"Carrier Strike Range Half What It Was in 80's?" Topic

While the article ( link ) argues about the utility of a $15 USD-billion warship, what I found most interesting was this:

At the same time, internal Navy decisions have cut the strike range of the carrier's aircraft in half, to 496 miles.

…
During the 1980s, the average aircraft range was 900 miles. Now it is 500 miles and will not get any better with the introduction of the F-35. In permissive environments [think bombing ISIS], this is not a problem, because aircraft can be refueled to extend their range. In high-threat environments [like a war with China or Russia], however, refueling may not be possible."

I'm not sure this is an accurate/realistic assessment. This site ( link ) suggests that an A-6 with a single 2000lb nuke and full drop tanks can go 890 miles, but with 10,000lbs of bombs range drops to ~450mi. So with anything more than the lightest strike packages, aircraft aren't going much farther than 500 miles, whether it was an A-6 in 1986 or a F/A-18 E/F in 2016.

Practice used to be to take off with a full ordnance load and low fuel, and then do aerial refueling to top off.

Having less on board fuel – and refueling in flight gives aircraft options to carry more ordinance, avionics etc

Yep, pretty much.

Those cost savings from the "inexpensive" F-18s weren't, so you've got an overweight, sub-par fighter, with rather short legs.

Things got even worse with the retirement of the A-6, and the cancellation of the A-12 program a while back.

The A12 couldn't carry much, though. 2x 2000lb bombs, 2x AMRAAMs, 2x HARM, roughly 6000lbs total. That's a third of the load an A6 could carry.

I've been kicking around an idea for a carrier-based plane that can fit the USAF rotary launcher and up to 25,000lbs of bombs. Or the 30,000lb GBU57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator. As best I can find online, that means a bomb bay 15 feet wide and 25 feet long.

The obvious answer is to dump the pilot from the strike craft. He's simply not needed today. To keep a human in the loop you could use human pilots as leaders for a strike package of drones. Result is more range and/or capacity and lower risk to life.

Only downside is when our robot master commandeer the drones and conquer the world.

The obvious answer is to dump the pilot from the strike craft. He's simply not needed today. To keep a human in the loop you could use human pilots as leaders for a strike package of drones. Result is more range and/or capacity and lower risk to life.

Only downside is when our robot master commandeer the drones and conquer the world.

I remember a Stargate SG1 episode like that… link

The obvious answer is to dump the pilot from the strike craft. He's simply not needed today. To keep a human in the loop you could use human pilots as leaders for a strike package of drones. Result is more range and/or capacity and lower risk to life.

Already exist. They're called TLAMs.

Dumping the pilot won't increase load capacity by much. Weight saving on humans and bang seat offset by the comms needed to link the drone to the command, which of course could be hacked and taken over by the enemy. Personally I'd prefer to keep the human element. Then again I prefer fly by wire to mean a substantial cable attached to a pulley system, not a box of electronics!

you forget the life support systems, canopy, and other gear needed to support a pilot. And BOTH the pilot and drone needs comms. There is a net weight savings with an autonomous drone.

More importantly, aircraft performance skyrockets without a pilot. The human body can sustain high g loads, negative and positive, for short bursts. A drone can sustain higher loads for longer periods.

They said that you couldn't fly aircraft off ships. Then we did it. Same will happen with autonomous fighter-bombers.