Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

USN cannot fly F-35C Lightning II engines to ships

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

USN cannot fly F-35C Lightning II engines to ships

Old 30th Nov 2010, 18:56
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 16
USN cannot fly F-35C Lightning II engines to ships

DefenseNews, November 29 2010

The jet engine of the F-35C, the naval variant of the Lightning II strike fighter, can't be transported by normal means to U.S. aircraft carriers at sea.

Pratt & Whitney's F135 jet engine can be broken up into five parts for transport, but the heaviest, the power module in its protective case and atop its special trailer, won't fit inside the Navy's C-2 Greyhound or the Marine Corps' V-22 Osprey, the program office acknowledged in a response to a query from Defense News' sister publication Navy Times.
And from the "No Sh*t, Sherlock" department

"That is a huge challenge that we currently have right now," Capt. Chris Kennedy of the JSF program office said in September at the 2010 Tailhook Symposium in Reno, Nev.
exmover_and_happy is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 19:13
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Don't you chaps do VERTREPs with big helicopters?
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 19:53
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 16
The JSF Program Office says the V-22, along with the MH-53E helicopter, can carry the F135 engine module in an external sling at least 288 miles "in good weather."

But the Navy has no fleet V-22s and has no plans to acquire them. The Marine Corps flies the MV-22, but the Navy amphibious groups that carry its forces and aircraft to distant shores generally do not operate near carrier strike groups.
"OK boys from now on, no carrier strike groups can operate more than 288 miles from the coastline"

Errrr.........

(and throw into the mix the problem that the V-22 has with hovering over a carrier flight deck)
exmover_and_happy is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 20:12
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,188
So the report on trials landing a C-130 on USS Forrestal back in the '60s will be getting dusted off...

YouTube - Hercules on an Aircraft carrier
Mechta is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 21:23
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 91
Posts: 1,890
Going by the whining about losing skills after a gap of close to 10 years I'm sure they must have forgotten everything after 45.
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 21:44
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
The F135 engine is the same diameter as the TF30-414 of the F-14A, is shorter than it, and is some 200 lb lighter.

The issue is that while the F135 engine weighs 3,750 lb, the bloody container weighs 5,650 lb! Yep... the total weight given for engine+container is 9,400 lb!


The solution is simple, as is mentioned in the article...

Among the options under study, she said, are "developing a low-profile engine transport system that would fit in the back of Navy and Marine aircraft; prepositioning spares on [carriers and amphibious ships]; and prepositioned spares located at forward-deployed operational areas that can be quickly transported to ships."

Officials also are evaluating "the usefulness of existing containers with the V-22, MH-53 and C-2 aircraft," she said.

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

As is current practice, the military would hire commercial carriers to help transport spares to forward locations, Kennedy said.

Planners have also modeled carrier capacity to store additional engine modules, a concept he said is "one of the challenges we're working today."
BUY DIFFERENT SHIPPING CONTAINERS!




Now back in 1986/87, when I was deployed aboard CV-61 USS Ranger, we had engines stashed all over the ship (including externally, on sponsons). We also almost never flew them in via C-2... they were replenished either during port calls or from a supply ship during UNREP (usually via sling line)... something else the F135+container is too heavy for.


Apparently, both from what the comments in the article implied and from what I haven't seen in recent photos & documentaries, the USN has bought into the whole "reduced supply cost via 'just in time' delivery procedure" claptrap, and no longer pre-supply the carriers with enough engines.


Using JIT, this means they can actually buy fewer spare engines, as they can avoid having as many sitting around in warehouses... but that is a risky gamble, and they are now finding out that having more in the forward "where we use them" areas (including aboard ship) is a better idea... JUST LIKE WE USED TO DO!
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 16:50
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 25
Have you seen the size of some containers for munitions and FIAM?

All done to Defstan or Milspec (protect against all sorts of shock and transport damage) and in general that means providing some form of energy abosrption and rigidity. That tends to mean weight, which unless you go for something exotic, like composites or unobtanium tends to mean ally or steel and therefore relatively high weight.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 16:29
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 60
Posts: 19
Jet Engine Transfer at Sea

I have no clue where they come up with the idea that it is normal practise to transfer jet engines by COD. As GK121 points out the normal mode is via UNREP, which was a little interesting because you had to bring the ships in fairly close (2/3 normal distance) to effect the transfer because of weight. We did carry fewer engines than the old days but they seem to be getting more reliable.
ECMO1 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 16:39
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,831
How about they take it out of the box at the airfield and then put it back in a spare box when it gets to the carrier.

Dear USN, PM me for my bank account details.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 20:01
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: these mist covered mountains are a home now for me.
Posts: 1,665
You assume that the internals of all Cargo aircraft are as well padded as your cell.
Runaway Gun is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 20:21
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Age: 52
Posts: 1
Just a thought, How about wrapping engines in shrink wrap and spraying them in polystyrene. Lightweight and impact protection
jas666x is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 21:42
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 17,420
Why does the container weigh so much? because when you drop it in the oging and recover it the engine is still usable in its sealed container, even if it sinks.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 22:48
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,631
I don't see what the problem is, can't they ferry on one donkey?
glad rag is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2010, 11:04
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Wilds of Warwickshire
Posts: 181
F35 Ferry

Yes a F-35 ferries very well on one donk. It's when it's -1 that problems occur!

KB
KiloB is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2010, 16:56
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,190
Perhaps they should just make sure that there are a number on board before leaving port?
moggiee is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2010, 17:46
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by moggiee
Perhaps they should just make sure that there are a number on board before leaving port?
Ah, but that's not Lean you see; you'll have the sensei's rolling in their collective shrines!!! If you have them all on the ship, you won't need to have a Logistics organisation available to make sure the humongous supply crates are kept ship-shape and bristol-fashion; mmm, hang on ..................
Army Mover is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.