Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Status
Not open for further replies.

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
I am no carrier expert, the engine issue is one that I have heard used against V22 for the Cods role.
there are two tenders looking to sell there birds to the navy as a replacement for the C2A Greyhound. Bell Boeing who want Ospreys on CVN decks for CODs and probably Vertreps' I would also point to the tanker mod.
Lockheed Martin. Who wants to take the wings and parts of the prematurely retired Vikings and build a dedicated jet powered Cod bird S/C3 I guess you would call it.

then standing against them is Northrop Grumman who built the E3 Hawkeye and C2 Greyhound. They want to Rehabilitate the Greyhound by taking the wings and cockpits of there newest Hawkeyes and installing them in the Greyhound hull. Which is logical as Greyhound is more or less a Hawkeye minus the radar system.
now I have heard Lockheed use the "Engine don't fit" argument. The basis of which is that F135 Turbofans cannon fit in the hull of a V22 and must be carried slung. It always sounded a little off to me as like you said, and I did know CVNs have enough room and likely did Carry spare engines and could if it needed replacements or to send back batches use other means IE another ship.
That would cut down the arguments against a CODsprey to price. Its not a cheap bird by any means. But since the Navy already has a existing equipment and maintenance chain for Ospreys it would be unit costs not total cost the navy would have to pay. Additionally since the USMC who is still highly integrated in the Fleet buys and uses Ospreys at a tremendous number vs those needs by CVNs. The Navy would in fact not be adding a new type to its mix but would be eliminating one. I mean one batch buy of MV22s would probably cover all the C2 Greyhounds in service.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
It's an interesting competition.

I can see both sides on the Upgraded C-2 vs the V-22 COD.

I do not think the Lockheed Martin C-3 remake of the S-3 is going to win. It's all new and does not bring as much to the table from the new perspective as the Osprey.

OTOH. the Osprey does cost more and would bring a whole new logistic chain to the carriers to apply it. If they brought in a SV-22 for ASW work and an EV-22 for electronics they would have a lot better chance because of the commonality. But the ability to use the same platform for resupply to the carrier and the smaller vessels makes a lot of sense.

But I honestly believe that the revamped C-2s have the best shot. They already fly them. The logistics chain and all of the SOPs and policy are in place, and the training. The commonality with the E-2Ds and E-2Cs is a good thing too in terms of complimenting one another logistically.

I believe it has the best shot and with the upgrade going the way the E-2D went...it's just a natural too me.
 

Pointblank

Senior Member
The issues for Ospreys in CODs is that it cannot fit the F35s F135 engines internally, and it is a pricy bird. The advantage of Ospreys in Cods is the Navy could eliminate the hub and spoke system in favor of a more direct method. Today for cargo to get to say a destroyer on deployment via the air. It would first be loaded on a C2 flown to a carrier where it is unloaded sorted and loaded aboard a helicopter which then transfers it to the crew of the destroyer. If Ospreys take the job then the model can change so once loaded until delivery the cargo never needs to be swapped to another platform.

The V-22 can carry a F135 engine externally. The V-22 has a dual hook system, much like the CH-47 Chinook. This allows for external loads to be more stable in flight.
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
Somebody might want to check the detail on this but as far as my understanding goes the fact in question is not so much the CVN and F35C engine but the F135 for the F35B aircraft

Again some one needs to check the specs but I remember someone saying F35B engine is larger than F35C as a result while on a pallet it doesn't fit inside V22 as cargo which is requirement not for CVN but the first two "air centric" America Class LHD

Plus the export potential for all F35B operators, you have 8 x F35B on a LHD/LHA a couple fail you lost 1/4 of your air wing Greyhound can't bring in replacement because it can't land so V22 fills that particular gap in that instance

Dry cargo military sea lift command carrys such extra spares too
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
All F35 variants currently use the F135 turbofan. The difference is the way it is configured. Now sling loaded cargo is not exactly optimum. Sling loaded cargo adds drag to the bird and requires clear sky's I mean just imagine being a pilot of a Chinook with a hummer slung under your hull getting blown all over the sky because of a storm.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
All F35 variants currently use the F135 turbofan. The difference is the way it is configured. Now sling loaded cargo is not exactly optimum. Sling loaded cargo adds drag to the bird and requires clear sky's I mean just imagine being a pilot of a Chinook with a hummer slung under your hull getting blown all over the sky because of a storm.
Well said.

If possible, when carrying a jet engine, you want it enclosed in the aircraft.

But as Popeye said...that's not the real issue in any case. It is a rare thing.

It will be interesting to see which way this falls. As I said, at this point, for the COD mission, I am leaning towards the upgraded C-2 Greyhound.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
More Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier pics:


qe-001.jpg

qe-002.jpg

qe-003.jpg

qe-004.jpg

qe-005.jpg

qe-007.jpg


From my
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
I would love to see a Osprey on that deck doing CODs and a few other jobs. It would be a major asset to extending the Range and power of the QE2 Class.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
In case you gents did not know. The USN.... ships and stores aircraft engines in containers like this;

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


ARABIAN SEA (March 9, 2007) - Aviation Ordnanceman Airman Deven Reed maneuvers a jet engine container in the hangar bay aboard Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) during an underway replenishment with Military Sealift Command (MSC) fast combat support ship USNS Bridge (T AOE 10). Stennis Carrier Strike Group is on a scheduled deployment in support of Maritime Security Operations (MSO). U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman John Wagner (RELEASED)
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I thought this would be of interest here. It deals with the Non-Skid surface on carriers and other naval vessels and their life expectancy. It was a discussion that resulted from the PLAN Navy thread about the Liaoning and the fact that its non-skid surface is being replaced. Some thought it was too soon for such a thing.

But, up until 2012, the average life expectancy of US aircraft carrier non-skid coatings was 18 months...and that covers the amphibs and other vessels as well.

A new coating, supposedly with longer life was developed then. I do not know how long it is actually lasting, but I would not be surprised if the goals of the program were directed at doubling that.

Here's an article:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Also, here's a neat video showing how the non-skid surface is removed. They use a specific hear generator and then scrape it off:

[video=youtube;FatE87yqpwo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FatE87yqpwo[/video]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top