Lockheed Pitching Revamped Viking to Fill Carrier Cargo and Tanking Roles

[pilot_man]

I think the Navy has to assume some of the responsibility for the JSF delays. We can't be that pissed off that we asked LM to create us a unicorn that farts rainbows and pisses liquid gold and they couldn't make it happen. We should have killed the B 10 years ago and things would be way ahead of where we're at now.

 

[nittany03]

Guess I don't understand why the V22 wouldn't be an acceptable option, and every design is a compromise.

With the V22 - you can make multiple runs without the need for catapult / AG crews, plane guard, etc. You would also not be restricted to day time only ops - so parts runs could occur at night. Not really sure why speed and pressurization is such an issue - they have done plenty of work with USAF / AFSOC.

I'm curious why the idea came up that you won't need a plane guard for a V-22. Over to the LSOs to talk about what would be needed to keep COD guys night current. I do know that the C-2 and S-3 airframe have trapped at night without spontaneously exploding, so be that as it may. I see speed and pressurization as an issue involving range. See below.

You can fit a C-2 into the standard deck cycle, usually commencing first or last. You can't do that with a V-22; it lands like a helo and would fuck up everything. This isn't a showstopper per se; we land helos in between, before, or after the fixed-wing deck cycle all the time. But it's one more thing to make the Handler up the dose on his/her blood pressure meds. But as I understand it, the plopter has some pretty vicious downdraft compared to a -60 series. What does that do to the Prowler or soon-to-be baby Hornet maintainers who are the "low man on the scrotum pole" getting kicked in the balls trying to get the "comer" 30X/40X/50X up for the COMPTUEX Alpha Strike next cycle? Do they have to strike below and lose maintenance time? I'm asking because I don't know.

Is the plopter fuselage big enough to carry a J52, F404, F414, or F135? I'm asking because I don't know. If not, you'll have to sling that bad boy, and what does that do to range/max speed? I'm asking because I don't know. Otherwise, find some other way to get engines to and from Mom after AM3 Schmuckatelli doesn't do his PC preflight properly and you FOD an engine during a night go. Seen it happen. Oh, did I mention you're stuck in the ass-end of nowhere after the evil dictator got uppity again? Great, your logistical chain is utterly fooked, you haven't had fresh vegetables for 3 weeks, and there are no dip clearances for a lilypad between you and say, Bahrain. Can the plopter sling-load that engine out to Mom, or does it cut its range enough that you have to get it FedExed to USS Supply Ship for the scheduled UNREP? Again I'm asking because I don't know. Seen that happen, thankfully not at the same time the engine actually got FODed. But I don't think it's a coincidence that Lockheed showed the C-3 loading an F-135 engine in its propaganda piece. Didn't they have an "oh shit" moment when they realized they'd made the engine too big to fit on a C-2? Let's fix our fuckup by selling the government a new airplane which fits the engine that was too big for the last one. Brilliant!

Enough about engines. Say something else totally unexpected breaks, and the only part is at NADEP or the boneyard. Seen it happen, with a jet down for a week plus. Logistics are king for Naval Aviation maintenance. The delta between the time it takes the C-2, V-22 or C-3 to get the needed part to Das Boot can directly impact the weight of the hammer CAG has available to launch an alpha strike on Day 1 against some mustachioed psychopath with a fancy uniform and bad haircut. Effective CODs == up jets faster, and that's not even getting into the morale implications of mail and fresh lettuce. After 2 months in the Red Sea, I will never look at a fresh salad the same way again.

 

[Pags]

I'm curious why the idea came up that you won't need a plane guard for a V-22. Over to the LSOs to talk about what would be needed to keep COD guys night current. I do know that the C-2 and S-3 airframe have trapped at night without spontaneously exploding, so be that as it may. I see speed and pressurization as an issue involving range. See below.

You can fit a C-2 into the standard deck cycle, usually commencing first or last. You can't do that with a V-22; it lands like a helo and would fuck up everything. This isn't a showstopper per se; we land helos in between, before, or after the fixed-wing deck cycle all the time. But it's one more thing to make the Handler up the dose on his/her blood pressure meds. But as I understand it, the plopter has some pretty vicious downdraft compared to a -60 series. What does that do to the Prowler or soon-to-be baby Hornet maintainers who are the "low man on the scrotum pole" getting kicked in the balls trying to get the "comer" 30X/40X/50X up for the COMPTUEX Alpha Strike next cycle? Do they have to strike below and lose maintenance time? I'm asking because I don't know.

Is the plopter fuselage big enough to carry a J52, F404, F414, or F135? I'm asking because I don't know. If not, you'll have to sling that bad boy, and what does that do to range/max speed? I'm asking because I don't know. Otherwise, find some other way to get engines to and from Mom after AM3 Schmuckatelli doesn't do his PC preflight properly and you FOD an engine during a night go. Seen it happen. Oh, did I mention you're stuck in the ass-end of nowhere after the evil dictator got uppity again? Great, your logistical chain is utterly fooked, you haven't had fresh vegetables for 3 weeks, and there are no dip clearances for a lilypad between you and say, Bahrain. Can the plopter sling-load that engine out to Mom, or does it cut its range enough that you have to get it FedExed to USS Supply Ship for the scheduled UNREP? Again I'm asking because I don't know. Seen that happen, thankfully not at the same time the engine actually got FODed. But I don't think it's a coincidence that Lockheed showed the C-3 loading an F-135 engine in its propaganda piece. Didn't they have an "oh shit" moment when they realized they'd made the engine too big to fit on a C-2? Let's fix our fuckup by selling the government a new airplane which fits the engine that was too big for the last one. Brilliant!

Enough about engines. Say something else totally unexpected breaks, and the only part is at NADEP or the boneyard. Seen it happen, with a jet down for a week plus. Logistics are king for Naval Aviation maintenance. The delta between the time it takes the C-2, V-22 or C-3 to get the needed part to Das Boot can directly impact the weight of the hammer CAG has available to launch an alpha strike on Day 1 against some mustachioed psychopath with a fancy uniform and bad haircut. Effective CODs == up jets faster, and that's not even getting into the morale implications of mail and fresh lettuce. After 2 months in the Red Sea, I will never look at a fresh salad the same way again.

Making a decision to buy an aircraft based on the Handler's blood pressure is a terrible idea. The Handler's happiest when there's no birds on board for the ABs to crunch.

Now that there are so many more helos on board the CVN, you'd think everyone would be a bit more used to incorporating non-FW assets in to the deck cycle. While the V-22 may land like a helo, it can do some things that a helo can't such as taxiing.

The rotot wash from the V-22 is heavy, much like a 53. You have to be careful about leaving shit lying around. But, V-22s have been routinely operating off of LHDs for almost a decade now. The Marines on board the LHDs still manage to turn wrenches with V-22 ops going on.

Inability to bring a motor out? The country's other aircraft carriers don't have a COD and yet they still manage to conduct ops. Crapping out a harrier motor or kneuter valve has a lot of the same challenges, yet it gets done.

It's a bit disenegnuous to cry conspiracy about "not designing a motor to fit in the COD." I doubt that was anywhere on the JSF requirements document.

 

[nittany03]

Making a decision to buy an aircraft based on the Handler's blood pressure is a terrible idea. The Handler's happiest when there's no birds on board for the ABs to crunch.

Now that there are so many more helos on board the CVN, you'd think everyone would be a bit more used to incorporating non-FW assets in to the deck cycle. While the V-22 may land like a helo, it can do some things that a helo can't such as taxiing.

True. The CVN has easily supported more aircraft than it has in the past; my point was just that it would add complexity to the operation to add more stuff in between cycles.

The rotor wash from the V-22 is heavy, much like a 53. You have to be careful about leaving shit lying around. But, V-22s have been routinely operating off of LHDs for almost a decade now. The Marines on board the LHDs still manage to turn wrenches with V-22 ops going on.

Cool. I didn't know how much everything had to come to a full stop topside when one of those beasts lands, seeing as I've only seen -60 ops on a ship.

Inability to bring a motor out? The country's other aircraft carriers don't have a COD and yet they still manage to conduct ops. Crapping out a harrier motor or kneuter valve has a lot of the same challenges, yet it gets done.

I don't disagree that the job will get done; it's what we do. I'm ignorant of what's necessary to get a Harrier motor to an LHD just as I'm ignorant of how fast a V-22 is with an F-135 dangling underneath. My point is that being able to fly a part out via fixed-wing may be faster in some scenarios than waiting on a helo or an AOE. And that translates into more sorties with more up jets. How efficient can we be?

It's a bit disingenuous to cry conspiracy about "not designing a motor to fit in the COD." I doubt that was anywhere on the JSF requirements document.

Screw-up before conspiracy, always. There is no C-3 purchasing conspiracy via F-135 malfeasance. I just noted that they chose to portray the C-3 loading that engine after it already wouldn't fit in the COD and thought that it was funny, given the F-35 engine being too big. It's like they're subtly trying to make a point.

 

[wink]

Now that there are so many more helos on board the CVN, you'd think everyone would be a bit more used to incorporating non-FW assets in to the deck cycle. While the V-22 may land like a helo, it can do some things that a helo can't such as taxiing.

I guess I never saw a helo taxi on deck. Why was that and why can the V-22 if a helo can't? They are simply tilting their rotor thingys like a helo does his main rotor.

Inability to bring a motor out? The country's other aircraft carriers don't have a COD and yet they still manage to conduct ops. Crapping out a harrier motor or kneuter valve has a lot of the same challenges, yet it gets done.

Does it, or does that plane just get struck below and sits it out until one is craned aboard? I don't recall from my TACRON days, but maybe they just have engines on board, but the CV can't afford to store the larger F-135.

 

[robav8r]

I'm sure a PLOPTER bubba can weigh-in on this, but the V-22 not only has a significant downwash hazard, but an engine heat exhaust issue as well. Not to mention a very limited wind-envelope that may preclude operations on a CVN in its normal operating environment.

 

[Flash]

.....Inability to bring a motor out? The country's other aircraft carriers don't have a COD and yet they still manage to conduct ops. Crapping out a harrier motor or kneuter valve has a lot of the same challenges, yet it gets done.....

One huge difference is numbers, an LHD/A usually have 6 Harriers while you have 50 or so Hornets with two motors a piece. Speed and payload become much bigger factors when you have numbers like that.

 

[xj220]

Why don't they just make new build C-2s? Update the avionics and maybe give the engines some more power, but other than that they'll accomplish the mission just fine. It's not a combat aircraft where you have to keep up with the Jones.

 

[wink]

Speed and range were once such a big deal we came up with the US-3 (Miss Piggy) to meet the requirement. Even with limited payload it was a necessary capability. What has changed to negate that requirement? Hard to believe we couldn't benefit from the same speed and range plus reasonable payload. Add to that some refueling capability to free up some pointy nose guys to go over the beach and reduce our reliability on USAF tankers and it makes sense to me. More C-2s or V-22s do nothing for the lack of airborne gas or the speed and range we should have. What makes the CV and Navy in general unique is it's independence of action. Tied to USAF tankers a CV loses a measure of it's unique strategic value. Any opportunity to make the CV independent and as self sustaining as possible is a tally in the "must have" column for the bean counters. The Marines know how to play that game.

 

[Flash]

Speed and range were once such a big deal we came up with the US-3 (Miss Piggy) to meet the requirement. Even with limited payload it was a necessary capability. What has changed to negate that requirement? Hard to believe we couldn't benefit from the same speed and range plus reasonable payload.

There were so few US-3's though that I find it hard to believe that they really served their purpose well. We had a few VRC-50 guys in my first squadron and they said 'Miss Piggy' was an IG investigation waiting to happen the way it was often used.

Add to that some refueling capability to free up some pointy nose guys to go over the beach and reduce our reliability on USAF tankers and it makes sense to me. More C-2s or V-22s do nothing for the lack of airborne gas or the speed and range we should have. What makes the CV and Navy in general unique is it's independence of action. Tied to USAF tankers a CV loses a measure of it's unique strategic value. Any opportunity to make the CV independent and as self sustaining as possible is a tally in the "must have" column for the bean counters. The Marines know how to play that game.

Unless they start making the A-3 again a U/K/S-3 isn't going to much more than be a nice recovery tanker, they just don't have anywhere near the offload that a 'big wing' tanker has. What it will help with is the FLE on the SH's being used in that role right now, they are apparently burning that up a lot faster than anticipated and don't have a good solution to that yet from what I know. A SH guy would probably know better but having relatively 'free' S-3's do the air wing tanker thing is appealing, until people remember they need care and feeding just like every other airframe in the fleet and need quite a bit of work just to get them flying again.

 

[ProwlerPilot]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm almost positive there are no motors (F404, 414, etc) being brought on or off the carrier in a COD. Didn't we stop that when the payload broke loose off the bow and sent the COD straight up and then straight down many years ago? I'm pretty sure all engines are unrepped or loaded on in port.

 

[Pags]

I guess I never saw a helo taxi on deck. Why was that and why can the V-22 if a helo can't? They are simply tilting their rotor thingys like a helo does his main rotor.


Does it, or does that plane just get struck below and sits it out until one is craned aboard? I don't recall from my TACRON days, but maybe they just have engines on board, but the CV can't afford to store the larger F-135.

In the LHD NATOPS the V-22 was allowed to taxi and taxiing helos was not recommended (usually interperted as a bad idea). we would routinlely land the V-22s on the stern and taxi them to the bow for shutdown like a WWII carrier.

V-22 wind envelope is small when compared to an H-46. But my understanding is that the FW launch envelope on a CVN is pretty constrained. So why can't the CVN support the V-22 in the same constrained manner? Engine downwash is an issue, just like it on the LHD. If it works on the LHD, it should work on the CVN. Deck heating has mitigation procedures in place that are dependant on the class of vessel.

While there are a fewer number of Harriers on the LHD, they still had a big motor in a big can. We carried a few on board, but if you've used them up then you had a to find a way to get them onboard. I only remember craning them on in port, but if you needed them operationally I'd imagine you'd have to CONREP them over. Keeping extra motors on board does use up space in the hangar bay that could be used for other purposes. But we'd routinely lose 1/3 of our hangar bay due to crap overflowing out of the Vs and storerooms.

Right now, there's no way to get F135s to the CVN in a time-critical manner other maybe CONREP. If that stays the same then someone will have to give up room to be able to keep additional motors on the ship so you can get the required MC rates from the CVW. Maybe the Hangar Bay will have to be used to store some of them. Or do a ship mod like they did for the LHDs to be able to stow more crap around the Hangar. This of course doesn't even touch on where are you going to put the sims that the JSF pilots are expected to use underway.

 

[wink]

There were so few US-3's though that I find it hard to believe that they really served their purpose well. We had a few VRC-50 guys in my first squadron and they said 'Miss Piggy' was an IG investigation waiting to happen the way it was often used.

Was in the IO for two cruise with Piggy support. In that AOR they most certainly did serve a purpose. I always thought they served it well but what mattered most was not the qualitative descriptor but the very fact they were the only ones that could serve the purpose. Today it still isn't rare to have the CV alter pin just to get within range of the COD. More COD range means more tactical flexibility for the CVSG. Can't imagine what was meant by the IG threat over how they were being used. Still, issues with use versus SOP, or even the law over 25 years ago is hardly a reason not to consider the new proposal. The C-2 could be misused. It is a leadership/SOP homogenizing thing.

Unless they start making the A-3 again a U/K/S-3 isn't going to much more than be a nice recovery tanker, they just don't have anywhere near the offload that a 'big wing' tanker has. What it will help with is the FLE on the SH's being used in that role right now, they are apparently burning that up a lot faster than anticipated and don't have a good solution to that yet from what I know. A SH guy would probably know better but having relatively 'free' S-3's do the air wing tanker thing is appealing, until people remember they need care and feeding just like every other airframe in the fleet and need quite a bit of work just to get them flying again.

There are always certain missions that can use big wing tanker support. Fact is, we needed far less of that support years ago. We were more independent. And that wasn't with a KA-3 embarked. I think you are selling the new proposal short. It will be able to pass far more gas than the legacy S-3 did. How much we don't know, but clearly more than a Hornet and a KA-6 and possible enough to provide mission tanking support. Sure, returning a Viking to the fleet will require proper care and feeding. But that is represented in dollars and cents. That is all that matter these days. So how much is it costing us to burn up the Rhinos? How reliable is that big wing tanking going to be years from now since we have used up KC-135s in the last 10 years and fewer of the replacement is being bought?

We aren't talking about a dedicated tanker using up deck space. We are talking about a replacement COD for an aircraft that doesn't tank, can't fly as fast or as far.

 

[ProwlerPilot]

This of course doesn't even touch on where are you going to put the sims that the JSF pilots are expected to use underway.

I think if they take two of the lanes out in the bowling alley, the sims could fit there. It would mean longer lines to bowl while underway with only three lanes left, but I'm sure aircrew proficiency will take precedence over recreation.

 

[wink]

... taxiing helos was not recommended (usually interperted as a bad idea). ..

But why?