that a combination of engineering casualties could result in one type of aircraft being unable to launch...I just never experienced it during my Phantom/Tomcat life. Even the "boilered CVs" could make 30+ knots in normal conditions...more than enough WOD for any aircraft embarked. But I'll stand corrected if anyone had a different experience. "Flanchor ops" could be a different story, but you don't generally need to launch CAP at anchor.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

"Boilered carriers"...I like that.

Sorry, this words seemed proper to me, especially given that our poorly steamed Kuznetsov (named after admiral who was CniC in Stalin time, but his surname is a derivative from "kuznets", which is for "blacksmith" or simply "smith" in English, a funny thing about this ship) has very unreliable boilers.
All in all Dorr, though USAF proponent, wrote this. Strangely, at least for underpowered A-7B...

 

[sparky]

Correction: the Air Farce had A-7D's; the Navy had A-7A's, B's, E's and some C's and later TA-7's, but never A-7D's.

Thanks for the save, @zipmartin!
Argh, never let a maritime guy take on tailhook answers.

Thanks a lot. BTW, Robert Dorr wrote the A-7B and C could be used as CAP fighters from the boilered carriers when the wind over deck was not enough for F-14As to be catapulted. Is it right? If so - was it a legacy of parental design of F-8?

It's about low wing loading and decent thrust, launching pretty lightly loaded. Not so much a legacy of the F-8 as some features for light/medium attack made for a suitable deck-launched airplane - that F-8 variable incidence wing fortunately for the maintainers didn't carry over to the A-7.

IIRC the A-7A/B/C/E could do it with a couple AIM-9s - others here have first hand knowledge.

 

[sparky]

"Boilered carriers"...I like that.
I suppose it's possible that a combination of engineering casualties could result in one type of aircraft being unable to launch...I just never experienced it during my Phantom/Tomcat life. Even the "boilered CVs" could make 30+ knots in normal conditions...more than enough WOD for any aircraft embarked. But I'll stand corrected if anyone had a different experience. "Flanchor ops" could be a different story, but you don't generally need to launch CAP at anchor.

I spent the latter Cold War years supporting the Lehman Doctrine and around capes and plans, so I pretty much got to see the deck-launched CAP as an artifact of gaming and feeding inputs to planning types. Two scenarios where this came up:
1) Casualty where the cats were down
and
2) Propulsion casualty preventing getting to enough WOD for F-14 launches.

Our objectives included showing even a damaged CV[N] could stay in a fight. YMMV when actual firefighting and DC pretty much preempt flight ops. A lot easier in gaming to declare we're putting up a CAP and ASW/SSC aircraft than it might have been with a real casualty.

In theory it gave the carrier group a chance to intercept Red maritime air that might locate & provide targeting info, and conduct some surface search & engagement - though we planned on S-3s being able to deck launch for ASW and SSC - not a counter to massed raids.

The attack guys and CV ops types would know more and better.

 

[sparky]

Thanks again, it was quite informative. Look, what about MPRA aircraft for recovery tanking nowadays? Say, P-8A that has tanking gear/package in a bomb bay just like "bomber" Whales (As, KAs, EKAs) to support carrier ops, can bring much more fuel convenience to airspace around the carrier than F/A-18E in this role, I suppose. And - maybe - in some cases, as the mission tanker too, why not? Would it be any worse than these USAF tankers?

Great question about MPRA tanking, and it's been considered over many years with essentially the same conclusions; it's a pretty costly way to get fuel to a CSG airwing.

Starting with we have had times there are not enough MPRA aircraft for demands of maritime taskings. That tends to be true of most air forces, and especially the USN.

Not all maritime aircraft have a good match of speed/altitude/range-performance with a supported air wing. AFAIK the P-8 in theory would do pretty well here, though that's a mission set the Poseidon community just does not seem to need right now. We don't invest in a lot of spare airplanes, airframe life, and cushions for time between overhauls/depot to provide for yet another mission set.

In general, getting a tanker on station would be costly, and when the carrier group is doing blue water ops the time out and back can get significant. That's one reason organic tanking in the airwing dominates. A CSG that relies on a lot of land-based tanker hits probably still needs a credible organic tanking capability because of weather and downed equipment in the land-based component. NAVAIR will not give up organic tanking as long as they might need recovery tanking ... and frankly mission planning and execution for the airwing benefits from organic assets.

Another concern is when matching up against peer navies we may not want the CSG to be found. Potential adversaries finding and following land-based tanker support might give peers more information than we want them to know. Adversaries finding and hitting USAF tankers in their tracks is generally a USAF problem (though USN could be tasked to provide escort/defensive counter air). This is a reason we haven't invested heavily in a land-based refueling drone, and why we spend so much on keeping organic tanking.

It gets expensive especially during blue water operations to bring land-based support on station, and blue water operations tends to be when tanker support gets most crucial to have. Compared to just paying more to keep organic tanking viable, it's not a good use of funds at least for USN to pay for MPRA to get yet another mission that burns flight hours, crew hours, airframe life, and time between overhauls.

 

[Jim123]

Not all maritime aircraft have a good match of speed/altitude/range-performance with a supported air wing. AFAIK the P-8 in theory would do pretty well here

I dunno... if they made it any heavier by putting even more fuel in it, it might need a 10,000' runway to get off the ground without scraping its tail. Kind of a shame they didn't pick the 757 to be the P-8 instead of a super duper stretch 737.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I dunno... if they made it any heavier by putting even more fuel in it, it might need a 10,000' runway to get off the ground without scraping its tail. Kind of a shame they didn't pick the 757 to be the P-8 instead of a super duper stretch 737.

Google says the P-8 is based on the 737-800. That’s not the most stretched version.

 

[Brett327]

Why would we turn the P-8 into a tanker when we already have big wing tankers that do that as their primary mission? This is crazy talk.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Why would we turn the P-8 into a tanker when we already have big wing tankers that do that as their primary mission? This is crazy talk.

The ability to slap a couple pods on a P-8 would be a nice thing to have, and would have been pretty easy.

 

[Brett327]

The ability to slap a couple pods on a P-8 would be a nice thing to have, and would have been pretty easy.

But isn’t this the same thing we lament for our strike fighters? Diverts them from their primary mission? In this case, we already have a fleet of aircraft that specialize in AR, along with a dedicated replacement platform that’s funded.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

But isn’t this the same thing we lament for our strike fighters? Diverts them from their primary mission? In this case, we already have a fleet of aircraft that specialize in AR, along with a dedicated replacement platform that’s funded.

How much time has VP spent doing its primary mission in the last 15 years? Refueling would have been an easy and cheap add, and would be nice to have. It’s not that complicated, but the decision likely had more to do with turf wars, funding battles, and ego than common sense.

 

[sparky]

The ability to slap a couple pods on a P-8 would be a nice thing to have, and would have been pretty easy.

Truth, though VP doesn't have the airframes, crews, nor sustainment plan to give any significant cycles as tankers.

Sales and marketing did see an attraction to the ancillary tanker role, like LockMart did with the P-7 before, and neither got serious traction marketing to USN. It would have worked but been a relatively poor tanker investment - as @Brett327 noted - and for Boeing a P-8 tanker kit would effectively look to compete to its dedicated tanker offerings.

If the customer was doing local ops much of the time the calculus might be very different. But not for blue water carrier ops especially when deployed VP - at least the P-8 side - tends to be fully-to-overtasked (or not conveniently located to a given CSG with assets ready) already.

BT

Didn't Boeing plumb the P-8A wing stations for wet stores?

The P-8 originally was seen as doing a lot more cruising and coordination of drones than its IOC reality - and as part of that early notion we'd discussed having wet stations to extend those drones. I was working on the UAS side way back then so maybe I misremember that P-8 detail.

 

[Pags]

But isn’t this the same thing we lament for our strike fighters? Diverts them from their primary mission? In this case, we already have a fleet of aircraft that specialize in AR, along with a dedicated replacement platform that’s funded.

Might as well develop a pod for the Harrier and JSF that allows them to carry a life raft so they can fly the D for the MEU while we’re creeping. Makes a lot of sense from the LHD perspective and offer some flexibility to the rest of the MEU.

 

[Brett327]

It's a dumb idea that will never, ever happen - let's leave it at that.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

IIRC the A-7A/B/C/E could do it with a couple AIM-9s

Though light attack people supposedly had no dogfight training? Ok, there was not so much difference between "day fighter" and "light attack" communities during Vietnam War, that ADM Stockdale had drove F-8 over that very Tonkin Incident and then had been shot down being in A-4, for example, but A-7 seems to be the true bomber to a greater degree, and if its community still had fighter skills in 1970s, it would be amazing, to say the least.

Another concern is when matching up against peer navies we may not want the CSG to be found.

Indeed, thanks. I didn't think about it. Yes, it's a real danger. Our sneaky reccos would surely track any possible asset that could lead them to a carrier.