Jump to content


Photo

V-22 Aew And Asw


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#41 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,372 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 06 August 2019 - 1943 PM

The USN has been looking at the V-22 to replace the C-2 Greyhound for COD.

Edited by shep854, 06 August 2019 - 1943 PM.

  • 0

#42 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 06 August 2019 - 2119 PM

Does it have the legs for the Nimitz classes?
  • 0

#43 Anixtu

Anixtu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,087 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Afloat

Posted 07 August 2019 - 0132 AM

Like the Canadian Bear Trap system but with a fuel pipe? Hmmm.....seems kinda dangerous. Pump JP8 into the cargo compartment of the aircraft?  :o


JP5. Don't want low flashpoint fuels at sea.
  • 0

#44 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 07 August 2019 - 0141 AM

 

Well Merlin can reach 15000 feet, which seems to be adequate for most circumstances. Ive always thought the Hawkeye was far too much aircraft for a carrier deck. The Skyraider and Gannet AEW's always struck me as far neater solutions, regardless of the undoubted capabilities of the Hawkeye.

 




E-2C
 

  • Length: 57 ft 8.75 in (17.5959 m)
  • Wingspan: 80 ft 7 in (24.56 m)
  • Height: 18 ft 3.75 in (5.5817 m)
  • Wing area: 700 sq ft (65 m2[87]
  • Aspect ratio: 9.15
  • Airfoil: root: NACA 63A216 ; tip: NACA 63A414[88]
  • Empty weight: 40,200 lb (18,234 kg)

    Gross weight: 43,068 lb (19,535 kg)

A3D


 

 

Oh I know Ryan. Now tell me you are entirely ok with something the size of a A3D landing on a carrier today?

 

The reason why it was built is that atomic weapons were so damn big, it was about the only thing it could carry one any range. Technology moves on. So in time it will for the Hawkeye, and I warrant the only reason it has not is that the USN are not exactly flush with funds to develop a replacement. They want a on deck tanker, ASW aircraft and a LR strike aircraft. There is no money for those either.


  • 0

#45 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,372 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 07 August 2019 - 0902 AM

Ryan: Regarding a V-22 COD, I believe the limited cargo capacity, both weight and volume, is the sticking point.
  • 0

#46 bfng3569

bfng3569

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 183 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 0924 AM

Ryan: Regarding a V-22 COD, I believe the limited cargo capacity, both weight and volume, is the sticking point.

 

 

 

some snippets from online.

 

Fleet Logistics Multi-Mission Squadron Three Zero (VRM-30) will stand up at Naval Air Station North Island in California, on Oct. 1, 2018, according to an official directive, Seapower Magazine reported on Aug. 15, 2018. On that same date, the Naval Aviation Training Support Group (NATSG) will take up residence at Marine Corps Air Station New River in North Carolina, to coordinate CMV-22B pilot training, which Marine Medium Tiltrotor Training Squadron Two Zero Four (VMMT-204) will oversee initially.

 

 

But, in particular, the August 2018 experiments showed that the CMV-22 can meet one of the Navy’s key requirements for the aircraft in the COD role, which is transporting F135 engines for the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter. The Navy hopes to reach initial operational capability with these stealth fighter jets by the end of 2018, though there are fears that schedule may slip.

If all goes according to plan, the F-35Cs could see their first operational deployment aboard the USS Carl Vinson, another Nimitz-class carrier, in 2021. This could be the first cruise for the CMV-22Bs, too, since, at least according to the Navy, the C-2s can’t transport the F135s and therefore would be unable to adequately support a Carrier Air Wing that included Joint Strike Fighters.

 

 

The Navy is right to say that the C-2 can’t carry the F-35’s engine inside its standard shipping container, a bulky configuration that weighs 9,350 pounds. But the CMV-22B, despite its now proven ability to land and take off with a higher gross weight, can’t, either.

To get the F135 into the cramped confines of the Osprey’s main cabin, the Navy will need to use a special pallet that leaves the engine exposed to the elements, including corrosive salt-filled sea air and water. Ground crews will also need to remove certain external aircraft components to prevent them from being damaged during loading and unloading and then reinstall them before the tilt-rotor can get going again, which makes the entire process take longer. The Marine Corps uses this procedure to support its F-35B Joint Strike Fighters deployed on amphibious assault ships using its MV-22Bs.

 


  • 0

#47 bfng3569

bfng3569

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 183 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 0929 AM

 

 

Well Merlin can reach 15000 feet, which seems to be adequate for most circumstances. Ive always thought the Hawkeye was far too much aircraft for a carrier deck. The Skyraider and Gannet AEW's always struck me as far neater solutions, regardless of the undoubted capabilities of the Hawkeye.

 




E-2C
 

  • Length: 57 ft 8.75 in (17.5959 m)
  • Wingspan: 80 ft 7 in (24.56 m)
  • Height: 18 ft 3.75 in (5.5817 m)
  • Wing area: 700 sq ft (65 m2[87]
  • Aspect ratio: 9.15
  • Airfoil: root: NACA 63A216 ; tip: NACA 63A414[88]
  • Empty weight: 40,200 lb (18,234 kg)

    Gross weight: 43,068 lb (19,535 kg)

A3D


 

 

Oh I know Ryan. Now tell me you are entirely ok with something the size of a A3D landing on a carrier today?

 

The reason why it was built is that atomic weapons were so damn big, it was about the only thing it could carry one any range. Technology moves on. So in time it will for the Hawkeye, and I warrant the only reason it has not is that the USN are not exactly flush with funds to develop a replacement. They want a on deck tanker, ASW aircraft and a LR strike aircraft. There is no money for those either.

 

 

while that may be true, the Navy has put some significant funding into upgrades with the D model.  Something like 3+ billion.


  • 0

#48 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 07 August 2019 - 1018 AM

Oh I know Ryan. Now tell me you are entirely ok with something the size of a A3D landing on a carrier today?


The USN managed to operate a bunch of large aircraft from carriers on a routine basis. The biggest issues with the Whale was the lack of ejection seats for the crew. All Three Dead. Mind you, I know someone who was in an A3D that did ditch and he survived.  

As to if I'm ok with it. Sure, but the Navy doesn't ask me (or you). It's not like an E2 or C2 is the same class and size as an A3D or the F-111B which was even larger and heavier. Logically speaking the NAVY could operate something in the weight class of the F14 just fine and there'd be no problems with that size/weight.

The reason why it was built is that atomic weapons were so damn big, it was about the only thing it could carry one any range. Technology moves on. So in time it will for the Hawkeye, and I warrant the only reason it has not is that the USN are not exactly flush with funds to develop a replacement. They want a on deck tanker, ASW aircraft and a LR strike aircraft. There is no money for those either.


I don't think the V-22 will work as long range strike. The RCS for one will be VERY bad.
  • 0

#49 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 07 August 2019 - 1135 AM

Just catching up on threads after some time traveling.

Clearly the MV-22 has greater range, speed, and endurance than most any similar sized helicopter. It likely has some altitude advantages as well, or perhaps at a minimum, and possibly more importantly, so time to altitude advantage. I suspect making a pressurized version of the aircraft wouldn't be overly challenging but would add weight that would take away from the sensor package.

Drones of any size are going to have similar trade offs and issues with size and quantity compared to manned aircraft. They also will not have a stand alone capability to direct aircraft and will have to have some kind of datalink to some other control center. This might be workable with a directional, low powered frequency agile data link like MADL but it will always open up another path of ECM/cyber attack regardless of how sophisticated it is.

Realistically neither the USN or RN can afford a new aircraft design for AEW or ASW roles and will continue to use helicopters for those rolls (E-2D for the USN).

The E-2D is externally similar to the Charlie but is for all intents and purposes a new aircraft design (and all are new builds) - it uses a PESA UHF band radar and other mission equipment nothing like previous models. I suspect we aren't even being told its full capabilities in terms of ESM, ECM, and operating as a central communications node.

MV-22 has already been decided as the COD replacement over C-2. It makes sense as an off the shelf buy, even though I think it lacks range and payload of the aircraft it replaces. It does however allow for a new VERTREP capability that would be unique compared to any other COD aircraft. The F-35's engine was always going to be a beast to move by any on board aircraft due the unique thrust requirements that engine had to fulfill.


  • 0

#50 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 07 August 2019 - 1356 PM

I would have thought that any upgrades to the E2 would have included C2 upgrades for compatibility and like for like commonality vis a vis airframe, avionics, power plant, etc.
  • 0

#51 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 07 August 2019 - 1450 PM

The C2 isn't actually the same airframe, even when compared to the older E-2Cs. Also using MV-22 as the COD allows commonality with a much larger fleet of USMC aircraft.


  • 0

#52 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 07 August 2019 - 1503 PM

Well, wings and engines. Its derived from the E2 is it not?

I guess I see an area for optimized savings with the common support aircraft concept. Buddy tanking from an F18 is less ideal than tanking from a dedicated platform with more capacity. a larger cargo bird that can carry out COD or tanking tasks would be useful I think.

https://en.m.wikiped...upport_Aircraft
  • 0

#53 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 07 August 2019 - 1530 PM

The common support aircraft idea had merit, but it makes no sense now that two of the key roles have been filled. Just the E-2D program alone was sufficient to deep six it IMO. The E-2D is an excellent aircraft and the MV-22 will be an adequate COD with a large established spare parts stream and unique capabilities. As for fueling, clearly that needs to be addressed too given the fatigue to F-18s. I had thought it might be worth having a larger COD squadron and adding refueling to the MV-22s role - there is an established pallet system that has been tested for this. However the USN is going with the MQ-25. I suspect using turbofan drone will greatly extend the range and altitude of refueling, so long run it is probably a better path that also allows for CV based drone operational experience to be built. I suspect the MQ-25 attrition rate will be high initially.


  • 0

#54 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,372 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 07 August 2019 - 1901 PM

The Whale actually operated off Essex-class carriers!  I've seen an overhead photo of an Essex with 3 (!) A-3s parked aboard, but alas my Google-fu is weak.

I did find this shot on the A-3 Association site https://www.a3skywar...-3-history.html :

FlightOps_0003-600.jpg

Navy202-600.jpg

Note the A-3 just abaft the island...


  • 0

#55 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 07 August 2019 - 2118 PM

The A-5/RA-5 was also a big aircraft.

General characteristics

Crew: 2
Length: 76 ft 6 in (23.32 m)
Wingspan: 53 ft 0 in (16.16 m)
Height: 19 ft 5 in (5.91 m)
Wing area: 701 sq ft (65.1 m2)
Empty weight: 32,783 lb (14,870 kg)
Gross weight: 47,631 lb (21,605 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 63,085 lb (28,615 kg)


A3J-1s_VAH-7_CVAN-65_NAN11-62.jpg

 

F-14 for comparison

nim-3-156624-RA-5C-US-Navy-AJ-602-RVAH-6


Edited by rmgill, 07 August 2019 - 2121 PM.

  • 0

#56 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 07 August 2019 - 2125 PM

3 Trackers and what looks like 6 A3Ds. 

 

024315.jpg


  • 0

#57 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,372 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 07 August 2019 - 2148 PM

Thing was, neither Viggies or Tomcats (nor Phantoms) could operate off Essex decks.
  • 0

#58 Special-K

Special-K

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 763 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western New York State, USA
  • Interests:All things military, Shooting, Cycling, Hiking and Camping.

Posted 07 August 2019 - 2150 PM

Like the Canadian Bear Trap system but with a fuel pipe? Hmmm.....seems kinda dangerous. Pump JP8 into the cargo compartment of the aircraft?  :o


JP5. Don't want low flashpoint fuels at sea.


I am genuinely curious, why is this? If it is a low Flashpoint, does that make it more flammable, and therefore more hazardous aboard a ship?



-K
  • 0

#59 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 08 August 2019 - 0008 AM

The Whale actually operated off Essex-class carriers!  I've seen an overhead photo of an Essex with 3 (!) A-3s parked aboard, but alas my Google-fu is weak.

I did find this shot on the A-3 Association site https://www.a3skywar...-3-history.html :

FlightOps_0003-600.jpg

Navy202-600.jpg

Note the A-3 just abaft the island...

That I did not know. Its wingspan must have been almost the beem of the ship.


  • 0

#60 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 08 August 2019 - 0011 AM

 

 

Like the Canadian Bear Trap system but with a fuel pipe? Hmmm.....seems kinda dangerous. Pump JP8 into the cargo compartment of the aircraft?  :o


JP5. Don't want low flashpoint fuels at sea.


I am genuinely curious, why is this? If it is a low Flashpoint, does that make it more flammable, and therefore more hazardous aboard a ship?



-K

 

 

Never served, but yes that is my understanding. The same way Navy bombs all have an ablative coating on them even when otherwise they are identical to USAF bombs. Extra safety steps learned after Forestal and Enterprise.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users