Can a COD V-22 Transport F-35B/C Engines to CVN/LHA?

Marines Push Quietly, But Hard, For Navy to Replace C-2s With V-22s By Richard Whittle April 6, 2012

http://defense.aol.com/2012/04/06/marin ... 2s-with-v/

"...Masiello, though, thinks the day isn't far off when V-22s will be a regular sight on aircraft carrier decks. "I'm convinced it's not a question of if," he said, "it's a question of when."

Most of the post is at the URL but my question from title of thread remains.

Well, if the F135 weighs 3,750, then probably. Read somewhere that the V-22 can haul 6000lbs almost 500 miles. Don't know about volume though.

Thanks. I guess putting together info from the web may get us close to whatever the cargo volume capacity of a V-22. Just thought someone somewhere may have figured it out already. Anyhoo:


V-22 Osprey Payload
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ayload.htm

"...The V-22 is fitted with two external cargo hooks, either of which can support a load of 4,538 kg (10,000 lbs). If the retractable hooks are used together for stability, the combined capacity can be up to 6,804 kg (15,000 lbs).

The Osprey is also fitted with a rescue hoist that consists of a hydraulically powered winch mounted on a removable boom and support shaft. The winch holds 76 usable meters (250 usable feet) of 0.4 cm (5.32 in) diameter corrosion-resistant steel cable. It has a rated capacity of 272 kilograms (600 pounds) with a 2.5 g limit load factor. Cable speed is variable between 0.13 and 1.37 m/s (25 and 250 ft/min). A stainless steel rescue hook is attached to the hoist cable. A remote hand-held control is provided for the crewman operating the hoist.

The V-22's cabin and cargo ramp are capable of accepting cargo pallets or containers as large as 68 inches wide, 66.23 inches high, and 250 inches long as long as the object is capable of achieving the necessary restraint criteria. The Osprey has a usable cabin volume of 739 cu ft and is designed to carry up to a 20,000 lb load internally.

The JORD requires that the MV-22 provide sufficient cargo space capacity for the safe aerial transport of loads such as one light vehicle with trailer and seating for a 4-member crew, or four tandem-loaded 48-inch x 48-inch skid boards/platforms or two 463L half pallets with a maximum gross weight of 4,000 lbs. each...."
_________________

V-22 Osprey Technical Specs

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/milita ... 22spec.htm

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/milita ... 08-076.jpg
________________________

V-22 Osprey, United States of America

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/osprey/

...V-22 Design
"The V-22 is fully shipboard compatible, with the world's first complete blade fold and wing stowage system. It is able to operate off all US Navy L-class amphibious ships, the LHA/LHD assault carriers, and can be stowed on full-size CV/CVN carriers. For stowage, the wings are rotated to lie above and parallel to the fuselage to create a compact rectangular volume.

The automatic wing and rotor folding sequence, which can be completed in 90 seconds in a 60kt wind, is as follows: the aircraft lands in helicopter mode; the two outboard blades of each rotor are folded inboard; the nacelles are rotated forward to cruise mode; and the wings are rotated by 90° clockwise...."

No. Not in a shipping container.

Yes. If the engine alone is slipped into a special rail (like on the trailers) mounted within the cargo bay of the aircraft.

REF: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/11/n ... g-112910w/

Navy Times wrote:However, the F-35C’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, contained in its Engine Shipping System, is too large for the cargo door on a standard carrier onboard delivery plane and for the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, the program office acknowledged in a response to a follow-on query from Navy Times. The engine can be broken down into five component parts, but just its power module and packaging alone won’t fit into the COD or the V-22

[u]A low-profile rail system would allow the engine — which by itself is not too large for the cargo doors of the COD, the MH-53E or the V-22 — or its modules to slide off the trailer and into the aircraft, Mueller said. A separate maintenance transfer trailer would be needed on the carrier for the transferred engine.[/u].

The JSF Program Office says the V-22 Osprey, like the MH-53E helicopter, can externally carry the F135 engine module, the heaviest of the five components, at least 288 miles “in good weather.”

The containers that our engines/modules are shipped in are almost twice the size of the engine/module within. This mainly gives space for the internal mounting and shock support, but also some extra space for 'crush' resistance. (IE - Dents in the can won't damage the engine/module within)

So while there isn't space for a normal engine 'can' there is space for alternate methods.

See previous topic: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... r-asc.html

TEG

The COD is a one-trick pony. Osprey's versatility gives it the advantage even if it should cost a bit more.

Thanks TEG.

spazsinbad wrote:Thanks TEG.

@ Spaz TEG

What would make it desirable to airlift the engines instead of just shipping them?

Making them available to a flat deck somewhere at sea.

spazsinbad wrote:Making them available to a flat deck somewhere at sea.

On an emergency basis? I would have thought that the normal surface resupply ships would be able to keep them in spares under most circumstances.
Not that I have any idea how the logistics really work, here.

Time and Tide wait for no engine. Perhaps if you read the thread nominated by TEG you will see the requirement?

Don't Start Your Engines - Gentlemen

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... r-asc.html
____________

F-16.net Thread Page above initially referencing:

JSF engine too big for regular transport at sea By William H. McMichael Nov 29, 2010

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/11/n ... g-112910w/

"...Regular wear and tear, as well as mishaps such as an engine sucking a foreign object off a carrier deck, make the availability of replacement aircraft engines critical. High-tempo combat operations only increase the need. Carriers typically pack spares, but heavy demand can drain those stores, requiring at-sea replenishment.

However, the F-35C’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, contained in its Engine Shipping System, is too large for the cargo door on a standard carrier onboard delivery plane and for the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, the program office acknowledged in a response to a follow-on query from Navy Times. The engine can be broken down into five component parts, but just its power module and packaging alone won’t fit into the COD or the V-22.

The JSF Program Office says the V-22 Osprey, like the MH-53E helicopter, can externally carry the F135 engine module, the heaviest of the five components, at least 288 miles “in good weather.”..."

spazsinbad wrote:Time and Tide wait for no engine. Perhaps if you read the thread nominated by TEG you will see the requirement?

Don't Start Your Engines - Gentlemen

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... r-asc.html

Wow. Live-and-learn, I guess.

Thanks for the info.

The 9,400-pound engine module and transport container also cannot not be transferred from a supply ship to a carrier during underway replenishments — when two ships are sailing side-by-side and connected by supply lines — because, Kennedy said, “It’s too heavy for the unrep station.”

The coming Gerald R. Ford-class carriers will have underway replenishment stations that can handle the load, Kennedy said. But the first Navy F-35 squadrons are scheduled to deploy between 2015 and 2018, when there will be one Ford-class carrier in the fleet. The second won’t be commissioned until four years after the first sets sail. The current Nimitz-class carriers will dominate the fleet until the 2030s.

[/quote]

Well, the CVNs are already down to running at 2/3 aircraft capacity. Doesn't seem like it would be that hard to use the extra space for spares, but I don't know how many engines end up deadlined on a deployment.

I would suspect that the USN plan for the worst scenario - full aircraft complement and not enough engines when required.

1st503rdsgt wrote:Well, the CVNs are already down to running at 2/3 aircraft capacity. Doesn't seem like it would be that hard to use the extra space for spares, but I don't know how many engines end up deadlined on a deployment.

Well that's assuming they're allowed to buy the engines. From an accountant's viewpoint, why not just keep enough engines ashore for the expected emergency use of the number o carriers that might be out at any given moment ashore and send one out when (as long as it meets the approved planning document) when one is needed?