 |
| Via JEFFHEAD Buildup...a theoretical posting on what a future force would look like. You definitely need to take a look...many great ideas. |
By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing EditorI hate how much of the Marine Corps budget the V-22 is eating up.
ARLINGTON, Va. — Bell-Boeing, the joint venture that builds the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor transport aircraft, plans to demonstrate the aircraft’s potential as an organic aerial refueler during trials in early August.
“By using a concept that is being developed by Bell-Boeing engineers, using the roll-on Mission Auxiliary tanks, Bell-Boeing will do an airborne demonstration of V-22 in the tanker role with their technology demonstrator aircraft,” said Brian Roby, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems’s field office representative in San Diego. “It is my understanding that they will drag a refueling basket behind the aircraft at various positions with an F/A-18 in the refueling position. No fuel will be passed during this demo; it will just be a proof of concept.
“Should this demonstration be successful it will be another significant step towards demonstrating how a single type/model/series aircraft, V-22, can provide added mission utility while attached to a carrier,” Roby said.
I hate the idea of the Marine Corps becoming aviation centric.
I dislike some of the mission profiles that this airplane flies...it get there fast but is limited in landing zones, is mostly unarmed (for all practical purposes) and I am not a fan of how whole fleets of vehicles are being designed for internal carriage in this plane.
But I can't lie.
If they can make this work, then it will be a game changer. Quite honestly I can see the 160th scooping them up like chips at a party. Imagine the range gained for the CH-47 used by the Rangers. Imagine the reach of CV-22's flown by AFSOC. Yeah. They'll be all over it.
Then think about the Israelis. They want to use the V-22 for Special Ops missions and recovery of pilots. They'll buy the tanker version just so they can get deep into Iran to recover agents ... and then pick up downed pilots when they go after the Iranian reactors.
Consider Japan, the UK, Italy, and Spain. All are going to be F-35 users and they all have LHDs to operate them from (or soon will). Suddenly combat air patrols are being done at a greater distance, strikes can go deeper, the list goes on.
But for Boeing the hits don't stop with the V-22.
Some smart boy is gonna figure out that for those forces that use helicopters and have a need to fly far or to have them on station for a long time that converting a CH-47 or CH-53 to refuel other helos might be a good idea.
This system will be modified to fit those helicopters and they will carry ALOT of fuel.
Boeing just hit the jackpot.
Sol other than for operating aboard ship why would a V-22 tanker be better than a KC-130J? The latter can offload about 82,000lbs of fuel at 100 to 270 knots. I'm not sure the V-22 could offload more than 1/4 of that?
ReplyDeleteAs an aside the need for aerial refueling for carrier operations is far less for STOVL. Thus while the RN was talking about buddy refueling with the C I'm not sure they'll bother with the F-35B?
The KC-130J costs about the same as a V-22 (it's very slightly cheaper). So for the same money you can offload ballpark 4 times the fuel at a greater range and speed. Unless you can't a KC-130J anywhere nearby I'd suggest the V-22 isn't cost effective.
As for helicopters acting as tankers there are probably some aerodynamic challenges as to my knowledge it's never been done.
The main advantage of a KV-22 is that it is a RO-RO package.
DeleteDay/Night 1: V-22s configured with tanker package to provide additional fuel for combat aircraft extending strike range several hundred miles and significantly increasing time on station.
Day/Night 2: reconfigured V-22s without the tanker package used to ferry troops and supplies for assault.
ie, since it is a ro-ro package for the V22, you aren't buying a tanker. You are buying a craft than can be used for either transport OR tanker and that can operate off of existing LHD like ships.
Its the same reason why the next gen AC-130 isn't going to be a fixed buy but instead a RO-RO package for any upgraded/current/new gen C-130. You can ship the whole package along with ammo and supplies in a C-130 and configure it within a day when you get there. It also means that if the airframe gets damaged or needs maintenance, you can swap it with any other C-130 without losing effectiveness.
Lane...
Deletethe main thing is operating off ship. the amount of fuel that can be transferred by fighter to fighter is miniscule....from v-22 to fighter? significant. additionally it can do more than buddy fuel fighters...it can refuel everything that can aerial refuel. that is a game changer.
Anything not USAF that is...
DeleteA V-22 would be perfect to replace the C-2 Greyhound for Carrier onboard delivery and replacement for the KA-6D and KS-3A. It would be perfect for Aircraft carriers, and LHA's. It would be a game changer for the US Navy and US marines and for most countries that have Aircraft carriers and LHA.
ReplyDeleteVery much doubt we will see the RN buy V22 as a tanker (or COD). The UK MoD is tied to a company called AirTanker for its AAR. According to the contract only AirTanker can refuel MoD aircraft. If the MoD use anybody else they have to pay Air Tanker penalties. Complete and utter FUBAR. The more air orientated types I know blather on about carrier AAR only being about safe recovery and the UK doesn't need the capability. Odd seeing as the first asset land based air move in after the fighters is the tankers. They need them but naval air doesn't. Smacks of trash talk by the light blue types.
ReplyDeleteThat JeffHead site is hilarious. "First we assume that the economy will magically become awesome. Next, here are the cool things we can spend our mountains of cash on."
ReplyDeletewhen he wrote that site the economy WAS wonderful. but the point isn't to look at it from a current view of things but to understand some of the roads not taken and that were possibly being considered at the time.
Deleteyou made a common mistake. past issues are looked at through todays lens which doesn't allow for an appreciation or proper condemnation (if applicable) of the decisions made by leadership.
everyone talks about the F-35 being hindered because of the STOVL version but when it was first designed the economy was strong and could support different versions. what pushed the concept? a weird free market view held by a couple of administrations. a Congress that was more interested in more butter than guns and a Joint Chiefs that was more interested in kissing ass instead of putting forth the most powerful military possible.
so in that light the JeffHead site is great.