4 ms·

I believe this to be an absolute game changer (is used as I think it can be). Currently we have several forward air bases and stations in the Middle East. I thi

I believe this to be an absolute game changer (is used as I think it can be). Currently we have several forward air bases and stations in the Middle East. I think some of that may be so that we can have aerial tankers there (KC-135s, KC-10s). Because we want to refuel things in mid-air, we need need tankers over there. Because we need tankers over there, we need air bases. Because we need air bases in certain countries, we must maintain reasonable diplomatic relations with said countries -- even when our humanitarian or other policies are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I think that by having carrier based tankers we could de-couple from some of these countries with some of these bases. I think can can, potentially, lead to a very different strategic approach.

chrchr 7y ago
The F/A-18 Super Hornet already fulfills the carrier-based refueling role with an external Aerial Refueling System. https://web.archive.org/web/20111104063941/http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1999/news_release_990414o.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20111104063941/http://www.boeing...
- mrpippy 7y ago
  That's true, but a Super Hornet is an incredibly expensive platform to use as an aerial tanker. Quote from https://www.historyonthenet.com/carrier-based-aerial-refueling-system-cbars https://www.historyonthenet.com/carrier-based-aerial-refueli...: The Super Hornet has filled in the tactical tanker role the Navy lost with the retirement of these older tankers. The problem with using the Super Hornet as a tanker is that on typical missions a fifth of the air wing is dedicated to the tanker role, which consumes aircraft fatigue life expectancy much more quickly than other missions. In 2016 a fleet-experienced naval flight officer said, “The Navy has painted itself into a corner with Super Hornet tankers. The mission eats up fatigue life at a ridiculous rate, and there is something really, really stupid about using your most capable strike platform as a tanker.” Because “classic” Hornets, through the FA-18D, did not carry a “buddy store” refueling pack, later-model Hornets are required. But the tanker mission badly eroded the Super Hornet’s six thousand-hour airframe life, further reducing availability, since FA-18Es typically spend 25 percent of their time tanking.
situational87 7y ago
The idea of a new system allowing the USA to move troops closer to home or somehow ratchet back the number of bases we have is pretty naive. It's possible of course, but it would be the first time that ever happened with a new tech since the 1930s.
anovikov 7y ago
Carrier based tankers will be dependent on underway replenishment for the supply of the said fuel, and they will be insanely expensive to run. You will need a whole carrier battle group with it's escort and stuff to replace about 1-2 KC-10s (depending on the mission radius [1] - and yeah, the top mission radius of this thing will be abysmal, not even 1/3 of KC-10 and at best half of KC-135). This is just to increase the range of carrier based aircraft. Avoid putting carriers too much in the harm's way. [1] https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/kc_comp.gif https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/kc_comp.gif
mandevil 7y ago
This is true for strategic strike (a bomber has the space for crew rest) and an absolute godsend for the Navy (CVW have lacked real organic tank options since the retirement of the S-3- note that CVW ASW is another mission where drones could be dramatic improvements) but I don't think that this will enable something as dramatic as a pull-out of Al Udeid. No one is going to want to be in a F-22 or F-35 for a combat flight from Diego Garcia to Mosul, and US strategic strike components are so limited that I can't see them bearing the full burden of something like OIR.
- hollerith 7y ago
  >Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) is the U.S. military's operational name for the military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
- aidenn0 7y ago
  Is ASW something the US military cares at all about anymore?
- greedo 7y ago
  You'd need a much larger drone (volume wise) to carry sonobuoys. MAD gear is out of fashion so at least you don't have to compromise the airframe with that. I can't see a drone carrying a MK48 either.
logfromblammo 7y ago
Runway-launched refueling tankers will always be superior to carrier-launched refueling planes. Diplomatic relations with questionable regimes for the purpose of securing runways and supply lines for aerial refueling tankers will almost always be cheaper--in terms of both cash and international reputation--than building carriers (including the carrier-group support craft), training Navy crews, and deploying the carrier fleets to the desired operating theaters. A carrier-launched refueling drone is not a cure-all. It fills a specific mission niche better than the existing alternatives.
exabrial 7y ago
We keep nukes there too (for better or worse)
alexhutcheson 7y ago
Carrier-based tanker aircraft aren't a new concept - the US Navy had dedicated tanker aircraft starting in 1967 with the KA-3B[1], and later the KA-6D[2], and finally the S-3[3] (initially an ASW aircraft, but used mostly for the tanker mission by the end of its service life). The lack of a dedicated carrier-based tanker aircraft is an unusual anomaly that's being worked around at great cost by pressing FA/18E/F aircraft into service as part-time tankers. At its core, this will fix a regression in capability vs. unlocking significant new capability. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-3_Skywarrior#Variants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-3_Skywarrior#Variant... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_A-6_Intruder#KA-6D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_A-6_Intruder#KA-6D [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_S-3_Viking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_S-3_Viking
- greedo 7y ago
  Marines had the KA-6D as well.

chrchr 7y ago

The F/A-18 Super Hornet already fulfills the carrier-based refueling role with an external Aerial Refueling System. https://web.archive.org/web/20111104063941/http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1999/news_release_990414o.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20111104063941/http://www.boeing...

mrpippy 7y ago
That's true, but a Super Hornet is an incredibly expensive platform to use as an aerial tanker. Quote from https://www.historyonthenet.com/carrier-based-aerial-refueling-system-cbars https://www.historyonthenet.com/carrier-based-aerial-refueli...: The Super Hornet has filled in the tactical tanker role the Navy lost with the retirement of these older tankers. The problem with using the Super Hornet as a tanker is that on typical missions a fifth of the air wing is dedicated to the tanker role, which consumes aircraft fatigue life expectancy much more quickly than other missions. In 2016 a fleet-experienced naval flight officer said, “The Navy has painted itself into a corner with Super Hornet tankers. The mission eats up fatigue life at a ridiculous rate, and there is something really, really stupid about using your most capable strike platform as a tanker.” Because “classic” Hornets, through the FA-18D, did not carry a “buddy store” refueling pack, later-model Hornets are required. But the tanker mission badly eroded the Super Hornet’s six thousand-hour airframe life, further reducing availability, since FA-18Es typically spend 25 percent of their time tanking.

situational87 7y ago

The idea of a new system allowing the USA to move troops closer to home or somehow ratchet back the number of bases we have is pretty naive. It's possible of course, but it would be the first time that ever happened with a new tech since the 1930s.

anovikov 7y ago

Carrier based tankers will be dependent on underway replenishment for the supply of the said fuel, and they will be insanely expensive to run. You will need a whole carrier battle group with it's escort and stuff to replace about 1-2 KC-10s (depending on the mission radius [1] - and yeah, the top mission radius of this thing will be abysmal, not even 1/3 of KC-10 and at best half of KC-135). This is just to increase the range of carrier based aircraft. Avoid putting carriers too much in the harm's way. [1] https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/kc_comp.gif https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/kc_comp.gif

mandevil 7y ago

This is true for strategic strike (a bomber has the space for crew rest) and an absolute godsend for the Navy (CVW have lacked real organic tank options since the retirement of the S-3- note that CVW ASW is another mission where drones could be dramatic improvements) but I don't think that this will enable something as dramatic as a pull-out of Al Udeid. No one is going to want to be in a F-22 or F-35 for a combat flight from Diego Garcia to Mosul, and US strategic strike components are so limited that I can't see them bearing the full burden of something like OIR.

hollerith 7y ago
>Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) is the U.S. military's operational name for the military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
aidenn0 7y ago
Is ASW something the US military cares at all about anymore?
greedo 7y ago
You'd need a much larger drone (volume wise) to carry sonobuoys. MAD gear is out of fashion so at least you don't have to compromise the airframe with that. I can't see a drone carrying a MK48 either.

logfromblammo 7y ago

Runway-launched refueling tankers will always be superior to carrier-launched refueling planes. Diplomatic relations with questionable regimes for the purpose of securing runways and supply lines for aerial refueling tankers will almost always be cheaper--in terms of both cash and international reputation--than building carriers (including the carrier-group support craft), training Navy crews, and deploying the carrier fleets to the desired operating theaters. A carrier-launched refueling drone is not a cure-all. It fills a specific mission niche better than the existing alternatives.

exabrial 7y ago

We keep nukes there too (for better or worse)

alexhutcheson 7y ago

Carrier-based tanker aircraft aren't a new concept - the US Navy had dedicated tanker aircraft starting in 1967 with the KA-3B[1], and later the KA-6D[2], and finally the S-3[3] (initially an ASW aircraft, but used mostly for the tanker mission by the end of its service life). The lack of a dedicated carrier-based tanker aircraft is an unusual anomaly that's being worked around at great cost by pressing FA/18E/F aircraft into service as part-time tankers. At its core, this will fix a regression in capability vs. unlocking significant new capability. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-3_Skywarrior#Variants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-3_Skywarrior#Variant... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_A-6_Intruder#KA-6D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_A-6_Intruder#KA-6D [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_S-3_Viking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_S-3_Viking

greedo 7y ago
Marines had the KA-6D as well.