JA Boomer

Interesting...so the AF does not have an "attack" mission profile then. What about an A-10 tank plinking mission away from the front lines? Where the targets may not be pre-planned, or their precise location known, still considered "strike"?

Jimmy

If the targets arent preplanned, its probably a DT. "Attack" is used more as a descriptor than anything. Technically you could use the term "attack mission" but you might catch some weird looks for that. A-10s are generally considered strike or CAS assets, depending on the mission.

JA Boomer

Makes sense, thanks Jimmy. Why am I not surprised that the Navy and AF have different ways of classifying the same missions.

Gun Grape

The 18 will have 1 300 gal buddy tank and 4 480 gal drop tanks to pull from and can still carry AtA missiles on the dry pylons. So she can defend herself.
No need for escort.

The Viking carries only 1 300 gal buddy tank on one wing and another 330 gal tank on the other.

SH= 2,220 gal

S-3= 630 gal

Gun Grape

Sounds like:
"I can neither confirm or deny, the presence or absence of special weapons aboard any naval installation or vessel."

"Please direct any inquiries to the Base PAO."

JA Boomer

Thanks Gun Grape, that clears up the externals, any idea of how much a full internal fuel load for each aircraft is? My guess would be that the Viking still has more total fuel with only the 2 tanks than the Rhino's 5. I would think that given the Viking's air-refueling mission, it would be able to tranfer fuel from its internal fuel tanks into the buddy pod for transfer, so it would really be the total fuel load of the aircraft that would matter, is this correct?

Gun Grape

F-18E= Around 2117 gal internal (various numbers quoted.I split the difference)

S-3= 1933 gal internal

So the SH still carries more fuel.


The S-3 was thrust into the air refuel job when the KA-6 was retired. With a much reduced capability. There was either 1 or 2 KS-3 Tankers modified with a fuel tank in the fuselage but it never went into production.

wabpilot

Correct. Strike missions involved special weapons, attack missions did not. Fleet air defense missions were defensive in nature.

There are certainly different kinds of attack missions. Light attack tends to be day visual bombing. In different places different profiles would be used and "Light" is something of a misnomer. A F-4J loaded with 9000 pounds of Mk.82s is still on a light attack mission while a A-6 with four SRAMs is medium. Medium attack missions are night, adverse weather or electronic in nature. In Viet Nam we had the peculiar circumstance where F-4s would formate on an A-6 for a IFR bombing run. We would watch the A-6 which would use its ground mapping radar to identify the target and then we would drop as soon as we saw his bombs release. Thus, the F-4 which was never capable of medium attack missions could participate in them. We also had radar controlled bombing of some targets. A radar controller somewhere in the south would guide us to a target and then call our release. Results of both profiles were sketchy. We usually ended up bombing lots of extraneous rice paddies while not doing much damage to the main target. Although, we did put a SAM site out of business one time by bombing a dam, next to a SAM, site that held back about feet of bovine fecal sludge. The SAM site was unworkable for days while the NVA version of the EPA tried to clean up the mess.

JA Boomer

Wow, thats a surprise to me. I know that the S-3's hoover's burn less fuel then the Rhino's F414's, but wow, that is a big increase in fuel from the Viking to the Super Hornet when you factor in both internal and external. I guess the Rhino really IS the superior air-refueler, which would not have been my guess. Thats probably because the Hornet/Super Hornet tend to be regarded as "jack of all trades, master of none" by many.

I've always thought of the Viking as a fairly long-ranged beast, fairly well-suited to the air-refueling mission. I didn't realize that they were thrust into that role with the retirement of the KA-6D/E from the carriers. Does anyone have any idea of what a Viking typical mission radius would be?

With all this talk of Hornets, it just happened that 2 of our CF-18's were up in the mountains today, and did a couple of very nice passes over my town (right over my house in fact) before heading back up towards Cold Lake. Military displays are few and far between around here...needless to say...it was AWESOME!!!

Officer of Engineers

Bullsh!t? Oh come on, Commander, you've got to be making that one up! *** holding my ribs from laughing so hard ***

__________________
Chimo

Gun Grape

And gee, I'm stuck watching F-22s fly around my house.

wabpilot

Someday, I'll tell you about how bombing a defenseless stand of trees almost got my RIO a Distinguished Flying Cross. Viet Nam was one completely FUBARed up war.

JA Boomer

Way to rub that one in...Although, you probably don't even notice the Raptors buzzing aorund anymore, where as a few Hornet passes is still very exciting around here. Not sure which one is better, see them all the time, or every time being special???

JA Boomer

Got me thinking on the tanker issue…

Super Hornet: 2117 gal internal fuel; 2220 gal external fuel; 4337 gal total fuel; RANGE of about 2200 km
Viking: 1933 gal internal fuel; 630 gal external fuel; 2563 gal total fuel; RADIUS of about 5100 km which is a RANGE of 10200km

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.

I doubt these numbers are correct though, as they seem extraordinarily out of proportion. Probably random crap floating on the internet, and not exactly from the flight manuals haha. Does anyone have a clue if the ranges quoted are completely bogus?

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?

Gun Grape

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.


Yes there was one converted. Designated as the KS-3. Was not further developed.