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

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.