• 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

USN Another call to "bring back S-3's" (Vikings are Zombies)

SynixMan

Professional CCX Wrangler
pilot
Contributor
#35
The ILS was an imperfect example, but yes, considering this is a line of avionics suites we’ve abandoned. How far limped along was what the Viking had when it was put to pasture? The companies who had the expertise has long since dissolved their teams when the contracts stopped.

How expensive would it be to create a Growler ESM suite and from the ground up? You know as well as I do it’s not just buying some boxes and fitting antennas. That’s the level of sensor/hardware integration (radar, sonar, ESM, weapons) we’re talking about to match what we’ve already paid for in the Romeo. And that stuff is really good at what it does. And again, you’re overlooking how the 60R scales from ships that aren’t CATOBAR CVs or five thousand foot runways.

I realize I’m partially conflating the “could we” and “should we” do this, but they’re inexorably linked.
 

Recovering LSO

Suck Less
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
#36
Again, you’re presuming that existing avionic suites couldn’t be adapted to fit/work...? Look, you’re biased and I liked the Hoov like a mom likes her chubby baby - we’re probably not changing minds here.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#38
Again, you’re presuming that existing avionic suites couldn’t be adapted to fit/work...? Look, you’re biased and I liked the Hoov like a mom likes her chubby baby - we’re probably not changing minds here.
Wink would know better than I, but those old ASW systems were designed decades ago and I think removed from the jets when the ASW role went away. Even if those old systems worked, would the capability be worth the investment of bringing them back online? Probably not. I guess my point is that expecting those airframes to bring any ASW capabilities as configured is easier said than done.
 

zab1001

Well-Known Member
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
#39
This is a real question, NOT an accusation, but was the idea ever given a chance, or was the assignment to go find out why this won't work?
The numbers were run and presented, and for the customer, benefits were not worth the cost. FMS looks to make sales and promote U.S. industry, not discourage. In the end, there are cheaper alternatives to a MPRA or Sea Control type mission platforms for foreign buyers. None of the inquiries I worked mentioned tanking.
 
#41
Helo CVW guy here, so take my word for what it's worth, but the problem with Super Hornets tanking are stated somewhat well in that article:

1. You're wearing the hell out of the Rhino airframe and putting a lot of extra hours on it than was originally thought of when the F/A-18 E/F program was first being procured. Think of all the extra landings it's doing now and the stress on the wings from carrying all those fuel pods too.
2. When you have one tanking, it's not being used in its fighter / attack role, which reduces the number of aircraft available to perform the fighter / attack roles from the Carrier.
3. These problems are only amplified by the fact that the F/A-18 fleet isn't particularly healthy today.
This is mainly an infatuation with having five-wet tankers. A single centerline ARS tanker in a yo-yo recovery cuts down on the FLE issues and gives a jet that is a full-up round for other missions. With the intro of Magic Carpet I think there is an ability to whittle down the gas airborne.