Fuel Ladder Tutorial

[Reflected]

 

[Dragon1-1]

Nice tutorial. I've seen an explanation of cyclic ops already, but this is quite nice (not to mention for the Tomcat, the doc I know was for the Hornet, which calculates all the important stuff by itself). I'd be so nice if ED gave us an option to close the deck. Will you be including a list of ordnance weights in the kneeboards, for VR users?

BTW, Phoenixes were, at least early on, routinely dumped into the sea. I think this also had to do with how they were cooled, this was fixed later on.

[Strider21]

Good video however your explanation of the fuel ladder where you add fuel to the ladder for ordnance dropped doesn't make sense. For example, if you launch on a mission with 2xGBU-10s, then drop them on the mission you add 4000 lbs to your fuel ladder? Or almost an hour flight time at max conserve? Which means you start flying at max conserve almost an hour earlier than if you didn't drop you the weapons? That doesn't make sense for mission planning ie you plan to land with close to two hours of fuel remaining? You are basically saying the less ordinance you have the morel fuel you hold in reserve. If you take off with just tanks you need to hold a larger fuel reserve than if you take off at max take-off weight? 

[shagrat]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb Strider21:

Good video however your explanation of the fuel ladder where you add fuel to the ladder for ordnance dropped doesn't make sense. For example, if you launch on a mission with 2xGBU-10s, then drop them on the mission you add 4000 lbs to your fuel ladder? Or almost an hour flight time at max conserve? Which means you start flying at max conserve almost an hour earlier than if you didn't drop you the weapons? That doesn't make sense for mission planning ie you plan to land with close to two hours of fuel remaining? You are basically saying the less ordinance you have the morel fuel you hold in reserve. If you take off with just tanks you need to hold a larger fuel reserve than if you take off at max take-off weight? 

Rewatch the video, you are missing some of the things he explained.

[Dragon1-1]

Note that for some loadouts, it's just plain impossible to make max trap weight, you'd be overweight even with zero fuel. What to do then wasn't explained, and neither was whether you include ordnance that you're definitely not supposed to be bringing back to the boat. 

Also, it wasn't explained when exactly you're supposed to dump gas, particularly with regards to marshal and such. I'm pretty sure there's a specific point for this, and it's probably not when setting up on the downwind, or in the marshal stack, which would shower jet fuel over anyone below you in the stack, and probably the boat, too.

[Strider21]

7 minutes ago, shagrat said:

Rewatch the video, you are missing some of the things he explained.

Do tell.

An example of my point. If you follow Reflected's procedure and use his cycle times. You launch with a loadout of 2xAIM-9, 1xAIM-54, LANTRIN, 1xGBU-24 and 2x XT you get Max Trap with roughly 4600 lbs of Fuel. So your fuel ladder would be: 

30     | 10.1

45      | 9.0

0700  | 7.9

15       | 6.8

30       | 5.7

45       | 4.6

Which means the min fuel you need to take off with is 10.1 and once you get below the fuel ladder you need to switch to max conserve. In this scenario you arrive at the ball with a min fuel of 4600 lbs or roughly 1.0 hrs of flying time at max conserve (not accounting for unusable fuel in the tanks).

However if you launch with a clean jet with only two tanks you get Max Trap with roughly 9200 lbs of fuel. So your fuel ladder would be:

30     | 14.7

45      | 13.6

0700  | 12.5

15       | 11.4

30       | 10.3

45       | 9.2

Which means the min fuel you need to take off with is 14.1 and once you get below the fuel ladder you need to switch to max conserve. In this scenario you arrive at the ball with a min fuel of 9200 lbs or roughly 2.0 hrs of flying time at max conserve (not accounting for unusable fuel in the tanks).

Why are you holding an additional hour fuel reserve because you are launching with a lighter payload? Why do you need to go max conserve 4600 lbs earlier? 

 

[shagrat]

The point is, you want to arrive on the deck with max trap weight or below as in 54,000 lbs. If you drop 1,000 lbs of bombs and drop fuel to 5,600 lbs max trap fuel (planned) how much does the aircraft weigh? So you could keep 6,600 lbs and comfortable bolter a couple times more. Or stay in holding while other aircraft with fuel emergency or damage can land, before you.

On the other hand, nobody can guarantee, that you drop (all) your ordnance, so you need to adjust, based on the fuel ladder and max trap fuel.

 

[Strider21]

17 minutes ago, shagrat said:

The point is, you want to arrive on the deck with max trap weight or below as in 54,000 lbs. If you drop 1,000 lbs of bombs and drop fuel to 5,600 lbs max trap fuel (planned) how much does the aircraft weigh? So you could keep 6,600 lbs and comfortable bolter a couple times more. Or stay in holding while other aircraft with fuel emergency or damage can land, before you.

On the other hand, nobody can guarantee, that you drop (all) your ordnance, so you need to adjust, based on the fuel ladder and max trap fuel.

 

Still doesn't max sense. I do think that max trap plays a role in calculating your fuel ladder but there must also be a caveat for a required fuel for a divert or hold time if operating blue water. What you are saying is that your fuel ladder changes pre and post strike. Which would lead to situations where you could be above your fuel ladder and therefore cruising around at .7 Mach drop you bombs and now suddenly you are below your fuel ladder because your fuel required at the ball just increased and therefore have to suddenly switch to max conserve. There is a piece of information missing in how Reflected has explained the fuel ladder. To be clear what I am saying is it doesn't make sense that you would need to hold a higher fuel reserve the lighter your aircraft weighs which is the implication in how it was explained in the video. 

[shagrat]

vor 35 Minuten schrieb Strider21:

Still doesn't max sense. I do think that max trap plays a role in calculating your fuel ladder but there must also be a caveat for a required fuel for a divert or hold time if operating blue water. What you are saying is that your fuel ladder changes pre and post strike. Which would lead to situations where you could be above your fuel ladder and therefore cruising around at .7 Mach drop you bombs and now suddenly you are below your fuel ladder because your fuel required at the ball just increased and therefore have to suddenly switch to max conserve. There is a piece of information missing in how Reflected has explained the fuel ladder. To be clear what I am saying is it doesn't make sense that you would need to hold a higher fuel reserve the lighter your aircraft weighs which is the implication in how it was explained in the video. 

In the middle of the ocean, trying to land on a moving and tilting carrier deck, you want as much fuel in the tank, as possible!

If the weather deteriorates and they can't start another tanker, the fuel in your tanks is all there is between trying to land, again and again, or ejecting into a cold and raging ocean.

So the idea is to have the max trap weight as the limit, to land, but always try to keep as much fuel, as possible in case things goes south.

If you have not dropped any ordnance you need to dump fuel to max trap weight and if you dropped a thousand pounds of ordnance, you still dump fuel to max trap weight, but this time it gives you more of a safety buffer.

Edit: the fuel ladder does not matter for max trap weight. It's just another tool to quickly check your fuel state at certain points in the mission and manage your fuel.

Edited February 14, 2023 by shagrat

[shagrat]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Dragon1-1:

neither was whether you include ordnance that you're definitely not supposed to be bringing back to the boat. 

"Supposed to not bring back" maybe, but if you have to abort the mission you may easily find yourself with all your ordnance and a lot of fuel on the way back to the carrier.

I am sure that other than in extreme circumstances it's considered good practice to plan a loadout that doesn't exceed max trap weight.

[Dragon1-1]

You plan a mission with enough ordnance to complete your assigned tasking, no matter if circumstances are extreme or not, although it's reasonable to assume you wouldn't get fragged with such a heavy load unless it was really needed. However, if a full load of Mk84s, or six Phoenixes, is what it takes to do the job, so be it, just keep in mind you might end up in a situation where you have to dump all of them in order to get back. At least one squadron did training flights with six Phoenixes, and IIRC they regularly dumped them into water. Beancounters were not happy and eventually put kibosh on this, but I think the idea was to prepare for the worst case scenario. Either the squadron leader was a little paranoid or the boat was posted where it'd bear the brunt of it, I don't remember. Either way, dumb ordnance can certainly be treated as disposable.

[shagrat]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Strider21:

Still doesn't max sense. I do think that max trap plays a role in calculating your fuel ladder but there must also be a caveat for a required fuel for a divert or hold time if operating blue water. What you are saying is that your fuel ladder changes pre and post strike. Which would lead to situations where you could be above your fuel ladder and therefore cruising around at .7 Mach drop you bombs and now suddenly you are below your fuel ladder because your fuel required at the ball just increased and therefore have to suddenly switch to max conserve. There is a piece of information missing in how Reflected has explained the fuel ladder. To be clear what I am saying is it doesn't make sense that you would need to hold a higher fuel reserve the lighter your aircraft weighs which is the implication in how it was explained in the video. 

You still focus on the fuel amount, while the key is the max trap weight(!).

You don't hold a fuel "reserve", you try to retain as much fuel as possible, without exceeding max trap weight at the first landing attempt.

If you originally planned the fuel ladder with ordnance that leaves a max trap fuel of 5.6 as in the example, the fuel ladder tells you what amount of fuel you must have at a minimum (!) to arrive at the carrier at recovery ops with all ordnance still loaded (e g. you had to abort and dropping a couple $100,000 worth of GBUs is not an option).

If your planned recovery time is 07:45 and you are approaching 07:00 you should have a minimum of 8,900 lbs in your tanks and need to immediately go to max conserve, if you are at or below 8,9. If you have 10,800 lbs remaining you may arrive at the carrier with more fuel than max trap fuel (5.6) and not enough time to dump, so you need to adjust burn rate and/or dump 1,900 lbs fuel.

Now, let's assume the mission went as planned, you dropped both GBUs and shed 1,000 lbs of weight this way.

You adjust all values for the fuel ladder by +1,000 lbs and approaching 07:00 you arrive with 8,900 lbs you indeed should go to max conserve immediately, because the perfect fuel state for maximum fuel, while keeping max trap weight is now 9,900 lbs and gives you a greater fuel reserve if something happens. Sticking to the example above, with 10,800 lbs fuel remaining, you can now adjust burn rate or dump 900 lbs fuel, only... Your new max trap fuel is 6,600 lbs to arrive on the first landing approach with max trap weight and you have 1,000 lbs more fuel to spend on bolters, holding marshall for emergencies and may not require a tanker.

 

[Strider21]

2 minutes ago, shagrat said:

You still focus on the fuel amount, while the key is the max trap weight(!).

You don't hold a fuel "reserve", you try to retain as much fuel as possible, without exceeding max trap weight at the first landing attempt.

If you originally planned the fuel ladder with ordnance that leaves a max trap fuel of 5.6 as in the example, the fuel ladder tells you what amount of fuel you must have at a minimum (!) to arrive at the carrier at recovery ops with all ordnance still loaded (e g. you had to abort and dropping a couple $100,000 worth of GBUs is not an option).

If your planned recovery time is 07:45 and you are approaching 07:00 you should have a minimum of 8,900 lbs in your tanks and need to immediately go to max conserve, if you are at or below 8,9. If you have 10,800 lbs remaining you may arrive at the carrier with more fuel than max trap fuel (5.6) and not enough time to dump, so you need to adjust burn rate and/or dump 1,900 lbs fuel.

Now, let's assume the mission went as planned, you dropped both GBUs and shed 1,000 lbs of weight this way.

You adjust all values for the fuel ladder by +1,000 lbs and approaching 07:00 you arrive with 8,900 lbs you indeed should go to max conserve immediately, because the perfect fuel state for maximum fuel, while keeping max trap weight is now 9,900 lbs and gives you a greater fuel reserve if something happens. Sticking to the example above, with 10,800 lbs fuel remaining, you can now adjust burn rate or dump 900 lbs fuel, only... Your new max trap fuel is 6,600 lbs to arrive on the first landing approach with max trap weight and you have 1,000 lbs more fuel to spend on bolters, holding marshall for emergencies and may not require a tanker.

 

Your example is contrary to how the fuel ladder in cyclic ops in calculated here (written by a couple hornet pilots): 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gCUyoDQ-DGGBCFEOvgpER9L1w7hc0TT5/view

In it the fuel on the bottom of ladder is not related to max trap but to tank state (as set by CAG) plus the fuel required for a set number of passes he requires. These numbers do not change with aircraft GW. The fuel ladder is very much about tracking your min fuel required plus a required fuel reserve. Max trap weight plays a factor but two aircraft of the same type on the same mission should have the same fuel ladder and it shouldn't change on the current aircraft payload. 

 

[shagrat]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Dragon1-1:

You plan a mission with enough ordnance to complete your assigned tasking, no matter if circumstances are extreme or not, although it's reasonable to assume you wouldn't get fragged with such a heavy load unless it was really needed. However, if a full load of Mk84s, or six Phoenixes, is what it takes to do the job, so be it, just keep in mind you might end up in a situation where you have to dump all of them in order to get back. At least one squadron did training flights with six Phoenixes, and IIRC they regularly dumped them into water. Beancounters were not happy and eventually put kibosh on this, but I think the idea was to prepare for the worst case scenario. Either the squadron leader was a little paranoid or the boat was posted where it'd bear the brunt of it, I don't remember. Either way, dumb ordnance can certainly be treated as disposable.

You plan your mission with the basic idea of getting the job done, making it back alive and causing no damage to the taxpayer paid equipment (usually in that order). If the mission demands a loadout exceeding max trap weight I am sure they just drop the ordnance, but if there is an option to send more aircraft, that's usually the preference. That's what I meant by "extreme circumstances".

The uncomfortable truth is, economics and logistics are a critical part of warfare.

 

[Dragon1-1]

1 minute ago, shagrat said:

The uncomfortable truth is, economics and logistics are a critical part of warfare.

Exactly, and more aircraft use more gas, result in more wear on the parts, and put more pilots in the air. This has to be weighed against a situation where an aircraft might have to drop ordnance into water instead of on target. Remember, you set out on a mission with the assumption you're not getting those bombs back. Whether the target is destroyed or not varies according to tactical situation. On that level, whether a bomb ended up twenty meters off target or dumped into the sea within sight of the boat doesn't really matter. Also, making it back alive usually trumps the mission (bombs are cheaper than aircraft and especially pilots, if nothing else), which is why in a real emergency, as opposed to something like the weather turning bad or some other part of the mission failing, everything comes off. 

Of course, on a mission where you expect to come back fully loaded, or at least consider it a likely enough outcome, for example peacetime interception, escort or a CAP, you'd rather take a loadout which you can bring back. However, in a real conflict, an interception or any air to ground sortie could routinely carry loads that they can't come back with, with the expectation they'll be removed from the aircraft, hopefully pointed at the target. If you restrict yourself to loadouts where you can bring back everything, you're missing out on a big chunk of the Tomcat's bomb capacity.

[shagrat]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb Strider21:

Your example is contrary to how the fuel ladder in cyclic ops in calculated here (written by a couple hornet pilots): 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gCUyoDQ-DGGBCFEOvgpER9L1w7hc0TT5/view

In it the fuel on the bottom of ladder is not related to max trap but to tank state (as set by CAG) plus the fuel required for a set number of passes he requires. These numbers do not change with aircraft GW. The fuel ladder is very much about tracking your min fuel required plus a required fuel reserve. Max trap weight plays a factor but two aircraft of the same type on the same mission should have the same fuel ladder and it shouldn't change on the current aircraft payload. 

 

(...)"CAG will demand a minimum amount of fuel to show up in the groove with. We call this number “Tank state + X”. The “ + X” indicates the number of additional passes that can be performed prior to reaching “tank state.” (...) "Of course, this is all based on local flying around the carrier; long missions in country have differentf fuel planning considerations but the later stages of those flights boil back down to a ladder as well."(...)

The fuel ladder does not change. Still the same minimums, only you "could" and "should" try to conserve fuel in blue water ops. That's at least what I took from the video.

I am not an expert, but the Hornet's and Tomcat's are very different weight and payload wise.

Maybe a SME can clarify it?

 

[Reflected]

Guys, thanks for chipping in. Here are some thoughts:

1) Read Bio's 'Tomcat RIO', it explains the ladder through several pages

2) Yes if you are likely to drop your bombs you would probably calculate a different ladder too, that's what I would do, or maybe not. It's not complex math, it takes all of 40 seconds to update the ladder on your kneeboard. But dropping ordnance is never guaranteed. If you have to abort - which can always happen -, you hold overhead and dump almost all of your fuel.

3) There were some cases - according to BIO- where CAG would determine a lower state than max conserve on the ball, but most of the cases it was max trap on the ball. This was confirmed by Paco too. They both flew Tomcats, the doc you sent is about Hornets. Maybe those did it differently? Maybe because of the low capacity of the Hornet? I don't know, gotta ask someone who flew both.

4) and yes you did add fuel for missing ordnance, the max trap of a slick Tomcat is higher than a fully loaded one. But you plan for max trap. It doesn't mean that's what you will do, depending on the tactical situation. It's just a tool to help you make safe decisions.

5) I don't know when and where they would dump fuel. I guess it has to be close enough so that you don't put yourself in a dangerous situation (e.g. not over the target area where anything can come up) but also not while holding, 'chemtrailing' your shipmates. I'd probably do it within 10 miles of mother.

Edited February 14, 2023 by Reflected

[shagrat]

vor 12 Minuten schrieb Dragon1-1:

Exactly, and more aircraft use more gas, result in more wear on the parts, and put more pilots in the air. This has to be weighed against a situation where an aircraft might have to drop ordnance into water instead of on target. Remember, you set out on a mission with the assumption you're not getting those bombs back. Whether the target is destroyed or not varies according to tactical situation. On that level, whether a bomb ended up twenty meters off target or dumped into the sea within sight of the boat doesn't really matter. Also, making it back alive usually trumps the mission (bombs are cheaper than aircraft and especially pilots, if nothing else), which is why in a real emergency, as opposed to something like the weather turning bad or some other part of the mission failing, everything comes off. 

Of course, on a mission where you expect to come back fully loaded, or at least consider it a likely enough outcome, for example peacetime interception, escort or a CAP, you'd rather take a loadout which you can bring back. However, in a real conflict, an interception or any air to ground sortie could routinely carry loads that they can't come back with, with the expectation they'll be removed from the aircraft, hopefully pointed at the target. If you restrict yourself to loadouts where you can bring back everything, you're missing out on a big chunk of the Tomcat's bomb capacity.

Yep, as I said above. Depends all on the circumstances. If you plan a training excercise with regularly dropping a full load of precision guided munitions, you may get interesting questions...

[wowbagger]

On 2/14/2023 at 12:00 PM, Reflected said:

What is a fuel ladder?

Just wanted to say thanks for this and for all the "information" type videos you do. They really compliment the campaigns and add a lot more depth to the experience that you don't get from either the common "DCS WORLD: Hornet ATFLIR tutorial" type videos that abound, or from the module manuals. I love the context you provide and the real world perspective. Instead of just yet more abbreviations and mil references that I have no understanding of, or just guessing how things were/are done, your explanations are clear, informative and show the reasons behind the procedures - and are super effective at drawing a player (well this player) into the world the missions recreate.

Anyway, cheers. Hope you keep them coming.