5 ms·

Aircraft carriers are not particularly well suited to be supplied by cargo aircraft. The largest cargo aircraft with the strengthened landing gear, arresting h

by nwallin 16d ago

Aircraft carriers are not particularly well suited to be supplied by cargo aircraft. The largest cargo aircraft with the strengthened landing gear, arresting hook, and catapult attachment used to be the C-2 Greyhound. It had a range of approximately 1,500 miles with a 10,000 pound cargo. It was retired on July 28th, 2026. The C-2 has been replaced by the CMV-22B Osprey. It has a range of only 1,150 miles and a more limited cargo capacity of only 6,000 pounds. 6,000 pounds isn't nothing, but it's not a lot either. There's not a lot of stuff within 1,150mi of the Arabian Sea. Your two options are one of the US bases in the southern Persian Gulf (Kuwait is too far) and Diego Garcia. Neither are ideal. In both cases you're doing a transfer out in the field. On the other hand, the C-5 Galaxy can carry 120,000 pounds to a range of 4,800 miles. You can fill it with food in the continental US, fly to Hickam AFB in Hawaii, refuel, and fly the rest of the way to Guam. On the return leg, an unladen C-5 can fly directly to the 22nd Airlift Squadron's home base California without a layover. The C-17B Globemaster is smaller than the C-5, although it's nearly as capable. With a 160,000 pound cargo, it has a range of 3,200 miles, (the C-17A has a shorter range) which is just short of the 3,800 miles to get from Hawaii to Guam. I don't know how much cargo it's capable of carrying 3,800 miles, but on the order of 100,000 pounds is a reasonable guess. It is also capable of an empty flight back to the US without a layover.

CobaltFire 16d ago
Not really relevant but a fun anecdote: I can't speak to how much cargo was on board, but I did a Hawai'i to Guam leg on a C-17B that was carrying palletized cargo. One of my better Space-A experiences. Crew was great, flight was smooth. I preferred it over the KC-135 leg, despite the more spartan conditions. The aircrew let us toss out sleeping bags and packs in the aisles between cargo and get some sleep.
tgsovlerkhgsel 16d ago
The Osprey is air refuelable though, isn't it? Each flight is roughly one pound per person on board. It's also roughly 2800 nautical miles from Kuwait to Diego Garcia, so regardless of where the carrier group is, it should be at most a ~6 day round trip at 20 knots for a supply ship from the closest of the two. That assumes there is no way to airdrop watertight pallets of food (e.g. steel drums loaded with cans and MREs) into the water, then retrieve it with RHIBs or helicopters.
- mlyle 16d ago
  Trying to do 4 Osprey flights per day, with refueling, for spartan resupply... is going to be tough. Sure, it's not impossible... In such a situation I expect you'd have a lot of other stuff competing with food for that lift, too, like spare parts.
skhr0680 16d ago
I thought it was well-known that unmodified C-130s (Look ma, no hook!) can land and take off from US-sized carriers successfully. Ergo, in a pinch, everyone will be getting their chicken nuggets and canned corn.
- mlyle 16d ago
  When we had crews that had trained for it and recent operational experience with the capability, it was deemed not worth it. Trying to stand it up in an emergency now is asking for trouble. You'd have to be in a really dire situation to risk the carrier and aircraft this way.
- psunavy03 16d ago
  No, in a pinch, you're just beclowning yourself with your utter ignorance of carrier air operations. They're not striking the entire air wing below just so one C-130 can land and take off, and that's assuming a stunt pulled by one elite test pilot was replicable by a bog-standard junior C-130 pilot.
ethbr1 16d ago
The relevant phrase is underway replenishment (aka UNREP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underway_replenishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underway_replenishment It's been the basis for at-sea supply of long-endurance ships since ~1910 when refueling oil became a key blue sea naval requirement. Modern example: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/kzncvGBj-88 https://m.youtube.com/shorts/kzncvGBj-88 Mostly tensioned cables carrying hoses (liquids especially fuel being the highest volume / limiting factor), some palletized transfer over cables, and some helicopter lift (because the flight pads/decks are already sitting next to each other while everyone is waiting for fuel to finish).
- Tangurena2 16d ago
  I've watched some videos showing UNREP and they're fascinating. It takes a lot of skill to keep the ships parallel. There was a collision earlier this year between the resupply ship and the recipient. Analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSYl9y3e944 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSYl9y3e944 Also, the Navy is using Ospreys to resupply submarines at sea because they have the range and helicopters don't.
  - ethbr1 16d ago
    > Also, the Navy is using Ospreys to resupply submarines at sea because they have the range and helicopters don't. Afaik, modern submarines handle terribly on the surface, so I imagine direct ship-to-ship UNREP is rare. Also, too much cost risk from a collision. Per YouTube, it's mostly vertical replenishment. Helicopter for short range. Osprey for longer. Floating pallets pushed out of the back of a C-17 at max range. I'm sure the packing is intricate for something that's going to be air dropped, then floating, then has to be broken down on an unstable floating platform and conveyed inside through small ports!
- ericmay 16d ago
  Spot-on and thanks for sharing that video too. Aircraft carriers aren't really designed to be replenished by large aircraft which would instead be used to replenish sites like Guam with large enough runways and, frankly, the need if something went wrong due to the population size, remoteness, and inability of everyday residents to do anything about the situation.
RobotToaster 16d ago
> It was retired on July 28th, 2026. Why does it seem like the US always retires useful hardware and replaces it with less useful hardware? The complete lack of frigates in the US navy is another example of this.
- nwallin 15d ago
  Another pending example is the 2035 retirement of the E-3 AWACS and its replacement by the much less capable E-2D. There are/were other more capable options on the table, including the E-7 and the E-10, both of which have been canceled.
- juvoly 16d ago
  Minesweepers?
fifilura 16d ago
Use a ship.
- trhway 16d ago
  better the best of both worlds - flying boat like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_314_Clipper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_314_Clipper Giving how static bases (including airstrips) have become vulnerable, i think we may yet to see those flying boats coming back as a way to support Navy fleets which historically were relying on the static bases.
  - HPsquared 16d ago
    That could be a different navy concept if surface carriers go extinct. You could have submarines and (possibly submersible) seaplanes, and submarine-launched UAVs.

by nwallin 16d ago

CobaltFire 16d ago

Not really relevant but a fun anecdote: I can't speak to how much cargo was on board, but I did a Hawai'i to Guam leg on a C-17B that was carrying palletized cargo. One of my better Space-A experiences. Crew was great, flight was smooth. I preferred it over the KC-135 leg, despite the more spartan conditions. The aircrew let us toss out sleeping bags and packs in the aisles between cargo and get some sleep.

tgsovlerkhgsel 16d ago

The Osprey is air refuelable though, isn't it? Each flight is roughly one pound per person on board. It's also roughly 2800 nautical miles from Kuwait to Diego Garcia, so regardless of where the carrier group is, it should be at most a ~6 day round trip at 20 knots for a supply ship from the closest of the two. That assumes there is no way to airdrop watertight pallets of food (e.g. steel drums loaded with cans and MREs) into the water, then retrieve it with RHIBs or helicopters.

mlyle 16d ago
Trying to do 4 Osprey flights per day, with refueling, for spartan resupply... is going to be tough. Sure, it's not impossible... In such a situation I expect you'd have a lot of other stuff competing with food for that lift, too, like spare parts.

skhr0680 16d ago

I thought it was well-known that unmodified C-130s (Look ma, no hook!) can land and take off from US-sized carriers successfully. Ergo, in a pinch, everyone will be getting their chicken nuggets and canned corn.

mlyle 16d ago
When we had crews that had trained for it and recent operational experience with the capability, it was deemed not worth it. Trying to stand it up in an emergency now is asking for trouble. You'd have to be in a really dire situation to risk the carrier and aircraft this way.
psunavy03 16d ago
No, in a pinch, you're just beclowning yourself with your utter ignorance of carrier air operations. They're not striking the entire air wing below just so one C-130 can land and take off, and that's assuming a stunt pulled by one elite test pilot was replicable by a bog-standard junior C-130 pilot.

ethbr1 16d ago

The relevant phrase is underway replenishment (aka UNREP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underway_replenishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underway_replenishment It's been the basis for at-sea supply of long-endurance ships since ~1910 when refueling oil became a key blue sea naval requirement. Modern example: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/kzncvGBj-88 https://m.youtube.com/shorts/kzncvGBj-88 Mostly tensioned cables carrying hoses (liquids especially fuel being the highest volume / limiting factor), some palletized transfer over cables, and some helicopter lift (because the flight pads/decks are already sitting next to each other while everyone is waiting for fuel to finish).

Tangurena2 16d ago
I've watched some videos showing UNREP and they're fascinating. It takes a lot of skill to keep the ships parallel. There was a collision earlier this year between the resupply ship and the recipient. Analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSYl9y3e944 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSYl9y3e944 Also, the Navy is using Ospreys to resupply submarines at sea because they have the range and helicopters don't.
- ethbr1 16d ago
  > Also, the Navy is using Ospreys to resupply submarines at sea because they have the range and helicopters don't. Afaik, modern submarines handle terribly on the surface, so I imagine direct ship-to-ship UNREP is rare. Also, too much cost risk from a collision. Per YouTube, it's mostly vertical replenishment. Helicopter for short range. Osprey for longer. Floating pallets pushed out of the back of a C-17 at max range. I'm sure the packing is intricate for something that's going to be air dropped, then floating, then has to be broken down on an unstable floating platform and conveyed inside through small ports!
ericmay 16d ago
Spot-on and thanks for sharing that video too. Aircraft carriers aren't really designed to be replenished by large aircraft which would instead be used to replenish sites like Guam with large enough runways and, frankly, the need if something went wrong due to the population size, remoteness, and inability of everyday residents to do anything about the situation.

RobotToaster 16d ago

> It was retired on July 28th, 2026. Why does it seem like the US always retires useful hardware and replaces it with less useful hardware? The complete lack of frigates in the US navy is another example of this.

nwallin 15d ago
Another pending example is the 2035 retirement of the E-3 AWACS and its replacement by the much less capable E-2D. There are/were other more capable options on the table, including the E-7 and the E-10, both of which have been canceled.
juvoly 16d ago
Minesweepers?

fifilura 16d ago

Use a ship.

trhway 16d ago
better the best of both worlds - flying boat like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_314_Clipper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_314_Clipper Giving how static bases (including airstrips) have become vulnerable, i think we may yet to see those flying boats coming back as a way to support Navy fleets which historically were relying on the static bases.
- HPsquared 16d ago
  That could be a different navy concept if surface carriers go extinct. You could have submarines and (possibly submersible) seaplanes, and submarine-launched UAVs.