Reminder that the A-6 should never have been retired. >Extreme

File: 1466444608430.webm (1009KB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

1009KB, 854x480px

>>31846673

>Defending an aircraft that will literally eat you the first chance it gets.

>>31847639
did he died?

>>31846673
As an attack aircraft it was obsolete.

I agree though that the Navy does require a dedicated tanker, and not just Super Hornets jerking eachother off. Luckily they're making a tanker kit for the V-22.

>>31847639
>whoops lol

>>31847662
Nah, broke his arm. Helmet broke the fan blades.

>>31847662

No, I'm just pulling your leg. His helmet saved him. That's what all the sparks are from. His helmet got pulled off his head and it when in first. The helmet destroyed the engine on its way through, saving the man's life. He still had injuries when he was finally pulled out but at least he wasn't chewed up.

>>31846673

What advantage would the Intruder have over the Hornet in terms of overcoming A2/AD systems? That's the biggest challenge for naval aviation right now.

>>31847761
>in terms of overcoming A2/AD systems?
I think that's why they retired it in favor of the F-35.

>>31847809

The advantage that I see is range. The Intruder can be deployed from further away, which means that the carrier group can stay further away from potential missile threats. However, the lack of stealth is still an issue if the target if protected by surface-to-air missiles.

>>31847761
An A-6 (without factoring in the increased range if they built the F) could carry 4 JASSMs out to 850 nautical miles, and 6 JSMs out to 1000.

>>31847809
The A-6 was retired in favor of NOTHING. Its replaced, the A-12, was CANCELLED. US Carriers went from 5 shooter squadrons (x2 F-14s, x2 F/A-18s, x1 A-6) to 4. The loss in capability was offset by the improvements to the F-14's A2G capability/replacement by Super Hornets, but the end result was still a major decrease in the combat aircraft of each carrier wing.

>>31847639
I am so fucking sick of that myth. There are no bad A-6s, only bad A-6 owners. He probably wasn't feeding the poor thing! I bet he keeps it chained up topside all day, not even able to move.

File: 1394668680112.jpg (604KB, 2556x1917px) Image search: [Google]

604KB, 2556x1917px

>>31847675
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-25_Stingray

>>31848283
That's also promising, but we won't be seeing that for awhile. The V-22 tanking kit is supposed to be rolling out in 2018, and it'll give tanking capability to the Wasps and Americas as well with their F-35Bs.

>>31847961
Carrier air wings are currently at 5 shooter squadrons, 4 Super Hornet and 1 Growler.

>>31846673
Reminder that the A-6 is fodder for a modern A2/AD.

>>31846673
It was retired without a direct replacement, but the F-35C will do its job pretty well.

>>31847675
Greyhound tanker.

C2 Greyhounds are being retired for Ospreys. The related E2 Hawkeye isn'the strong enough to be a tanker.

The c2 could carry 20,000 pounds of fuel for hundreds of miles.

But the Navy is retarded. So they will use under performing buddy tanker f18 or underperformed v22 tanker. While they figure out how to make a Drone not crash while refueling.

>>31848456
Osprey's have a larger payload than Greyhounds.

>>31846673

The demands of what an attack aircraft must be able to overcome are so much higher now than they used to be. Back in the cold war, you could avoid most missiles just by flying in low enough that you wouldn't show up on radar. That doesn't work so well anymore. As long as you stayed at low-altitude, you only had to worry about visual identification.

>>31848508
Not if you are STOL from a carrier and need to travel far.

Greyhound also edges it out in range, stall speed, and max speed.

Plus the fueler idea for the osprey is to throw a hose out the rear cargo door. While a small fuel tank and pump is on a pallet. Manned by crew chiefs standing in the cargo bay.

The greyhounds could be refitted into dedicated tankers. Multiple drouges.

>>31848620
>stall speed
You shittin me right now?

>>31848620
>max speed
Their cruise speeds are 10 knots apart

>stall speed
come the fuck on, anon. that only matters on landing and takeoff, and, fucking news flash, the Osprey is VTOL if necessary

>range
Osprey with aux tanks way outranges the C-2.

>Not if you are STOL from a carrier and need to travel far.
Are we just going to ignore that the Osprey can use literally any deck it needs to in the fleet? The C-2 could land in ONE place. The Osprey can lillypad on ANYTHING in the fleet. At that point, range matters a whole lot less.

>The greyhounds could be refitted into dedicated tankers. Multiple drouges.
Yet they haven't been. Why do you think that is? Are you at all familiar with these systems?

Fact of the matter is if you want a dedicated fixed wing tanker now that the Osprey can do the COD and fleet UNREP distribution in one package, there's no reason to keep the C-2 around. If you're just going to use it for a tanker, it makes way more sense to bring S-3 Vikings back or run a new production set off; they were far better tankers if for no other reason than cruise speed. Of course, this is all assuming they're not going to use the drone for tanking, which they're already planning to do.

>>31848820
They still make new E2s. So older C2s can get parts.

The osprey tanker kit is only 6000 pounds of additional fuel.

>>31848845
>The osprey tanker kit is only 6000 pounds of additional fuel.

As far as i'm aware IOC will be 4000 pounds, with a capability of carrying 10000 by 2019.

>>31848820
A f18 carries 14000 pounds of fuel.

A v22 tanker has 17000 pounds total to burn and give.

400 miles combat range if it just gives the 6000 pounds of extra fuel.

So two f18s get about a quarter tank each.

>>31848845
No. The kits are 12,000lbs, and the Osprey can literally land on a Burke or LCS, much less a Gator Navy ship, refill tanks and get back up with little tanking schedule disruption while have exactly zero effect on ongoing carrier ops. They can cycle osprey tankers from Burkes or Ticos within the CSG completely independently of the flat top after initial launch, which means the ready tanker deck slot goes away, the trap/shoot hold up for tankers goes away, and the tankers themselves can be staged way, way out there if need be on detached SAG units more or less indefinitely in flight cycle terms. That's massive, massive flexibility in exchange for even more fuel stores than buddy tanks on an F-18.

Did you really think a Greyhound was going to be carrying that much more fuel when total payload is better on an Osprey?

>>31848315

https://news.usni.org/2014/04/21/stealth-vs-electronic-attack
>Navy officials had said that while the service might consider using the Growler as a battle manager, it is extremely unlikely the service would ever consider using the EA-18G in a direct strike role or the air superiority role where the jet would be the primary shooter.

>>31848895
>A v22 tanker has 17000 pounds total to burn and give.
No. With wing feed tanks *2, wing tanks*8, bow sponson tank *2 and aft right sponson tank *1, that's 13,850 pounds of fuel (standard MV-22 config). Add the ro-ro tanker kit, and you get 25,850 pounds of fuel total to burn and give.

>So two f18s get about a quarter tank each.
Which completely covers strike package post-launch and climb out top off, or wave-off insurance. These are, by a huge margin, the most common tanking missions for carrier ops. Extended range strike packages can also be serviced by detached lilly pads for the Ospreys if necessary as well.

FACT: Tanker aircraft should be launched by support vessels, not the carrier.

Osprey is shit though and whats needed is an unmanned tailsitter

File: Picture-A11.png (310KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1024x768px

>>31846673

It had to be retired. Friends was filming.

Also, it doesn't matter if you're qualified for the B, your B/N is.

>>31847639
Some dumb enlistedfag not minding his surroundings is not the airframe's fault.

>>31850283
Why? Then you're limited to only as much fuel as you can lift vertically alongside your airframe, which isn't going to be much. Leave the support ships to refuel the carrier's aviation fuel cells.

File: 8696c67f93cb9e17998b32bff797f64f.jpg (65KB, 736x430px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 736x430px

>>31846673
>A6
cute

Now move over for the real daddy of Naval bombers, the buccaneer.

File: PIC-0256.jpg (143KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1280x960px

>>31848456

I worked on CODs while I was in the Navy many years ago, and I remember them only holding about 6,000lbs in each tank, plus the few drums in the cargo bay as an auxiliary.

Cargo capacity was ~10,000lbs though, so I want to believe it could be done. We must keep the CODs alive!

COD is love. COD is life.

>>31846673
Why do you need it if F-16 exists?

File: A12 Avenger II art 2011.png (1000KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

1000KB, 1024x768px

>>31846673
Reminder that the A-12 should have replaced the A-6 in the late 1990's, but Dick fucking Cheney cancelled it.

File: A12 Avenger II Concept.jpg (813KB, 2400x3000px) Image search: [Google]

813KB, 2400x3000px

>>31851111
The F-16 is a lightweight conventional fighter, not a carrier-borne light bomber.

>>31851137
>carrier-borne
Touche.

Though F-16 has probably larger bomb load.

>>31851158

Than the A-6? You serious nigga?

>>31846673
>Extreme range
With what payload?
>and payload
To what range?
These questions make all legacy scrapmetal apologists mad.

>>31851011
Cheaper and smaller support vessel can be much closer to whatever target your planes are hitting

Choppers manage tons of vertical lift, hell they are replacing this shit with V-22's.
No reason why a tailsitter couldn't be better in every way.

>>31847639
That'll happen with any plane you get in front of the intake of.

>>31847675
Actually not. The Navy isn't pursuing that, the Marines are. The Navy isn't on board with the program at all.

>>31848315
They had EW squadrons before then. Growlers aren't a shooter squadron.

File: listerinefag.png (1MB, 1902x9492px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1902x9492px

>>31851205
>No reason why a tailsitter couldn't be better in every way.
roll on/roll off cargo and tanking modules, for a big one. Tailsitting sucks for cargo loading and unloading, and heavily complicates munitions loading.

But you knew that, because you're the autist whose shat up at least half a dozen threads with this tailsitter bullshit over the last year.

How ya doin', listerinefag?

File: A-7_2.jpg (20KB, 580x369px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 580x369px

>>31847639
you would think A-7s would be a worse culprit

>>31851235
that's because the navy has the tanker drones on the way up and they don't want to get fucked out of funding for that. when it comes down to it, I bet the USN buys tanker kits as a stopgap once the USMC has them in service.

>>31851050
you mean the bomber that carrier 50% less payload?

File: 14563147677897.jpg (253KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1920x1080px

>>31851313
>nom nom nom

>>31851298

Real Listerine here.

Quit being paranoid.

Plenty of anons think the same things I do.

>>31851467
Top fucking kek, bud.

No one else on this board is dumb or autistic enough to try and make a case for cargo/utility/tanker systems on a tailsitter.

>>31847639
>nom nom nom I'm going to eat you oni-chan
>relax its not like you're dead or anything baka

File: 1477233461363m.jpg (61KB, 1024x610px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1024x610px

>>31847856
Stealth is a meme. It doesn't matter against goatfuckers, and it doesn't work against peers.

Just like libertarianism, stealth sounds good theoretically on paper but real life will disappoint you. Pic related: it's stealth

>>31851298
we are talking about TANKING here, and theres no reason why tailsitting would be bad for unloading cargo/loading munitions, unless the US navy does it by fucking hand like we're still in the dark ages

>>31851605
>we are talking about TANKING here
The USN doesn't have deck space for dedicated tanker aircraft here. They all have to get multiple missions out of them, whether it be fighters with buddy stores, Vikings with ASW work, A-6s with strike, etc.

Any system large and significant enough to matter when it comes to tanking would be a cast iron bitch to attach/detach from a tailsitter aircraft.

Look at the actual tailsitters they're developing and playing with: they're all small payload, designed to use small munitions, and the aircraft themselves are pretty small. That's so you don't need a fucking crane, two ladders/scissor lift and a lot of prayer to get a 2,000lbs class munition loaded on a vertical pylon with a pitching deck.

Use your fucking head, anon.

>theres no reason why tailsitting would be bad for unloading cargo/loading munitions
Propose a single tailsitting cargo system which could possibly be anywhere as simple and fast as a normal ro-ro cargo airframe or normal pylon loading.

>>31851602
>Stealth is a meme. It doesn't matter against goatfuckers, and it doesn't work against peers.
How could anything which, by nature, reduces return detection threshold by mitigation and percentage instead of outright denial of return possibly "not work"?

No matter what kind of system you use, the VLO measures reduce the opposing sensor net's capability to detect it to some degree. And any system which gives a tactical aircraft a better chance of seeing first and thus setting the terms of the engagement is to be treasured.

It's not on/off. It's not yes/no. It's not fucking binary. An F-22 will ALWAYS be harder to detect with radar waves and IR than an F-22, no matter the system being used, period, end of story. The only question is how much harder.

Take thirty minutes on google, actually educate yourself on the basic physics of how VLO systems work, and see if you can do something to shake all that fucking stupid out of your head.

>>31851746
>than an F-22
than an F-15*

I need sleep.

>>31851605
>theres no reason why tailsitting would be bad for unloading cargo/loading munitions
Holy fucking shit, anon. Are you really trying to say it wouldn't be any more difficult to load and unload a cargo plane WHICH IS FUCKING VERTICAL ON THE DECK?

You are about 18 shades of complete dipshit stupid.

>>31851680
>The USN doesn't have deck space for dedicated tanker aircraft here
Then they should build the deckspace for it. This shortage of deckspace complicates their whole carrier borne UAV program because they don't want to waste finite carrier space on relatively low impact vehicles.

>Any system large and significant enough to matter when it comes to tanking would be a cast iron bitch to attach/detach from a tailsitter aircraft.
No reason why it can't be integrated into the aircraft, aka just have giant internal fuel tanks.

>That's so you don't need a fucking crane, two ladders/scissor lift and a lot of prayer to get a 2,000lbs class munition loaded on a vertical pylon with a pitching deck.

You are stuck in the mindset of "this has to be done by hand" when it should in reality be 100% automated, with dedicated rigid lifting equipment. Orientation is irrelevant in that environment.

>>31851889

I wouldn't consider a tanker to be a low-impact aircraft: "Nobody kicks ass without gas!"

>>31851889
>This shortage of deckspace complicates their whole carrier borne UAV program because they don't want to waste finite carrier space on relatively low impact vehicles.
No, it doesn't. They've got them tasked on long range interdiction, anti-ship strike, ISR and tanking, and that's just so far. They'll operate just like any other airframe on a USN CATOBAR carrier, with multiple missions and responsibility. Read more. Post less.

>aka just have giant internal fuel tanks.
So be completely useless for cargo, ISR, strike, or anything else. Why the fuck would you build such an aircraft for naval operations? That's just retarded.

>when it should in reality be 100% automated, with dedicated rigid lifting equipment.
So you've got one single loading station. Congratulations, you've just created a bottleneck through which ever single one of your tailsitting aircraft has to pass. Sorties per day on those aircraft is shit. Those aircraft are completely useless when the loading station is being serviced or repaired. Meanwhile, in the real world, people are loading and unloading munitions, cargo, recon packages, fuel bags, anything anywhere on the deck if necessary using rolling pallets and munitions carts. 10+ aircraft at a time are being serviced and loaded/unloaded. Things are working smoothly.

Can you take five fucking seconds to actually research flight deck operations before posting? Thanks.

>>31851952
>So you've got one single loading station.
Not only that, but you're taking up hangar or deck space with the loading machinery, further cutting into aircraft capacity.

>inb4 hurr durr add more loading stations
More deck space gone. Still have to manuever aircraft to the loading stations and carefully align them, instead of bringing the payloads to the aircraft, like every other even remotely logical system.

>>31851680
>The USN doesn't have deck space for dedicated tanker aircraft here.
That's bullshit, and here's why!

Tankers are a necessary part of most combat operations. They give you the ability to fight farther away and for longer. This means that tankers will almost always be used. At the moment, however, we are stuck with only buddy tanking. Buddy tanking only provides for a handful of aircraft. I've seen the figure of 1 buddy tanker drags 4 Super Hornets out to either 800 or 1000 nmi. This means that for every four aircraft launched, you need to launch a tanker. This is bad, as it shortens the amount of strength you can put on target for a given amount of time, and overall, as you're burning fuel when you're in a holding pattern waiting for everyone to launch. And then necessary maintenance on all the aircraft in question. Let's instead presume that a dedicated tanker is used. This tanker can provide that same 800 or 1000 nmi radius to only three times the amount of Hornets. For a given squadron, you'd only need to put up a single tanker. That's two less aircraft needed for that sortie. Two less aircraft needed on the deck.

And yes, the USN carriers are actually way below capacity. There is plenty of space to put them.

This is not to say I disagree with you about tailsitting for the job. That's retarded.

>>31851952
Yea, meanwhile in the real world its a fucking disasterous clusterfuck. So paying hundreds of thousands of dollars per sailor to do manual labor on the carrier is better than building a number of loading stations in places where the planes would NORMALLY be sitting getting unloaded/loaded.

Considering we're talking about deck space, a tailsitter would naturally use less deck real estate than a horizontal plane.

>So be completely useless for cargo, ISR, strike, or anything else.
Hardly, just means you don't fill the giant tanks to full when it needs to use that payload. Same as done with any other aircraft.

File: 1458601406017.webm (1MB, 426x236px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 426x236px

>>31852010
>Yea, meanwhile in the real world its a fucking disasterous clusterfuck. So paying hundreds of thousands of dollars per sailor to do manual labor on the carrier is better than building a number of loading stations in places where the planes would NORMALLY be sitting getting unloaded/loaded.
I can not deal with this level of unmitigated retardation and autism. This discussion is over. Spend five fucking minutes actually researching a topic before posting next time.

>>31852010
>hundreds of thousands of dollars per sailor
>building a number of loading stations
>a tailsitter would naturally use less deck real estate
>just means you don't fill the giant tanks to full when it needs to use that payload
Fascinating. This anon is so stupid he cannot understand systems footprint, sunk volume, maximum height considerations or even the concept of maintenance hours required per systems density, yet he's loudly and airily commenting on flight deck operations. How does one get this simultaneously dumb and loud? Explain.

>>31852065
>>31852047
My whole point was about tailsitters on a seperate support vessel, not putting tailsitters on a CVN

>>31852008
>Tankers are a necessary part of most combat operations. They give you the ability to fight farther away and for longer. This means that tankers will almost always be used. At the moment, however, we are stuck with only buddy tanking. Buddy tanking only provides for a handful of aircraft. I've seen the figure of 1 buddy tanker drags 4 Super Hornets out to either 800 or 1000 nmi. This means that for every four aircraft launched, you need to launch a tanker. This is bad, as it shortens the amount of strength you can put on target for a given amount of time, and overall, as you're burning fuel when you're in a holding pattern waiting for everyone to launch. And then necessary maintenance on all the aircraft in question. Let's instead presume that a dedicated tanker is used. This tanker can provide that same 800 or 1000 nmi radius to only three times the amount of Hornets. For a given squadron, you'd only need to put up a single tanker. That's two less aircraft needed for that sortie. Two less aircraft needed on the deck.
No one is arguing tankers aren't useful. People are just noting, with accuracy, that there's absolutely no reason aircraft which fill the tanker roll can't also do other missions. Any dedicated tanker is going to be a big aircraft. That's a lot of hangar/deck footprint. All that space resource should be combined with, for instance, COD/cargo and swappable mission modules. Or a bunch more smaller tankers which are also dedicated long range strike aircraft, like the VLO drone. Etc.

Carrier ops are all about flexibility.

>And yes, the USN carriers are actually way below capacity. There is plenty of space to put them.
That changes in a big fuckin' hurry if we go to war. We get into serious conventional counter-force shit, and you'll see at least two more shooter squadrons crammed onto each carrier in the AO.

>>31852092
>build brand new speciallized carrier for tailsitters
>somehow this will be cheaper in manning, build or maintenance costs

You should never procreate.

>>31852010
>>31852092
Confirmed for Listerinefag.

Ignore, and move along, anons. He will sit here and say stupid shit all goddamn day if you give him attention.

File: IMG_4767.png (99KB, 1080x607px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1080x607px

Daily reminder that the EF-111 should have never been retired in favor of the aging EA-6 fleet.

Fuck Clinton, and fuck the Navy for misrepresenting the operational costs.

File: 1475967573355.jpg (27KB, 420x250px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 420x250px

>>31851205
>>31851298
>>31851467
kek

that niggah sniped LF before he'd even gotten started

>>31852098
I'm going to disagree slightly. Tankers are going to be useful in EVERY SINGLE MISSION that the carrier does. There is no need for it to be multirole if by being multirole it compromises even a bit of tanking. Think for a minute. If you are almost always going to be using it in the tanker role, why compromise that?

Now let's look at the MQ-25A. It is sort of multirole, but in being so it isn't compromising tanking, and here's why. The MQ-25A gets its multirole capability by slapping some sensors on it to serve as persistent long range ISR. This goes along brilliantly with its tanking role as all the fuel that the tanker normally uses and just burns it itself to loiter for a long time. The sensors are added with almost no cost to the design as a whole.

>That changes in a big fuckin' hurry if we go to war. We get into serious conventional counter-force shit, and you'll see at least two more shooter squadrons crammed onto each carrier in the AO.
Not necessarily. Currently, there are less CVWs then there are CVs. But even if that were the case, tankers would STILL be a more valuable use of deckspace than the aircraft they're replacing. Force multipliers, anon.

>>31852118
Your expensive catobar carrier should not be wasting its space & time & manpower launching tankers, when they could be launched vertically off literally anything with a helipad.

>>31852182
Your whole "listerinefag" thing is just a buncha different roleplayers

>>31852251
>Not necessarily. Currently, there are less CVWs then there are CVs
Anon. Even at full surge, at least 1/3 of all CATOBAR carriers will be down for refit/refuel/training. There are 36 current Naval Air Squadrons of F-18E/F and legacy F-18s plus a shit ton of training and eval units plus all the backup birds. That's enough to put 5 shooter squadrons on 6 simultaneously operational carriers and still have 6 squadrons left over to drop where needed, without even tapping backup units and getting into emergency squadron formation. There are more than enough squadrons available to have 7 shooter squadrons on 3 carriers in an AO if necessary (and if they can still fit them with the increased superbug footprint) and five on another three.

>There is no need for it to be multirole if by being multirole it compromises even a bit of tanking.
When you can stage and lilly pad a tanker from anything in the fleet with a flight deck, all the way down to the LCS, then there's a pretty goddamn good reason for the Osprey to be modified to do it.
>>31852303
I love it when Listerinefag thinks he's getting clever.

>>31852332
>Even at full surge, at least 1/3 of all CATOBAR carriers will be down for refit/refuel/training.
That's the theory, yes. However, do note that usually one or two of those four (once the Ford comes online) are not in the middle of refitting or refueling, and can indeed be sortied if it were absolutely required. But let's look at theory here. Using the paradigm of 11 CVs in service and 2/3 of those being online, we have 9 or 9 carriers available. Currently, we have 10 CVWs, each with four fighter squadrons (The USMC provides the extras). That's a total of forty fighter squadrons. Split this across 9 CVs. Oh wait, a CVW was getting axed this next fiscal year. Funny. You end up with the same split, with a CVW left over, let's assume it's being used elsewhere. No, you will only fit an extra squadron on there in a wartime situation. Don't forget land basing either.

>When you can stage and lilly pad a tanker from anything in the fleet with a flight deck, all the way down to the LCS, then there's a pretty goddamn good reason for the Osprey to be modified to do it.
The V-22 has not been cleared for any of those decks, which seems to prohibit its usage.

>>31851376
Buccaneer carries more genius. And it's far faster fully loaded because the majority of its weapons are internal.

>>31852569
Double check the numbers, anon.

File: V-22 single spot ship.jpg (89KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1280x720px

>>31852568
>are not in the middle of refitting or refueling, and can indeed be sortied if it were absolutely required.
Maximum current surge is 6. And that fucks with the refit/maintenance schedule for years. With the Ford, I suppose theoretically it could be 7. You can't surge ships in the middle of a year-long overhaul or refuel and they still require a working up period after refit, no matter what.
>inb4 ur wrong
Prove it. You can use http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html, go back in the log, and actually see when 6, or very briefly 7 during deployment handoff, were deployed at once. Find me a single example where 7 were deployed at once for any real length of time (much less 8).

>Using the paradigm of 11 CVs in service and 2/3 of those being online, we have 9 or 9 carriers available.
Anon. Basic arithmetic. Please. 2/3 of 11 is 7.3 So that's 7, possibly 8. However, that 2/3 number is a rough approximation. In reality, as noted above, current surge limits are 6 carriers operational and on station maximum with 10 total in service.

>That's a total of forty fighter squadrons. Split this across 9 CVs...
All of this math is totally fucked. You started with a bad initial assumption and then figured out another half dozen ways to screw the pooch before you were done.

>The V-22 has not been cleared for any of those decks, which seems to prohibit its usage.
Already being address, and will be complete for the COD swap over:
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-future-cod-aircraft-contenders-the-bell-boeing-v-22/
>He says it’s already certified to land on amphibs, aircraft carriers, and logistics ships such at the T-AKE. He hopes efforts will soon get underway to certify it for hospital ships and small combatant ships in the Navy’s inventory. “The prop rotors don’t go past the nose of the V-22, so you can get in close on a relatively small flight deck.”
That was 2013. Pic related and the following are now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZX0KRRWyWc

>>31852172
One flight of F-35Cs on internal-only can do a helluva lot more damage in a SEAD role against a modern opponent than any amount of F-111s. About the only role the F-35C can't fill is the big fast fuck-your-shit interceptor role the Tomcat was designed for. I'm still pissed we retired the F-14.

>>31852816
>About the only role the F-35C can't fill is the big fast fuck-your-shit interceptor role the Tomcat was designed for. I'm still pissed we retired the F-14.
Well, that and dedicated EW. There still aren't any plans for a Queer/Growler/Raven F-35 variant, at least not yet.

>>31852750
Buccaneer S2D (1975)
12,000lb rotary bomb/fuel/recon bay
4 external hardpoints with provision for another 12,000lb, for a total of 24,000lb.

A6E (1970)
5 hardpoints with a total of 18,000lb

don't rely on wikipedia

>>31852923
>Buccaneer S2D (1975)
>12,000lb rotary bomb/fuel/recon bay
>4 external hardpoints with provision for another 12,000lb, for a total of 24,000lb.
Empty weight for the S2D was 32,642lbs.
MAUW weight for the S2D was 59,400lbs.

So, no. Unless they were heading off to play with only 2,758 pounds of fuel, pilots, survival gear, recording film and other sundry necessaries, the Buc never used an operational 24,000lbs payload.

In reality, the only time wing pylons were used at the same time as the loaded rotary launcher bay was for long range ferry flights, very long range strike missions, and very long range recon missions.

>>31846673
Could a fully loaded A-6 win a dogfight against a P-51 mustang?

>>31853030

The A-6 would be fast enough that it would be completely outside of the P-51 flight envelope.

>>31852923
citation needed

>>31853030
The A-6 could carry Sidewinders.

>>31851205
One F-35C is going to carry nearly 10 tons of fuel; you're going to struggle to get something that can offload more than half that much fuel to a fighter.

In addition, the point of naval aerial refueling is to achieve additional stand-off range; putting LHDs close to the frontline to launch refuelers doesn't achieve that.

>>31853169
>completely outside of the P-51 flight envelope

Please explain what that means? The P-51 doesn't have the required speed to engage an A-6?

>>31853200
I never knew that.

>>31853200
>>31853030
How would a hostile dogfight look between an A-6 and a P-51?

>>31854636
>>31854672
Congratulations, /k/. THIS is the complete fucking retard whose OP we just spent 89 posts debating as if it were a serious question.

I need a fucking shower.

>>31854696
I'm not OP. I had put OP in my name from another thread that I created and forgot to take it off.

>>31854595
>you're going to struggle to get something that can offload more than half that much fuel to a fighter.

With the F-35's, there is going to much less need for tankers anyways, so all that might be required is topping up their tanks after takeoff.

Though it's obviously physically possible to build a VTOL tailsitter capable of lifting 10-15 tons of fuel.

>>31854672

It basically means that the A-6 would be so fast that the P-51 wouldn't even be able to engage it. The A-6 could just completely ignore the entire situation and it would be fine.

File: giphy[1].gif (4MB, 581x327px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 581x327px

>>31855560
>Though it's obviously physically possible to build a VTOL tailsitter capable of lifting 10-15 tons of fuel.

>>31855577
but if the a-6 was tasked with destroying the P-51, they would be capable of doing so without sidewinders?

obviously, I am not very familiar with stuff of aerial warfare ;)

>>31848283
I hope that thing can carry enough fuel.

>>31855667
anon. Jesus. Google it. Read the wiki page. Find out if it has any other A2A weapons other than the Sidewinder. Stop being a pest.

File: 1384471756356.jpg (24KB, 500x427px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x427px

>>31855667

The A-6 didn't have a gun, but it might be able to take down the P-51 just by ramming it.

>>31855693

Yeah, cause this is such a super serious high standards board that asking a simple question in a non-confrontational way is a "pest."

>pic-related

>>31855763
>Yeah, cause this is such a super serious high standards board that asking a simple question in a non-confrontational way is a "pest."
Literally his 4th post on the matter. And he got his answer 30 posts ago. Yet he's too fucking stupid to take that information and then perform a simple goddamn google search.

So, yes. He's a fucking pest. And you can fuck right off, too.

This is /k/. And /k/ will show you where to start but we're not your fucking mother and it's not our job to fucking spoonfeed your dumb ass. That's what google is for.

>>31852923
Internal is four rotary points for 1000 lb bombs on each, total of 4,000 lbs. Plus the 12,000 external.

>>31846673
Flight of the Intruder.

I'de do it for you sandy.

>>31847639
Holy shit
>>31847696
>>31847701
lucky guy. this should be shown to people reluctant to wear a helmet for their own safety.

>>31848159
>>31851510
kek

>>31855560
Possible, yes, practical? I dunno; look at the size of something like the CH-53; you're going to have to build something larger (at least in terms of prop diameter) than that to lift 10-15 tons of payload.

>>31855680
That pic isn't the MQ-25; that's the X-47B, the x-plane tech demo for the UCLASS program (stealthy strike UAV) that got changed into the CBARS (recon & aerial refueling UAV) program - it'll probably be a flying wing, but it'll be bigger than the X-47B, more like the A-6 or C-2.

>>31852911
The F-35 already has most of the EW kit of the Growler, give it ALQ-99 or NGJ integration and it'd be superior, at least from a tech and power stand-point. As it stands, NGJ integration was planned but postponed indefinitely due to the big program delay / rebaselining back in 2010; instead though, we have confirmation that an unnamed company (either Northrop, Raytheon or BAE) is working on a "cyber pod" that uses the F-35's / Terma Multi-Mission Pod (gun pod without the gun and holes in it), which means that it'll provide extra AESA apertures for emitting in 360 degrees and/or different frequencies than X-band. We don't know if it'll be a proper EW pod meant for jamming, or if it's just something designed to perform cyber warfare, injecting SUTER-like things into enemy networks.

And then A-6 derivatives would have flown into the 2030s or 2040s like the Super Hornet will be. Is that really what you want? To be stuck at 40,000 feet?

>>31859750
>you're going to have to build something larger (at least in terms of prop diameter)
I don't really think that is true
Things have improved dramatically recently with lighter airframes, better rotors, more powerful engines.

Look at how much payload the CH-53K is going to be able to lift.

If we're talking a dedicated unmanned tanker/ISR picket, the dry weight could be very low compared to the V-22 or CH-53

>>31860970
>I don't really think that is true
>Things have improved dramatically recently with lighter airframes, better rotors, more powerful engines.
Show me a design for a tailsitter which can actually deliver "10-15 tons of fuel" and can actually fit in any existing hangar in the fleet, including the hangar deck of a Nimitz.

Any tailsitter with that much payload and 25ft or less tall will take up about double the E-2D's deck footprint, and have completely shit kinematic performance even compared to other rotary wing birds.

>>31857135
THIS IS COLE 5 OH 5

>>31851803
A tail-sitter doesn't have to always sit on its tail.
>>31851952
>Meanwhile, in the real world, people are loading and unloading
And it will always be that way! It will never be automated!

>>31862398
>And it will always be that way! It will never be automated!
If you had half a brain or the capability for logical deduction, you might surmise that this is because this is one obvious, glaring example of a system within which automation of several steps IS NOT BETTER.

Not from a cost perspective: ship build, maintenance, training or even probably manning.

Not from a hull displacement/required volume perspective: just adding such automation would cut Nimitz ceiling height in the hangar by at least two meters, at the least. This is before we add all that systems displacement weight.

And most definitely NOT from a turnaround speed/sortie rate perspective, as you've completely lost all flexibility and are now rate-limited by munitions and fuel station bottlenecks.

>>31852923
>don't rely on wikipedia

you just did

The A-6 could go longer, carry more, and hit more accurately than anything else that flew off of a ship at the time.

It was killed before its time, with no replacement in sight, like the tomcat, thanks to Darth Cheny and his hatred of Grumman Iron works.

>>31862459
Trained sailors are not cheap to maintain on ships
To spend huge quantities of money to essentially do manual grunt labor is madness

>>31864308
>hit more accurately than anything else that flew off of a ship at the time.
Except that now both the legacy and super bugs can hit more accurately with a single pilot and still retain the capability to defend themselves. This was clear all the way back in Desert Storm. Don't blame the USN. PGMs and the proliferation of land attack cruise missiles across most USN combat platforms are what killed off dedicated tactical attack aircraft. That's why the last new build A-6Es were delivered in 1993 but ordered before Desert Storm, and why they were retired in 1997. Their utility as dedicated attack aircraft no longer outweighed their cost in separate parts stores, maintenance and pilot training and continued development, and the USN was especially cash strapped at the time. "Peace dividend" and all that.

You pretend as if nothing took their job over, but it's exceedingly clear and explicitly stated in the press releases at the time that LANTIRN-equipped F-14Ds and then F-18E/Fs took over the precision strike role.

>>31864339
>To spend huge quantities of money to essentially do manual grunt labor is madness
>manual grunt labor

Anon. Jesus. Aircraft turnaround is anything but simple grunt labor. Read a fucking book already.

Airframe checks.
Munitions assembly.
Fueling.
Spotting.
Tie downs.
Per-flight maintenance and other tasks.
Full logging.
Recording dumps and resets.
Munitions loading, including gun rounds (have fun completely automating that shit, genius)
Final checks.

Even if you eliminate the man hours and training for direct fueling and munitions loading, you're still training people to run and maintain that automation. People still have to get eyeballs and hands on everything. People still have to hand spot the aircraft on deck and hangar. People still have to prep the munitions. People still have to do all the other pre-flight tasks.

Listen. This is not rocket science. It's clear you've never been within 500 miles of an active flight deck. So how about instead of posting the repeated insistence that you are correct, why don't you take 30 minutes and actually go learn something? Here. Start with this:
http://www.netmeister.net/~cpaige/17FLIGHTOPS.htm
http://mashable.com/2016/06/23/what-its-really-like-to-live-and-work-on-an-aircraft-carrier/#5NxjjDnaPkqg

If you actually survive 30 minutes of light learning and reading, ask for more material and we'll actually get into the nuts and bolts.

>>31862459
>just adding such automation would cut Nimitz ceiling height in the hangar by at least two meters, at the least.
How in the fuck could you possibly know that, without knowing anything at all about what this theoretical automation looks like? It takes up space and adds weight? Sailors and the systems required to support them do too!
>and are now rate-limited by munitions and fuel station bottlenecks
As opposed to being rate-limited by human labor?

File: 1473819638787.jpg (69KB, 640x795px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x795px

>>31866692
>How in the fuck could you possibly know that
For one, it would require both retractable loading mechanisms and the means to transport fuel bags and munitions to each station. That right there is minimum three feet for munitions/bag diameter plus whatever is used to actually do the transporting, including a cradle for the munitions/fuel bag. It would also require maintenance hatches, and it would have to be self-sealing and built to withstand both fire and overpressure in case of fire and possibly explosion so the entire hangar bay doesn't go up. All of this, of course, eats into hangar bay overhead.

>inb4 just put loading stations in hangar bay, none on deck
Then you've cut your sortie rate by less than half as every single aircraft has to first be transported down and then back up again. No fucking bueno.

The fact of the matter is this: in classic autist fashion, you've proposed a fully automated system in the assumption that automation is somehow always better (it is demonstrably NOT in many situations), and you completely failed to even consider what it might mean to actually implement this idea in practical terms. You did not consider basic questions like where you would get the volume for the systems/where they would be installed, what they would do to flight deck workflow, or even how the munitions would get from point A to point B (the magazines are in the bowels of the ship). You've never been within a zip code of a working flight deck, and you've clearly never had any kind of experience or training in mechanical engineering or basic systems design.

In fact, you could not even be fucked to spend thirty minutes reading general information about the overall system you were proposing radical changes to, even when I provided the links to do so.

In short, take your autism, turn it sideways and go fuck yourself with it. If you are incapable of learning, then you are incapable of being useful to the people around you, much less humanity at large.

>>31866692
>As opposed to being rate-limited by human labor?
How would you know? You can't even be fucked to learn what basic flight deck workflow looks like as it is right now. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about, only retarded assumptions. Educate yourself, and until kindly piss off.

>>31859750
In regards to EW, could the pilot handle operating the equipment in addition to flying and doing whatever other shit they have to do? I thought having at least a two man crew was standard.

>>31868270
Depends on the workload; as it is, an F-35C pilot has a lesser workload than (eg) an F/A-18E pilot. With a lot of modern EW systems, things are automated, partly to make things easier, but also because a computer can react a lot faster to a missile being detected than a human.

Case in point, a fair few 4th gen jets like legacy Hornets get fitted with things like the EL-L-8222 self-defensive jammer when flying over places like Syria. To use them, the pilot has an on/off toggle switch and that's it; if an enemy launches a missile at the jet, the pod handles the identification and jamming all by itself.

Having a WSO / EW operator in the backseat to generate tailored effects at stand-off distances has its advantages, but there's only so much work you can have them do before their human cognition and memory limits them - you wouldn't want the backseater to be in charge of identifying threats by looking at their waveforms for example; a machine is much better at that. Likewise, in a complex scenario, you probably don't want a human trying to manage the jamming of a dozen different adapting threats.