A3 Skywarrior

>>31100758
A range figure equates to how far it could fly one-way without engaging in combat; an F-35 has an [unofficial] range of about 1800nmi.

You do know fighters carry missiles, right?

JASSM, JSOW, SLAM, etc.

>>31100758
Oooh. Is it that time of day now? Why do you keep spamming these anti-carriers threads, battleshipfag? Is this a cry of help? Are your grandkids neglecting you?

>>31100758
The EKA-3 is my planefu. She does everything you need her to- Electronic warfare, refueling, even bombing things!

File: Capture.png (237KB, 391x264px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 391x264px

My grandpappy designed the engine pillons for that plane.

File: X47B tarmac.jpg (317KB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 3000x2000px

This will take care of that range issue. MQ-25.

Your whole argument is based off the assumption that there is no areal refueling.

>>31101453
are you retarded or something?

>>31102433
Cool! Tell him thanks for me

>>31102613
I love this thing

t. Chinese jamming expert

>>31101453
No, this is the vanishingly rare dedicated carrier attack aircraftfag.

>>31102663
Are you new here? Never heard of BB-fag?

>>31101117
I doubt that figure. No way f35 has that kind of range

Navy doesn't have a dedicated tanker plane for carriers. They are going to have F/A-18s and F-35s serve as tankers.

>>31103589
OP only said that we need a dedicated long range naval bomber. He said we're not using carriers right, didn't even mention BBs. You people are paranoid.

>>31103640
Which is really dumb to use fighters for that. They have some program to make an unmanned drone tanker, but now they also want to make it stealth, ISR, self masturbating, etc etc so it will probably never happen or become another never-ending f35 goldplated development clusterfuck

File: 21stv22tanker[1].jpg (55KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 800x500px

>>31103671
There is the Osprey Tanker, but the payload sucks.


The proper solution is a dedicated aircraft that can be configured for AWACS, tanker, cargo/passenger.

http://planesandchoppers.com.s3.amazonaws.com/1495.jpg

>>31103722
Why don't we use Hawkeyes for tanking?

>>31102433
He did a bad job and you should feel bad for him.

>>31102433
Neato

>>31103746
Hawkeyes are purpose built with those radars, you can't take them off without damaging the plane structurally. Radar is too heavy to carry extra fuel too. The Hawkeye platform can only be used for AWACS, period.

File: csa-jhu.gif (49KB, 486x365px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 486x365px

>>31100758

Anything resembling Skywarrior would be useless as bomber against enemies that have something resembling air defense.

>>31103746

Too small fuselage carry a lot of fuel. There is C-2 Greyhound, that is Hawkeye with wider fuselage for cargo, but production of those ended in 1990 and those too will need replacement pretty soon.

>>31103722
>The proper solution is a dedicated aircraft that can be configured for AWACS, tanker, cargo/passenger.

There was a program to develop replacement for S-3 Viking, ES-3 Shadow, E-2 Hawkeye, C-2 Greyhound and EA-6 Prowler in 90's called Common Support Aircraft, but it was axed after first phase in 1997 or 1998 IIRC. It was meant to enter service about now as pretty much everything it was meant to replace would start to fall appart. Hawkeyes were replaced with newer Hawkeyes. Greyhouds are still around. EA-6 got replaced with EA-18G. Viking and Shadow were retired without direct replacement.

>>31103630
All the following quotes are for the F-35A variant; the F-35C has a slightly longer range:
>For the quick two hour, ten minute jaunt from Florida to AirVenture, each fighter jet burned about 5,000 pounds of fuel at 270 knots.
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/August/06/F35-Lightning-public-debut-shows-the-right-stuff

Eglin AFB (Florida) to AirVenture is about 800NM. Also, one of the figures is wrong, as they the time, distance and speed don't meet up. I believe that it's the 270 knots. Why? Because, 270 knots is fairly slow for a jet aircraft and on top of that, if you use 370 knots, the distance (800NM) closely matches the time (2.167 * 370 = 801.67NM). Naturally the speed (assuming they were flying 370kts) and the 5000lb fuel burn figures are going to be rounded (down) as well. The jets may have also carried less fuel than usual, making them lighter. Either way, The F-35A carries 18500lb of fuel.

>Although the jet has enough fuel to fly from the Azores to Canada without refueling, it was refueled in flight three times for safety and security.
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Lessons-Learned-at-Pax-River.pdf

It doesn't really specify where in Canada, but the closest Canadian place to the Azores that I could quickly find with Google is St. John's, NL. Google gives this distance as 2447 km, or 1521 miles, or 1322 nm. Obviously this is a minimum, so the plane's actual range is somewhere above this.

>http://i.imgur.com/V58Fmdy.png

In this diagram it states that the F-35A (1 gallon of JP-8 = 6.7lb) burns about 4000lb of fuel per hour, cruising at Mach 0.75 and 40,000ft (which according to Wolfram Alpha is about 430 knots TAS). 18500lb / 4000lb/hr = 4.625 hours. Fuel will need to be burnt to get to that cruise altitude and airspeed, although at the same time, the aircraft can operate at an even lower thrust level or even idle when descending and slowing for a landing. Just for a rough indication; 4hrs * 430kts = 1720NM.

>>31106661
I can't math or bullshit. What is the practical operating radius of the f35 from a carrier, in a combat scenario, in the South China Sea? Will it be able to blow up A2/AD installations before they can shoot at the carrier or no?

>>31106795

You wont need use a CBG for attacking land based A2/AD systems stuck on islands. You can use data from satellites to guide any long range munitions you want such as cruise missile from subs.

File: 1_kN0rG9ANHRYA_RxgaQ2S-g[1].jpg (107KB, 1200x504px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1200x504px

i wonder if a C-27J is too big for a carrier.

We can make it not as tall by giving it two vertical stabilizers on the ends of the tailplane.

wingspan is 14 feet greater than a C2 Greyhound, but folding wings can be added.

plane is already designed to use small runways. So it should take well to catapults and arrester cables.

landing gear will need to be beefed up.

though it is about 20 feet longer than a c2 greyhound.

it has more than twice the Greyhound's cargo capacity.while only being 7000 pounds max takeoff weight heavier.

has a significantly better range when not at max paylod, but still better payload than a greyhound.

>>31106795
The unrefuelled combat radius of an F-35C for a strike mission is 630nmi - that includes afterburner use for a quick ingress / egress, and a dogfight. For air-to-air missions its over 760nmi. Naturally if you get a Super Hornet, MQ-25, KC-10 or MV-22 to aerial refuel it, it can fly further than that.

Also remember that combat radius =/= range. The A-3 Skywarrior's combat radius would be less than 900nmi.

>>31106661

no US military aircraft will take off except in dire (as in, a lava flow's about to overrun the airfield) emergencies without a full fuel load.

>>31107268
Typical procedure is to take off with a full load of munitions by sacrificing fuel, and then topping off the tanks mid air.

File: carrier_01.jpg (47KB, 550x464px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 550x464px

>>31107085
>i wonder if a C-27J is too big for a carrier.

It wouldn't fit hangar due to height of empennage and it would need folding wings.

But it certainly could fly to and take off from carrier, even without catapult or arrestor hook.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM5AI3YSV3M

>>31108296

oh yeah. no USAF aircraft, then, since we're not limited as much by takeoff speed due to the steam cat.

>>31106661
I know this is probably a real late reply, but my guess as a student/private pilot is that the 270 is referring to air speed, not ground speed

>>31108613
That'd make sense, though it'd mean an average altitude of ~18,000ft (ie so maybe a cruise altitude of ~20,000ft), that seems a little low to get a good range efficiency.

>>31100758
Sad to see such a great plane used for such a shitty thread.

The A3 deserves much better than this.

>>31109220
You're a shit. Make your own Skywarrior post faggot.

>>31108504
beauty. And people laugh at me for my favorite plane being an "antiquated" medium lift cargo plane.

>>31109668
>beauty. And people laugh at me for my favorite plane being an "antiquated" medium lift cargo plane.

The fact that it's still in production is a good indication how good design it is.

>>31107053
>such as cruise missile from subs.
>what is CIWS

>>31111325
>what is CIWS

Pretty rare thing on coastal missile batteries.

>>31108504
This is proof that I am a chubby chaser.

This is fucking hot.