Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook HC2
Mission Radius (with internal and external load of 20,000kgs including fuel and crew) 55 kms
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/raf/listings/l0032.html
Mission Radius (with internal and external load of 20,000kgs including fuel and crew) 55 kms
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/raf/listings/l0032.html
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Essentially you get more with the V-22 but (as ever) it costs you more - but you could do air-to-air refueling as well as transport......
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/ospr...-capabilities/
29th May 2017
When it comes to transporting troops to/on a battlefield there is always one vehicle that comes to mind, the Chinook but there may be a new contender for this role: the V-22 Osprey.
The iconic and unique tilt-rotor design of the Osprey gives it the take off and landing potential of a helicopter but the flight characteristics of a plane; it truly is the best of both worlds. There is debate about whether a purchase of Ospreys would be an enhancement to the UK’s capabilities or just an expensive replacement for the perfectly good Chinook.
Though while it is currently a moot debate as the funding is just not present to purchase a fleet of Ospreys, it is always worth considering potential options.
In a straight up comparison it is unclear which if the two aircraft is superior, as while the Osprey can fly further, faster and higher, it flies at almost double the cost of the Chinook as well as having half the troop carrying capability. As a Chinook can carry up to 55 troops in one load while the Osprey would top out at 32 but that being said a Chinook does not usually carry 55 troops at a time.
But it is all well and good to be able to carry 55 troops but a Chinook could only take them approximately 200 nautical miles, as it has a maximum range of 400 nautical miles.
Whereas the Osprey has a maximum range of 879 nautical miles meaning it could transport troops just shy of 400 miles after take off; so the question is raised, is it more important to have more troops with a shorter range or less troops being deployed further? Though the answer to that would lie with the operation that was to be undertaken as in combat everything changes and it can change quickly; so speed can be of the utmost to extract for reinforce troops.
Here the Osprey comes out on top again with a maximum speed of 275 knots (316 mph) compared to the Chinooks 170 knots (196 mph), so the Osprey could always get to the designated point quicker. Yet this all comes at an extra cost, the Osprey costing a whooping $72 million (£52 million) per aircraft compared to the $39 million (£30 million) for a Chinook. But the purchase price is just the start as the operating costs are vastly different.
An Osprey costs $11,000 (£8500) per hour to fly, compared to just $4,600 (£3500) for a Chinook yet it is worth noting for all the extra money the Osprey does have extra capabilities.
One of the most important of these is that they can serve as carrier borne mid-air refuelling aircraft which would serve to extend strike ranges for F-35s if we were to use them on our carriers. They can also serve as Anti-Submarine Warfare or Airborne Early Warning platforms but then this is a role currently covered by the Merlin fleet.
This means that the Osprey while excelling in many areas and out-performing current vehicles, does offer the UK and other nations substantial improvements. But this all comes at an extra cost and an expensive one at that. Where 24 V-22 Ospreys could be bought the UK could buy 48 Merlin HM.2s and 35 Lynx Wildcat helicopters which not only fulfil the same capabilities (except mid-air refuelling) but give a greater fleet size which in turn gives much more force flexibility.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/ospr...-capabilities/
29th May 2017
When it comes to transporting troops to/on a battlefield there is always one vehicle that comes to mind, the Chinook but there may be a new contender for this role: the V-22 Osprey.
The iconic and unique tilt-rotor design of the Osprey gives it the take off and landing potential of a helicopter but the flight characteristics of a plane; it truly is the best of both worlds. There is debate about whether a purchase of Ospreys would be an enhancement to the UK’s capabilities or just an expensive replacement for the perfectly good Chinook.
Though while it is currently a moot debate as the funding is just not present to purchase a fleet of Ospreys, it is always worth considering potential options.
In a straight up comparison it is unclear which if the two aircraft is superior, as while the Osprey can fly further, faster and higher, it flies at almost double the cost of the Chinook as well as having half the troop carrying capability. As a Chinook can carry up to 55 troops in one load while the Osprey would top out at 32 but that being said a Chinook does not usually carry 55 troops at a time.
But it is all well and good to be able to carry 55 troops but a Chinook could only take them approximately 200 nautical miles, as it has a maximum range of 400 nautical miles.
Whereas the Osprey has a maximum range of 879 nautical miles meaning it could transport troops just shy of 400 miles after take off; so the question is raised, is it more important to have more troops with a shorter range or less troops being deployed further? Though the answer to that would lie with the operation that was to be undertaken as in combat everything changes and it can change quickly; so speed can be of the utmost to extract for reinforce troops.
Here the Osprey comes out on top again with a maximum speed of 275 knots (316 mph) compared to the Chinooks 170 knots (196 mph), so the Osprey could always get to the designated point quicker. Yet this all comes at an extra cost, the Osprey costing a whooping $72 million (£52 million) per aircraft compared to the $39 million (£30 million) for a Chinook. But the purchase price is just the start as the operating costs are vastly different.
An Osprey costs $11,000 (£8500) per hour to fly, compared to just $4,600 (£3500) for a Chinook yet it is worth noting for all the extra money the Osprey does have extra capabilities.
One of the most important of these is that they can serve as carrier borne mid-air refuelling aircraft which would serve to extend strike ranges for F-35s if we were to use them on our carriers. They can also serve as Anti-Submarine Warfare or Airborne Early Warning platforms but then this is a role currently covered by the Merlin fleet.
This means that the Osprey while excelling in many areas and out-performing current vehicles, does offer the UK and other nations substantial improvements. But this all comes at an extra cost and an expensive one at that. Where 24 V-22 Ospreys could be bought the UK could buy 48 Merlin HM.2s and 35 Lynx Wildcat helicopters which not only fulfil the same capabilities (except mid-air refuelling) but give a greater fleet size which in turn gives much more force flexibility.
They can also serve as Anti-Submarine Warfare or Airborne Early Warning platforms but then this is a role currently covered by the Merlin fleet.
Chinook HC2
Mission Radius (with internal and external load of 20,000kgs including fuel and crew) 55 kms
Details of RAF Aircraft - Chinook HC2 Helicopter - r7a12 - Armed Forces
Mission Radius (with internal and external load of 20,000kgs including fuel and crew) 55 kms
Details of RAF Aircraft - Chinook HC2 Helicopter - r7a12 - Armed Forces
V-22 Osprey
Mission Radius (with internal and external load of 20,000kgs including fuel and crew) 0 kms
Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey
Empty weight: 15,032 kg
Loaded weight: 21,500 kg
Max. takeoff weight: 27,400 kg (self-deploy/long runway)
Maximum rolling takeoff weight: 25,855 kg (STOL)
Maximum vertical takeoff weight: 23,859 kg
Subtracting the empty weight from the max takeoff weight, I make that a maximum payload of 12,368 kg at best which is nowhere near 20,000 kg.Loaded weight: 21,500 kg
Max. takeoff weight: 27,400 kg (self-deploy/long runway)
Maximum rolling takeoff weight: 25,855 kg (STOL)
Maximum vertical takeoff weight: 23,859 kg
Can we stop discussing specious requirements now?
"How much does a PW F135 engine for an F-35 actually weigh?"
One of the drivers in buying V-22 for COD is that they have had a purpose designed sled which the module fits onto and, just, fits inside the hold.
http://navalaviationnews.navylive.do...s-golden-mile/
The link above says that the V22 can carry 6,000 pounds for 1,100 miles. It also says that the range of V22 with the F-35 power module without its storage container is up to 1,000 miles. It looks as though the F-35 power module is slightly over 6,000 pounds.
Apparently the weight of the F-35 power module in its storage container is 9,350 pounds.
One of the drivers in buying V-22 for COD is that they have had a purpose designed sled which the module fits onto and, just, fits inside the hold.
http://navalaviationnews.navylive.do...s-golden-mile/
The link above says that the V22 can carry 6,000 pounds for 1,100 miles. It also says that the range of V22 with the F-35 power module without its storage container is up to 1,000 miles. It looks as though the F-35 power module is slightly over 6,000 pounds.
Apparently the weight of the F-35 power module in its storage container is 9,350 pounds.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FodPlod,
Your statement that these are 'specous requirements' is somewhat at odds with the view of US Navy who, you will be aware, have been in the carrier strike game for a considerable period of time.
Are you suggesting that the V-22 Osprey is not capable of delivering the F135 power module (with its bespoke sled designed for the purpose) over the threshold distance that was determined for the USN COD mission?
You may wish to familiarise yourself with the US Navy's Fleet Battle Experiment conducted last year to demonstrate this very capability.
The failing I referred to in the NOA report, is that to identify the MITL solution and the reference to unfunded enablers in the report.
'Exquisite irrelevence' is not a quote from the NAO report, but from the CEPP SRO who often uses this term to remind us of the risk we face in procuring equipment that whilst technologicaly cutting edge, does not meet the capability requirement.
Can I also respectfully suggest you refrain from accusing contributors to this forum of 'opinionated ignorance' when you have no insight of that partcular individual's specialisation or knowledge on the topic, whilst at the same time displaying obvious gaps in your own understanding of the issue under debate.
regrds
Autorev
Your statement that these are 'specous requirements' is somewhat at odds with the view of US Navy who, you will be aware, have been in the carrier strike game for a considerable period of time.
Are you suggesting that the V-22 Osprey is not capable of delivering the F135 power module (with its bespoke sled designed for the purpose) over the threshold distance that was determined for the USN COD mission?
You may wish to familiarise yourself with the US Navy's Fleet Battle Experiment conducted last year to demonstrate this very capability.
The failing I referred to in the NOA report, is that to identify the MITL solution and the reference to unfunded enablers in the report.
'Exquisite irrelevence' is not a quote from the NAO report, but from the CEPP SRO who often uses this term to remind us of the risk we face in procuring equipment that whilst technologicaly cutting edge, does not meet the capability requirement.
Can I also respectfully suggest you refrain from accusing contributors to this forum of 'opinionated ignorance' when you have no insight of that partcular individual's specialisation or knowledge on the topic, whilst at the same time displaying obvious gaps in your own understanding of the issue under debate.
regrds
Autorev
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Not A Boffin put his finger on a truth above - that there are more things we'll need to acquire to make any Carrier Group work. Some we know about and some will come out of the woodwork .
Some will cost but I suspect others can be worked around with luck
Some will cost but I suspect others can be worked around with luck
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
COD is not the only way to resupply engines - as noted above there are other ways. Nor is that the primary use of the USN C2/V22 COD fleet. Linking COD to engine supply is a tad disingenuous.
No-one expects Carrier Strike to leap fully formed from the wrapper. It's going to be an evolutionary process. Much like most large procurements.
No-one expects Carrier Strike to leap fully formed from the wrapper. It's going to be an evolutionary process. Much like most large procurements.
How apt indeed.
Spend. Spend and then.......Spend again.
I'd be very very surprised if anyone can find me a CH-47 of any model or mark that can make it 55km with an internal or external load (even including the crew and butty boxes) weighing 20,000kgs! Unless the carbon-fibre programme has made the airframe weigh a 3rd of the original weight!
(before anyone says it, an AUM of 20,000kgs would get quite a lot further... likewise a load of 20,000lbs)
(before anyone says it, an AUM of 20,000kgs would get quite a lot further... likewise a load of 20,000lbs)
Here the Osprey comes out on top again with a maximum speed of 275 knots (316 mph) compared to the Chinooks 170 knots (196 mph), so the Osprey could always get to the designated point quicker.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Depends if you use the Cobras as embedded or use them up ahead as sweep. Combined hell/C-130 CSAR has formations with the fixed wing doing timing orbits along the route.
So complex, but not impossible.
So complex, but not impossible.
Wokkas were constrained in Afghanistan by the speed of the Apaches that were escorting them - interestingly, so were the Ospreys...
firmly on the 'nice to have' pile, not only not critical, but bloody expensive for something thats not critical.
firmly on the 'nice to have' pile, not only not critical, but bloody expensive for something thats not critical.
Depends if you use the Cobras as embedded or use them up ahead as sweep.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think in this case the "designated point" was the Carrier Group shipping in kit - not in their offensive support role
I'd really hope they dodn't need a Cobra escort to land on their own carriers... but you never know I guess
I'd really hope they dodn't need a Cobra escort to land on their own carriers... but you never know I guess
Thread Starter
Commissioning day today.
A day of pride for everyone involved in the design and construction of this mighty ship, and all the equipment that will enable the air group to be both shield and sword for both Navy and Nation.
Named by our faithful and beloved Sovereign, these ships, constructed at yards all over the United Kingdom, are a symbol of our shared history as a seafaring nation, as well as our future.
A day of pride for everyone involved in the design and construction of this mighty ship, and all the equipment that will enable the air group to be both shield and sword for both Navy and Nation.
Named by our faithful and beloved Sovereign, these ships, constructed at yards all over the United Kingdom, are a symbol of our shared history as a seafaring nation, as well as our future.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 7th Dec 2017 at 07:31.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Brazilian government authorises purchase of UK’s HMS Ocean
Brazil’s Ministry of Defence on 1 December authorised the navy to begin efforts to purchase the UK Royal Navy’s HMS Ocean landing platform helicopter (LPH).
The Brazilian Navy requested this authorisation in early 2017 after a decision to retire its NAe São Paulo aircraft carrier, and after the Royal Navy said the LPH could be available for sale once decommissioned in March 2018. Ocean would be inspected by Brazilian Navy officers before that, while authorisation from the US government is also being requested as the ship has some US-built components.
The Brazilian Navy’s plan is to finish the deal in 2018, overhaul the ship in 2019, and have it operational by 2020.
Brazil’s Ministry of Defence on 1 December authorised the navy to begin efforts to purchase the UK Royal Navy’s HMS Ocean landing platform helicopter (LPH).
The Brazilian Navy requested this authorisation in early 2017 after a decision to retire its NAe São Paulo aircraft carrier, and after the Royal Navy said the LPH could be available for sale once decommissioned in March 2018. Ocean would be inspected by Brazilian Navy officers before that, while authorisation from the US government is also being requested as the ship has some US-built components.
The Brazilian Navy’s plan is to finish the deal in 2018, overhaul the ship in 2019, and have it operational by 2020.