V-22 Osprey Air Refuel F-35Bs for CVFs? + other stuff
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
DELETED
NVM, tanking capability would be a work in progress. Post was pointless speculation.
NVM, tanking capability would be a work in progress. Post was pointless speculation.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 5th Sep 2013 at 14:54.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
V-22 ARF Test Fillum
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."
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."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 30th Sep 2013 at 20:36. Reason: Add screenshot
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
"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."
Still a work in progress, I don't doubt they'll figure it out.
Originally Posted by JSFfan
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
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by JSFfan; 30th Sep 2013 at 22:46.
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.
And stop trying to comment obliquely on other threads where (for very good reasons) you have got yourself suspended.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Steady as she goes....
Bell-Boeing team tests Osprey's ability to refuel other aircraft 09 Oct 2013 James K. Sanborn
Bell-Boeing team tests Osprey's ability to refuel other aircraft | Air Force Times | airforcetimes.com
http://cmsimg.airforcetimes.com/apps...other-aircraft
"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."
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."
http://cmsimg.airforcetimes.com/apps...other-aircraft
If only there was a simpler and more efficient way to extend the Super H's range...
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...
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...
Last edited by LowObservable; 10th Oct 2013 at 14:26.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
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
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
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 12th Oct 2013 at 12:20.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
What?
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by LowObservable; 12th Oct 2013 at 20:10.