US Navy News and updates

[StobieWan]

Undrstanding the multi mission intent of the LCS I still have grave concerns, not simply over survivability but combat ability. Yes I'll agree that its a better armed platform than the Avenger Class but I see no bang for the buck. Unless this ship is always partnered with a DDG for cover I see no way in a modern environment it can survive by itself. Most smaller navies even outfit the smallest patrol craft with some type is SSM. The LCS seems like a jack of no trades and master of none.

“…3000 ton speedboat chasers with the endurance of a Swedish corvette, the weapon payload of a German logistics ship, and the cargo hold of a small North Korean arms smuggler.”

I'm glad we're discussing a halt at 32 hulls and beginning a discussion to Upbuild the class. Konigsberg has a plan to install their new NSM on the LCs hulls already available.

Thoughts?

The LCS is intended to perform the roles currently undertaken by the Cyclone, Avenger and OHP's - so, LCS is way better armed than about half those ships and in any event, it's not a gunboat.

There are reasons to be concerned about the LCS program, mainly to do with the modules and manning levels - and those are hopefully being addressed.

LCS has been discussed in this thread previously and there's some good insight on the program. Capping the program at 32 ships can be easily reversed at any time - we'll see.

 

[Volkodav]

The MT30 has flat rated shaft output of about 35MW. On the basis this does note translate the to generator output; two would have to be dedicated to each mount and run close to the max rating (40MW at 15 degrees) supplemented by other power sources. Not sure where capacitor technology is at the moment but for 10 rounds per minute the generators would have to be on line for the entire engagement.

Using the DDG 1000 as a bench mark two MT30's and two Auxiliary TG's provide a reported total of 78MW. With the current power required for the projected 64Mj mount you are getting into the realm where four or five MT30's and two auxiliary TG's would be required for systems and this mount but with limited redundancy.

If they did power management like a sub or the F-100 where the ship its self is one giant UPS then you could cur power to everything bur the rail gun, fire your salvo and then switch back without any systems dropping off line. Also install another MT30 or two would help

 

[Volkodav]

An intersting proposal on USN COD transport requirements using a new wider fuselage Lockhead are using the range argument but Boeing will be using the weight and flexibility argument being able to directly fly to any of the ships within the CBG and deliver stores on that capabilty alone I think Boeing got this one in the bag.

Lockheed Revives an Old Idea for New Carrier Cargo Plane | Defense News | defensenews.com

Something interesting on this. Definitely looks a good way to go here's hoping.

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...fl_progressive,w_636/zdji1ddcgrpufbsoftbd.jpg

Lockheed Wants To Bring The S-3 Viking Back From The Dead

 

[AegisFC]

An intersting proposal on USN COD transport requirements using a new wider fuselage Lockhead are using the range argument but Boeing will be using the weight and flexibility argument being able to directly fly to any of the ships within the CBG and deliver stores on that capabilty alone I think Boeing got this one in the bag.

Lockheed Revives an Old Idea for New Carrier Cargo Plane | Defense News | defensenews.com

I disagree, I think Boeing has the least chance. The current Greyhound and the V-22 can't carry an assembled F135, which is a major requirement and the Boeing bid has the least range.

 

[StobieWan]

Yup - the requirement to carry an F135 engine, which the S3 could do *in one piece* is a big box to tick.

 

[RobWilliams]

Absolutely, not having the luxury of cats the UK is planning on its RAS rugs bring capable to transfer engines at sea from supply vessels.

Not knowing the disposition of the US replenishment fleet I can't speak for that but the capability of COD to do that job would be a neccesity.

 

[colay]

AFAIK, the F135 can be broken down into major components.If an engine fails at sea, is it really SOP to replace the whole engine or just the component that failed? If the latter, then any COD that can carry the largest module i.e. the power core, should ensure operational integrity of the F-35 fleet IMO. V-22 has demoed ability to carry the power core using a redesigned frame carrier and C-2 should be able to do so as well.


To cary the entire engine will require a completely new fuselage for the Viking, basically building a new aircraft and certifying it. A daunting proposition more so when money is tight.

 

[StobieWan]

SOP is to get the job done and get the bird turned around asap - and having a complete engine on tap to pull and replace the existing one is often way quicker than pulling the engine, stripping it and fitting new components, followed by refitting it. The failed engine can then either be picked over for parts or returned to service.

It's a useful option to have, put it that way.

As to the challenges of certifying a new air frame, that goes for the Boeing - and the V22 just plain can't do it in terms of range, ceiling etc.

S3 looks a really interesting option and I really liked that bird - did some good stuff and seeing it go away was very disappointing.

If they can revive the old girl and put those 90+ cabs into service, I think it'd be a good move for the USN - particularly if they can keep some of the other features (like tanking)

 

[colay]

SOP is to get the job done and get the bird turned around asap - and having a complete engine on tap to pull and replace the existing one is often way quicker than pulling the engine, stripping it and fitting new components, followed by refitting it. The failed engine can then either be picked over for parts or returned to service.

It's a useful option to have, put it that way.

As to the challenges of certifying a new air frame, that goes for the Boeing - and the V22 just plain can't do it in terms of range, ceiling etc.

S3 looks a really interesting option and I really liked that bird - did some good stuff and seeing it go away was very disappointing.

If they can revive the old girl and put those 90+ cabs into service, I think it'd be a good move for the USN - particularly if they can keep some of the other features (like tanking)

Yes, it would be useful. I'm guessing CVNs deploy with a pre-determined number of complete spare engines for quick,swap outs of malfunctioning units. The latter may then be repaired, if need be by replacing faulty components or whole modules,if needed.
We shall have to,wait and see the RFP performance specifications but based on the following article both C-2 and V-22 are "very viable". The aircraft with lowest cost impact meeting the minimum mandated specs may have the edge.

Navy may delay decision on replacing carrier supply planes - News - WTAQ News Talk 97.5FM and 1360AM

Regardless of which solution was ultimately chosen, Manazir said, it was critical that the planes were cheap, given other priorities, including the need to replace the current Ohio-class submarines that carry nuclear weapons. "It's pushing the price point down to the lowest it can possibly be," he said.

Manazir said both options were "very viable" and that he was heartened by industry-funded efforts to develop a way to transport the large single engine built by Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp, to power the F-35 fighter jet that will be used on carriers beginning around 2019.

 

[harryriedl]

SOP is to get the job done and get the bird turned around asap - and having a complete engine on tap to pull and replace the existing one is often way quicker than pulling the engine, stripping it and fitting new components, followed by refitting it. The failed engine can then either be picked over for parts or returned to service.

It's a useful option to have, put it that way.

As to the challenges of certifying a new air frame, that goes for the Boeing - and the V22 just plain can't do it in terms of range, ceiling etc.

S3 looks a really interesting option and I really liked that bird - did some good stuff and seeing it go away was very disappointing.

If they can revive the old girl and put those 90+ cabs into service, I think it'd be a good move for the USN - particularly if they can keep some of the other features (like tanking)

If you look at the Gawker piece (a place which is bottom of the barrel journalism) their sadly not talking about putting the S3 back into service their talking about putting bits of S3 on a new aircraft which can carry and F135 so recertification and unforeseen problems and 200% increases in procurement are more than likely.

"Lockheed has presented the Navy with a "innovative" solution to their looming COD crisis, an S-3 based COD! In fact Lockheed's proposal features almost the exact same aircraft that was pitched decades ago, but this time instead of building new aircraft, the S-3's motors, wings, tail, control surfaces and other bits would be reused and attached to a brand new fuselage. This fuselage would feature an updated cockpit, a rear cargo ramp and seating for up to 28 people. The aircraft would be able to carry at least 10,000lbs of cargo and could do so at a good clip. What is most enticing is that the "C-3," as Lockheed calls it, would be able to swallow an F-35's Pratt and Whitney F135 engine and its transport packaging as a whole, with no need to break the engine apart into individual components."

Sounds very ambitious or downright disingenuous. This isn't a reuse of S3 this a new aircraft which might reuse parts. At least with the V22 and the updated C2 they are known quantities.

 

[Volkodav]

Well that is also basically what a CH-47D to F rebuild is too, they use bits and pieces but discard most of the old aircraft. So long as it works and they prototype and prove it there shouldn't be an issue.

 

[StobieWan]

Sounds like the MRA4 program - new almost everything but the name. Went well when we did it. <hacking noises>

As Volkadov points out however, same for the Boeing - the only "it exists, we can build it now" option is MV22. Can't say I fancy that either.

 

[harryriedl]

Well that is also basically what a CH-47D to F rebuild is too, they use bits and pieces but discard most of the old aircraft. So long as it works and they prototype and prove it there shouldn't be an issue.

except that it its more like a the Hornet to Super Hornet as the airframe will be different rather than the CH-47 which everything bar the airframe was changed. I have trouble seeing the economies of scale of the process. I understand the necessity for the Super Hornet and the CH-47 I struggle to see the necessity for a 30 frame order(tops) for such a specialised solution, The Nimrod MRA4(a far less ambitious change) program should be a good warning of selling such a solution.

I would be shocked if this idea won the V22 or updated C2 would be the logical simplest choice.

 

[the concerned]

What would it take to navalize a C-27j Spartan and could it be done as cheap as the alternatives.

 

[ngatimozart]

What would it take to navalize a C-27j Spartan and could it be done as cheap as the alternatives.

First question why? Ok, a $hit load of money and a probable rebuild of the aircraft. Need folding wings, tail hook, if you're using it on a STOBAR carrier also probably JATO bottle points, if CATOBAR points for cat and lifting gear, etc., etc. Then you got to salt water corrosion proof as much of the aircraft, internally and externally, as possible. Would be cheaper to purchase, reactivate and upgrade 6 x S3 Vikings from the Boneyard. Good luck.

 

[t68]

First question why? Ok, a $hit load of money and a probable rebuild of the aircraft. Need folding wings, tail hook, if you're using it on a STOBAR carrier also probably JATO bottle points, if CATOBAR points for cat and lifting gear, etc., etc. Then you got to salt water corrosion proof as much of the aircraft, internally and externally, as possible. Would be cheaper to purchase, reactivate and upgrade 6 x S3 Vikings from the Boneyard. Good luck.

Personally I think that C27J would make a good COD for the US but as you said there would have to be some modifications to the aircraft to make it feasible, namely the height is it major problem. The hangar on a Nimitz class carrier is 7.80m high and C27J is 9.64m,they could in theory leave them on the deck exposed to the elements but the USN has a requirement for all aircraft to be able moved to the hanger deck, V22 only scraps in with a height of 6.73 m; overall with nacelles vertical.

With the size of the US carriers a plane like C27J is not going to have a problem in landing or getting airborne if C130 and U2 can land and take off without the need for JATO assist C27J won’t. If the Kelly Johnson Skunk works can modify a U2 within 12 months to make them carrier compatible changing and testing a twin tail plane C27J would be in the realms of the US.On multi-engine propeller designs twin fin and rudders operating in the propeller slipstream give greater rudder authority and improved control at low airspeeds.if it can be done should make good aircraft not only for the USN but potentially the RN as well.

But also with an order for around 35/40 aircraft I can’t see why the US would not build new aircraft with the same engines and avionics as the E2-D Hawkeye.

It would be interesting to see if the S3-Viking can carry all its payload weight within the fuselage as some of the weight would have been distributed on the wing hard points.

 

[ngatimozart]

Personally I think that C27J would make a good COD for the US but as you said there would have to be some modifications to the aircraft to make it feasible, namely the height is it major problem. The hangar on a Nimitz class carrier is 7.80m high and C27J is 9.64m,they could in theory leave them on the deck exposed to the elements but the USN has a requirement for all aircraft to be able moved to the hanger deck, V22 only scraps in with a height of 6.73 m; overall with nacelles vertical.

With the size of the US carriers a plane like C27J is not going to have a problem in landing or getting airborne if C130 and U2 can land and take off without the need for JATO assist C27J won’t. If the Kelly Johnson Skunk works can modify a U2 within 12 months to make them carrier compatible changing and testing a twin tail plane C27J would be in the realms of the US.On multi-engine propeller designs twin fin and rudders operating in the propeller slipstream give greater rudder authority and improved control at low airspeeds.if it can be done should make good aircraft not only for the USN but potentially the RN as well.

But also with an order for around 35/40 aircraft I can’t see why the US would not build new aircraft with the same engines and avionics as the E2-D Hawkeye.

It would be interesting to see if the S3-Viking can carry all its payload weight within the fuselage as some of the weight would have been distributed on the wing hard points.

At present the competition is between the Boeing V22 Osprey and an upgraded Northrop C2 Greyhound. Lockheed have suggested refurbishing and expanding the fuselages of Vikings that are at the Boneyard. They reckon it would be cheaper and offer greater ranger and versatility. Lockheed Revives an Old Idea for New Carrier Cargo Plane | Defense News | defensenews.com

 

[t68]

At present the competition is between the Boeing V22 Osprey and an upgraded Northrop C2 Greyhound. Lockheed have suggested refurbishing and expanding the fuselages of Vikings that are at the Boneyard. They reckon it would be cheaper and offer greater ranger and versatility. Lockheed Revives an Old Idea for New Carrier Cargo Plane | Defense News | defensenews.com

Yeah I saw that a while ago Nagati, my gut feeling was that V22 would get the nod because it can fly directly to outlaying vessels within a CBG, but the idea was dismissed by more knowledgeable people than my self regarding the issue of transportation of assembled F135 engine which apparently the V22 & Greyhound cannot carry which is a major requirement for the USN.

I remember seeing a slide for the RAAF about what the C27J can carry but I can’t seem to find it now.

 

[colay]

Yeah I saw that a while ago Nagati, my gut feeling was that V22 would get the nod because it can fly directly to outlaying vessels within a CBG, but the idea was dismissed by more knowledgeable people than my self regarding the issue of transportation of assembled F135 engine which apparently the V22 & Greyhound cannot carry which is a major requirement for the USN.

I remember seeing a slide for the RAAF about what the C27J can carry but I can’t seem to find it now.

AFAIK the C-2 cannot accommodate a fully assembled F135. The latter would have to be disassembled for shipment, as with the V-22. Here's a write-up on the COD replacement initiative.

http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/august_2013/m1/Page.action?lm=1374555966000&pg=36

 

[StevoJH]

What is the wing span of a C27J? I'm guessing way too wide to be practical.....