Inflight refueling

[illinijoe05]

I know that the current plans are for super hornets to take over the carrier based tanker job form the s-3. Would it be possible for c-2s to perform this task also? It seems to me (which is probably wrong) that the c-2 could hold a heck of a lot more fuel than the super hornet.

 

[A4sForever]

You're right -- you're wrong. It's not possible. Questions ??

TANKER POSIT !!

 

[Blutonski816]

The first tankers the were tested out using the original Probe and drogue method were with B-29s attempting to refuel Korean War-Era Jets... While it proved the possibility for Refueling to be performed in flight, the B-29 going at top speed, was a challenge for the Jet behind it struggling to keep enough lift over the wing to stay airborne...

So if the C-2 was used as a Tanker, it would probably be only useful for Helo and Prop refueling....
Which is why hte Marines use the KC-130 to pass gas primarily for CH-53s

 

[Brett327]

Any of you guys tanked off a KC-130 in a jet? Holy sh!t does that suck - that means flaps 20 in a Prowler.

Bad times,

Brett

 

[Blutonski816]

I figured as much...

I've seen pictures, and that alone tells me enough...
:scared_12:

F that...

 

[HooverPilot]

As a former Viking guy, I'll sum up the answers above and expand a bit. The Hornets and Tomcats don't like coming down to the S-3 for tanking because its not a very efficient alt for them. When we did go high to tank, it would take a long time to climb up to alt and accelerating to the required speed for tanking was tough. The pointy nose guys would like it if we could tank at a higher airspeed, but not gonna happen. Don't be fooled, they absolutely love us when we have the gas off a hawk on a dark and stormy night or when they needed us to drag them up towards Afghanistan during OEF, but it wasn't their ideal profiles. The C-2 can't perform nearly to the envelope that the S-3 can. They don't even carry as much fuel (the S-3 is actually more fuel efficient than the C-2). The final straw is that the C-2 doesn't usually operate as an organic part of the airwing, and that is an absolute requirement for an airwing. You should never ever count on the tanker coming from the beach.

I have tanked off the KC-130 many times, and even for the Viking it sucks, I can't imagine how the pointy nosed guys feel about it.

 

[ea6bflyr]

Well, I've actually tanked off an FA-18E (One seater) in a Prowler and it was noisy as heck! No FIREFRIENDLY, the NFO in the back of the 18F will not be the gas pumper. The buddy store controls are on the pilot's console.

As far as a C-2 being a refueling platform...It just wasn't built to do it. They have no external stores, no inflight re-fueling capability themselves, and they don't carry much fuel (Those turboprops are very fuel efficient).

ea6bflyr

 

[SteveG75]

Well, I've actually tanked off an FA-18E (One seater) in a Prowler and it was noisy as heck!

Heck, just like tanking off the Intruder with a centerline buddy store. The S-3's hated hitting us for gas because their tail was too tall. It would stick up into the exhaust and the rudder would get batted around.

 

[kmac]

As a COD driver, I'll let you in on a little secret. IF (big one there) the C-2B is made, it will have the capability to be a tanker. As it is now, we can carry 10,000 lbs in our cage (9914 lbs with internal fuel tanks). If the B variant were indeed to have extra range as "planned" then we should be able to loiter longer above the ship with more fuel. I understand the idea that the C-2 is not organic to the ship. I agree; even though we are part of the air wing now, we still spend a lot of time operating from the beach. However, that is not to say that a C-2 could not fulfill the role as a tanker. Obviously I don't know what speed most refueling takes place at, but it's not like the COD putts around at 120 kts. If need be, we can pick it up (a little).

All of that being said, you are really compromising the mission of the C-2 if you want it to be a tanker too. For DV missions alone we require using both CODs (one as a turning spare). I can't imagine any CAG wanting to use a COD as a tanker.

 

[jarhead]

Any of you guys tanked off a KC-130 in a jet? Holy sh!t does that suck - that means flaps 20 in a Prowler.

the times i've hit the Herc we've been below 20k feet and at 210-230 knots ... IMO it's one of the easiest tankers to get gas from, in the Hornet. the S-3 & KC10 is also easy, except WARPS pods in turbulence. the "Iron Maiden" is the ass kicker, getting in is easy, staying in is a b!tch.

i can't wait for my first chance at tanking behind a $60+ million dollar fighter/attack/tanker jet ...

my 2¢

S/F

 

[Jedj]

It seems to me (which is probably wrong) that the c-2 could hold a heck of a lot more fuel than the super hornet

It would seem that way, actually though, the super hornet is a good tanking platform that can carry considerably more gas than the C2 or S-3 (in 5 wet configuration) . and like Brett and Bluto were getting at, the superhornet can fly higher and faster and stay on its tanking station longer.

 

[HooverPilot]

It would seem that way, actually though, the super hornet is a good tanking platform that can carry considerably more gas than the C2 or S-3 (in 5 wet configuration) . and like Brett and Bluto were getting at, the superhornet can fly higher and faster and stay on its tanking station longer.

Don't be fooled by the higher fuel capacity of the Super Hornet. They burn fuel at a rate vastly higher than the Viking or COD. The only regime that the Super Hornet would be able to have a higher give than a Viking would be in a YoYo tanking roll. Otherwise the S.H. will have to reserve a larger portion of his fuel for himself (thus reducing his give). I also don't buy the assertion that the S.H. has a longer on station time than the Viking. I've flown a lot of 3.5-4.0 mission hops unrefueled and still had enough left over to give to a needy Hornet or two; can the S.H. do that? I doubt it. Of course there are always tradeoff's, the S.H. can tank at a higher IAS than the Viking which is preferred sometimes, but they will have to do a lot of their tanking at low altitudes due to the nature of being a recovery tanker; You can't hawk a guy from 20,000'!

The fact of the matter is the S.H. is not a better tanking platform than the Viking; it is just capable of filling the role of a tanker.

 

[SteveG75]

What you young guys don't know of is a little trick called hose multiplying.

You have a 18 plane strike going to China Lake off the boat in SoCal (W-291). About a 2+30 hop. Every jet needs 3k on the front and 2k on the back side. You have a KC-10 with 90K to give but cycling everyone through would take about 30-40 minutes. We would launch 2 A-6E maxi tankers with 26k each 5 min before the strike. Buster to the tanker and make sure we could get gas. Now, when the strikers show up, there are 3 hoses available vice one. They drain the A-6's down to 3k or so each and while the strikes go hit the target, the A-6 tankers top up off the KC-10. Then we just do it again on the back side and go home.

Why don't we do this with S-3's? Because the AF tanker is at 25k' at 250-270 KIAS. An S-3 can't get up there at that speed and there is no way a C-2 could.

With the Rhino tanker, we can bring back hose multipliers.

 

[HooverPilot]

What you young guys don't know of is a little trick called hose multiplying.

You have a 18 plane strike going to China Lake off the boat in SoCal (W-291). About a 2+30 hop. Every jet needs 3k on the front and 2k on the back side. You have a KC-10 with 90K to give but cycling everyone through would take about 30-40 minutes. We would launch 2 A-6E maxi tankers with 26k each 5 min before the strike. Buster to the tanker and make sure we could get gas. Now, when the strikers show up, there are 3 hoses available vice one. They drain the A-6's down to 3k or so each and while the strikes go hit the target, the A-6 tankers top up off the KC-10. Then we just do it again on the back side and go home.

Why don't we do this with S-3's? Because the AF tanker is at 25k' at 250-270 KIAS. An S-3 can't get up there at that speed and there is no way a C-2 could.

With the Rhino tanker, we can bring back hose multipliers.

Good point, the Viking has done the hose multiplier mission to a limited extent, but the Rhino will be better at this. Is this going to be the core of the tanking mission though? I don't think it will, I think it will just be a bennie. The main tanking mission (and the one that will get CAG's attention fastest) will remain being the recovery tanker, and solid hawking with that extra gas that you didn't tell anyone about so you can squirt it to the desperate Hornet before they have to take a swim because they went below ladder is what the ability of a tanker will be judged by. Just my opinion though.

 

[A4sForever]

What you young guys don't know of is a little trick called hose multiplying ... With the Rhino tanker, we can bring back hose multipliers.

Good illustration of the realities of mission tanking, Meat. Let's hope the "Rhino tanker" can do the job. If I was still active in Naval Aviation, the Hornet is the bird I would want to fly. Heck, let's hope the F/A-18 XYZ model can do it "all" -- if it happens it will be a first in Naval Aviation. And let's hope the Hornet AirWing stands up well against a future enemy who knows what he is doing in the aerial arena.

As I see this circular tanking discussion:
The KA-6D's are gone ...
The S-3's limited except around the ship -- a mission tanker she ain't ... and they're going ...
The C-2 (?) is not and never will be a "tanker" ...
The Super Hornet "tanker" is a compromise as there are no more airframe dedicated AirWing tankers ... you can polish a Rhino tanker only so much, and she's still a ... compromise??

What else is there .... ??

TANKER POSIT !!