Yuku free message boards

Not new, really. In the old, old days when I was hanging around CVs on staffs, there were KA-6 tankers. Before that, there where Whale tankers and before that AJ tankers. All of these tankers took up deck space and the latter had huge deck multiples.

Essex CVAs used Teeny Tiny Tinker Tankers, and they were preceded by FJ tankers, both 'buddies.' And there were no 'KCs" anywhere.

No free lunch - you want dedicated 'tanks' you give up something else. I think convertible tanks is a good idea, along with convertible recce platforms as well. The final evolution of the post WW II air group was logistically insane. A fighter (earlier, two or three types), two bombers, a hybrid bomber/tanker good for nothing else, 4 plane recce det good for nothing else. By contrast today's F/A-18 - centric air group puts much more ordnance-carrying airplanes in the air. Which I always thought was the object of the exercise.

This will not please F/A-18 phobics, but they should get used to it.

taschoene wrote:

---

I think people also tend to forget that the Super Hornet in full tanker configuration (buddy pod and four drop tanks) actually has more "give" than the KA-6 or the S-3 in typical operational scenarios.

Didn't know this; thanks