Thread: Ea-6b / Ea-18g
View Single Post
Old 09-06-2007, 21:22 PM   #30 (permalink)
Gun Grape
Resident Curmudgeon
Military Professional
 
Gun Grape's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-12-05
Location: Panama City Fl
Posts: 2,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
If these numbers are at all accurate, it would means that the SH burns a TON more fuel per km traveled then the Viking. It would also mean that the Viking is by far the longer-ranged of the two aircraft, and has more available transferable fuel on a tanking mission. Making it the better tanker as I suspected.
Not so. And thats the problem with just looking at raw numbers. It depends on the tanking mission profile.

The S-3 is a great "Near the boat, top off after launch or get a little fudge factor fuel before landing bird." But the 18 option is a better at "Forward fueler at the LoD" type things.

The S-3 could never keep up with a strike package so you would have to launch her and escorts in advance.

The F-18 option can launch with the strike package.

It can also self protect.

Another advantage of the F-18 is that any F-18 in any squadron can strap on the Buddy tank system and become a tanker.

The S-3 is an old airframe and will be gone by 2009.


Quote:
Also, interesting on the additional tank idea. Might have made a wicked tanker with the addition of an dedicated fuel tank, such as featured on the HH-130. Although it would have taken up valuable space and weight that could be used for the Viking's other missions. I wonder if a somewhat portable fuel tank that could be placed in the Viking's cabin was ever thought of?
Yes there was one converted. Designated as the KS-3. Was not further developed.
Gun Grape is offline   Reply With Quote