A-6 "Intruder" by Razbam

My concern would've been what they did with the a-6e airframes. Given the rough life many of the planes went through (some of them started as -a's), and MLU to a 'super intruder' might actually have been very expensive and fraught with danger as those aged planes would've gained more weight and had higher stress on already worn frames.

In retrospect, the hornets weren't a bad idea; I just have concerns about their procurement and whether they did what they said on the tin. We don't have a replacement c2, e2 and using the hornet as a buddy refueller isn't something I hear about often, so the hornet really only filled in for the intruder and the tomcat. And now, CVBG's carry hornets and super hornets.

Sounds like there was a trade of one set of problems for another, but I'm just a 29-year-old Brit with no knowledge of the USN decision making process...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A guy I fly with got out of the Navy a couple of years ago, flying F18's. Every unit has dedicated F18's used for refueling. After a certain number of cycles they get taken offline and used only for refueling because they have to be kept under a certain number of G's. His explanation, not mine.

Interesting! I guess my next question to him is 'how often are these tanker hornets used operationally?' I guess it doesn't matter that there are certain BuNo's allocated to the buddy store systems, if they are hardly ever flown.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As I understand it, only the Super Bugs are set up for the buddy packs, not the Charlie models. A guy that flies the Super Bug told me that the C model was very weight sensitive and could not bring much ordinance back aboard. Maybe that is the reason for the C model not providing the refueling. With the S-3 Viking gone from the fleet now, the F/A-18E/F is the only organic tanker aboard ship. So, to answer your question, I would say that just about every time a carrier is conducting "blue water" flight operations, there would be a tanker overhead.

Interesting take. I always figured the AF was better at acquisition than the Navy because we're always having to "make do" with stuff that should really be funded, but it's really more of an operational focus with the whole point of the Navy to be deployed..

I'd agree with you up until the RIF's in the mid 90's, after them the better talent voted with their feet. Since the mid nineties name an AF Cat I program that wasn't over budget. I personally ended my career on a program in a Nun-McCurdy breech, not fun. Hindsight is always 20/20, if we a near peer conflict in the last 15 years we'd be talking about how we should have kept the Intruders and Tomcats.

As I understand it, only the Super Bugs are set up for the buddy packs, not the Charlie models. A guy that flies the Super Bug told me that the C model was very weight sensitive and could not bring much ordinance back aboard. Maybe that is the reason for the C model not providing the refueling. With the S-3 Viking gone from the fleet now, the F/A-18E/F is the only organic tanker aboard ship. So, to answer your question, I would say that just about every time a carrier is conducting "blue water" flight operations, there would be a tanker overhead.

Yep, only Super Hornets.

Fun fact IIRC: Every tanker the navy uses carries less fuel than the one before:

KA-3 > KA-6 > S-3 > F/A-18E

Yeah, I wondered about that. I always thought the buddy system was used as a backup. So the carriers don't have a proper tanker aboard now? Do they rely on other branch's tankers or do they just use them for emergency only?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe they just use USAF tankers. Those have a huge range so they can provide tanking for Navy planes as well, don't they?

But don't the navy use probe-and-drogue vs AF's boom?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KC-10 has a single drogue. Carrier-based Hornets wouldn't be able to operate over Afghanistan without them.

I wondered about that. Thanks!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, it looks kinda funny. The hose is about 1-2 meters long and connected to the end of the boom.

Doesn't that stop the Air Force guys getting fuel then?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. I actually don't know if they can change it during flight, I am not an expert for tankers.

If it isn't possible they just have several tankers flying around in the area I guess.

Yes. I actually don't know if they can change it during flight, I am not an expert for tankers.

 

If it isn't possible they just have several tankers flying around in the area I guess.

yea im 99% sure they have to be outfitted before takeoff.

But usually they know who they will be servicing and when there are mixed aircraft airborne (mixed Probe / chute) then they usually have alteast one of each.

That seems reasonable. But I'm real glad we are not in a country vs country war, as two or three big tankers getting shot down in a war environment would seriously screw with any air superiority plans for NATO then. Seems we need a solution that handles both designs on one plane to minimise disruption due to operational loss.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That seems reasonable. But I'm real glad we are not in a country vs country war, as two or three big tankers getting shot down in a war environment would seriously screw with any air superiority plans for NATO then. Seems we need a solution that handles both designs on one plane to minimise disruption due to operational loss.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The easiest Solution for a tanker able to do both at the same time would be a Tanker with a Centerline Boom (Like any Tanker aircraft using the Boom Technique) aswell as two wingmounted retractable drogues (one on each wing) for the Probe/Drogue technique. (as its very common for Drogue/Probe Tankers to have the wing mounted drogue Pods)

Since that way one tanker would be able to refuel both types of airplanes without hampering either system.

But usually an airforce only uses one method.

With the most common being the Probe/Drouge Method.

Its mostly the US Airforce and Designs for the US Airforce (F-15/F-16) that are Boom only.

While most other aircraft (developed For/in other nations or for the US navy/marine corps use the Drouge/Probe technique)

There is one in service already, the A330 MRTT

It actually won the USAF competition for their next tanker (as the KC-45) but Boeing's lawyers got on the case and had the decision overturned.

There is one in service already, the A330 MRTT

 

 

 

 

It actually won the USAF competition for their next tanker (as the KC-45) but Boeing's lawyers got on the case and had the decision overturned.

ooh yea i forgot about that one :doh:.

What, no Rhino?

A-6 Intruder OVER the A-7 Corsair II any time all the time.

 

Intruder is a lifetime dream and instabuy. The Corsair is just a meh plane...

 

My fav list on the deck :

 

1. F-14 Tomcat

2. A-6 Intruder

3. F-4 Phantom II

4. A-4 Skyhawk

5. Helo's

6. Deckcrew

 

and somewhere at number 99 or beyond the A-7 Corsair II

yea im 99% sure they have to be outfitted before takeoff.

 

 

But usually they know who they will be servicing and when there are mixed aircraft airborne (mixed Probe / chute) then they usually have alteast one of each.

It does and it's about 12' long, which is still pretty short. A number of -135's have pods under the wings for probe and drogue. FWIW mostly the Navy tankers are there for emergency gas if a pilot bolters one too many times.

I used to stress to my students that a single hornet carrying 2 JDAM has the strike power of 200 B-17s because you could count on the JDAM hitting the target, whereas you would need a whole B-17 strike to ensure enough dumb bombs are dropped in order to hit the target.

What? Not even close.

First, you'd be surprised at how accurately a well tuned single B-17 could drop its bombs.

Second, they sent more than 1 B-17's because a single B-17 was dead meat against any single fighter plane any country put up of any type, (most any) speed, armament, and / or pilot skill level. The "Flying Fortress" was not a fortress at all. Not to mention that AAA claimed more than interceptors did.

Area bombing with swarms of heavy bombers arose not out of inaccuracy, but of necessity for most to get through to accomplish the mission. Saying otherwise is just being ignorant of history and reality.

It is true that for its time the B-17 was pretty accurate. Measured by today's standards it was still poor.

IIRC a bomb that exploded less than 300m away from the target still counted as "hit" back then.

And yes, under perfect conditions a B-17 or any other bomber during that time could actually achieve that.

There were still LOADS of bombs dropped into nowhere. We still find them here in Germany 70 years later.

What? Not even close.

 

First, you'd be surprised at how accurately a well tuned single B-17 could drop its bombs.

 

Second, they sent more than 1 B-17's because a single B-17 was dead meat against any single fighter plane any country put up of any type, (most any) speed, armament, and / or pilot skill level. The "Flying Fortress" was not a fortress at all. Not to mention that AAA claimed more than interceptors did.

 

 

Area bombing with swarms of heavy bombers arose not out of inaccuracy, but of necessity for most to get through to accomplish the mission. Saying otherwise is just being ignorant of history and reality.

Even large B17 close formation flights werent enough against multiple intercepting groups.

high escort fighter like p47 and p51 changed that.

but they didnt send 1 bomber because really 1 bomber didnt guarnatee a destruction. thats why they sent multiple.

so even if they did just send single b17 flight but it was protected by a flight of stangs or thunderbolts it would have been obviosuly much more likely to make it back home.

I would like to come back to the topic (A-6 Intruder):

Does anyone know whether the KA-6 tanker Intruders had a different cockpit?

So basically the question is: Was that a normal A-6 that could still be used for bombing, or was it modified?

EDIT: Found it myself. They were modified. So probably we won't get that so easily from Razbam. (not that I would be too interested in flying a tanker, but for some it would be fun I guess)

I would like to come back to the topic (A-6 Intruder):

Does anyone know whether the KA-6 tanker Intruders had a different cockpit?

So basically the question is: Was that a normal A-6 that could still be used for bombing, or was it modified?

 

EDIT: Found it myself. They were modified. So probably we won't get that so easily from Razbam. (not that I would be too interested in flying a tanker, but for some it would be fun I guess)

Or if someone found a way to implement a D-704 store that could transfer fuel....

A-6E with a D-704 store refueling SuE's