V-22 Osprey Air Refuel F-35Bs for CVFs? + other stuff

[SpazSinbad]

Boeing developing Osprey aerial refuelling kit 10 Apr 2013 Dave Majumdar

Boeing developing Osprey aerial refuelling kit (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-developing-osprey-aerial-refuelling-kit-384446/)

“Boeing is working on developing a roll-on/roll-off aerial refuelling kit for the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey because of interest expressed by the US Marine Corps and US Special Operations Command. "We are already finalising our designs for what that roll-on/roll-off kit will look like," says Boeing's V-22 business development manager Joe Weston.

The aerial refuelling kit has already been tested in a windtunnel, but Boeing intends to flight test the system onboard a government-owned V-22 during the summer of 2013, Weston says. But the roll-on/roll-off kit is also applicable to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance functions, which could include an aerial surveillance radar capability, Boeing officials say.

The addition of an aerial refuelling capability onto the V-22 would be a significant boost to the aviation capabilities of amphibious assault ships. If adopted by the USMC, it would mean aviation units assigned to such vessels would gain an organic aerial refuelling capability, which would greatly increase their striking power. Coupled with airborne early warning capability and the short take-off and vertical landing Lockheed Martin F-35B, it would afford vessels such as the USS Wasp capabilities that were previously only seen onboard full-size carriers like the US Navy's Nimitz-class vessels.”
______________________

Did someone mention CVF? Also an ASW & COD F-35 Engine Carrying capacity mooted here:

Osprey Takes on Greyhound in Fight Over U.S. Navy’s COD 09 Apr 2013 By Andrew Drwiega

Rotor & Wing Magazine :: Osprey Takes on Greyhound in Fight Over U.S. Navy’s COD (http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/military/observation/Osprey-Takes-on-Greyhound-in-Fight-Over-U-S-Navys-COD_78943.html)

"...Linhart also said that testing was underway for the Osprey to act as an aerial refueling platform, potentially for F-18 fighters. “The Osprey flying at 250 knots [not its maximum speed] could do the job effectively,” he said. Wind tunnel tests have been conducted over the last year on how the drogue basket would be deployed from the V-22. USMC and the U.S. Air Force currently carry out refueling the Osprey to extend its range, but the V-22 acting as a tanker would be a new mission...."
___________________

V-22 Brief: v22_brief (http://www.scribd.com/doc/89698817/v22-brief#download) (8Mb)

Click ThumbNail for Big Picture: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_V-22newApplicationsCOD.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/V-22newApplicationsCOD.gif.html)

[Finnpog]

Using that highbrow source, Wiki, the might be some mileage in replacing the C-2 with the V-22.

They seem comparable for load carrying and palletised options might give extra capability to the LHAs.

More expensive? Hell yeah!

[SpazSinbad]

'chopper2004' beat me with this info on another thread [ http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/512285-new-bell-battlefield-product-bell-v280-valor.html ] but worthwhile repeating here for the future competion in it - perhaps.

Bell Unveils V-280 Valor Tiltrotor For Future Vertical Lift Program
By Colin Clark Published: April 10, 2013

Bell Unveils V-280 Valor Tiltrotor For Future Vertical Lift Program (http://defense.aol.com/2013/04/10/bell-unveils-v-280-valor-tiltrotor-for-future-vertical-lift-prog/)

VIDEO: Bell V-280 Valor -- The Future of Vertical Lift Takes Flight - YouTube

[eaglemmoomin]

I very much doubt we would buy any for this sort of usage we're far too skint. It's almost nailed on that Crowsnest will be a Merlin based platform and as for refueling from the carrier it's not planned or budgeted for. The Americans would have to offer an incredible deal for it to happen which I can't really see occuring.

That and the MOD already ran a study about using a V22 as a platform when Crowsnest was still MASC.

[SpazSinbad]

However this time the V-22 is going to be trialled as an Air Refueller - never mentioned before - except as theory. Who knows what the follow on might be? The V-22 is gaining some traction as being 'safe & versatile'.

[eaglemmoomin]

Thats all well and good Spaz for the USMC and maybe the USN it could be a great asset to have.

However in terms of CVF it's a non starter right now and the surveillance kit is a vaporware solution. If the Vigilance pods ever go anyware (it'll take several years at least imho more that don't fit with the Seaking OSD) it's possible maybe that much further down the line something could happen.

I am willing to bet the MOD (UK) will delay an actual contract for Crowsnest until far too late to actually acheive a timely 2016 replacement for SeaKing AEW then in a blind panic (maybe) the Cerberous kit from Seaking will be hammered into some Merlin airframes as a cheaper solution to acheiving the capability.

[flynavysomerset]

If money was no object V-22 would be a great addition / enabler for Carrier Strike either as COD, CROWSNEST or AAR for F-35B, however not likely in this current fiscal climate.

I had the pleasure of being on board the ARK in '10 when a V-22 landed on for VIPTAX; made for quite a site and along with Sea King, Lynx and Harrier GR9 it meant there were 4 vertical lift vehicles on deck.

All went well although there was a requirement to post fire fighting sentries on 2Deck Aft just in case the deck head became overheated due to the engine eflux on the fight deck.....:eek:

All in all quite impressive.

I'll try and post some pictures in due course.

FNS

[SpazSinbad]

"Myth: V-22 exhaust damages the flight decks of Navy ships

Fact: When the MV-22B nacelles are positioned vertically for takeoff, the engine exhaust gases are directed toward the flight deck. As a precautionary measure, flight deck portable heat shields were utilized aboard LSD and LPD class ships during the first MV-22B shipboard deployment. Subsequent testing and analysis determined that instead of these heat shields, a nacelle modulation technique was a more suitable and effective method to protect the flight deck. This nacelle modulation, wherein the nacelles are periodically rotated a small number of degrees, prevents heat build up in the deck plating and thus negates any chance of damage.”

http://www.boeing.com/ospreynews/2011/issue_02/final_2011_2012_guidebook.pdf (3.7Mb)

[WhiteOvies]

Although there wasn't an issue with the heat in the end, apart from the chains getting hot. Good think too for the Wardroom 2 deck cabins! We checked the deck and it was fine afterwards. The Osprey just rotated it's nacelles forward and back slightly to try and spread the heat around. SOP on LHD I believe.

Happy days, I have some phots somewhere too :-)

Whilst I can't see us affording it ourselves in the short term there's nothing to stop a USMC Sqn embarking to do it for us. The Corps certainly always enjoyed embarking on our CVS! (Prob to do with bar facilities and decent scran mostly!)

V-22 was too pricey for MASC, I thought Crowsnest was already settled as a Merlin with pods as a 'role fit'? Awful idea but prob the only option on a shoestring budget.

[eaglemmoomin]

WO

Lockmart are running trials this year with the vigilance pods but theres been no announcement of the actual contract. Plus Lockmart are the prime for HM2 so it'd be a bit dodgy if the solution was Merlin with role fit pods without a proper tendering process.

[LowObservable]

A nice idea, but how far can a V-22 carry how much fuel? Operational radius is given as 325 nm with 24 people (c 7000 pounds), which is not a whole lot for an F-35B with 13000-some pounds of gas, particularly when the F-35B will have to descend and slow down from optimum cruise to pick it up.

The Super Hornet can give away 15000 pounds of gas at a reasonable range (not sure what because I am not on top of my files) when set up as a 5-tank configuration.

[West Coast]

Then you become dependent upon a CVN which may not be available off the coast of Africa during a short notice NEO with no host nations willing to stage KC-130's. short of buddy tanking from another F-35 (assuming that's being looked at), the Osprey seems like a good idea.

[SpazSinbad]

It would make sense to top up a flight of four F-35Bs at the start of a mission at an optimum altitude for operation so that V-22 returns onboard for refuel and Bs continue on.

Originally found at: http://www.f-16.net/attachments/screenshot_2012_11_28_08_38_42_525.png [0.5Mb] (f-16.net) V-22 fuel giveaway is noted as 17,290 lbs with auxiliary tanks - graphic has details.

Click de thumbnail for larger sized .GIF: [0.2Mb]
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_NavyV-22airRefuelGizmosFuelGive-1.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/NavyV-22airRefuelGizmosFuelGive-1.gif.html)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/NavyV-22airRefuelGizmosFuelGive2.jpg:original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/NavyV-22airRefuelGizmosFuelGive2.jpg.html)

[Courtney Mil]

It would make sense to top up a flight of four F-35Bs at the start of a mission at an optimum altitude for operation

Given the range and payload concessions that we've had to make to accommodate the STOVL/STOSL thing, I would say AAR is pretty much essential, not just sensible.

[SpazSinbad]

Air Refuel Kit also is GROUND refuel enabled so here is a thought... :D

The Way Ahead with the F-35B: A Discussion with the Deputy Commandant for Aviation 11 April 2013

The Way Ahead with the F-35B: A Discussion with the Deputy Commandant for Aviation | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/the-way-ahead-with-the-f-35b-a-discussion-with-the-deputy-commandant-for-aviation/)

"2013-04-11 In a discussion in late March 2013, Lieutenant General Robert E. Schmidle Jr., the Marine Corps Deputy Commandant for Aviation (DCA), discussed the F-35B and the evolving Marine Corps approach to the aircraft...

...SLD: Another key aspect of the deployment of the aircraft with your other transformation aircraft – the Osprey – is that you can generate significant CONOPS innovations. What are some of the early thinking about such innovations?

Lt. General Schmidle: We are looking at a sixteen-ship F-35B formation flying with a four-ship Osprey formation.

The Ospreys could fly with the Bs to provide fuel and munitions for rearming wherever the F-35Bs can land. As you know, the F-35B can land in a wide variety of areas and as a result this gives us a very mobile strike force to operate throughout the battlespace. This kind of flexibility will be crucial in the years ahead."

[vascodegama]

That's a total fuel load-not a giveaway! Not sure about the burn for the Osprey but it is hard to see an offload of 4000lbs per AC for a 4 ship on even a short sortie. Question then is would the Rx have room? If the Osprey had to go further to allow room for the fuel then the offload available goes down. On the other hand, I can see value for the AC as a tanker to cover recoveries.

[SpazSinbad]

The value of extra fuel is whatever it is. Perhaps there will be more ARF (AirReFuel) V-22s to offload gas. If anyone has the V-22 (ARF) fuel offload numbers then post them here please. Thanks.

[West Coast]

Sounds like the General is potentially referring to a FARP, something the Marines are well versed at.

[BEagle]

...it is hard to see an offload of 4000lbs per AC for a 4 ship on even a short sortie...

About the same as the centreline tank of the F-4 - and you didn't have to slow down or find the tanker either!

Lt Gen Schmidle's 20-ship oorah-here-comes-the-mreenkaw formation seems rather fanciful - why on earth would such a gaggle lumber along at V-22 speeds? Expeditionary bases and forward sites are one thing - but a 20-ship? Come on....

I'm intrigued to learn that the F-35B pilot needs a $1million helmet to work with the gucci avionics. Best you don't drop that bonedome in the dirt, Lt Jarhead!

[SpazSinbad]

In my world according to Garp ARF was AirReFuel in an A4G (nun of yur poncy hyphens) back in the olden tymes. I guess the USMC invent lots of acronyms.

[US Herk]

In my world according to Garp ARF was AirReFuel in an A4G (nun of yur poncy hyphens) back in the olden tymes. I guess the USMC invent lots of acronyms.

Good grief - there are a plethora of acronyms and names for various ground refueling:

FARP - Forward Area Refueling Point
FARRP - Forward Area Refueling and Rearming Point
ALARP - AirLand Area Refueling Point
Fat Cow - Any big plane ground refueling another plane
Little Willie - Air dropped bladder-based refueling point
RGR - Rapid Ground Refueling
Hot Gas - From blivets

And many more I've forgotten...

For inflight refueling it's been bounced around several iterations based on branch, nationality, and even just change for the sake of change:

IFR - Inflight Refueling
AAR - Air to Air Refueling
AR - Aerial Refueling
ARF - Air ReFueling

And let's not forget the boom receptacle:

UARRSI - Universal Air Refueling Receptacle Slipway Installation (say that three times quickly!) ;)

[West Coast]

Beag's

See you're still not over getting waxed by that female USMC Lt yet.

[LowObservable]

Exactly, VdG - give away 17000 pounds from the V-22 and it is going to get real quiet real soon.

You could presumably give away most of that fuel in a recovery-type refuelling over the ship, but that doesn't extend your range all that much. And the V-22's payload-range relationship is better than a helicopter but distinctly un-exciting compared to a fixed-wing.

And 16 F-35B loads of fuel is (according to my calculator) 54,000 pounds of gas for each of those four Ospreys supplying the forward base. Good luck with that.

[US Herk]

You could presumably give away most of that fuel in a recovery-type refuelling over the ship, but that doesn't extend your range all that much. And the V-22's payload-range relationship is better than a helicopter but distinctly un-exciting compared to a fixed-wing.

Yes, but it's hard to store a KC-130 onboard a ship, whereas a CV22 folds up and goes below deck. ;)

[Courtney Mil]

Naa! You can have anything on a carrier these days.

C-130

http://www.theaviationzone.com/art-bin/photos/c130_5.jpg

C-17

http://b-29s-over-korea.com/C-17_landing/images/C-17.jpg

B-52

http://www.awwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/b52-aircraft-carrier.jpg

One day, someone may even put a F-35B on one. Soz, no picture of that one yet.

[CoffmanStarter]

Courtney ... there were stranger things that landed on carriers in the early 1940's :hmm:

http://www.vnovember.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/x-wing-aircraft-carrier.jpg

Coff.

[Courtney Mil]

I thought that was classified. Apparently the landing didn't go too well. It seems some idiot had designed it as a STOVL variant with a LIFT FAN! Remember the thing the Russians tried? Also it was single-seat! Unbelievably basic.

[West Coast]

Courtney
Believe that should have been addressed to US herk, but good pics. LastnI heard a number of years ago, that specific Herk was still plugging away with VMGR-352 at Miramar. I'd say the taxpayers got their money's worth out of it.

[Courtney Mil]

West Coast,

For an aircraft pressed into service for a job that I'm sure was never even a glint in her creator's eye, she made a very fine tanker. Saved my bacon more then once in some nasty South Atlantic weather. :ok:

[Just This Once...]

Any landing with S-foils locked into attack position was a good landing. The guy in 1942 did well but after the campaign group the MAA are still rushing out new RAs about it...

[SpazSinbad]

In the continuing spirit of this thread hijack and the earlier reference on another thread to F-35Cs for USAF with perhaps CRABs 'going to the boat' as the USN put it so well, here is an incentive pic for said CRABs with an offer for FREE green golf club membership and an LSO scoring method - just for them:

EAGLE = _OK_ Perfect pass
BIRDIE = OK Reasonable deviations with good corrections
PAR = (OK) Fair. Reasonable deviations
LtJg = No-grade. Below average but safe pass
CRABfat = Cut. Unsafe, gross deviations inside waveoff window
Swing & a Miss = Bolter. Free Drinks Pass for some 'Dog Bolter' at some random pub in the MidLands

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/LSOleisureMiniGolfCourse.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/LSOleisureMiniGolfCourse.jpg.html)

[West Coast]

That's a helluva water hazard.

[CoffmanStarter]

We've had that pic on PPRuNe CapCom :ok:

[SpazSinbad]

MV-22B OSPREY SHORT TAKEOFF AND MINIMUM RUN-ON LANDING TESTS ABOARD LHD CLASS SHIPS

Virginia T. Mitchell & William P. Geyer | V-22 Ship Suitability Engineer
Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Maryland
"ABSTRACT

This paper describes recent ship suitability tests conducted by the V-22 Test Team in March 2008 aboard USS IWO JIMA (LHD 7). This testing encompassed expanding the Short Takeoff (STO) envelopes and developing a new landing technique termed Minimum Run-on Landing (MROL) to extend V-22 shipboard capability beyond Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) gross weights (GW). The objectives included: initial development of the MROL technique in the shipboard environment; expansion of STO and MROL GW envelopes to 58,000 lb (lb), 10% above the maximum VTOL GW;...

...CONCLUDING REMARKS
The STO GW envelope was expanded, although not to the fullest extent of the aircraft capability due to insufficient time at-sea. MROL demonstrated to be a revolutionary and safe way to land aboard ship at GWs heavier than VTOL capability and will continue to be developed and tested...."

http://www.vtol.org/f65_bestPapers/testAndEvaluation.pdf (http://www.vtol.org/f65_bestPapers/testAndEvaluation.pdf) (1.2Mb)

This PDF was available at URL above but no longer - now available here however:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-17415.html (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-17415.html) (1.2Mb PDF)

[WhiteOvies]

MROL doesn't sound that different to the SRVL technique being developed for F-35B.

V-22 could well be a feasible solution to some issues predicted for the F-35/QEC combination, but unfortunately I can't see the UK ever buying them. Our best bet will be to ask some friendly US Marines to join us.

Thanks Coff, haven't seen the X-wing phot before, certainly a better photoshop effort than the C-17 and B-52 pics!

[SpazSinbad]

If MROL is like an SRVL is that a bad thing? There may be other oddbods on non cat/arrest flat decks - especially in Oz - with this news about OV-10 Bronco testing at Pax River (not for Oz but will give impetus to that idea perhaps of having them on our new LHDs).

The Baynet | Print Page | The Bronco Returns to Pax River (http://www.thebaynet.com/news/util_files/util_printstory.cfm/story_ID/31716/storytype/textarticle)

But anyhoo from the earlier mentioned PDF here are some V-22 performance parameters in a graphic....

From BOING!:
http://www.boeing.com/ospreynews/2011/issue_02/final_2011_2012_guidebook.pdf (3.7Mb)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/V-22performanceChartsED.gif:original

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/V-22performanceChartsED.gif:original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/V-22performanceChartsED.gif.html)

[Not_a_boffin]

V22 has a breadth (rotors turning) of over 25m. Add landing scatter of at least three metres per side and you get a minimum safe landing width of over 30m.

Accommodating that operationally on an LHD (flightdeck wdith 33m or so, less the 8m width of the island) is going to be "interesting". Yes, you can overhang the port side, but that may well incur differential lift issues. Either way there are going to be no parking signs all over the Ouija Board - not smart for an aircraft carrying ship.

QE is a slightly different kettle of fish with double the flightdeck beam, but it's still a huge swathe of real estate to surrender. Any concerns about brake failures with F35 and SRVL are going to be dwarfed by those where you've got two 11m rotors, spinning at several hundred rpm coming down the deck at you. Very definitely not for the faint-hearted.....

[SpazSinbad]

Some stuff about issues for V-22 on LHAs here: (S-2E/G Trackers had a right wingtip to island clearance of 6-9 feet aboard HMAS Melbourne, depending on measurement criteria [nosewheel on or on right hand side of centreline]). S-2s were notorious for being lined up correctly but catching a no.1 wire - perhaps an apocryphal story - according to A4G LSOs. A4Gs had issues with other criteria [when hook to ramp clearance was 6 feet rather than minimum USN 6.5 feet for their A-4s - you pays your money and takes your chances]. :eek:

www.g2mil.com/TRAAC_Shipboard_OPS.pdf (http://www.g2mil.com/TRAAC_Shipboard_OPS.pdf) (0.5Mb)

Example page:
V-22 Shipboard Ops | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/92758306@N06/8647487063/in/photostream)

SAME Pic Thumbnail Click: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_V-22shipboardOps.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/V-22shipboardOps.gif.html)

Many good graphics and explanations in the V-22 MROL test PDF.

[Heathrow Harry]

ahhhhhh HMAS Melbourne - did more damage as a ram than as an aircraft carrier IIRC :E

[Mk 1]

Indeed - sadly 2 nil

[LowObservable]

N-a-B... not to mention the fact that the brakes on an Osprey are of the parking variety. Still dubious about the tanking value of a vehicle with a VTOL payload of 10000 lb at 200 nm radius, though (and shipboard STOL so far has been tested experimentally, not demo'ed operationally).

The OV-10 stuff is interesting. So why is the Navy suddenly interested in the only fixed-wing combat aircraft, other than a STOVL, to have been tested on an LHA/LHD?

[SpazSinbad]

Osprey on the Truman, Fishing for COD 18 Apr 2013 Amy Butler

Osprey on the Truman, Fishing for COD (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aee72908b-a786-455f-8510-c35b64849f10)

"...The aircraft is onboard the deck of the carrier USS Harry S. Truman in preparation for trials to validate whether it is suitable to be considered as a replacement for aging C-2 Greyhounds.


The first phase of the assessment Starts April 19, when operators will be “conducting palletized cargo and cyclic operations” using the MV-22 on the Truman’s deck, says Rear Adm. William Moran, Navy aviation chief. This will include transfer of passengers, cargo and “cyclic flight operations...."

[Not_a_boffin]

I'm sure it'll do VTOL COD just fine. It's the MROL nonsense or whatever it's called that worries me.....

[SpazSinbad]

V-22 Brake/Park Brake Description seems reasonable. What are the issues for MROL (apart from more testing required). Seems to me a CVF will provide sufficient deck length for braking (subject to further US testing).

Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey Overview
Eaton’s Aerospace Group's Product Capabilities July 2009

http://www.eaton.com/ecm/groups/public/@pub/@eaton/@aero/documents/content/ct_195937.pdf (5Mb)

"...The hydraulic brake master cylinder functions as a boosted brake valve assembly when the aircraft hydraulic system is pressurized. The unit directs flow and pressure to the wheel brake cylinders. The brake pressure delivered is a function of pilot input force, which is proportional to the brake displacement. When there is no system pressure, the unit reverts to manual braking, utilizing a two-stage piston arrangement.

The Sterer brand park/lock valve provides isolation of fluid between the pilot and co-pilot's master cylinders and the brakes. It also has a lever and poppets so that when actuated, hydraulic pressure is locked in the brakes for parking. The unit contains free maintenance accumulators to provide fluid for thermal compensation when the unit is in the "park" mode. Pressure switches are incorporated in both the right and left brake pressure indicators...."
_________________________

Bell Boeing Tiltrotor Team
OSPREY FACTS Volume 11, Issue 7 Sept. 14, 2000 page 4

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/v22/tilttimes/sep00.pdf (0.4Mb)

"...-The V-22 has difficulty remaining parked on rolling aircraft carrier or assault ship decks.
Correction: This is not true. Initially there was a problem with the parking brake when the aircraft were moved on deck because the brake rider in the cockpit needed improvement. This fix was made in three of the four aircraft that were used during the recently completed Operational Evaluation and in all production aircraft since...."

Nolan Schmidt, COL USMC, V-22 Program Manager

[Not_a_boffin]

What are the issues for MROL (apart from more testing required). Seems to me a CVF will provide sufficient deck length for braking (subject to further US testing).


This...

http://www.g2mil.com/V22.jpg

Plus this..

http://nicefun.net/userpix12/Aircraft_Carrier_2056_NiceFun.jpg

Equals this

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m413hfQh1M1qbmy9ko1_r1_500.gif

(which is the International Sign For Panic).

Might be a bit easier on QEC with the initial pitiful number of cabs, but two 11m+ rotors coming at you at say 20 kts relative with only brakes to stop them is likely to require a fair bit of safety clearance.....

[SpazSinbad]

'Not_a_boffin' thanks for the scary 'Edward Scissorhands' V-22 photo. At the risk of boring youse all - these text extracts and graphics are from the post here:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/512277-v-22-osprey-air-refuel-f-35bs-cvfs-other-stuff-2.html#post7792460

MV-22B OSPREY SHORT TAKEOFF AND MINIMUM RUN-ON LANDING TESTS ABOARD LHD CLASS SHIPS 26 Feb 2009
Virginia T. Mitchell & William P. Geyer V-22 Ship Suitability Engineers
Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division Patuxent River, Maryland

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-17415.html (1.1Mb)
http://www.vtol.org/f65_bestPapers/testAndEvaluation.pdf (original download not working)

"ABSTRACT
...The V-22 also demonstrated that MROLs are a new and safe technique for landing on LHD 1 class ships at an appreciable ground speed across the spectrum of GWs [Gross Weights] bands...."
&
"...The MROL technique involved the aircraft performing a stern approach to the ship targeting touchdown on spot 9, rolling along the longitudinal “crow’s foot” lineup lines, and fully stopping just prior to the aft end of the island. The touchdown and braking zone is shown in Figure 16. Prior to sea trials, stopping distances were predicted for 15 to 20 kt ground speeds based on STOLCOMP which was validated by landbased test data. Based on these predictions, there was sufficient deck space available to stop the aircraft from a 20 kt Touchdown Speed Relative to the Ship (TSRTS). TSRTS is defined as the difference between aircraft ground speed and ship ground speed.
The MROL procedures develop as follows:
• Turn base at 2 nautical miles and 800 feet and begin to slow to 60 nacelle/120 kt indicated airspeed
• Landing checks complete
• Turn final and slow to 50-60 kt indicated air speed at 83-85 deg nacelle [see photo]
• Intercept glideslope at 1.1 nautical miles
• Maintain a 7 deg glideslope and establish recommended airspeed
• Confirm WOD and Ship’s speed over ground to determine landing touchdown speed
• At 0.2 nautical miles rotate nacelles aft 2-3 deg, use longitudinal stick as required to capture touchdown speed
• Prior to crossing the deck edge, transition from indicated airspeed to groundspeed. Target aircraft ground speed was ship’s ground speed plus TSRTS as determined from touchdown predictability tests
• Target spot 9 mainmount markings for touchdown
• Maintain 0-5 deg nose up until MLG touchdown
• Reduce TCL to aft stop at touchdown
• Smoothly lower nose wheel to ground
• Apply hard braking
• Adjust nacelle angle to full aft at maximum rate
• Select nose wheel steering when the gear is firmly on the ground if desired
• Terminate maneuver by adjusting nacelles forward to prevent aircraft from rolling aft...
&
...The landing airspeed was limited to no less than 30 kt based on simulation results. The difference in aircraft and ship ground speed was mathematically equivalent to the difference in aircraft and ship wind speed....
&
...MROL Envelope Expansion
A total of 11 MROLs were conducted completing 6 of the 52 planned MROL test points with required repeats. Due to limited test time at sea, only MROL touchdown predictability and GW expansion tests were conducted....
...Performance
MROL testing began with touchdown predictability to determine the pilot’s ability to touchdown within the touchdown zone and determine what the appropriate touchdown speed relative to the ship (TSRTS) would be to safely stop within the braking zone. Figure 26 presents stopping distance as a function of TSRTS for both touchdown predictability tests as well as GW expansion. Note that touchdown predictability test points for TSRTS from 12 to 15 kt [not below 30 KIAS] resulted in stopping distances from 89 to 121 feet.... Test results demonstrated that MROL ground roll distances with TSRTS up to 22 kt could be achieved with the flight deck space available aft of the island. The touchdown positions relative to the target touchdown point are presented in Figure 27. Aside from the one outlier, pilots were able to accurately land the aircraft within the touchdown zone....
...The general pilot sentiment was that MROLs were a benign maneuver for the GWs tested. In addition, the pilots commented that maintaining ground speed relative to the ship during a MROL actually created an easier approach than attempting to decelerate to a hover, reducing lateral workload as the aircraft crossed the deck edge. The MROL technique was validated in the shipboard environment....
...CONCLUDING REMARKS
...MROL demonstrated to be a revolutionary and safe way to land aboard ship at GWs heavier than VTOL capability and will continue to be developed and tested. An MROL envelope was not recommended due to insufficient test data; however when more can be gathered, the possibility of granting an envelope to the fleet exists...."

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_V-22MROL.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/V-22MROL.jpg.html) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_LHAdeckMROLplanView.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/LHAdeckMROLplanView.gif.html)

[Not_a_boffin]

Nobody doubts you can do it on a ship - that's self evident. It's the amount of emb8ggerance you cause to the deck park and subsequent operations in doing so.....

That raises the question of why you'd want to do it operationally, if you have to clear the entire aft end of an LHD, or reduce the safe parking area on a CVN. That's why statements like "The MROL technique was validated in the shipboard environment" are a little disingenuous and ought probably to say something like "validated in a shipboard trial environment".....

[SpazSinbad]

In the context of the 'never mind the quality - feel the width' of the CVFs that 'making space' would seem to be less of a problem. After all - CVF is what this thread is about - not USN/USMC flat decks.

[Not_a_boffin]

Correct. Which brings us back to post #37

QE is a slightly different kettle of fish with double the flightdeck beam, but it's still a huge swathe of real estate to surrender. Any concerns about brake failures with F35 and SRVL are going to be dwarfed by those where you've got two 11m rotors, spinning at several hundred rpm coming down the deck at you. Very definitely not for the faint-hearted.....

and post #45

Might be a bit easier on QEC with the initial pitiful number of cabs, but two 11m+ rotors coming at you at say 20 kts relative with only brakes to stop them is likely to require a fair bit of safety clearance.....

[SpazSinbad]

So 'not a problem' then for MROLs onto CVFs? Cool.

[Finnpog]

Would it not be easier to have left the 'extension' on the side of the CVFs to enable an angle deck for landings, regardless of whether there was going to be arrestor gear or not?

Then these type of landings become even safer in the event of an overrun,.

[Not_a_boffin]

So 'not a problem' then for MROLs onto CVFs? Cool.

Unless - as planned - you intend to have a few cabs parked aft or down the port side or some of our nice large helos with rotors spread. Then, not cool.

Would it not be easier to have left the 'extension' on the side of the CVFs to enable an angle deck for landings, regardless of whether there was going to be arrestor gear or not?

The extension was there to cater for a particular run out case for no 4 wire, so not necessary for an unarrested landing - ship is still fitted for an angled deck. Problem is that you'd end up causing even more havoc on the deck parking arrangements and if you didn't stop, you're unlikely to end up airborne, more likely swimming.

[Engines]

For what it's worth.....

It's always a bit of a mystery to me how any news of a development in using STOVL aircraft is met, on this site at least, by a chorus of posts pointing out how 'it's not going to work', or how 'it's not worth it anyway', or 'it's going to be too hard to do on a ship'.

Firstly, the usual disclaimer that, hey, it's a free thread, and all and any posts should be welcomed. No-one, in my view, should ever be criticised or ridiculed for their posts. But the best posts (and there are plenty of them) are the ones that offer hard facts and informed opinion. So here's my go on V-22 STOL and MROL....

Firstly, the reason you'd want to do rolling landings and takeoffs is simple. Payload. Fuel and stores. People. You always want more of these. If you can get it, you'll take it.

For most vectored thrust aircraft (and that's what the V-22 basically is) a STOL is invariably a better way to get off the ground, or deck. You get lift out of the wing, and for the V-22, tilting the props forward reduces the downwash on the wing, further improving TO weight. On board ship, it also delivers a massive benefit in reducing the time spent before you reach 'safe single engined' flight. (This isn't news. I know for a fact that the USMC were looking at STOs back in 1998)

The same goes for landings - using the wing (and the V-22 has a very thick, highly cambered wing with full span flaps that gives lots of lift at low speeds) allows you to come back on board with more stuff - useful for a COD sortie.

I believe that a good STOVL aircraft should always be capable of exploited to optimise TO and landing payloads by trading powered lift, thrust and wing lift against the available operating area. That's what's happening here.

On the safety aspects, USN and the USMC have been doing naval aviation for many years, and they are really very good at it. There is simply no way they would try these manoeuvres on a ship without having decent brakes and an acceptable level of control on launch and recovery. Why anyone would think that the V-22 doesn't have proper brakes is a bit of a poser. Have a little faith, guys.

Integrating these manoeuvres with the ship and the deck - again, some people might not have noticed that the whole science and art of naval aviation involves working out how to do the business of aviation, in its many forms, from a small patch of steel in the middle of the ocean. Clever professionals do the working out, just like in all other areas of aviation. If MROLs and STOLs are of use, the USMC and the USN wil work out how to do them safely and effectively.

As far as I know, the CVF still has the extension on the side of the flight deck. I also know that doing F-35 RVLs 'on the angle' was looked at.

Now for my bit of speculation. The USMC have been firmly wedded to VTO operations , but the payload advantages of V-22 STOs could, in my view, lead to a change in the deck ops cycles and methods on the L class ships. And if that happens, the next possibility is adding a ski jump. At present, the USMC are throwing away around 4,000 lb free extra payload for every F-35 launch. I don't know how much longer they want to go on doing that. I wonder (and would love to hear anyone else's view - especially JF's) whether a V-22 could possibly use a ski jump?

Best Regards as ever to all those pushing forward with powered lift

Engines

[LowObservable]

Engines,

One of the things that they did not think of in terms of V-22 STO was the nose gear design, which had some problems on less-than-smooth surfaces.

Clearly, STOVL has advantages over VTOL. I am not sure in what circumstances the SL bit would help the V-22. Surely that only applies with a larger payload than I can VL with, which I think is quite a lot of payload and means a short range. Reading the report on the STO trials, it looks as if they cleared SL so that they could make repeated STOs at high weights without dumping fuel for VL and then refueling.

Also, note that it was Mr Boffin, who does seem to know whereof he speaks, who raised most of the issues about SL...

[Engines]

LO,

Good points - the V-22 nose gear wasn't an instant success - but landing gear design is, as I learned on the F-35 programme, one of those pesky niche areas where even good people can get caught out. (Nimrod MRA4 had some monster issues with its main gears). In any case, where shipboard ops are concerned, flight decks are, thankfully, usually pretty smooth. I'd hazard a guess that the V-22 landing gear design (small wheels) was driven by weight considerations, like Puma and Merlin.

Repeated STOs at high weights might help for 'VERTREP' type scenarios, where they need to move lots of stuff quickly between two decks. It might also help in extreme high temps. At the end of the day, the USMC/USN will have a need for it, or they wouldn't be investigating it.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[Finnpog]

Engines,
I am supportive of the idea. It seems to make some sense (purchase & operating cost of the Ospreys aside).
On post 3320 of the Future Carrier thread, GreenKnight posted a graphic of the two deck layouts for CVF.

My understanding was that for the angled deck, there was an extra attachement which was fitted to the port side of the deck to provide the necessary width.

My thoughts were that an angled deck in addition to the ski-jump allows for more flexibility and provide for STOL options, even with no catapults or arrestor gear fitted. This might also enable the RVLs for the F-35s as well.

I was trying to think outside the dogma of it only being angled if CATOBAR configured or Invincible style layout if not. AFAIK an angled deck does not prohibit VL or ski jump launches.

[John Farley]

Engines.

The simple answer is I don’t know whether the V-22 could use a ski-jump. However anything that can do a runway STO can use a ski-jump providing the gear will take the associated g loads (of order 2-3g depending on desired end speed and ramp shape).

As a vectored thrust aircraft the heavy Harrier is able to do its run up to the ramp with aft thrust of order .9 T/W which allows a short distance before the nozzles are lowered to 40-45 deg at ramp exit. If it had to do its deck run using 40-45 deg from brakes off it would need a considerably longer run.
Clearly the V-22 (u/c permitting) would accelerate for a ramp STO at only some .5-.6 T/W so would need a fair bit of deck.

However the important bottom line is if any aircraft gets more weight off doing a flat deck STO from the space available when compared to a VTO, then it will always do even better from a ramp if the gear will take it. Much better.

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks for the input all - shuffling aircraft around is a flat deck stock in trade - no big deal. Here is a V-22 factoid for youse....

Software Change Gives V-22 Pilots More Lift Options 20 Oct 2011 Renee Hatcher V-22 Public Affairs

V22 Osprey Web (http://www.navair.navy.mil/v22/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.detail&id=247)

"A test team from the V-22 Joint Program Office spent about six weeks in Logan, Utah [4,400 foot elevation] confirming that a small software change will result in more lift capability for the Osprey.

The actual change, which is barely observable to the eye, calls for the V-22 rotors to be tilted about four degrees outward. This change reduces the air flow from the rotors over the wings, which allows the V-22 to carry more weight and achieve greater overall performance in hover mode.

“We did see the performance gain from the software change that we expected,” said Trevor Strand, V-22 flight test engineer. “It gives the pilot more options. He can either carry more fuel, more troops, go to higher altitudes, or some combination of the three.”

Strand led the 30-person integrated test team (ITT) during the off-site test at the Logan-Cache Airport during July and August. The ITT flew 25 test flights in 31 days. This effort was the result of about two years of work by NAVAIR engineers to improve the hover performance of the V-22.

The software change that was measured and confirmed in Logan has already been implemented into some MV-22s. The plan is to upgrade all V-22s by the end of the year. The test team is currently updating performance documentation for V-22 operators...."

V-22 Performance Graphic from: http://www.navair.navy.mil/v22/index.cfm?fuseaction=documents.download&docId=45&ei=qXFwUdX6OI2fiQfhv4HgDA&usg=AFQjCNEkDqp6YIh2s5Y8WKc0tojlZB6Z-Q&bvm=bv.45373924,d.aGc (PDF 3.4Mb)

Click thumbnail for big pic: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_V-22perH-60C-130compare.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/V-22perH-60C-130compare.gif.html)

[Engines]

John,

Thanks so much for coming back. As ever, an elegant and understandable answer.

My guess is that at some time in the near future the USMC will take a long hard look at the ski jump for the L class ships to generate more payload per launch for F-35 - if V-22 can use that as well, then the deal should be done.

They are building a ramp at Pax for the F-35 - watch out for V-22 activity off it. That would be a clue....

Best regards as ever to those brilliant people who think of ideas like the Harrier, the V-22 and the ski jump,

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

Jump De Ski is there now....

EAF enables JSF landing anywhere, everywhere Jun 29, 2009

EAF enables JSF landing anywhere, everywhere | NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation (http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=4144)

“...Although the AM-2 matting is serving its purpose as vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) pads and a 1,900 x 96-foot runway for the EAF/STOVL testing, it also doubles as the run-up for a test “ski-jump” used in conjunction with JSF testing for the British Royal Navy. The AM-2 matting and the 12-degree ski-jump ramp were installed at the centerfield area last month [May 2009]....”
__________________

NAS Patuxent River Ski Jump July 2012 BBC? Video [no longer available on YouTubie]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dX4PyA2428

“The mock ski-jump is 150-feet long, with a 15-foot high “lip” for aircraft launch. These shore-based ski-jump takeoffs will be conducted at varying airspeeds prior to the first UK ship detachment with the F-35B.”
&
The BBC? Talking Head said: “Ski Jump Testing 2014”

Click for Big Pic BBC Video Screenie: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_PaxRiverSkiJump2012screenie.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/PaxRiverSkiJump2012screenie.jpg.html)
_____________________

JSF programme to proceed with UK-specific land-based carrier trials - Farnborough 2012 | IHS Jane's (http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions/farnborough-2012/news/july-10/JSF-programme-proceed.aspx)

The ski jump is a replica of one that will appear on CVF soon (not as indicated erroneously in the 'Janes' report above).
________________

Note the Ski Jump in the distance in this PaxRibber Photo:

http://image.ouhua.info/2010/11/10/20101110134329088068.jpg

[LowObservable]

1 - Surely ski-jump energy is proportional to forward velocity, whereof the V-22 does not have a lot...

2 - I envision the low-slung V-22 banging its a**e on the deck when rotating on a ramp, but I may be wrong.

[John Farley]

LO

1 True O King but for any velocity there is still a benefit from a ramp (especially if the ship is pitching).

2 Dunno

BTW the F-35B will not have anything like the Harrier STO accel as the fan element does not push it forward very much.

[Courtney Mil]

(especially if the ship is pitching)

Really good if the pointy end is on its way up at the time.

Last time I spent a long time on Lusty with the air wing gone, the ramp really came into its own; the big sunbathing area. Lots of storage space underneath too, right, JF?

Seriously, if you don't have cats, the ramp has to be a winner. Simple physics.

[Not_a_boffin]

Last attempt to get point across...

Obviously STO / MROL / SRVL give benefits in payload. There would have to be very good reasons not to employ them if technically possible from a control point of view.

The issue I have is the potential effect on the deck park if you have to provide additional clearance to account for hoofing great spinning rotors traversing a swathe of deck.

It's all very well to say :

shuffling aircraft around is a flat deck stock in trade - no big deal.

but that is heavily dependent on the manning of the ship and the flypro required. QEC (and CVN 78 for that matter) have been designed around a pitstop philosophy which basically reduces the number of moves between launch and recovery to an absolute minimum. The reason they have done that is to realise significant reductions in chockheads in particular, to allow more bodies to be assigned to the bomb shop. There is a reason a ship with double the aircraft capacity of CVS has significantly fewer than double the bods in the air wing.

I'll quite happily admit that's moot given the current pitiful numbers of cabs proposed for the ship on service entry. But it may not always be so and there is little provision in the ship or manning budgets to find more bodies to get around it.

[Engines]

NaB,

Thanks for persevering, that was a very useful post. I absolutely agree that a V-22 MROL would eat up a lot of deck space and quite probably involve some reshuffling of the deck park - and your assessment of available manpower is also spot on.

You're also right that the very small air groups that the UK is planning to embark on QEC will leave plenty of deck space.

I think we're violently agreeing, where I may part company from you is my belief that with a flight deck area close to the original Forrestal and a small air group, the RN will have more flexibility than most to try MROLs. In any case, I'd see the V-22 STO as delivering more payload advantages than an MROL (LO's point, well made).

Incidentally, the space under the ramp on CVS was converted into a messdeck (for the embarked SHAR units, naturally). One of the noisier spots to try to get some sleep....

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

I hope the deck park for SRVL is sorted then. This video clip [from larger video here: Jump jet simulator smoothes out landings | British Forces News (http://www.bfbs.com/news/england/jump-jet-simulator-smoothes-out-landings-63336.html) ] shows a realistic deck park purportedly for an F35B SRVL according to the reporter. IF SRVLs are managed in this way then so will any potential MROLs by V-22 Ospreys I would imagine. 2nd & 3rd images are screenshots from same Youtube video clip at URL below, with a compilation graphic showing V-22 engine/props positioned during an MROL plus deck layout indications on an LHA from the already mentioned V-22 test PDF earlier.

SRVL Touchdown CVF Simulation - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5FZGHs-ZvY&feature=youtu.be)

Click thumbnails for big pics:http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_LHAdeckMROLplanViewV-22approachMROLdeck.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/LHAdeckMROLplanViewV-22approachMROLdeck.gif.html) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_SRVLtouchdownPositionCVFscreenie.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/SRVLtouchdownPositionCVFscreenie.jpg.html) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_CVFsrvlF-35BaftDeckLayout.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/CVFsrvlF-35BaftDeckLayout.jpg.html)

[SpazSinbad]

'Engines' mentioned above: "...my belief that with a flight deck area close to the original Forrestal and a small air group, the RN will have more flexibility than most to try MROLs...." Is this what was envisaged? I'll gather from the aircraft on deck that this is an early USS Forrestal photo.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/EarlyUSSforrestalFlightDeckRear.jpg:original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/EarlyUSSforrestalFlightDeckRear.jpg.html)

[SpazSinbad]

There are more comparison by size flight deck graphics but youse are probably bored by now... AND a STO V-22 JPG added for the lack of ski jump in it - from the PDF about MROL/STO testing as indicated earlier.

Pic1: http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/~/media/Images/A/Aircraft-Carrier-Alliance/Image%20Library/downloads/qe-class-aircraft-carrier-alongside-hms-illustrious-at-rosyth.jpg

Pic2: Navy News July 2010 (http://content.yudu.com/A1ob8a/navynewsjul10/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.navynews.co.uk%2F)

Click thumbs for BIG PIC: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_CVFCVSdeckComparo.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/CVFCVSdeckComparo.jpg.html) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_CVFearlierArkRoyalComparo.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/CVFearlierArkRoyalComparo.jpg.html) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_V-22ospreySTOtrialLiftOffConfig.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/V-22ospreySTOtrialLiftOffConfig.jpg.html)

[SpazSinbad]

Israeli Buy a Boost For Osprey Production Line 23 Apr 2013 Richard Sisk

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/04/23/israeli-buy-a-boost-for-osprey-production-line/

"The surprise announcement that Israel was acquiring the tilt-rotor MV-22 Osprey for its special forces has led other countries to take a second look at buying the aircraft that has greater range and speed than conventional helicopters.
“I can tell you that several countries are very, very interested” in the Osprey, said William Schroeder, a spokesman for Bell Boeing of Fort Worth, Tex.

Schroeder declined to name the interested countries, but the United Arab Emirates has been haggling with Bell Boeing for more than a year on unit prices, and Britain and Canada have also inquired about the Ospreys....

...The Osprey would fit into Gantz’ announced design to create a joint special operations force for Israel, similar to the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command. The MV-22s, with their in-flight refueling capacities, would be used for long-range commando raids against emerging threats in the region.

It was unclear whether Gantz was interested in the MV-22 standard Osprey used by the Marines, or the CV-22 used by Air Force special forces, which is fitted with extra wing fuel tanks and an AN/APQ-186 terrain-following radar...."

[eaglemmoomin]

There was a MOD/RN study years ago (2010ish?) about mounting an AEW fit on Osprey while Crowsnest was still called MASC. The conclusion is that it would work and be an option of the UK but we would not be going that way.

I think but am not certain that Crowsnest is less 'ambitious' than MASC ever was.

[Not_a_boffin]

I think but am not certain that Crowsnest is less 'ambitious' than MASC ever was.

You're not wrong.

Crowsnest by definition entails a helicopter platform.

MASC (Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control) was a deliberate change from the previous FOAEW (Future Organic AEW) to reflect the aspiration to do more than SKW/ASaC - and we're not talking FCs here, or mini J-STARS for that matter. It was based around the potential requirement on the airframe as much as the sensor / comms suite.

[SpazSinbad]

Marines to Test MV-22 Air-to-Air Refueling this Summer 01 May 2013 By Paul D. Shinkman

Marines to Test MV-22 Air-to-Air Refueling this Summer - US News and World Report (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/01/marines-to-test-mv-22-air-to-air-refueling-this-summer?s_cid=rss:marines-to-test-mv-22-air-to-air-refueling-this-summer)

"...The MV-22 Osprey,... will start testing air-to-air refueling this summer, Marine Corps officials tell U.S. News. Manufacturer Boeing already has a kit that would allow crews to roll fuel tanks onto the Osprey's cargo hold and dangle a hose to refuel other planes mid-air....

...The MV-22's speed and range also allows it to keep up with modern, stealthy aircraft, such as the F-35. This new capability would extend the range of the JSF from 450 miles to 600 miles, Marine officials say.

The Marine Corps hopes to begin trial refueling in a test aircraft in July, Killea says...."

[LowObservable]

Sounds about right. One-third range increase = maybe a bit more than one-third of a tank... 5000 lbs at the 300-350 mile mark. An expensive way to fix the jet's lame-:mad: range but whaddyado?

[John Farley]

but whaddyado?

Wait until the enemy gets closer and save some paraffin into the bargain. If he gets too close retreat in the braking stop (but still looking him honourably in the eye) thus making him fly further and extending his logistical trail until he asks you for a bite to eat when everybody can go down the pub.

[SpazSinbad]

USMC explores F-35B operating concepts 20 Jun 2013 Dave Majumdar
"The US Marine Corps is working on several different operating concepts for the Lockheed Martin F-35S short take-off/vertical landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter, according to a senior officer at the Paris air show.

Pilots at the USMC's weapons schools are working on detailed tactics execution, says Lt Gen Robert Schmidle, the service's deputy commandant for aviation....

...A second concept currently being examined is to deploy a whole squadron of 16 F-35Bs on board an amphibious assault ship, along with six MV-22s. Those MV-22s would be equipped with a roll-on/roll-off aerial refuelling kit which would greatly extend the range of the F-35B, Schmidle says. A MV-22 is going to be tested this "summer" with the aerial refueling kit.

That package of F-35Bs and MV-22 could also move ashore to implement the USMC's distributed operations concept, where small number of fighters would be based at multiple austere airfields, Schmidle says. The MV-22s would support the jets with cargo hauls and aerial refueling, he says. The jets would also move every few days to complicate the enemies' targeting problem...."
PARIS: USMC explores F-35B operating concepts (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-usmc-explores-f-35b-operating-concepts-387420/)

[SpazSinbad]

In reference to the 'Low Observable' interest expressed here: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/512277-v-22-osprey-air-refuel-f-35bs-cvfs-other-stuff-3.html#post7795013

Here is some recent news about OV-10G+ Bronco activities:

Combat Dragon II Demonstrates OV-10G+ Bronco Capabilities | Defense Media Network (http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/combat-dragon-ii-demonstrates-ov-10g-bronco-capabilities/) 13 Jun 2013

'Bushranger 71' would be interested also: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-62.html#post7731503

[SpazSinbad]

Bell-Boeing Plans V-22 Tanker Demonstration in August 27 Jun 2013 By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor

"ARLINGTON, Va. — Bell-Boeing, the joint venture that builds the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor transport aircraft, plans to demonstrate the aircraft’s potential as an organic aerial refueler during trials in early August.

“By using a concept that is being developed by Bell-Boeing engineers, using the roll-on Mission Auxiliary tanks, Bell-Boeing will do an airborne demonstration of V-22 in the tanker role with their technology demonstrator aircraft,” said Brian Roby, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems’s field office representative in San Diego. “It is my understanding that they will drag a refueling basket behind the aircraft at various positions with an F/A-18 in the refueling position. No fuel will be passed during this demo; it will just be a proof of concept.

“Should this demonstration be successful it will be another significant step towards demonstrating how a single type/model/series aircraft, V-22, can provide added mission utility while attached to a carrier,” Roby said."
SEAPOWER Magazine Online (http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20130627-v22-tanker.html)
&
http://www.jeffhead.com/buildup/21stv22tanker.jpg (http://www.jeffhead.com/buildup/21stv22tanker.jpg) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_V-22tankF-35Bscenario.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/V-22tankF-35Bscenario.jpg.html)

[SpazSinbad]

Navy to Consider New Ways to Shuttle Passengers, Supplies to Aircraft Carriers July 2013 By Sandra I. Erwin

"...Karika [manager of military business development at Bell Helicopter, and a former Marine Corps V-22 pilot] said the Navy also might consider using the Osprey as a refueling tanker for Hornet jets during recovery and launch operations. Bell-Boeing will be testing the Osprey in refueling missions later this summer, he said...."

Navy to Consider New Ways to Shuttle Passengers, Supplies to Aircraft Carriers (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/July/Pages/NavytoConsiderNewWaystoShuttlePassengers,SuppliestoAircraftC arriers.aspx)

[SpazSinbad]

The Next COD | New Navy carrier-onboard-delivery aircraft planned for 2026
By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor SEAPOWER Magazine Aug 2013 pp 34-37
"...One concern of the next COD’s capabilities voiced by some observers is that the F135 engine of the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter is too large to fit in a C-2A and too heavy to highline between ships. It can be carried on the cargo hook of an H-53E helicopter or a V-22, but for ranges far shorter than 1,300 nautical miles. A costly new-design COD would be required to carry the sealed engine inside the cargo bay.

"Our idea previously was to carry a lot of engines on the ship and then repair them," said retired Vice Adm. James M. Zortman, sector vice president of Global Logistics and Operational Support for Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, and a former commander, Naval Air Forces. "As we’ve gotten into more and more reliable engine designs, we don’t necessarily put the whole engine together. It is components of engines and the ability to move the components when you break the engine down are pretty small. So the idea of slinging a full engine under anything, while you can come up with the scenario where you might need to do that, a very vast majority of support situations rely on the reliability of that engine and then the ability to move components around rather than whole engines."

The Navy already has taken a preliminary look at the V-22 as a potential COD. A Military Utility Assessment of the Marine Corps’ MV-22B Osprey was conducted June 12-17 onboard the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman "with the purpose of assessing the V-22’s integration into carrier cyclic operations during performance of the COD mission," Scolpino said. The results of the assessment had not been reported by the Navy by press time July 15.

Brian M. Roby, an official with Boeing’s San Diego field office, and a former C-2A pilot, said the V-22 can carry 20,000 pounds of cargo internally in 320 cubic feet of car go volume, and has an external cargo hook for carrying loads that will not fit in the cargo bay, up to 15,000 pounds.

He said the V-22 could carry an F135 engine for "a couple hundred miles."
Bell Boeing has developed 430-gallon Mission Auxiliary Tanks (MATs); up to three can be inserted in the V-22’s cargo bay. Roby said the company is developing another roll-in MAT design that will allow the V-22 to fly the required 1,300 nautical miles with room for 20 passengers. The V-22 has seats along the sides of the cargo bay that fold upward to clear space for other payloads.

Rick Linhart, Bell’s vice president for Military Business Development, said the Air Force’s CV-22s have extra fuel tanks in the aft portions of the landing gear sponsons and that the Marine Corps’ MV-22Bs have the plumbing for such tanks already installed. He also said Bell-Boeing is looking at conformal fuel tanks and other solutions to enable the V-22 to reach the 1,300 nautical mile requirement.

Roby said the V-22, unlike a conventional fixedwing aircraft, does not require headwind over the deck to land or take off, and as such would increase the flexibility of COD operations from a carrier.

The V-22’s vertical flight capabilities would enable it to use its hoist to deliver and retrieve personnel and light cargo from the small helicopter pads of surface ships and even from surfaced submarines, duties currently performed by helicopters.

The heat from the engine exhaust plume of the V-22’s engines currently limits the types of ships that the aircraft can operate from, and flight-deck modifications to accommodate the engine exhaust would be an additional cost. A 2009 analysis from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency said, "The deployment of the MV-22 Osprey has resulted in ship flight deck buckling that has been attributed to the excessive heat impact from engine exhaust plumes. Navy studies have indicated that repeated deck buckling will likely cause deck failure before planned ship life." [Mitigation of this issue already operational with the rotors being tilted from vertical to alleviate the heat issue.]

The V-22 does not feature cabin pressurization, a factor that normally limits the altitude at which the aircraft can transit with passengers, typically 10,000 feet, without supplemental oxygen, rather than the aircraft’s 25,000-foot service ceiling. Roby said the V-22’s technology can enable it to avoid bad weather and the need to climb over it.

"If weather dictates, per Navy regulations, passenger flights are cleared up to 13,000 feet for up to three hours, or approximately 700 nautical miles at Osprey cruise speeds," he said.

The V-22 has the ability to refuel in flight. Last year, an Air Force CV-22B flew from New Mexico to the eastern Atlantic Ocean to lift a dummy passenger from a submarine at sea, and then flew back to New Mexico, a round-trip distance of 2,600 nautical miles in 11.5 hours with three aerial refuelings.

Roby says the V-22 will free the carrier strike group from the logistic tethers of runways in range ashore, and enable operations from mobile landing platforms and combat logistics ships [and LHAs].

"My opinion on developing future expectations for this critical mission area is that it has as much to do with understanding airborne logistics as it does with employing V-22’s tiltrotor technology and imagination to streamline delivery methods and provide logistics efficiencies, rather than carrier-only delivery," he said.

Roby said the V-22 would offer low risk and affordability and efficiencies in operating costs, logistics support, life-cycle costs, helped by the large (400-plus) Osprey production run and joint procurement with the Marine Corps and Air Force.

"The versatility of this machine also will change the view of the COD," Linhart said. "The COD, certainly, will be able to pick up parts, go to austere locations to do that, [and] land on more than just the carrier in the carrier group, but I think that is just the tip of the iceberg of what the possibilities are. The Navy will have no trouble figuring out what kinds of missions they can pick up as a result."
Roby said the V-22 has the versatility also to serve as an airborne tanker. In August, Bell-Boeing planned to demonstrate the tanker potential in a proof-of-concept flight involving dragging a refueling basket with an F/A-18 strike fighter in the refueling position.

Since the beginning of the V-22, the program of record has had a documented Navy requirement for 48 V-22s, though the role of those aircraft has never been defined, Linhart said."
http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/august_2013/Download_submit.action?lm=1374555966000&pgs=all (http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/august_2013/Download_submit.action?lm=1374555966000&pgs=all) (PDF 8.8Mb)
OR
http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/august_2013?folio=34#pg36 (http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/august_2013?folio=34)

[SpazSinbad]

Bell-Boeing to flight test V-22 air refueling kit 31 July 2013 Grace Jean, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
"Key Points
• The prototype air refueling kit is based on the V-22's rapid ground refueling system
• Industry officials said they plan to fly the kit in August to verify smooth flight of a drogue behind a V-22

A prototype tanking kit that would enable the V-22 Osprey to air refuel aircraft, including the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, will be flight tested in August, industry and US Marine Corps (USMC) officials told IHS Jane's .

Developed by Bell-Boeing, the prototype air refueling kit is based on existing technologies employed by the V-22 for rapid ground refueling, according to Ken Karika, business development manager at Bell Helicopter...."
Bell-Boeing to flight test V-22 air refueling kit - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/25421/bell-boeing-to-flight-test-v-22-air-refueling-kit)

[BEagle]

Bell Boeing has developed 430-gallon Mission Auxiliary Tanks (MATs); up to three can be inserted in the V-22’s cargo bay.

So, unless some of the MV-22's own 5200 kg fuel system is connected to the AAR system, that'd be a massive 3900 kg offload available in the AAR role?

Some tanker capability......:(

[SpazSinbad]

'BEagle' in an effort to keep you as fully informed as possible this graphic appeared on page one of this thread [note 17,000 lbs of fuel approx cited as a 'giveaway']: :}

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/512277-v-22-osprey-air-refuel-f-35bs-cvfs-other-stuff.html#post7788663

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/NavyV-22airRefuelGizmosFuelGive2.jpg:original

[BEagle]

Yes, I know - and what nonsense that first post was, as vascodagama cited.

Boeing (not F-16net) figures show an internal fuel plus 3 x MAT for the MV-22 as having a max fuel capacity (at 0.8 SG) of 9100 kg. Or 20000 lb.

Whether the aircraft will transfer any of its own internal fuel in the AAR role is not know. But a 'giveaway' of 17000 lb would leave only 3000 lb for the MV-22 to reach its AAR point, refuel its receivers and return. Transferring 4 x 4250 lb to receivers is going to take about 15 min minimum.

So how far can an MV-22 fly on 3000 lb, assuming that it takes off, transits to its AAR station, offloads 4 x 4250 lb and returns to land with normal reserves?

Not very far, I'd guess...... Or is it merely supposed to orbit the ship?

[SpazSinbad]

'BEagle' said: "...Or is it merely supposed to orbit the ship?" Good thinking. There are many possibilities eh.

[LowObservable]

Payload range charts are on page 59 of this...

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/MungoBlobs/919/124/EN_V-22_GuideBook.pdf

Looks as if actual giveaway would be about 8000 lb/250nm. More with STOVL, but that introduces its own issues.

[Evalu8ter]

' Or is it merely supposed to orbit the ship?'

Actually, that's not a bad idea. Often aircraft returning to the ship are hurting for gas and discover (again) that 'Outhouse' is the largest lie in naval aviation. By the time you close to the deck you start running short of gas; all it takes is some form of deck incident that blacks the deck and you're in trouble. Having a V22 with a bit of gas in the overhead as a strike package recovers 'just in case' is pretty sensible if the alternative is throwing your very expensive F35 into the drink for the want of a 1000kg or so of fuel....plus it could act as a plane guard at the same time.

I've spent, literally, hours in the Port/Starboard wait while the fish-heads and chock-heads sort their lives out - lucky we're rarely hurting for gas in a CH47. Though on more than one occasion folks have joined the wait, landed on for gas and been sent back to the wait to permit the planned deck cycle to take place. If you've never operated from a deck it's hard to appreciate the complexity....it's assuredly not a 'floating airfield'.

[Courtney Mil]

Good points, Evalu8ter. But,

if the alternative is throwing your very expensive F35 into the drink for the
want of a 1000kg or so of fuel

Er, hang on! I thought our F-35 fans keep telling us how inexpensive it's going to be.

[Evalu8ter]

Courtney,
Silly me - I forgot that it's the 21st century F-5....

Now then, what's a 'death spiral' again?

[Courtney Mil]

Only joking!

[Evalu8ter]

Courtney,
I think the funniest 'joke' are the muppets saying that F-35 can replace the A-10....Replace the Viper? Yep, an expensive way of doing so, but credible. A-10? Come on - payload, loiter and survivability? That's before you get to the cost....

[SpazSinbad]

Probably more news about the refueling tests soon enough?

F-35B Flies With Weapons; USS Wasp Testing Expanded Carrier Ops 21 Aug 2013 Colin Clark
"...designed to deliver strike aircraft with the greatest range possible would pair 16 F-35Bs with six V-22 Ospreys equipped for drogue refueling, Schmidle says. The Marines have just finished the first V-22 refueling tests...."
F-35B Flies With Weapons; USS Wasp Testing Expanded Carrier Ops « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2013/08/21/f-35b-flies-with-weapons-uss-wasp-testing-expanded-carrier-ops/)

[LowObservable]

So far, the tests are just to show that the drogue trails smoothly behind the V-22 (rather than thrashing around in the rotor wash like a landed eel) so I would not expect F-35B contacts soon. Jane's is calling an increase in the nominal radius from 450 to 600 nm (and those ranges are on very range-optimized profiles). Given V-22 payload and range that might be possible with one V-22 to two F-35s.

The advantage of this system would be that it would allow the LHD/A carrying 16 JSFs and four V-22 tankers (and lots of bored Marines playing video games) to operate at a similar standoff distance to the CV rather than going closer into the threat. On the downside you still don't have any AEW, which leaves you rather vulnerable to ASCM shots from the littoral, aircraft or fast attack craft like the 022 Houbei, and aside from the LHA-6/7 50000-ton mistakes, the amphibs are deficient in fuel and support volume for a JSF/V-22 wing.

[Lonewolf_50]

On the downside you still don't have any AEW, which leaves you rather vulnerable to ASCM shots from the littoral, aircraft or fast attack craft like the 022 Houbei, and aside from the LHA-6/7 50000-ton mistakes, the amphibs are deficient in fuel and support volume for a JSF/V-22 wing.
LO, just what are the frigates and their helicopters doing in your task group? It isn't 1982 anymore.

Granted, the E-2 is invaluable, but "zero AEW" isn't the state of play for a task force with AAW frigates and destroyers. The problem of ASCM's comes with the ones that are low observable themselves. AEW may not help you there either. :eek:

[SpazSinbad]

New Pics: MV-22, Super Hornet in Refueling Tests 03 Sep 2013 Amy Butler
"...The industry team had looked at the concept of using the V-22 as an aerial refueler for years but the effort gained steam – and funding from corporate partners – at the beginning of the year, Sparks says. Prior to last week’s flight, the company validated the ability to extend and retract the refueling hose and drogue, a Cobham model also used by the Marine Corps’ KC-130 fleet. Also prior to the proximity flight, the team collected data on the behavior of the Super Hornet in the MV-22’s wake. “Pilots didn’t report any significant wake turbulence,” Sparks said, noting the feedback validated expectations based on prior modeling and earlier input from the pilot of a Cessna surrogate used to study the MV-22’s wake.

During the Aug. 29 test, the two aircraft were traveling at 210 kt. The high-speed version of the hose/drogue refueling system is designed to be deployed at 185 kt. and function up to 250 kt., Sparks says.

For that test, the V-22 was functioning in aircraft mode. Sparks says the company prioritized testing for the Super Hornet specifically to address concerns that the Pentagon could need more refuelers for high-speed receivers....

...The refueling system makes use of onboard tanks as well as a roll-on/roll-off bladder, Sparks says. The hose extends 90 ft., about 80 ft. from the end of the ramp of the MV-22. The operator must open the ramp to extend the refueling hose; once extended, the ramp is then raised back up with the top ramp door left open, Sparks says.

Depending on mission profile, the system can offload up to 12,000 lb. of fuel, Karika says.

The prototype design, used for last week’s test, included a refueling system operator station near the ramp, but Karika says this can be placed where the customer requires.

The aerial refueling concept grew out of technical work done for Marine operators to use the Osprey as a ground-based refueler for helicopters and vehicles. That concept was fielded in 2007 to support operations in Iraq."
New Pics: MV-22, Super Hornet in Refueling Tests (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a7b46f4c9-6558-467b-8114-d8e9eaed54a8)

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/12/c3e9b977-25b1-4373-bcfe-3f5a456c4217.Large.jpg

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/12/c3e9b977-25b1-4373-bcfe-3f5a456c4217.Large.jpg

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/3/8fa6133b-abca-4381-83c0-9da450201621.Large.jpg

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/3/8fa6133b-abca-4381-83c0-9da450201621.Large.jpg

[SpazSinbad]

For the 'BEagle' comment above: "...Boeing (not F-16net) figures show an internal fuel plus 3 x MAT for the MV-22 as having a max fuel capacity (at 0.8 SG) of 9100 kg. Or 20000 lb...." about the graphic on page one of this thread at: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/512277-v-22-osprey-air-refuel-f-35bs-cvfs-other-stuff.html#post7788663

Here is the original link to the 2004 PDF "V22 Easterly presentation Oct 14 2004.pdf" [ http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes/Meyer/docs/V22%20Easterly%20presentation%20Oct%2014%202004.pdf ] - which does not work now but same document can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes/Meyer/docs/V22%2520Easterly%2520presentation%2520Oct%252014%25202004.pd f&chrome=true

This PDF can be reprinted from there or downloaded from F-16.net now at:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-18058.html (4.8Mb)

Title Page Text:

Navy V-22 Concept of Employment January 2004

Presented to US Naval War College 14 October, 2004 By Arnie Easterly V22 Business Development Bell Helicopter Textron

Developed for Bell/Boeing by Whitney, Bradley & Brown, Inc.1604 Spring Hill Rd. Suite-200 Vienna, VA 22182(703) 448-6081

An example of the refuel mission set with another to follow:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_V-22usnRecoveryTankerMission.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/V-22usnRecoveryTankerMission.gif.html) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_V-22usnCAStankerMission.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/V-22usnCAStankerMission.gif.html) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_V-22usnTankerMission.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/V-22usnTankerMission.gif.html)

[hanoijane]

I think, Spaz, that instead of promoting the questionable virtues of paper tigers, your time would be better spent learning Simplified Chinese.

Come to think of it, yours too JSF...

[GreenKnight121]

Ahhhh... the sweet sight of an "you can't see the post because this user is on your ignore list' notification.

[JSFfan]

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5021925967266136&pid=15.1

[ORAC]

The team is hoping the U.S. Navy or Marine Corps will provide funding for additional testing........ Good luck with that one.....

[LowObservable]

Note that both the CONOPS examples from the 2004 brief show refueling at 10,000 feet, and cases where that makes sense (recovery or CAS) because that's where the fighter is operating anyway.

Wonder (1) what is the max altitude at which I can refuel an FJ from the V-22 - without the former falling out of the sky, or the latter either falling to bits or using so much gas to get there/stay there that it has none left?

(2) How much gas do I then use climbing from that max altitude back to cruise-efficient altitude for the F/A-18?

I suspect that this stunt may be part of the desperate effort to foist the V-22 on the CV Navy as a replacement for the C-2.

[WhiteOvies]

I'm sure Bell/Boeing are looking at other countries that have a VSTOL capable flat deck as potential sales markets to include: UK, Italy, Spain, Australia and Japan.

Schmidle raised it on the USS Wasp during F-35 trials, in front of UK and Italian senior officers, all of whom were transported on and off via V-22.

The issue (as always) is that V-22s are not cheap and Defence budgets continue to shrink. Perhaps a USMC det onboard QEC is a more realistic proposition than buying our own.

[John Farley]

It is easy to underestimate the flexibility offered by having the STOVL or even in special situations the VTOL capability of any aircraft that can hover. This is particularly the case when operating from ships. For example carrying less internal fuel at launch in order to maximise weapon load on STO and then topping up locally before setting off. There are too many other cases to list but those who know about these things realise that conventional cat/trap ops have wind, sea state, viz and ship’s head values that can stop ops which VTOL aircraft are not so affected by providing somebody can top them up once airborne. If the QE class ever embark a couple of V-22 tankers they will be a real force improver in so many circumstances.

[Lonewolf_50]

DELETED

NVM, tanking capability would be a work in progress. Post was pointless speculation.

[SpazSinbad]

Bell Boeing V-22 Aerial Refueling Proof of Concept Flight 30 Sep 2013
"On August 29, a successful initial aerial demonstration of a MV-22, equipped with a roll-on, roll-off prototype refueling system, occurred with a F/A-18C/D Hornet in the skies above north Texas.

According to Chad Sparks, manager of V-22 Advanced Derivatives for Bell Helicopter, "The Hornet flew within 30 feet of the MV-22's drogue chute in a lateral offset position during the flight trial, with no significant wake turbulence reported."
Bell Boeing V-22 Aerial Refueling Proof of Concept Flight - YouTube

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/SpazSinbad005/BellBoeingV-22AerialRefuelingProofofConceptFlightpdf.png~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/SpazSinbad005/BellBoeingV-22AerialRefuelingProofofConceptFlightpdf.png.html)

[JSFfan]

Thanks for that sapz, It hasn't been said but I also see it could be an asset if a f-35b has an emergency and lands in the field, after repair the vert take off fuel load could be toped up to get back to ship

[Lonewolf_50]

"The Hornet flew within 30 feet of the MV-22's drogue chute in a lateral offset position during the flight trial, with no significant wake turbulence reported."
Please forgive my cynicism, but those last few feet can be a real bugger, even with something as clean as a KA-6D. :p

Still a work in progress, I don't doubt they'll figure it out.

[Courtney Mil]

if a f-35b has an emergency and lands in the field, after repair the vert take off fuel load could be toped up to get back to ship

It's a great thought, but I wonder what kind of field repair you're thinking about. An emergency bad enough to require a "field" landing, but not so bad that that it can be easily "repaired" and ready to VTO out of there again. This isn't a harrier GR1, it's a bloody complex piece of kit.

[Courtney Mil]

Lonewolf,

Spot on. It's the last few feet that change everything.

As you, say, they'll prob sort it out.

[JSFfan]

In my imagination, It lands at a remote base, ALIS sends the data, a decision is made to repair or scrap it.
v-22s fly in with a pad, repair and top up for take off and the flight back

re your earlier question on another thread, Amy did a good analysis
Pentagon Signs Off On Next Two Lots Of F-35 Buys (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_09_30_2013_p01-01-621752.xml&p=1)

[LowObservable]

In my imagination, I'm hopping in the Lambo Aventador to pick Salma Hayek up for a dinner date.

And stop trying to comment obliquely on other threads where (for very good reasons) you have got yourself suspended.

:mad::mad::mad:

[SpazSinbad]

I guess the fine print should have been larger for some. Anyone here ARFed behind a KC and the Sunshine Band? Back in the days in Oz we wuz the first ARFers behind our own buddy tankers - no one else to ARF with in dem daze.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/V-22drogueSameKC-130stability.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/V-22drogueSameKC-130stability.jpg.html)

[SpazSinbad]

Bell-Boeing team tests Osprey's ability to refuel other aircraft 09 Oct 2013 James K. Sanborn
"The medium-lift Osprey, proven in combat as a troop and equipment transport, could soon get a new mission: refueling other aircraft.

A series of tests in August and September has given aviation officials hope that the Osprey could be used to extend the range of other platforms, including helicopters and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The tests were conducted on the Marine Corps’ MV-22, but also served as a “proof of concept” for the V-22 program as a whole, and would work with the Air Force’s CV-22 variant, said Ken Karika, business development manager for the Bell Helicopter Textron and Boeing CV-22 team.

The Marine Corps and Navy requested the test, and it was performed on a leased MV-22, but the system is identical to what would be used on an Air Force Osprey, Karika said.

The first tests of the aerial refueling system under development by Bell and Boeing determined how turbulence from the Osprey’s rotors affect the hose and drogue that deliver fuel to other aircraft, as well as how rotary-wing and jet aircraft react in the Osprey’s rotor wash. A high-speed test for jet aircraft was conducted on Aug. 29 and a second, low-speed rotary-wing test on Sept. 23. Each type of aircraft requires a slightly different drogue, although it can be changed on the ground to meet the mission.

“The indications are that it’s really a steady drogue back there,” said Marine Brig. Gen. Matthew Glavy, assistant deputy commandant for Marine Corps aviation. “The Hornet pilots were really impressed with what they saw.”

During the Aug. 29 test, two F-18 Hornets from III Marine Aircraft Wing out of Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, Calif., flew to Fort Worth, Texas, where the Bell Boeing team conducted proof of concept testing. No refueling occurred, but a water-filled hose was used to determine if a hose could be extended and retracted safely from an Osprey.

“If this thing is bouncing around, there is really no reason to go further,” Glavy said. “But what we saw in this demonstration is it doesn’t. It’s a steady target.”

The second test, with rotary-wing aircraft, also didn’t involve a fuel exchange. But it proved that the drogue is steady when the Osprey has its nacelles — the engine enclosures — at 60-degree angles, rather than in the horizontal airplane mode, said Chad Sparks, the V-22 advanced derivatives manager at Bell Boeing.

The development is important, Glavy said, because it will enhance the capability of other aircraft.

“So we have a 450-nautical-miles F-35, and if I have a capability to do tanking both en route to the objective and for recovery, I have just taken that distance and increased it significantly,” Glavy said.

The Osprey could carry as much as 12,000 extra pounds of fuel in up to three auxiliary fuel tanks that are already in use and standard for the Osprey, Sparks said.

Because most of the refueling technology already exists or is native to the Osprey platform, the V-22 could be outfitted on short notice for any number of missions.

“One day it could just carry troops or cargo. The next day it may be needed to operate as a tanker,” Sparks said.

Ground crews would simply roll auxiliary fuel tanks into the cabin, bolt them down and the Osprey would be ready to go.

The next step is to discuss the fuel capacities, fueling rates, and level of integration with other aircraft that military officials want, Sparks said."
Bell-Boeing team tests Osprey's ability to refuel other aircraft | Air Force Times | airforcetimes.com (http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20131009/NEWS04/310090023)

http://cmsimg.airforcetimes.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=M6&Date=20131009&Category=NEWS04&ArtNo=310090023&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Bell-Boeing-team-tests-Osprey-s-ability-refuel-other-aircraft

http://cmsimg.airforcetimes.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=M6&Date=20131009&Category=NEWS04&ArtNo=310090023&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Bell-Boeing-team-tests-Osprey-s-ability-refuel-other-aircraft

[LowObservable]

If only there was a simpler and more efficient way to extend the Super H's range...

http://i0.wp.com/news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/MSF13-0082-071.jpg?resize=624%2C415

Of course this V-22 refuelling stuff is all about the F-35B, and it's interesting that the Corps has become all excited about this rather desperate expedient just after operational pilots got their hands on the wonder jet.
I wonder why? Note how the 450 nm radius (all high altitude) claimed for the B compares to an AV-8B, hi-lo-hi with a rather larger weapon load (3000 lb + a gun pod). See p5, right-hand column, second line...

http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/av-8b.pdf

Maybe the 3:10 to Yuma is the Cluetrain...

[SpazSinbad]

Some Early USN ARF History:

http://thanlont.********.com.au/2013/10/texaco.html

ForFsake replace the 'a' in "blag' with an 'o' below - what is this BS?

http://thanlont.blagspot.com.au/2013/10/texaco.html

[LowObservable]

SS - Quite interesting discussion of the use of a recovery tanker - which underscores the point that the Marines have managed without one since before the days of disco.

With a small, thin wing and low-bypass engine, the JSF is going to be less able to throttle back and ration fuel than an AV-8B in a recovery situation. One result is that usable operational radius will be highly dependent on recovery scenarios and (consequently) fuel reserves overhead the ship.

This may be the reason for various discussions about what the RN considers to be the practical operational radius of the F-35B, versus a KPP based on assumptions and projections made back in the 1990s.

[SpazSinbad]

LO what does this sentence mean exactly?
"...This may be the reason for various discussions about what the RN considers to be the practical operational radius of the F-35B, versus a KPP based on assumptions and projections made back in the 1990s."

[LowObservable]

It means what it says it means, but those discussions have taken place offline.

[SpazSinbad]

So you are just bull****ting again?

[peter we]

With a small, thin wing and low-bypass engine, the JSF is going to be less able to throttle back and ration fuel than an AV-8B in a recovery situation. One result is that usable operational radius will be highly dependent on recovery scenarios and (consequently) fuel reserves overhead the ship.

The harrier will always be a subsonic aircraft, which is a fundamental and potential fatal disadvantage.

Thew F-35's range can be extended. So which do you choose? They choose the F-35 and the Harrier is history.

BTW, the AV-8B's combat range doesn't look as good as the F-35 according to that PDF.

[LowObservable]

Peter We - In a CAS mission, or most air-to-ground missions for that matter, the reduced range (or greater weight/cost for equal range) of a supersonic-capable aircraft is a disadvantage.

The PDF is quite clear given the page and line reference. The Harrier is designed and qualified to use external tanks; so far those are not available on the F-35. However, you'll note that even clean the Harrier covers 336 nm hi-lo-hi with a gun on board and 3,000 lb bombs; F-35B claims 450 nm hi-hi-hi with 3000 lb weapons and no gun.

And as you should know, the USMC will retain more than half of its Harriers through 2027.

SS - Nope. Just mentioning some discussions I have had and not making definitive claims. However, recall that RN performance is not always USMC performance, hence SRVL. Speaking of which, SRVL may be more sensitive to fouled-deck landing holds than VL.

[SpazSinbad]

There is never going to be a hold for SRVL if a VL can be performed otherwise. A judgement will be made - SRVLs - if utilised - will not be mandatory; unless needed in an emergency I'll assume. Already it has been made clear by Peter Wilson that the SRVL may not be used operationally (a quote probably about one year ago now). However SRVL has been under longstanding scrutiny as we know, with many years to go before actual testing on a CVF, rather than computer simulation or land based testing.

IF the UK want something better than the KPP requires then that is not relevant to anyone other than the UK. For the moment the VLBB is good to go. These days references are made to a 300lb weight margin for the F-35B - I gather this refers to the VLBB margin. Cool as. :ok:

Preparing for take-off: UK ramps up F-35 carrier integration effort 11 Dec 2008 International Defence Review
"...said Rosa. “Also, the ability to ditch weapons and carry out a vertical landing instead of an SRVL in the event of a failure was seen as a powerful safety mitigation.”..."
Military Nuts -> The F-35 JSF/Lightning II thread (http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=1507&st=120)
_______________________

JSF programme to proceed with UK-specific land-based carrier trials Gareth Jennings 09 Jul 2012
"...With regard the SVRL landing technique, which is designed to increase the aircraft's fuel &/or weapons bring back capacity, Wilson said that the Program Office is continuing the support the UK-specific work in this field, although he added that the UK government has not yet decided if it will adopt this technique on the 2 Queen Elizabeth-class ships (CVF) when they enter service....”
JSF programme to proceed with UK-specific land-based carrier trials - Farnborough 2012 | IHS Jane's (http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions/farnborough-2012/news/july-10/JSF-programme-proceed.aspx)
_____________________________

Minor cracks found in part of F-35 B-model fighter plane 10 Oct 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa

"...the B-model had 300 pounds (136 kg) of extra weight margin...."
Minor cracks found in part of F-35 B-model fighter plane | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/10/us-lockheed-fighter-cracks-idUSBRE9991AR20131010)

[SpazSinbad]

I wonder what new capabilities will be developed by the Israelis with their V-22s. Will this capability be made available to others? Perhaps some of the already mooted new uses for the V-22 will be developed.

Israel to Buy Six V-22 Ospreys From U.S. in First Sale 01 Nov 2013 Tony Capaccio
"The U.S. will sell Israel six V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft made by Boeing Co. (BA) and Textron Inc. (TXT), Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said.

The transaction will mark the first international sale of the aircraft that takes off and lands like a helicopter and flies like a conventional airplane. The Marine Corps and U.S. Air Force special operations pilots fly versions of the Osprey.

“I have directed the Marine Corps to make sure this order is expedited,” Hagel said in remarks prepared for the Anti-Defamation League’s Centennial Dinner in New York tonight. “That means Israel will get six V-22s out of the next order to go on the assembly line.”

The Pentagon said earlier this year that the U.S. was offering to sell an unspecified number of Ospreys as part of a package that included aerial refueling tankers, precision anti-radar missiles and air defense radar. Details of the other systems haven’t been announced."
Israel to Buy Six V-22 Ospreys From U.S. in First Sale - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-01/israel-to-buy-six-v-22-ospreys-from-u-s-in-first-sale.html)

[tyne]

Re: running Osprey off an Invincible.

Just as a matter of interest - with the props/rotors unfolded can they only operate from Sierra/Tango part of the deck aft?

I guess they are too wide further forward.

I know Ocean has slightly more space forward with her not having an Alaskan Highway. Could Osprey operate from her?

In both cases, I guess the lifts are too small for below deck stowage.

Dan.

[SpazSinbad]

Bell Helicopter - V-22 Osprey Tiltrotor Aircraft

Bell Helicopter - V-22 Osprey Tiltrotor Aircraft : One Aircraft - Multiple Missions [720p] - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wSKVP9kDe64)

[SpazSinbad]

Maker of V-22 Osprey encouraged by foreign interest 19 Nov 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"...U.S. officials are finalising details for an initial sale of six aircraft to Israel - the initial foreign buyer of the plane - at an estimated price of $70 million each, although it may buy twice as many over the longer term.

U.S. officials have also provided briefings on the V-22 to the United Arab Emirates, Japan, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Italy, Brazil, Colombia, Singapore, and Australia.

In addition to military uses, some countries have expressed interest in using the V-22 for VIP transport....

...Garrison noted that Navy officials had delayed a request for proposals for a competition for new aircraft to supply carriers, a job for which he said the V-22 was ideally suited, and it was uncertain when the competition would kick off.

Current Navy plans call for it to buy 48 V-22s, potentially for use as carrier resupply aircraft, but no funding has been dedicated to the "carrier on-board delivery" or COD programme...."
AIRSHOW-Maker of V-22 Osprey encouraged by foreign interest | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/19/airshow-bell-v-idUSL5N0J44H620131119)

[SpazSinbad]

Does anyone know if the V-22 will be able to buddy refuel? That ability may be useful for extending V-22 range also from LHAs etc.

Marine Wing Commander Endorses Aerial Refueling Mission for V-22 Osprey 21 Nov 2013 Stew Magnuson
"SAN DIEGO — A Bell Helicopter-Boeing Co. proposal to use the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft as a refueling tanker has the endorsement of one of the Marine Corp's wing commanders, and at least one of his higher-ups.

Maj. Gen. Steven Busby, commanding general of of the third Marine aircraft wing at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, Calif., said Nov. 20 at the Milcom conference that he would welcome having some of the service's MV-22 variants serve in that capacity.

"Having a tanker version of the MV-22 coming off an amphibious platform is going to be able to extend the range of the Joint Strike Fighter beyond what we currently have with the F-35B and is going to be able to provide potential refueling capabilities maybe for the CH-53," he said....

...Busby said: "It will show in my mind to everybody that the MV-22 is not a helicopter. It is an aircraft that can land like a helicopter."

"To be able to put fuel in the back of the MV-22 is going to greatly increase the power of the amphibious force ... It's going to significantly change I think how we push some of those platforms from the sea," Busby added.

While the tiltrotor aircraft tested its refueling capabilities with the jet fighters, the hoses employed are universal, and the Osprey could refuel any other aircraft, so long as it was going at the proper speed, Boeing officials told National Defense shortly after the test.

No fuel was actually transferred during the test, but the V-22 was able to deploy and retract its refueling equipment as the fighters flew behind...."
Marine Wing Commander Endorses Aerial Refueling Mission for V-22 Osprey - Blog (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=7c996cd7%2Dcbb4%2D4018%2Dbaf8%2D8825eada7aa2&ID=1346)

[ORAC]

Germany may keep more of its A400 military transporters -report | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbus-germany-idUSKBN15L2G3?il=0)

07 FEBRUARY, 2017 SOURCE: FLIGHTGLOBAL.COM BY: JIM WINCHESTER LONDON

The US Marine Corps expects to declare initial operational capability for the Bell Boeing V-22 Aerial Refuelling System (VARS) in late 2019, with the milestone to represent the availability of an initial four mission-equipped aircraft. VARS will be qualified with the USMC’s Boeing AV-8B, F/A-18 and Lockheed Martin F-35B strike aircraft and Sikorsky CH-53 fleets, although a testing timeline has yet to be worked out, says Lt Col Douglas Ogden, MV-22 military platform lead at the V-22 joint progamme office.

The service had originally hoped to have the in-flight refuelling system ready to support initial operations with the F-35B, but a contract award was delayed until October 2016.

Cobham Mission Systems will begin delivering production VARS sets during 2018, with the equipment based on its existing FR300 hose-drum unit. Proximity trials performed with F/A-18s in 2013 and 2015 identified no issues with the fighters flying close behind the tiltrotor, Ogden told the IQ Defence International Helicopter Conference in London on 1 February.

Meanwhile, Ogden says the V-22 programme office is looking at the feasibility of adding a chin-mounted gun and crew-served door guns for the Osprey, with the USMC particularly interested in the latter.

“We are looking into these things, but there is no concrete plan for delivery of anything right now,” he notes.

[sandiego89]

I think a flight of Ospreys for COD and refueling would complement the QE's quite well. A tad expensive however.

[Wander00]

What will the QEs utilise for COD task?

[Onceapilot]

Quote Wander00,
What will the QEs utilise for COD task?

No problem, supplies will be available on the escorting tanker! :}

OAP

[Wander00]

Aah, je comprend.....

[Just This Once...]

I think a flight of Ospreys for COD and refueling would complement the QE's quite well. A tad expensive however.
Not that expensive for the UK if the USMC / USN bring them with them when they embark on the QE class.

[ORAC]

Quick paint job overnight when they're all asleep and maybe they'll get confused and leave them behind when they leave......