US Navy News and updates

[t68]

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

C27J as it stands will not fit in the hanger without modification, the USN have the luxury of time to get it right as by the article Colay brought up IOC is not expected till 2026 but Navy wants to put out a RFP this year (2014)

Well if Lockheed can submit a wide body S3-Viking I guess Alenia could in theory propose a variant of the C27J with a twin tail plane and folding wings if they think they could make money out of it(not saying they will ) but it is an option for them, wonder what’s harder to modify the fuselage or the tail and folding wings.

Id imagine the S3-VIKING if selected would have to go thru Certification of airworthiness process with the FAA just as would a modified C27J would. But I guess we will never know how it would go.

 

[swerve]

The S-3 proposal for COD needs a fatter fuselage, but that's not necessarily a deal killer.

 

[StevoJH]

Even if they could make a folding wing C27J, it might be too tall to fit in the hanger anyway.

I was more thinking that (if it would fit), you'd land base it and fly it out to the carrier as needed.

It should have enough range.....If they want something dual rolled as a ship based tanker they would need something different.

TBH, I see no point in going near the S-3's if you are only reusing the wings. May as well start from scratch, don't need to constrain the design into needing to use those wings then.....

 

[Volkodav]

Even if they could make a folding wing C27J, it might be too tall to fit in the hanger anyway.

I was more thinking that (if it would fit), you'd land base it and fly it out to the carrier as needed.

It should have enough range.....If they want something dual rolled as a ship based tanker they would need something different.

TBH, I see no point in going near the S-3's if you are only reusing the wings. May as well start from scratch, don't need to constrain the design into needing to use those wings then.....

I suppose it comes down to how many bits they will reuse and how much those bits cost. If it pans out as the best value for money solution that satisfies the requirement then it will be in with a chance depending then on the political weight of the various congressmen chasing local work / votes.

 

[swerve]

TBH, I see no point in going near the S-3's if you are only reusing the wings. May as well start from scratch, don't need to constrain the design into needing to use those wings then.....

If LM can be trusted (big if?), they're not planning to reuse only the wings, but engines, tail, landing gear & cockpit. Pretty much everything except the central part of the fuselage, by the sound of it.

 

[harryriedl]

If LM can be trusted (big if?), they're not planning to reuse only the wings, but engines, tail, landing gear & cockpit. Pretty much everything except the central part of the fuselage, by the sound of it.

according to the report it seems the cockpit is also going to be replaced by a full Glass cockpit, so another potential issue with proposal.

 

[colay]

If LM can be trusted (big if?), they're not planning to reuse only the wings, but engines, tail, landing gear & cockpit. Pretty much everything except the central part of the fuselage, by the sound of it.

Which is in contrast to NG which claims,a 22%-25% reduction in operating expenses for a modernized S-2 arising from the incorporation of newer fuel-efficient engines and advanced avionics used in the E-2D. It would be interesting to see what the equivalent costs would be for an S-3 using legacy tech. Lifetime costs would not favor a S-3 selection.

 

[swerve]

I should have said that they intend to replace the avionics. Silly of me to omit it. What they're proposing is, in effect, taking an oldish aircraft, &
1) replace much of the fuselage, making it fatter. Not trivial, but much simpler than new wings, I think.
2) replace the avionics.

The S-3 engine is the TF34 turbofan. The civil version is still in production, & being fitted to new aircraft. I think its fuel efficiency is pretty good for legacy tech.

Does anyone know what the new engines proposed for the S-2 are? There have been a couple of turbo conversions already.

 

[t68]

From an engineering viewpoint is it easier to redesign the central fuselage (S-3) or in the case of say C27J from a single conventional vertical tail assembly to which the C-2A Greyhound has four vertical stabilizers and folding wings. As I said before the hanger on a US Nimitz class carrier is 7.80m, S-3 Viking as it stands is 6.93m C27J is 9.64 and the C2-A 4.85m and V-22 6.73.

Payload and range distance is another matter altogether between the different aircraft,

S-3A. Six passengers or 2,120kg of cargo, Range 2,765nm (5,121 km) how this changes with the new airframe I don’t know

C-2A. 26 passengers, 12 litter patients or 4,536kg cargo, Range 1,300nm (2,400km)

C-27J. 60 troops or 46 paratroops or 36 litter patients or 11,500kg cargo, Range 1,000nm (1,852km) with 10,000KG or 2,300nm (4,260km) with a 6,000KG payload

MV-22B. 24 troops (seated), 32 troops (floor loaded) or 9,070kg (internal) 6,800kg (external) cargo, Range 879nm (1,627 km)

But it appears from this article http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/august_2013/?lm=1374555966000&pg=36#pg36 (thanks Colay) volume is more important than weight which can be appreciated from RAAF view point to the selection of C27J over the C295. From Delivering the goods: the ADF’s future battlefield airlifter by Tom Savage and Andrew Davies,

“The C-27J is more expensive per unit to acquire, and has a higher hourly running cost, but has a larger fuselage with the ability to easily fit some of the larger items the ADF will want to move intra-theatre, and is more compatible with pallets from the larger airlifters. It also offers better performance in terms of speed and time to height, both of which contribute to greater survivability in low-level threat scenarios, as well as meaning less flying hours for the same distance. As well, the ability to move some of Army’s light vehicles is a plus. Given the small number of BFAs to be acquired and the limitation to a single light vehicle per flight, the extent to which that capability should be weighted is debatable, but having the option broadens the mission choices. The C-27J thus unquestionably offers superior operational flexibility”

http://www.avia-it.com/act/rassegna..._Analysis100_future_battlefield_airlifter.pdf

The US already has if my information is correct 27 aircraft operating in the US and 16 new build aircraft went straight to the bone yard might as well make use of them if they can.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/10/07/new-air-force-planes-go-directly-to-boneyard.html

 

[colay]

Does anyone know what the new engines proposed for the S-2 are? There have been a couple of turbo conversions already.

Rolls-Royce T56 427A same as on,E-2D AFAIK.

 

[swerve]

An older basic design than the S-3's engines.

 

[colay]

An older basic design than the S-3's engines.

The S-3 engines currently in the boneyard? Those are what LM are going to reuse with a notional new fuselage if I understand their proposal correctly. Or will it be brand new TF-34s as well?

 

[swerve]

Please read what I wrote. Older basic design. I didn't say anything about individual engines. I don't know the dates of manufacture of the TF34s in storage, but I doubt if they're still 1970s standard: GE improved the engine over the years.

I'm not trying to argue for this modified S-3 (I'm skeptical - seems to me it might be a modification too far), merely clarify & balance where I think what's being said is incomplete or tilted too far one way.

 

[Volkodav]

What no one has mentioned and I don't know if its possible or affordable but how about a V-22 with a larger fuselage? It could be an opening for Bell to develop a larger heavier tilt rotor and market it to the Navy for COD and Army as a complement to the new utility type they are postulating.

A long short but I suppose it will come done to how long term the vision is on the requirements being set.

 

[StobieWan]

I think part of the issue is that V22 doesn't have a pressurised cockpit so it can't cruise at efficient altitudes. That plus it can't swallow an engine whole - so bigger body, pressurised..

 

[Volkodav]

I think part of the issue is that V22 doesn't have a pressurised cockpit so it can't cruise at efficient altitudes. That plus it can't swallow an engine whole - so bigger body, pressurised..

A V-22 with a longer, larger diameter cigar shaped fuselage, sponsoned main undercarriage, sans wing fold to keep weight down and greater span wing. Sounding more like a modelling whiff than a real project sorry. But then again look at what is being proposed for the Viking and apply it to the V-22, lets see what the end result is. Maybe something CN-235 size.

 

[colay]

Bell-Boeing's response to lack of cabin pressurization, not really an issue.


Osprey on the Truman, Fishing for COD

...Further, they say, the process of loading and unloading cargo and passengers has been well established by the predecessor C-2A. And, they note the cabin would be pressurized, an upgrade that would neebe added to the V-22.

V-22 backers don’t see this as a problem, though, and are not currently planning to offer a pressurized cabin. ”The V-22’s 25,000 ft .service ceiling is similar to other turbo-prop aircraft. Passenger flight operations are routinely conducted in the 8,000 to 12,000 mid-altitude ranges where the aircraft operates most efficiently,” says Bill Schroeder, a Bell-Boeing spokesman. “Unpressurized Navy passenger flights are cleared up to 13,000 ft.” He adds that the Block C weather radar, ice protection system and avionics support flying in all-weather/day/night conditions and air conditioning can be used on long flights for passenger comfort...

 

[HurricaneDitka]

V-22 backers don’t see this as a problem, though, and are not currently planning to offer a pressurized cabin. ”The V-22’s 25,000 ft .service ceiling is similar to other turbo-prop aircraft. Passenger flight operations are routinely conducted in the 8,000 to 12,000 mid-altitude ranges where the aircraft operates most efficiently,” says Bill Schroeder, a Bell-Boeing spokesman. “Unpressurized Navy passenger flights are cleared up to 13,000 ft.” He adds that the Block C weather radar, ice protection system and avionics support flying in all-weather/day/night conditions and air conditioning can be used on long flights for passenger comfort...

Wouldn't the aerial tanker mission that the MV-22 is angling for be much more efficient (at least for jets) if it were done at a higher altitude (with a pressurized cabin)? Same thing for some sort of an AEW variant (which is much more theoretical / hypothetical / wishful thinking than planned capability at this point)

 

[RobWilliams]

USN has awarded General Dynamics Electric Boat a contract worth $17.6 billion for 10 Virginia class attack submarines all to be built to block IV standard. The main improvement being the boat requires 3 major maintenance periods rather than 4 meaning increased availability for this batch.

General Dynamics Awarded $18 Billion by U.S. Navy for 10 Virginia-Class Submarines
U.S. Navy Awards

Good to see the contract awarded, although it's a bit odd when you think that the entire block would be completed within 5 years of the first boat being completed, what with the 2 per year build timeframe and all

 

[ASSAIL]

USN has awarded General Dynamics Electric Boat a contract worth $17.6 billion for 10 Virginia class attack submarines all to be built to block IV standard. The main improvement being the boat requires 3 major maintenance periods rather than 4 meaning increased availability for this batch.

General Dynamics Awarded $18 Billion by U.S. Navy for 10 Virginia-Class Submarines
U.S. Navy Awards

Good to see the contract awarded, although it's a bit odd when you think that the entire block would be completed within 5 years of the first boat being completed, what with the 2 per year build timeframe and all

The Australian DMO would be ecstatic if they could have 10 x Virginias, within 5 years, at under $20b. That's exactly the capability the RAN requires.
Someone should send both the Defmin and the Shadow the contract....then again ...the shadow is leftie Conroy. :roll2