Military Review

Rear Admiral of the US Navy called the means of increasing the range of the air wing AUG

66

Head of Deck Development Department aviation US Navy Rear Admiral Greg Harris announced the main direction of modernization of American aircraft carrier strike groups. According to him, today the main emphasis is on increasing the range of combat use of the AUG aviation wing.


Rear Admiral Harris:

We carried out a comprehensive study of the structure of the aircraft carrier's air wing - both aircraft and maintenance personnel, weapons systems, and networking capabilities. To give our carrier strike groups additional opportunities to increase the range of the aircraft wing, we are adding the latest tankers to this aircraft wing.

According to Rear Admiral Harris, at the moment we are talking about unmanned aircraft refuellers Boeing MQ-25 Stingray.

Harris notes that the MQ-25 Stingray is a tool that can significantly increase the range of combat use of carrier-based aircraft of both the 5th and 4th generations.

Greg Harris:

This will allow our carrier-based aircraft to achieve long-range dominance from the deck of an aircraft carrier. There will be new opportunities for striking, maintaining the pace of the combat operation.

According to the American rear admiral, his opinion is that the 11 operating aircraft carriers of the US Navy are "the most surviving airfields in the world."

The Americans commented on this statement to Harris in the media. In particular, it was noted that in reality, the United States currently has not 11, but 8 aircraft carriers on the move. Three are at docks "with disrupted repair and maintenance deadlines."
66 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 14 September 2020 06: 34
    -1
    Harris notes that the MQ-25 Stingray is a tool that can significantly increase the range of combat use of carrier-based aircraft of both the 5th and 4th generations.

    A logical response to the appearance of Daggers and Zircons in our country ... it's better to deal with carriers than with hyper-missiles.
    in fact, the US currently has not 11, but 8 aircraft carriers on the move.

    We've built a bunch of huge aircraft carriers ... but in reality it's very expensive to maintain them. smile ... the three operating aircraft carriers would be enough for them to solve the problems of protecting sea communications and intimidating the Papuans ... this is what gigantomania leads to.
    1. Pessimist22
      Pessimist22 14 September 2020 06: 47
      +7
      Yes, they are not very expensive, using the dollar and buying the Treasury countries, including Russia, pay the maintenance.
      1. Zoldat_A
        Zoldat_A 14 September 2020 07: 02
        +6
        Quote: Pessimist22
        Yes, they are not very expensive, using the dollar and buying the Treasury countries, including Russia, pay the maintenance.

        And no one bothers to print a couple of trillions of green paper either. The main thing is to throw it out to the foreign market faster. Because such inflation, as we experienced in the 90s, neither Democrats, nor Republicans, nor the Founding Fathers of the United States themselves will be able to withstand.
        1. Igor Semenov
          Igor Semenov 14 September 2020 08: 52
          +3
          This year alone, more than 2 trillion have been "printed". As a result, the dollar sank quite a bit. Yes, the Yankees can afford it, including for the reason you indicated.
    2. KCA
      KCA 14 September 2020 06: 54
      +3
      Most likely, the MIG-31BM will go before the MIG-31K in order to fight those who have to fight the carriers, and the tankers will fall off like winter crops
      1. Aleksandr1971
        Aleksandr1971 14 September 2020 09: 35
        -1
        I assume that in the event of a major war, aircraft carriers will become the main target of the enemy. After all, they will be hit not with conventional ammunition, but with nuclear ones. And most likely only nuclear. Even in the absence of a direct hit, the flight deck will not be able to operate, and the crew and flight personnel will receive a more or less strong, and possibly fatal, dose of radiation.

        Therefore, the most surviving military airfields will be dispersal or jump airfields. And the most surviving will be abandoned airfields.
      2. ancient
        ancient 14 September 2020 11: 26
        +1
        Quote: KCA
        will go MIG-31BM

        And not only ... and Su-30SM and Su-35s and Su-27SM (if you still have to stay) wink
    3. novel66
      novel66 14 September 2020 07: 44
      -1
      and they have a law - no less
    4. moreman78
      moreman78 14 September 2020 08: 54
      +3
      We've built a bunch of huge aircraft carriers ... but in reality it's very expensive to maintain them. smile ... the three operating aircraft carriers would be enough for them to solve the problems of protecting sea communications and intimidating the Papuans ... this is what gigantomania leads to.

      In order for 3 operating aircraft carriers to be in the sea at the same time, you need to have 8-9 PIECES!
    5. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 14 September 2020 09: 05
      +5
      "... three operating aircraft carriers" ////
      ----
      For the troika to function, there must be nine aircraft carriers.
      One is on patrol, one is at the base for prophylaxis / replacement of part of the crew,
      one is under repair.
      In wartime, everyone who moves is thrown out of the bases into the sea.
    6. hrych
      hrych 14 September 2020 10: 00
      +1
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      three operating aircraft carriers would be enough for them

      Well, that's how they have numbers from logic. One in the Mediterranean, controlling Gibraltar, Suez and Bosphorus. One by the Panama Canal. One off the Straits of Malacca. One in the Persian Gulf, etc. to close all the most important bottlenecks of the Earth's sea routes. Also calculation for one AUG of France and a pair of British. And with regards to Suez and Panama, ideally, according to AUG, there should be both at the entrance and at the exit. Without this, the theory of Rimland and global Dominance does not channel. But our task is to violate their hegemony, so the USSR created "aircraft carrier killers" - Antei, Tu-22M3 rather to prevent them from reaching our shore. But Antaeus had to use Granites to cover this watering can with the help of the satellite Legend. Now with Liana, ZGRLS, etc., it has become easier and the line of defeat has expanded. X-32 beats further, Onyx is more versatile, more perfect and more compact than granite. And Kolibras with the last, supersonic stage have increased the range of defeat. Well, hypersound is a terrible force.
      1. ancient
        ancient 14 September 2020 11: 30
        +2
        Quote: hrych
        X-32 beats further

        Everything is pulling you with a "nuclear club" .. wave wassat
        1. hrych
          hrych 14 September 2020 15: 24
          +1
          The war between the USA and the Russian Federation will be a priori nuclear. Also, the Russian Federation is strong in overwhelming superiority in TNW of the entire line. What do you want? With spears and arrows wassat
    7. ancient
      ancient 14 September 2020 11: 25
      0
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      Logical answer

      Not logical .. since this is a "Wishlist" .. well, or for a war with .. "Papuans" .. no more.
      With any country that has in its Armed Forces such a form as the Air Force (with the genus IA) .. this whole idea turns into ... a "shooting gallery", since in order to "increase something" such as the tactical radius, it is necessary to refuel both to and and after returning at some line from the aircraft carrier, which is easily achieved by modern fighters
      According to the "idea" of the general .... the tankers will already hang in the zone and wait ... when the UG approaches them ... and by this time, according to the UKG it will come to the "contact", then there will be no "contact" with whom and the whole UG will go to feed the fish wassat
      1. uhu189
        uhu189 14 September 2020 11: 50
        0
        Quote: ancient
        . and by this time, according to the UKG it will come up to "contact", then .. there will be no "contact" with anyone and the whole UG will go to feed the fish
        - Refuellers must cover themselves with fighters from an aircraft carrier, and in order to reach them, counter-fighters will also have to refuel, they will also be vulnerable. Here you can come up with many beautiful scenarios, but in reality, whoever has more organization and aircraft will get advantages in a collision.
        1. ancient
          ancient 14 September 2020 12: 03
          -1
          Quote: uhu189
          Refuellers must cover themselves with fighters from an aircraft carrier, and in order to reach them, counter-fighters must also refuel,

          You are mistaken ...... take a pencil and .. "draw":
          1. That would "get somewhere" (to the targets) at the "Hornet" with Gvzl.mah. will be 8,0 tons of ASP and G fuel. 6,5 tons i.e. without PTB) - R so the action will be 740 km, (you can "vary the weight of the BC and Topl within 4 tons.) Then you can get 860 km.
          2. Now calculate R like this. deyst. fighters Su-30SM, Su-35, Su-33, MiG-29K / KUB and MiG-35S ... I'll tell you right away ... you can even attack the aircraft carrier itself with a 5-minute WB, not to mention about the destruction of tankers and a cover group.
          3. Do not forget .. that the fleet of Hornets on the aircraft carrier is not the same .. "rubber" ... they need to keep 3 cover groups and a group in reserve, and more .. "to carry out strikes on the NC.)
          4. And ours then take off from land airfields ... and even refuel under the cover of our ground air defense systems. wink
          1. uhu189
            uhu189 14 September 2020 13: 02
            -1
            Quote: ancient
            And ours then take off from land airfields ... and even refuel under the cover of our ground air defense systems.

            Conventionally, “ours” still need to get together in a group, since planes will obviously take off from more than one airfield to strike such a target. And even if we take into account the advantage in the range of ground-based fighters - they still have to maneuver, reach the target, and obviously not along the shortest path ... And the hornets will obviously not bombard with free-falling bombs, so that their flight radius is considered to be the attack radius ... And it seems to me there is no point in such situations to give out rainbow scenarios as the only possible ones. Yes, you can, of course, plan an operation, intercept them, maybe even destroy them, but this may not work out for a variety of reasons, and this must be understood. Unmanned tankers are a massive increase in the combat capabilities of carrier-based aircraft, and it's foolish to deny it.
            1. ancient
              ancient 14 September 2020 13: 57
              +1
              Quote: uhu189
              Conventionally, "ours" still need to get together in a group, since planes will obviously take off from more than one airfield to strike such a target.

              And such a definition as "building a battle formation by catching up on a route" is not familiar ... and that you can easily "gather" into a given power supply unit right on the "diagram"? (Takeoff interval of 15 seconds or takeoff in pairs or link "... Not .." met? wassat
              Quote: uhu189
              they will still have to maneuver, reach the target, and obviously not along the shortest path.

              This is generally ... "nonsense" was written ... How far from aviation you are ... "mom ... dear" recourse
              Quote: uhu189
              Unmanned tankers are a major increase in the ability to conduct warfare for carrier-based aircraft and it is foolish to deny it.

              I repeat once again ... to maintain a "database with papuas", where you do not need to calculate the required squads of forces and resources, but 4-6 RBK-500s are enough to end them ... at once wassat
              1. uhu189
                uhu189 14 September 2020 14: 03
                +1
                Quote: ancient
                This is generally ... "nonsense" was written ... How far from aviation you are ... "mom ... dear"
                - far away, I don't argue, but I'm trying to figure it out, and I want to understand too
                1. ancient
                  ancient 14 September 2020 15: 52
                  +1
                  Quote: uhu189
                  - far away, I don't argue, but I'm trying to figure it out, and I want to understand too

                  It was clear right away, but the desire is commendable ... that's why I explain everything in detail ... how and what, why and why drinks
  2. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 14 September 2020 06: 51
    +8
    I wonder how much fuel a single MQ-25 can handle? And at what distance. Otherwise, it turns out that it transfers a ton, but eats 10 laughing
    1. evgen1221
      evgen1221 14 September 2020 06: 57
      +5
      Judging by the size, you are not far from the truth.
    2. Zoldat_A
      Zoldat_A 14 September 2020 07: 06
      +4
      Quote: stock buildbat
      I wonder how much fuel a single MQ-25 can handle? And at what distance. Otherwise, it turns out that it transfers a ton, but eats 10 laughing

      I'm not an aircraft specialist, but in my opinion, the characteristics are more modest than those of traditional TK
      In total, the aircraft can take 6800 liters of fuel on board and provide 800-4 aircraft with kerosene at a distance of up to 6 km.
      https://army-news.org/2019/08/bespilotnyj-mq-25-stingrey-krylataya-benzokolonka-dlya-pentagona/
    3. KCA
      KCA 14 September 2020 07: 11
      +3
      They write that it gives 6800kg, but at what distance it is not indicated, although the MQ-25 is still in development, and what will eventually come out is not known, and even how the unmanned refueling tanker will behave in adverse weather conditions, will the donor merge with the consumer in ecstasy
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 14 September 2020 10: 03
        +1
        Quote: KCA
        but at what range is not specified

        It doesn't matter. To take off with a full combat load from an aircraft carrier, an aircraft must have half or even less fuel. Those. you need to refuel fighters almost immediately after takeoff.
        If not immediately after takeoff, then a range of 1000-1500 km is more than enough. UAVs are equipped with economical engines, they do not need high speed indicators.
        1. ancient
          ancient 14 September 2020 11: 42
          +1
          Quote: Grazdanin
          It doesn't matter. To take off with a full combat load from an aircraft carrier, an aircraft must have half or even less fuel.

          You are talking about what fighters are you talking about .. about ours or about "Yankesovsky"? wink

          Quote: Grazdanin
          If not immediately after takeoff, then a range of 1000-1500 km is more than enough

          Once again, please ... indicate the types of aircraft ... ... otherwise ... "nonsense" turns out wassat
          1. Grazdanin
            Grazdanin 14 September 2020 12: 11
            -1
            Quote: ancient
            You are talking about what fighters are you talking about .. about ours or about "Yankesovsky"?

            Ours and with half-empty tanks with full load cannot take off from Kuznetsov, all US carrier-based fighters take off with half-empty tanks with a full load of weapons, even for them the plane is too heavy.
            Quote: ancient
            Once again, please ... indicate the types of aircraft ... ... otherwise ... "nonsense" turns out

            Combat radius of Super Hornets is 830 km, F35С is 1140 km. At this distance, the fighters will have about half of the tank, respectively, there it needs to be refueled in order to increase the combat radius. Accordingly, the combat radius of 1000 ~ 1500 km is more than sufficient for a tanker. The MQ-25 has a range of 4000 km, so the combat radius is even more abundant.
            Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker said that the MQ-25 can extend the Super Hornet's 450 nmi (520 mi; 830 km) unrefueled combat radius to beyond 700 nmi (810 mi; 1,300 km). The Navy's goal for the aircraft is to be able to deliver 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of fuel total to 4 to 6 airplanes at a range of 500 nmi (580 mi; 930 km).
            1. ancient
              ancient 14 September 2020 12: 32
              +1
              Quote: Grazdanin
              Ours and with half-empty tanks with full load cannot take off from Kuznetsov

              1. On "Kuznetsov" there are 3 takeoff positions ... from the third they can take off with G bangs (before writing ... you must at least be in the subject) /
              2. "Hornets" take off freely with G takeoff. = 28 tons (this is practically G max. Takeoff.) ... I repeat - (before writing ... you must at least be in the subject).
              Quote: Grazdanin
              Combat radius of Super Hornets is 830 km,

              With certain parameters .. I agree ... but "half a tank" is .. an amateurish reasoning, ....... and such criteria as the navigation stock, the balance that is not produced, you do not take into account?
              Quote: Grazdanin
              Accordingly, the combat radius is 1000 ~ 1500 km

              So ... what would "Hornet" "get" to the refueling line in 1500 km ... should it be ... "on dry tanks" to fly? wassat
              I have to stop further communication, because you saw the "aviation" only ... in the pictures on the internet !!! soldier
              1. Grazdanin
                Grazdanin 14 September 2020 12: 44
                -1
                Quote: ancient
                1. On "Kuznetsov" there are 3 takeoff positions ... from the third they can take off with G bangs (before writing ... you must at least be in the subject) /
                2. "Hornets" take off freely with G takeoff. = 28 tons (this is practically G max. Takeoff.) ... I repeat - (before writing ... you must at least be in the subject).

                In theory, it can, in reality, it is now impossible to take off from Kuznetsov at all and it is not clear when it will be possible, the Americans are prohibited from taking off with full refueling and full load, it is too dangerous.
                Quote: ancient
                but "half a tank" is ... a childish reasoning

                Naturally half a tank is a convention.
                Quote: ancient
                that would "Hornet" "get" to the line of refueling in 1500 km

                You need to refuel after takeoff and climb, and I am talking about this, for American deck tankers this is the main task.
                Quote: ancient
                I have to stop further communication, because you saw the "aviation" only ... in the pictures on the internet !!!

                So please, you are the first to write to me, I only answer you. I have not read any noteworthy thoughts from you, only swearing and digging into words.
                1. ancient
                  ancient 14 September 2020 13: 59
                  +1
                  Quote: Grazdanin
                  ... I have not read any noteworthy thoughts from you, only swearing and digging into words.

                  So this is understandable .... how can you understand and read something ... if you are not in this thread .... fool tongue
    4. RUnnm
      RUnnm 14 September 2020 07: 11
      0
      It seems to be like, 13-14 tons with a takeoff weight of 20.
    5. A. Privalov
      A. Privalov 14 September 2020 07: 17
      +6
      Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker said that the MQ-25 can extend the Super Hornet's 450 nmi (520 mi; 830 km) unrefueled combat radius to beyond 700 nmi (810 mi; 1,300 km). The Navy's goal for the aircraft is to be able to deliver 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of fuel total to 4 to 6 airplanes at a range of 500 nmi (580 mi; 930 km).


      "Vice Admiral Mike Shoemaker said the MQ-25 could extend the Super Hornet's 450 miles (520 miles; 830 km) dry range to over 700 miles (810 miles; 1300 km). The Navy's goal for this aircraft is to deliver 15 lb (000 kg) of fuel (for) a total of 6800 to 4 aircraft at a range of 6 miles (500 miles; 580 km). "

      Own consumption, in this case, is a secondary indicator. hi
      1. ancient
        ancient 14 September 2020 11: 49
        -2
        Quote: A. Privalov
        Vice Admiral Mike Shoemaker

        Sorry, but .. "nonsense" writes this admiral (since he does not indicate for which G hack and G top ... these .. numbers ", secondly, when refueling, the Hornet can take 4,200 tons of fuel. "Will his drone tanker provide fuel for 4-6 aircraft?" belay )
        And yet, "Range" or "Tactical radius" ... these are diametrically different definitions. soldier
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 14 September 2020 12: 19
          0
          Hornets are decommissioned from aircraft carriers, Super Hornets have an internal tank of 6559 kg. About a third of the tank is regularly refueled, usually less. The admiral talks about the combat radius.
          1. ancient
            ancient 14 September 2020 14: 03
            +1
            Quote: Grazdanin
            Hornets

            I write "Hornets" for reduction, internal fuel in tanks is 6531. If without PTB, then it can "accept" 2800, with PTB - 4200.
            Quote: Grazdanin
            The admiral talks about the combat radius.

            Quote in the studio ..... wassat (everywhere we are talking about DISTANCE) ... or is it the same for you wassat
            1. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 14 September 2020 14: 05
              0
              Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker said that the MQ-25 can extend the Super Hornet's 450 nmi (520 mi; 830 km) unrefueled combat radius to beyond 700 nmi (810 mi; 1,300 km).

              combat radius - combat radius
              1. ancient
                ancient 14 September 2020 15: 50
                +1
                Quote: Grazdanin
                combat radius - combat radius

                I agree here drinks , but the translator and .. "relay on the air" ... to beat his hands for such a translation wassat
                1. Grazdanin
                  Grazdanin 14 September 2020 15: 59
                  +1
                  It is better to read about American technology in the original, or translate the original articles by a machine translator. You learn a lot. Translations especially on this site with many omissions and errors.
                  1. ancient
                    ancient 14 September 2020 16: 14
                    +1
                    Quote: Grazdanin
                    It is better to read about American technology in the original or translate the original articles by a machine translator.

                    And here I agree drinks there would be only free time recourse and so you read, you think .. because people translated .. that means professionals ... why check request
                    1. Grazdanin
                      Grazdanin 14 September 2020 16: 21
                      +1
                      I usually re-read articles that are interesting to me in the original. If you read the original of this news, for example, you can find out that this UAV is being considered together with the F / A-XX (replacement for the Super Hornet), primarily as an increase in protection against Chinese anti-ship missiles. The main task is to destroy the carriers and the anti-ship missiles themselves as far as possible from the AUG. They are greatly concerned about DF-26B and DF-21D.
                      https://www.militarytimes.com/naval/2020/09/12/the-future-us-navy-carrier-air-wing-will-fight-at-extended-ranges-admiral-says/
                      1. ancient
                        ancient 14 September 2020 16: 34
                        +1
                        Quote: Grazdanin
                        The main task is to destroy media

                        This task has always been posed in IA "from time immemorial" ... from the era of the Wright brothers wink
    6. Eug
      Eug 14 September 2020 07: 44
      +2
      Yes, and with additional approval, the vulnerability of participants increases sharply ...
    7. Avior
      Avior 14 September 2020 08: 30
      +1
      ... The characteristics envisaged by the project are the ability of the tanker to deliver 6800 kg of fuel at a distance of up to 930 km, providing 4-6 refueling in the air. According to Vice Admiral Mike Shoemaker, the use of such UAVs will increase the combat radius of the F / A-18E / F Super Hornet of the aircraft carrier from 830 km to 1300 km.
    8. venik
      venik 14 September 2020 09: 01
      -1
      Quote: stock buildbat
      I wonder how much fuel a single MQ-25 can handle? And at what distance. Otherwise, it turns out that it transfers a ton, but eats 10 laughing

      =======
      Can transfer 6.8 tons. The maximum flight range is 4 km. Stock own fuel - presumably same.
      1. ancient
        ancient 14 September 2020 11: 50
        -1
        Quote: venik
        The maximum flight range is 4 km.

        And back .. "on what ... in the holy spirit" ... or with a landing on enemy territory or .. to feed the fish? wassat
        1. venik
          venik 14 September 2020 12: 06
          -1
          Quote: ancient
          Quote: venik
          The maximum flight range is 4 km.

          And back .. "on what ... in the holy spirit" ... or with a landing on enemy territory or .. to feed the fish? wassat

          =======
          Can you read? What was written? - "Range"! AND "combat radius"count yourself!
          1. ancient
            ancient 14 September 2020 12: 35
            -1
            Quote: venik
            "Range"!

            So we are talking about "shto" here .... "for the aircraft carrier" or ... "where"?
            I have always believed that an aircraft carrier is a "steamer with airplanes" at sea, and airplanes, as a rule, return to their "floating airfield" while maintaining a database ... recourse
            And you .. "there it is like .. Mikhalych" ... all in one direction wassat
            1. venik
              venik 14 September 2020 13: 18
              -1
              Quote: ancient
              Always believed that an aircraft carrier is a "steamer with planes"

              ========
              When the British converted the battle cruiser ("Furies" I think) into an aircraft carrier, the wife of the ship's commander, who met the ship in Portsmouth, exclaimed: "What a horror! My husband is in command."floating garage"!" laughing
              -----------
              Quote: ancient
              So we are talking about "shto" here .... "for the aircraft carrier" or ... "where"?

              =========
              But what about? To recalculate "range" into "radius" is still weak? Or do you need to "chew" everything?
              PS If someone does not know how to count: with a maximum range of 4 km, and a maximum load of 000 kg, the range will be somewhere around 6 - 800 km ...
              1. ancient
                ancient 14 September 2020 13: 52
                0
                Quote: venik
                PS If someone does not know how to count: with a maximum range of 4 km, and a maximum load of 000 kg, the range will be somewhere around 6 - 800 km ...

                I see ... sit down ..... "not test"
                Or you have data on specific fuel consumption, flight mode, refueling, flight weight wassat ????? wassat
              2. Grazdanin
                Grazdanin 14 September 2020 14: 20
                0
                Quote: venik
                maximum load 6 kg, the range will be somewhere around 800 - 1 km

                The Americans talk about a combat radius of 930 km. But all these are conventions, you can take less fuel, you can refuel from 6,8 tons to the drone itself. And all the exact data after testing.
                The Navy's goal for the aircraft is to be able to deliver 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of fuel total to 4 to 6 airplanes at a range of 500 nmi (580 mi; 930 km)
                1. ancient
                  ancient 14 September 2020 16: 40
                  +2
                  Quote: Grazdanin
                  The Americans talk about a combat radius of 930 km. But all these are conventions, you can take less fuel, you can refuel from 6,8 tons to the drone itself.

                  But still there is a "discrepancy" - R-930km, but you probably still need to take into account the T loitering in the waiting area ... after all, UG aircraft do not take off together with the UAV?
                  And if together then in what mode they all go ... will the UAV "climb" on Nkr. for Hornet?
                  Now .. give 6,8 fuel ... this is if refueling only in the internal tanks and only the 3rd and .. 2267 kg each (let's say even a passing refueling) ... but how do they want to refuel 6? belay
                  1. Grazdanin
                    Grazdanin 14 September 2020 17: 08
                    +1
                    Quote: ancient
                    but how do they want to fill up 6?

                    It seems to be said for beauty, it is clear there is a whole table to whom how much at what distance in what situations to refuel. At a distance of 800-900 km from AB, 1,1 tons of fuel on board S. Hornet is somehow pointless to refuel, nothing will change. It makes sense to refuel 6 fighters with practically empty tanks after a long-range flight before landing on AB. In order to have enough fuel to wait for landing and there was fuel for the second run in case of an unsuccessful approach.
                    At a distance of 800-900 km, 2-3 aircraft will be enough to refuel 6,8 tons.
                    By the way, 6,8 tons is the internal volume, they may be considering the possibility of suspended tanks, and Super Honets of refueling tankers have the opportunity to refuel from air tankers and distribute fuel to those who are thirsty.
  3. aszzz888
    aszzz888 14 September 2020 07: 09
    +1
    According to the American Rear Admiral, his opinion is that the 11 operating aircraft carriers of the US Navy are "The most surviving airfields in the world".
    Praising yourself is a special feature of the Merikatos (and if Hollywood is also brought up there - finally a movie!). Laudatory odes in his honor until then, the code into the side, above the waterline, any heads weighing about 500 kg will fly to the deck, and even in idren laughing performance, then you can listen to the admiralish.
    1. Jack O'Neill
      Jack O'Neill 14 September 2020 07: 42
      0
      And get an answer to the cities. Great exchange! laughing
  4. rocket757
    rocket757 14 September 2020 07: 33
    0
    Quote: The same LYOKHA
    A logical response to the appearance of Daggers and Zircons in our country ... it's better to deal with carriers than with hyper-missiles.

    It is more practical for us to fight against enemy "airfields".
  5. Karaul73
    Karaul73 14 September 2020 07: 57
    0
    Well 8 is not half of an aircraft carrier. Americans can relax for now.
  6. APASUS
    APASUS 14 September 2020 09: 29
    +1

    Actually, the Boeing MQ-25 Stingray looks like this, that the author stuck it there. But in general it's very cool, to invest $ 800 million in the creation of a refueling UAV. Now we also need to create a UAV for a carrier of cartridges laughing laughing
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 14 September 2020 10: 11
      0
      The Super Hornet is now playing the role of the tanker. This is much more expensive than the entire program of this UAV.
      And then the shock modifications of this UAV. In the Super Hornet replacement aircraft, the TZ includes work in conjunction with drone UAVs.
      1. ancient
        ancient 14 September 2020 11: 52
        0
        Quote: Grazdanin
        This is much more expensive than the entire program of this UAV.

        This is with .. "what ..." do you draw such conclusions? belay
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 14 September 2020 11: 56
          -1
          The cost of aircraft, the cost of aircraft maintenance, the cost of training pilots, the cost of maintaining pilots on aircraft carriers, the reduction in the number of "strike" fighters.
          1. ancient
            ancient 14 September 2020 12: 11
            -1
            Quote: Grazdanin
            the cost of aircraft maintenance, the cost of training pilots, the cost of maintaining pilots on aircraft carriers, the reduction in the number of "strike" fighters.

            The cost of servicing a UAV is no less expensive ...... training of "pilots" for its piloting is also necessary, and they must also be "kept" on aircraft carriers (they will not be fed by you .. "holy spirit" lol )
            No reduction in the "number of strike aircraft" ..... hang up PTB, here's a tanker ... removed, here's a drummer ... but if UAVs appear, then the number of "Hornets" will really decrease.
            And most importantly .. in case of real danger, "Hornet" at least can maneuver and dodge the attack and escape on the afterburners .... and your UAV ... it's .. the TARGET !!! soldier
            1. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 14 September 2020 12: 29
              0
              Quote: ancient
              UAV maintenance price is no less expensive

              In comparison, by plane, much less.
              Quote: ancient
              hang up PTB, here's a tanker ... removed, here's a drummer

              If you remove the refueling equipment, who will refuel the fighters? The equipment is not installed in 5 minutes. Refuellers must always be ready, and preferably in the air. So they keep 30% of the Super Hornet air wing as refuellers.
              Quote: ancient
              your UAV ... this is ... the TARGET !!!

              That nobody cares about. They will shoot down so, only the planes attacking him will expose themselves more.
              1. ancient
                ancient 14 September 2020 17: 07
                +1
                Quote: Grazdanin
                In comparison, by plane, much less.

                This is a very controversial issue.
                Quote: Grazdanin
                If you remove the refueling equipment, who will refuel the fighters?

                As a rule, a support group is allocated for a group of aircraft in the amount of 10 pieces (up to 4 tankers, electronic warfare vehicles, AWACS aircraft, etc.)
                Therefore, 30% in the version of the tanker .. it's you .. very bent.
                Quote: Grazdanin
                The equipment is not installed in 5 minutes.

                The aircraft equipment is permanently installed ... the suspension of the UPAZ and additional PTB takes no more than 10-15 minutes. soldier
                1. Grazdanin
                  Grazdanin 14 September 2020 17: 25
                  0
                  Quote: ancient
                  This is a very controversial issue.

                  The absence of a pilot, a derated, increased resource engine, the absence of weapons systems and a full-fledged radar (in this case) all reduce the cost of purchase and operation.
                  Quote: ancient
                  Therefore, 30% in the version of the tanker .. it's you .. very bent.

                  It's not me. In many articles, this figure sounds. For example https://topwar.ru/161672-bespilotnyj-stingrey-krylataja-benzokolonka-dlja-pentagona.html
                  Quote: ancient
                  UPAZ and additional PTB takes no more than 10-15 minutes.

                  Landing / takeoff, moving around the aircraft carrier, queuing for technicians, etc.
                  1. ancient
                    ancient 14 September 2020 21: 48
                    +2
                    Quote: Grazdanin
                    The absence of a pilot, a derated, increased resource engine, the absence of weapons systems and a full-fledged radar (in this case) all reduce the cost of purchase and operation.

                    In principle, I will have to agree drinks
                    Quote: Grazdanin
                    It's not me. In many articles, this figure sounds.

                    So I wrote about this, that due to the fact that the "unifications" of the "Hornets" have been carried out ... the strike aircraft are forced to perform functions that are not characteristic of it.
                    But refueling from the UAV will be possible only on return, because the refueling area will need to be kept as far as possible from the line of interception of the "enemy" aircraft.
                    And something his range is rather weak and fast (therefore, refueling only on return, when the Hornet is already "empty", without ammunition and "volatile").
                    Quote: Grazdanin
                    Landing / takeoff, moving around the aircraft carrier, queuing for technicians, etc.

                    I agree here ... preparing for a second flight. according to the calculations of the "Yankes" themselves, it takes from 2 to 2,5 hours., and here also the re-equipment ... recourse
                    1. Grazdanin
                      Grazdanin 14 September 2020 22: 50
                      0
                      Quote: ancient
                      But refueling from the UAV will be possible only on return, because the refueling area will need to be kept as far as possible from the line of interception of the "enemy" aircraft.
                      And something his range is rather weak and fast (therefore, refueling only on return, when the Hornet is already "empty", without ammunition and "volatile").

                      Things are even worse now. 30% of airplanes and fighter pilots work as donkeys, the range is about the same, they fill up about the same amount of fuel, spend horse money on it. At the same time, instead of S. Hornets, they began to plan a new plane, which will definitely not work as a tanker.
                      The choice of a UAV as a tanker is more than logical. It is cheaper, service is cheaper, its loss does not cause death of a person, it can stay on duty longer in the air, takes up less space and time for service.
                      The future belongs to unmanned aerial vehicles, after the tanker, the shock variants will go. I'm not at all sure that a manned aircraft will go into the series instead of the Super Hornet, or the series will be as large.