Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

I think this is the point under discussion; but how does the engine get to the flat deck at sea ASAP?

F-16.net Sponsor

spazsinbad wrote:

I think this is the point under discussion; but how does the engine get to the flat deck at sea ASAP?

Watch, listen & learn - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84

Quote:

The C-130 Hercules holds the record for the largest and heaviest aircraft to land on an aircraft carrier. In October and November 1963, a USMC KC-130F (BuNo 149798), bailed to the US Naval Air Test Center, made 21 unarrested landings and take-offs on the USS Forrestal at a number of different weights.

Photo and REF: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/hi ... 0097.shtml

If they could do this in 1963 with a KC-130F and the USS Forrestal, wouldn't one think that a Nimitz or Ford class carrier could accomplish the same feat with a USMC C-130J?

With this approach you may even get 2 motors per aircraft (Though I don't know actual dimensions of said motors or their shipping containers.)

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

How about the C-130's Mini-Me... the C-27J

SpudmanWP wrote:

How about the C-130's Mini-Me... the C-27J

Don't know if it would be long enough (deep) for the engine, but perhaps. Haven't been in one to size it up.

Since the USA/USAF have seemed to give the C-27J up under budget constraints, I think you'd be more likely to see a Herc in this role, but...

This isn't a 'good' option during combat operations. Clearing the deck and stopping operations for a spare motor to arrive seems silly

Wouldn't it be better to stock more spare motors in place of the other aircraft no longer stored on the hangar deck due to cutbacks. If the F-35B/C can replace x-number of legacy aircraft, and be a 'game-changer' then the USN should change the rules concerning the logistics around it. Why not have 10 or 20% higher spare engine levels? If not whole engines, than why not more engine modules? Modules could be shifted from engine to engine. Engines damaged in one area can be broken down into modules to repair other engines, etc.

If I were the USN, I'd opt for modernization of my logistics chain in relation to the Lightning II's needs, not trying how to deliver spare engines during combat operations at sea during a major conflict.

TEG

Perhaps my first point was about the V-22 ability to carry an F-35 engine aboard. I believe the USN will join the new logistics chain for the F-35. All kinds of unexpected events occur aboard in both peace and war that require swift solutions. Having adequate spare engines or modules will be one part of the new paradigm. I was interested in how the V-22 would fit into that as per the first thread entry. Not my concern really - just interested via the USMC urging the USN to buy some V-22s.

So the Osprey landing on a CVN would perform a short rolling vertical landing? How big an impact on fCVN, fight ops,would an,Osprey have really?

popcorn wrote:

So the Osprey landing on a CVN would perform a short rolling vertical landing? How big an impact on fCVN, fight ops,would an,Osprey have really?

If she were slinging an F135-PW-400/600 motor, or the F135's Core Module, she'd be pure vertical bringing down the load.

TEG

I'll imagine if V-22 underslung sling load then there is a lot of deck space on a CVN to place the load initially that should cause least disruption. Depending on number of aircraft being carried (and that all depends of course) then apparently there will be a lot of deck space (less the unserviceable F-35C in the hangar). Very Happy

I wonder of the CH-53K can handle the F-135 internally?

Co-incidentally Tommy H. Thomason has started on a history of CODs: [with an 'out there' historical development - wot a big Fokker! Rolling Eyes

]

Carrier Onboard Delivery By Tommy H. Thomason | May 16, 2011

http://thanlont.blogspot.com.au/2011/05 ... ivery.html

"...In 1983, Naval Air Systems Command revisited the Fokker F-28 to the extent of accomplishing a flight evaluation of the Fellowship at Fokker's factory in Amsterdam and at NAS Sigonella. It would have had the payload of the C-2 and the range of the S-3. While the conclusion of the evaluation was that the "airplane has potential for the carrier-based carrier-on-board delivery, tanker, or AEW mission," no contract resulted...."

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oVzukEMCL80/T ... OD+web.jpg

BEST to read the entire post and I gather there is more to come (V-22?). Very Happy

KMAX would lift it no problems at all...

popcorn wrote:

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

Yep. Osprey can do both COD and VERTREP. It can do COD as well as a Greyhound and it can lift more than an H-60 or AW101 vertically.

Calling the C-2 a one trick pony rather misses the point. It's designed as a COD and it does the job just fine. The carrier already operates the E-2 so any maintenance for the C-2 is a non issue. It flies faster and further than the V-22 so replacing it with the Osprey would be a step backward. Interestingly both aircraft weigh almost the same both empty and loaded. Be interesting to compare the cost per flight hour for both but I don't have these numbers for the C-2, does anyone else?

Longer "unrefueled range" than the V-22, but the V-22 can be refueled in flight while the C-2 cannot.

Found some comparisons;

V-22/ C-2A; 20/10K lbs; 879/1300 nm; 241/251 kts; 25/33.5K ft; (Cargo LxWxH ft) 24/27, 5.9/6.9, 6/5.2; Allison AE 1107C/ Allison T56-A-425 . The Osprey can be fitted with an aerial refueling probe to provide in-flight refueling. The AE 1107C is being considered for upgrades to the CH-47 and CH-53... Now, can the F-135 fit in these dimensions. There is a little "fiddling room" in the V-22 but the engine will be in a frame and not in a container, if it'll fit "at all". Smile

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

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