Hornet as a tanker?

[The_Russian]

What is the deal with this? Seems as though it burns more fuel than it is worth. And, that the S-3 can stay on station longer than an F18. Someone explain what the point of this is to me.

 

[gangdev]

A friend of mine whom was a former F14 RIO explained to me once that you can´t always understand the Navy´s logic...it is said that they want to simplify their fleet as much as possible...and the F-18 is the best candidate to fill multiple roles.

 

[puck_11]

Pretty much all of the Navy jets are F-18s now, with the exception of the Ea-6b prowler, which is being replaced by the F/a-18G real soon, and a few remaining S-3s. The Hornet as a tanker is only meant to help guys get a little more gas to land at the boat, not go anywhere, which is the same role the S-3 played.

Think about it this way, the only thing the S-3 can do is tank now. Why waste time, space, and money on an S-3 when you can have a Super Hornet, which is already on the boat and can fill many roles, just go up and tank. Its the way we have to do it now, more with less.

 

[rhinodriver]

The Hornet as a tanker is only meant to help guys get a little more gas to land at the boat, not go anywhere, which is the same role the S-3 played.

That statement is not really correct. We could go deep into country as a hose multiplyer or on a mission give with the strike package. Saying all we did as a tanker was hang aroud the boat is misleading.

The Rhino is a far better mission tanker than the S-3 was, but the Hoov was a far better recovery tanker. The Rhino's burn rate is much higher especially when you were holding all your give for the back side recovery. Then if you didn't give the fuel away the bring back weight was much less in the Rhino so we ended up dumping a ton of gas in order to be below recovery weight.

 

[puck_11]

That statement is not really correct. We could go deep into country as a hose multiplyer or on a mission give with the strike package. Saying all we did as a tanker was hang aroud the boat is misleading.

The Rhino is a far better mission tanker than the S-3 was, but the Hoov was a far better recovery tanker. The Rhino's burn rate is much higher especially when you were holding all your give for the back side recovery. Then if you didn't give the fuel away the bring back weight was much less in the Rhino so we ended up dumping a ton of gas in order to be below recovery weight.

Roger that, I found some good info on that but I was too lazy to post it and I figured someone like you could chime in on it. I stand corrected!

 

[bssthound]

As an old F-4 guy (not like there're any young ones!) I'll hold my tongue about the "Rhino" and ask rhinodriver the question on everyone's mind:

So the F-18 brings more cowbell??

 

[skybert]

Tha last real naval tanker was the KA-6D

 

[propsarebest]

Tha last real naval tanker was the KA-6D

Don't forget the whale...

 

[414Flyer]

Give the navy enough time, they will find a way to propel the carrier using F-18s. Or will make an very large M model (M for Mothership) and hang Chuck model 18s from hardpoints.

 

[SIG600]

Agree with Rhino... S-3 dumps no gas either. Great tanker, great SSC platform. Sad to see it go. Plus it can get slow for that single engine hornet that's stuck with his gear down.