Currently the US Navy relies heavily on land based tanker aircraft for aerial refueling (Pic related, KC-130). The only carrier borne options are F-18s with external tanks/refueling pod, and the unmanned low observable MQ-25 (expected to be in service ~2027).Both of these aircraft only offer the capability of fully refueling 1-2 F-35Cs. Realistically that would be about 4 aircraft since they’re not going to be filled from empty. Land based systems can easily fill 6 times that amount, but require time to get on station. A carrier will also need to radio in where and when the tanker needs to be present (even if the signal is encrypted, broadcasting could still clue the enemy in to the carrier’s presence)Why does the navy not operate a larger carrier-capable refueling aircraft? The navy has plenty of experience working with large and heavy airframes: C-2, E-2, A-3, and A-5, some of these still see regular use from carriers. Is the low observability of the MQ-25 worth the extra sortie rate? Would air ops benefit from a C-2 greyhound sized tanker to refuel aircraft after launch? In less permissive environments, the MQ-25 could receive fuel from a less stealthy larger tanker and ferry it to the combat zone. This aircraft could also easily totally refuel the early warning and cargo aircraft used by the fleet: something the MQ-25 could not do. What extra capabilities would be provided by this tanker that other systems are unable to provide? What would the money spent on developing a new airframe for this task (or converting current airframes such as the C-2) be better spent on?In an environment where superior range is a major factor in deciding the victor, it seems this would be a capability the navy should already have, or atleast be developing.
You'd think they would just build fatter more fuel efficient fighters and skip the whole refueling clown show
>carrier will also need to radio in where and when the tanker needs to be present (even if the signal is encrypted, broadcasting could still clue the enemy in to the carrier’s presence)Its not the 1940s anymore
>>64548089A heavier fighter requires larger engines which burn more fuel. Not to mention larger engine lanes mean the carrier will fit less of them.>>64548107Enlighten us anon. Has SIGINT/ELINT technology stagnated so much? Or have sensors advanced so much that any peer level threat will always know a carrier group’s location within 100 miles?
>>64547986The USN has carriers, meaning it can launch the planes as close as possible to the target. Otherwise, the US has many airbases around the world for the Navy jets to divert to. Worst case, they can emergency land at any friendly civvie airport. If the target is so far inland, then it is the USAF's job, not the Navy. Having aerial refueling is a nice bonus and the USN can rely on NATO tanker fleets to refuel as well.
>>64548124Encrypted carrier <-> satellite <-> tanker tight beam
>>64547986
>>64547986Navy doesn't want to dedicate limited hangar space to a big fucking plane when you can just have a MQ-25 make multiple landing and takeoffs if you need to fill up more then a flight. The only reason they're even bother with the MQ-25 is that it's going to save flight time on F-18 airframes that no longer have to buddy tank, and will serve as the basis for the USN to start working out how they're going to handle the loyal wingmen UAVs that are going to be a crucial element to 6th gen fighters.
>>64547986Sail the carrier closer, dummy.
>>6455016820-30% of all f/a-18 flights are buddy refueling.
>>64547986So what you're saying is that the Navy needs to add refueling planes based on seaplanes?
>>64547986We had the Intruder and Viking. We threw both away as part of the Peace Dividend.
>>64547986>Land based systems can easily fill 6 times that amount, but require time to get on station.So? They'll just leave earlier and be there when they're needed.
>>64552665Puts a lot of strain on logistics, requires more strain on pilots and ground crew, as well as the airframes and engines themselves running for longer.There are plenty of reasons to want better/more naval aerial refuelling capabilities.
Why doesn't the US make an amphibious refuelling tanker like the japanese flying boat (but bigger, and american). Seems like having the ability to loiter at sea by just sitting on the water would be a nice feature for extended range refuelling.
>>64552713Because they've lost the knowhow which is why their best effort was the abomination of pic rel. The US killed its amphib industry when they canceled the Northrup Grumman/Shinmaywa ASR-544-4 where they could have gotten tons of Japanese knowhow, so now they are stuck with buying the US-2 or jumping in on the US-X/US-3 project that almost has no public info atm.
>>64552694>using your equipment puts more strain on crewsOkay? That's what they're paid for. How is a tanker taking off from a base where they wouldn't be doing anything otherwise harder on ground crews than having to launch a tanker from the same carrier that's also launching the fighters?
>>64552783Because you're assuming they're sitting there with nothing else to do, which is probably not true.You're also assuming the USAF wants to replace their tanker fleet more regularly.
>>64552829If it's a mission that involves sending more than 4 F-35s far enough that they need in flight refueling, it's a mission worth collaborating with the USAF for a tanker. Wearing out equipment doesn't matter if that's what it takes to complete the mission, failing to complete it is far more costly.
>>64552829>which is going to require me to spend more money on maintaining my airfleet>a normal take off + some gentle cruising>CATOBAR launch and recovery
>>64552917Yeah except its not coming out of my budget.
>>64552713I think the issue is that while it sounds like a great capability on paper, I'm not sure if there really is much of a use-case for it. Anything in the Pacific is probably going to be surrounded by US airbases, so I dont see having a tanker bobbing around in the South China Sea being much value
>>64552923Suck it up then, Chairforce. You couldn't stop robbing the sat and missile program to buy fighters so Congress had to cockslap you by making the Space Force a different line item while the USN somehow manages to balance air, fleet, and subs well enough.
>>64552927It has a few niche uses for long-range SAR, as well as potential to ferry specialized personnel (technicians, medical personnel, officers, etc) to austere locations in the Pacific that don't have an airbase nearby. It could also be used to ferry personnel/parts/supplies to submarines at-sea.The US-2 can operate in Sea State 4 to 5, helicopters can only safely transfer personnel to a surfaced submarine in at most Sea State 3. It could also be used to exfiltrate SOF that were previously deployed from a submarine. Instead of trying to meet back up with a sub and slowly getting away from the area over hours/days you can just go meet up with a US-2 sitting out on the water and fly away in under an hour. Personally I think the extended SAR range alone makes it a worthwhile capability for the US to try and acquire, let alone other more niche uses like tanker, SOF uses, etc.
>>64552923Start making cool shit then fly boy
