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

Boeing developing Osprey aerial refuelling kit 10 Apr 2013 Dave Majumdar

Boeing developing Osprey aerial refuelling kit

“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

"...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 (8Mb)

Click ThumbNail for Big Picture: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...cationsCOD.gif

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!

Bell V-280 Valor Video Youtube
 

'chopper2004' beat me with this info on another thread [ http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...280-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

VIDEO:

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.

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'.

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.

V-22 on HMS ARK ROYAL - EX AURIGA 2010
 

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

Reducing V-22 Heat Effects on Steel Decks from BOING
 

"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/201..._guidebook.pdf (3.7Mb)

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.

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.

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.

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.

V-22 Fuel Giveaway 17,290 lbs
 

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/scre..._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/l2...FuelGive-1.gif

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...2.jpg:original

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.

16 F-35Bs & 4 V-22s USMC Ops Potential
 

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

"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."

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.

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.

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

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!

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!) ;)

Beag's

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

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.

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

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

C-130

http://www.theaviationzone.com/art-b...tos/c130_5.jpg

C-17

http://b-29s-over-korea.com/C-17_lan...mages/C-17.jpg

B-52

http://www.awwar.com/wp-content/uplo...ft-carrier.jpg

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

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

http://www.vnovember.com/wp-content/...ft-carrier.jpg

Coff.

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.

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.

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:

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...

Crab Golf Course Boat Incentive
 

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/l2...GolfCourse.jpg

That's a helluva water hazard.

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

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
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 (1.2Mb PDF)

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!

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

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

From BOING!:
http://www.boeing.com/ospreynews/201..._guidebook.pdf (3.7Mb)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...D.gif:original

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...D.gif:original

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.....

Some V-22 ORD
 

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 (0.5Mb)

Example page:
V-22 Shipboard Ops | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

SAME Pic Thumbnail Click: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...ipboardOps.gif

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

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

Indeed - sadly 2 nil