V-22 as COD for the new QEII Carrier?

[GMK]

Interesting article. I’d like to know where the bodies (aircrew & maintainers) for the (additional?) 83 aircraft are coming from and what they’d cost over the life of the aircraft.

 

Then the squadrons to operate them (~five new squadrons?), plus the onshore infrastructure and space. Are these platforms still in production, or would that have to be restarted? 

 

The V-22 also has greater speed and range than either the Wildcat or Merlin, making it better to support the UK carriers, as well as being interoperable with the US Navy & US Marines. In a deployed environment, that should help out.  

 

The V-22 also has a larger overall fleet size than the Wildcat and the Merlin, and a hot production line, all of which affects affordability. Plus, all the non-recurring engineering has been completed (or is being paid for) for COD & AAR. 

 

 

 

[Hockeyboy76]

The V-22 is the only carrier capable aircraft able to carry the F35s engines. 

[Britman]

I  see a great opportunity for a British lash up, British engines and cockpit and hey presto, double the price!  Seriously though , it would seem that the V22 is probably the best way of fleet replenishment given that you can't 'trap' a refurbished Gannet COD on the QE.

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

On 8/7/2018 at 6:22 AM, e8n2 said:

folding mechanisms are definitely warranted. 

They do tuck in nicely!

 

 

Whilst it would be nice to see the V-22 in Royal Navy markings,I think that lack of money may preclude this.

[GMK]

13 minutes ago, Scimitar said:

They do tuck in nicely!

 

 

Whilst it would be nice to see the V-22 in Royal Navy markings,I think that lack of money may preclude this.

I agree. The Hasegawa kit isn’t cheap. 

[exdraken]

Maybe it is time to dust of designs like the Do-31 the Pegasus engine  sure has ssome potential left...

The US needs competition anyways

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by exdraken

[Julien]

On ‎06‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 19:16, Flankerman said:

Off on a slight tangent.... I was talking to the crew of a USAF CV-22 at Fairford in 2017.

 

I asked him about the weight of the wing fold mechanism - plus the blade fold.

 

He confirmed that USAF CV-22's still had the mechanism - and that it was just so much excess weight for a system the was not required by AF machines.

 

I wonder how much more a COD V-22 could carry - or how much more range could be squeezed out - if all that excess gubbins was removed?

 

Ken

The USAF do use both the wing fold and balde fold. It makes the aircraft much easier to Hanger and do maintenance on, something pilots dont worry about.

 

 

 

 

Even if they dont fold the wing you still need tofold the props ot move them about.

 

[junglierating]

 

 

"I also understand the CHF Merlin HC4s are going to play a role on the carriers, carrying out CSAR and utility roles, freeing up the HM2s for their intended Anti-Submarine Warfare and Airborne Early Warning roles"

 

They are and of course the traditional chacon mode ....watch next week for the first deployment.

Mind you the role fit ASW or ASaCS should be entertaining with the active fleet aircraft (as opposed in inactive fleet)which were already freed up incidently

 

"Indeed, Merlin based Crows Nest is all ready done and dusted." ...oh really 🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

[GMK]

http://amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the-war-zone/22921/navy-details-plans-for-carrier-onboard-delivery-cmv-22-osprey-squadrons-as-tests-continue?source=dam&__twitter_impression=true

 

”The service recently demonstrated how rolling landings and takeoffs could allow the tilt-rotors to carry extra cargo to and from carrier decks.”

 

“(Tests) showed the MV-22B could safely land and takeoff with a gross weight of 57,000 pounds, including fuel and internal cargo. The Navy’s C-2s can’t touch down on one of the flattops if they’re heavier than 49,000 pounds.”

 

8,000 pound increase of MTOW is impressive!

 

[junglierating]

I believe one of the major factors is its internal load cspability....ideal for say an F35 engine

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Does anyone have a photo of the MV-22 in a C.O.D. Paint scheme im curious to see what it looks like ? 

[GMK]

7 hours ago, junglierating said:

I believe one of the major factors is its internal load cspability....ideal for say an F35 engine

The F-35 engine thing is more about volume than weight, I believe. The C-2 couldn’t fit the F-35 engine, whereas the CMV-22 can, albeit in a specialised tray. Add to that the longer range of the CMV-22 over the MV-22, and the ability to sling load cargo & you’re looking at a really flexible asset. 

[GMK]

8 hours ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Does anyone have a photo of the MV-22 in a C.O.D. Paint scheme im curious to see what it looks like ? 

 

[junglierating]

4 hours ago, GMK said:

The F-35 engine thing is more about volume than weight, I believe. The C-2 couldn’t fit the F-35 engine, whereas the CMV-22 can, albeit in a specialised tray. Add to that the longer range of the CMV-22 over the MV-22, and the ability to sling load cargo & you’re looking at a really flexible asset. 

Exactly mate.

One more thing I thought of its name.......Homarge to the best positioned air station especially in the summer😉....RNAS Portland...HMS Osprey

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

I had an ironic laugh to myself this morning on seeing the BBC article about the carrier going across the pond. The reporter made a great deal of the F-35s which are to carry out the trials being test aircraft flown by British as well as American crews,without actually saying they weren't British aircraft.

Another article,which typically I can't find now had some bigwig assuring us that despite the type 45 issues the carrier would be well protected when she enters service. What with I wonder?

[GMK]

1 hour ago, Scimitar said:

The reporter made a great deal of the F-35s which are to carry out the trials being test aircraft flown by British as well as American crews, without actually saying they weren't British aircraft.

From what I’ve read, the UK doesn’t own any instrumented test aircraft, so it makes sense that British aircraft aren’t being used. That’s the kind of nuance that is difficult to convey in a sound-bite, so was omitted. The BBC also probably didn’t mention that the first pilot to land on the QNLZ will be a civilian, either. 

 

Exciting to see more progress on the restoration of fast jets at sea for the RN. 

[FIGHTS ON]

OPen source:   QE CV with F-35 embarked = approx 75% Nimitz class in capability BUT with CV-22 acting as the COD. There WAS an offer on the table a couple of years back when the USMC & USN were about to order the next batch of 100+ V-22s for the UK to come in for 5 plus spares & training etc.....each airframe coming in LESS than the new CH-47 buy that the crabs have just made. But as was pointed out in a previous post, no money. 

 

From a "what if modelling" perspective, would any RN Ospreys be painted as COD machines or in more sinister greys? I suspect that later because of the CSAR role potential and that crowd at Hereford suddenly getting very interested in the potential capabilities.....

 

To add to the AEW question, the V-22 (with it;s "square" profile cross section) cannot be pressurised (I think) so would severely limit it's altitude capability as an AEW platform.

 

Finally, have you seen this picture (copyright Royal Navy - I suspect some WAFU Phot Branch sailor has just won himself photo of the year!!!)

 

Night landing 

[XV107]

45 minutes ago, FIGHTS ON said:

that crowd at Hereford suddenly getting very interested in the potential capabilities.....

 

Which would be an issue. The Gun Club has a fair amount of influence, and I’d place even money on a chunk of any buy for the RN/CHF ending up with 7 Squadron instead (Hereford still has a strand of senior opinion which regards CHF SF elements  as being really good and useful, but 7 is ‘their’ squadron [even if commander JHC and CAS might have a different opinion of the matter], while the junglies ‘belong’ to Poole)

 

The Puma 2 upgrade was heavily influenced by input from the Hereford (and to a lesser extent Poole) areas - which was, in the end, fortunate as it allowed the generally Merlinsceptic RAF head office to cheerfully agree to the Merlins going to CHF to give the mixed Chinook/Puma force which they felt met their requirements better than the Chinook/Merlin force which for some time looked the likely result of any defence review (and a recognition from both RAF and RN within JHC that the jungly SK would also be vulnerable to cuts on a ‘withdrawn from service a few years earlier than planned as a necessary cost saving; a replacement will be explored in due course’ [with the words ‘and then quietly dropped’missing from the end of the sentence] basis.

Edited October 4, 2018 by XV107

[Sky dancer]

13 hours ago, FIGHTS ON said:

To add to the AEW question, the V-22 (with it;s "square" profile cross section) cannot be pressurised (I think) so would severely limit it's altitude capability as an AEW platform.

I stand to be corrected, but I think Boeing stated that the service ceiling of the CV-22/MV-22 is "over 24,000ft". Of course, whether it could do that with a full fuel load and a large radar is another question....

 

It is not pressurized, I think at one stage it was considered. It is fitted for oxygen. The last I heard, the USAF uses a unique version of the HGU-56/P helmet fitted with bayonet receivers for an oxygen mask - I'm not sure of the USMC have a similar set-up for their helmets.

 

 

[jpk]

As much as I like the visual of the V-22 as a USN COD, the USN retiring the C-2A is a strange one to me. The Greyhound has a much greater range and is faster although not capable of A2A refueling while the V-22 is A2A capable. Currently the navy is either refurbishing airframes or building new E-2D Hawkeyes which aside from the fuselage use pretty much the same everything else. It seems a fuselage stretch for the Greyhound could be a fairly simple thing if the real issue is accommodating the F-35's engine. I have kits of both the C-2A and the F-35C and it appears to me that a F-35 engine can fit into the cargo area of the C-2 with room to spare, of course removing all the passenger seats but then again, what do I know, I just like models.

 

As an aside but related; money is an issue even for the US military but I think the RN made a mistake not making the QE, PoW with cats, arresting gear and F-35C capable. Was the possibility of conversion built into the QE and PoW to later install those capabilities if funds permit?

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by jpk

[Uncle Dick]

There is a distinct large bulge at the front of the side fuselage sponson (both sides of the fuselage where it says "NAVY") in the BELOW artists rendition of CMV-22B (not present in the above posted artists rendition) - just wondering as I am the first to comment on this new feature (not seen on USMC MV-22B or USAF variants) whether it is an artist mistake or whether it will actually be part of the real thing???? Which leads to my next question the extra fuel and range that the CMV-22B is supposed to have over the standard USMC MV-22B WHERE EXACTLY IS ARE THE EXTRA FUEL TANK(S) LOCATED ON THE CMV-22B is it in this new bulge on the side sponson as seen on the artist rendition or is it tanks in the cargo hold decreasing the useful internal cargo hold????? or somewhere else altogether????

 

If the real CMV-22B variant really does have extra fuel tank bulges on the side sponsons it would make it a superior air to air tanker than the standard Marine MV-22B which the Marines are looking at introducing (roll on roll off fuel tanks and drum reel located in the cargo hold) as it would have the extra fuel and range over the standard MV-22B...very interesting...

 

Edit: Just found the following from Flight Global which indicates there will be either enlarged sponsons for the extra fuel or externally mounted fuel tanks (In my opinion why not have both?)

 

Quote

When the first CMV-22Bs rolls of the assembly line, the most noticeable change will be its extended-range fuel tanks. The navy wants to increase the unrefuelled range of the MV-22B from 860nm in its current configuration to 1,150 nautical miles, but hasn’t said if it will increase the size of the sponsons or mount external fuel tanks.

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by Uncle Dick

[PLC1966]

On 8/18/2018 at 8:35 PM, Scimitar said:

Another article,which typically I can't find now had some bigwig assuring us that despite the type 45 issues the carrier would be well protected when she enters service. What with I wonder?

Whatever ships the Americans can provide !!!!

[PLC1966]

On 8/4/2018 at 11:01 PM, Graeme said:

Yes and Yes...the ship is pointless, and without COD it will have to keep coming close enough to land to allow helicopters to reach it...which is also pointless.

 

Last time we used the Carriers in shooty wars we had no COD, we just have to get used to the fact that with the money we have we can't afford them.

[FIGHTS ON]

CMV-22 versus C-2 Greyhound. 

 

USN Carrier operations (be the ship in a static location or on the move) is driven by Deck Cycles. Since the introduction of the Legacy Hornets 30+ years ago, that cycle was reduced to 90 minutes. So in a typical 18 hour flying day, with a CVN carrying 60ish fixed wing aircraft, the 1st launch of the day ("Event 1") will see up to 15 aircraft launched. Once event 1 is complete, theship can turn to any direction AND suddenly there is 25% more space on deck (& hangar) to re-shuffle the aircraft around so as to be ready for launching event 2, 90 minutes later.  (Modellers, that decal you afix somewhere near the front of your USN jsts usually has "Evt & Wt" for Event & weight to allow the chalk or chinagraph details to be written on). Pilots typically man up for event 2 30+ minutes before launch to spot early any snags that can be easily fixed, because the "window" for launching is fixed and will NOT wait for anyone.  Once Event 2 aircraft are all launched (or that last few to go are on the bow cats, Event 1 aircraft will begin to recover. Again once ALL is complete the CVN is free to manoeuvre. This goes on until the last recovery of the day, when the yellow shirts really earn their money in desperately struggling to find that last bit of space to get all 60 back on deck. (Remember that during the previous 18 hours, the ship has typically had only 75% of it's aircraft on deck). With the full 60 back on board it can quite literally take ALL 6 hours overnight to re-spot the jets ready for the next day Event 1.

 

For tactical (& in the confines of, for e..g the Gulf) reasons, you'll see why the CV steering direct into wind cannot be maintained, so the skill in the whole team is in gettingthe launch & recoveries complete ASAP.

 

Now throw in the C-2 greyhound. The C-2 detachments follow the CVN around the world, forward basing as appropriate. (I am guessing that tomorrows arrival of the TRUMAN here in Portsmouth will have the C-2s probably based in Mildenhall (?)). Clearly there is no room onboard for the C-2 overnight, so the Greyhound sorties out to RV with the boat at the fixed event times (e.g lands on at recovery with Event 2, launches with a subsequent event. With that 25% free space (relative term!!) the C-2 can park up in Hummer Hole or the 6 pack to unload/load stores & pax without being too much in the way. The fast jets typically land on @ 130 KIAS where as the E-2's & C-2s (I think) land on @ 118KIAS ? The slower speed makes them the last bird to recover in a cycle, but throw in a couple of missed passes and it just makes everyone's day a little harder.

 

The Big WIN for the CMV-22 is that it is NOT fixed to the normal recovery & launch cycles as the carrier no longer needs to turn into wind to launch & recover.  So notwithstanding the slower transit times (speed) issue, there is no longer a requirement to "wait" around the boat in a continuous left hand pattern, but when the Osprey arrives it can come straight in & land. Depending on length of stay on the boat, it may not even need to be marshalled into a tight spot, but could be unloaded and sent on it's way before next cycle begins

 

 

finally, my 2 cents: When our new Defence Sec gets to fly out & visit QE to witness his new toys, I would bet £1000 that the RN will conveniently fly him out to the ship on an USMC Osprey - 😉

 

 

 

[FIGHTS ON]

On 8/18/2018 at 8:35 PM, Scimitar said:

.

Another article,which typically I can't find now had some bigwig assuring us that despite the type 45 issues the carrier would be well protected when she enters service. What with I wonder?

The fact that the QE is on the move already makes her more protected than a fixed airfield ashore, probably. There are moves afoot (involving more of your taxpayers money!!) to fix the propulsion issues with Type 45. Not that our conventional CV has the speed potential of a CVN, but already the fuel consumption versus speed capability of a Type 45  impresses our colonial friends somewhat. As a nation that has only fought 2 wars in the last 400 years that were NOT part of a coalition (1776 & 1982) I think it is safe to say that in a serious shooting match we could rely on additional support from our allies. Stated RN doctrine is that QE will always deploy with Type 45.......engines permitting

 

[and despite being able to land a Chinook on a type 45, to land on an Osprey would cause huge issues with the Osprey engine nacelles "jet efflux" burning the flight deck netting on the sides of the flight deck]