• 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

CVN Gary Hart

Flash said:
AEW is not its primary mission, that means it probably has a fraction of the capability of an E-2. I would not bet a carrier and its air wing on getting coverage from a platform like that.......:o
Click to expand...

The answer to the question was not what AEW there is close to the carrier, we all know that is E-2 (nobody said the helo would protect the carrier). The question was what AEW is available AWAY from the carrier. One of the answers was an AEGIS cruiser, and they may have a LAMPS III bird embarked. MB's response was directed at the LAMPS ASST capability, which IS one of the primary missions of LAMPS.
 
The Brits were looking at this for the MASC program:
v22aew.jpg
 
HH-60H said:
The tankers on carriers do not compare to the strategic refueling assets of the AF.
Click to expand...

Curious as to why the Navy hasn't developed a dedicated tanking platform for use on carriers. I'm no aeronautical engineer, nor do I know the specs of a C-2, but couldn't that sort of platform be modified into a tanker?

It seems a prop-driven cargo platform/dedicated tanker would be a lot more cost effective and carry more fuel than a 5-wet Rhino. especially since service life for the Rhino is being affected by the unanticipated, and highly used, tanking mission. And it could potentially make us truly independent of the Air Force.

Or are the limits more an exponent of catapult launch-weight ability? This has to have been thought of before, and thus shot down in the halls of the Pentagon, but then again it wouldnt surprise me if the needs of the moment trumped a long term developmental plan...
 
ben4prez said:
Curious as to why the Navy hasn't developed a dedicated tanking platform for use on carriers. I'm no aeronautical engineer, nor do I know the specs of a C-2, but couldn't that sort of platform be modified into a tanker?

It seems a prop-driven cargo platform/dedicated tanker would be a lot more cost effective and carry more fuel than a 5-wet Rhino. especially since service life for the Rhino is being affected by the unanticipated, and highly used, tanking mission. And it could potentially make us truly independent of the Air Force.

Or are the limits more an exponent of catapult launch-weight ability? This has to have been thought of before, and thus shot down in the halls of the Pentagon, but then again it wouldnt surprise me if the needs of the moment trumped a long term developmental plan...
Click to expand...

It was part of the defunct CSA program (Common Support Aircraft). Which would have replaced the S-3, ES-3, E-2, and to a limited extent the KA-6.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/csa.htm

Talking to an E-2 bubba a while back he would have given his eye teeth and left testicle for what the CSA would have done for his platform.
 
Rhinoboy, shut yo mouth!

I did not go through 2 MORE years of flight school to trade Starboard D for a Tanker Orbit.

I will deal with the radar orbit if I have to.. Part of the deal
 
How do you solve the AEW issue on amphibs?

nrosplash.jpg


not to cut in to the WASP possiblities with LAMPS, but today's overhead is not your father's overhead...
 
The article definitely has a pro AF slant. I don't see anywhere in his article where it talks about B2 bombers (very cool machines) costing $2B a piece, but made a point to talk about costly ship building. Redonkulous.

Everyone has their own little rice bowl to protect; no matter how "joint" the services want/have to be become. The AF thinks air power wins wars. The Navy thinks command of the seas wins wars. Everyone wants the coin. He with the most influence in DC wins.
 
Just fixed this for you... now back to the regularly scheduled programing...

MasterBates said:
Rhinoboy, shut yo mouth!

I did not go through 2 MORE years of flight school to trade Starboard D for a Tanker Orbit.

I will deal with the radar orbit WHEN I have to.. Part of the deal
Click to expand...
 
Hozer said:
How do you solve the AEW issue on amphibs?

nrosplash.jpg


not to cut in to the WASP possiblities with LAMPS, but today's overhead is not your father's overhead...
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the laws of physics (to say nothing of budgets...) dictate that we'll get sharks with freakin' lasers long before we ever get AEW from space.

Space can enable a lot of missions; this isn't one of them. Deeper conversations on the subject can be held in other forums.
 
FlyinSpy said:
Unfortunately, the laws of physics (to say nothing of budgets...) dictate that we'll get sharks with freakin' lasers long before we ever get AEW from space.

Space can enable a lot of missions; this isn't one of them. Deeper conversations on the subject can be held in other forums.
Click to expand...

Agreed, space is not the pancea to all things that the guys with the little Buzz Lightyear wings (USAF space rangers) would have you believe. Overhead is not the answer........:o
 
HeloBubba said:
The answer to the question was not what AEW there is close to the carrier, we all know that is E-2 (nobody said the helo would protect the carrier). The question was what AEW is available AWAY from the carrier. One of the answers was an AEGIS cruiser, and they may have a LAMPS III bird embarked. MB's response was directed at the LAMPS ASST capability, which IS one of the primary missions of LAMPS.
Click to expand...

I understand that airborne radar duties is one of the missions of the Navy SH-60 fleet but I was responding specifically to Phrogpilot's and Master's apparent assertions that helos and Aegis could do the job of the E-2 for an ESG, which is what I got from their posts.

I am worried about the fast low-fliers (manned and unmanned) that the Royal Navy Lynx, Type 22 and 42 destroyers and frigates in the Falklands that could not pick up the Super Entendards and their Exocets inbound to the battlegroup. not to mention all of those A-4's and Daggers that were first seen by the Mk 1 Eyeball in San Carlos Sound. If we go with the 'jump-jet/Gary Hart/Carter carrier' option then we might have to end up relying on rotary AEW to catch those low fliers. Not a good idea........:(
 
ben4prez said:
Curious as to why the Navy hasn't developed a dedicated tanking platform for use on carriers. I'm no aeronautical engineer, nor do I know the specs of a C-2, but couldn't that sort of platform be modified into a tanker?

It seems a prop-driven cargo platform/dedicated tanker would be a lot more cost effective and carry more fuel than a 5-wet Rhino. especially since service life for the Rhino is being affected by the unanticipated, and highly used, tanking mission. And it could potentially make us truly independent of the Air Force.

Or are the limits more an exponent of catapult launch-weight ability? This has to have been thought of before, and thus shot down in the halls of the Pentagon, but then again it wouldnt surprise me if the needs of the moment trumped a long term developmental plan...
Click to expand...

I have been the Tanker before and I'm the dump truck driver now so I'll try and answer this...

1. Hornet guys fly fairly fast, COD flies fairly slow.
2. Hornet guys fly up high, COD guys stay in the lower middle.
3. In the Viking, we tanked @ 250 and that was a bit slower than the Hornets prefered. The COD would not be able to tank @ 250.
4.You are also not permitted to even fly form in the COD with any pax on board much less tank. That means you have to at least double the COD fleet to meet the new mission area. (COD's number in the 30's, not the hundreds)
5. The CVN would also demand that it's tanker be organic to the airwing which means the COD would have to remain on the CVN (even the idea of the COD staying onboard gives all handlers the sweats).

All that being said, it is a capability that is being programmed into the discussion for the C-2 replacement. We'll see if it happens!
 
Flash said:
I understand that airborne radar duties is one of the missions of the Navy SH-60 fleet but I was responding specifically to Phrogpilot's and Master's apparent assertions that helos and Aegis could do the job of the E-2 for an ESG, which is what I got from their posts.
Click to expand...

We are in agreement as that's what I got from them too.

Flash said:
I am worried about the fast low-fliers (manned and unmanned) that the Royal Navy Lynx, Type 22 and 42 destroyers and frigates in the Falklands that could not pick up the Super Entendards and their Exocets inbound to the battlegroup. not to mention all of those A-4's and Daggers that were first seen by the Mk 1 Eyeball in San Carlos Sound. If we go with the 'jump-jet/Gary Hart/Carter carrier' option then we might have to end up relying on rotary AEW to catch those low fliers. Not a good idea........:(
Click to expand...

What kind of ship defense did the Brits have during the Falklands? Anything like our CIWS or BPDMS (or whatever the follow-on to that system is)? You know, to knock those suckers out of the sky...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top