Check Six Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Yeah puppies!!!!!! And it looks like a Corgi puppy too ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Horrido Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Can we name all the ship classes in that pic (and date taken)? (I'm particularly curious about the sub on the very bottom.) I'm allergic to cats, grrrrrrrrr!!!! Who wouldn't enjoy a wastebasket kitten eruption? And if you're allergic, don't snort the blasted fluff balls! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Horrido Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 And, since we're doing kittens: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B54vItSIYAABW-d.jpg:large Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Check Six Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) Can we name all the ship classes in that pic (and date taken)? (I'm particularly curious about the sub on the very bottom.) All I got is that it's the Abraham Lincoln battle Group and the pic was taken on or before 2007. Edit: June 20, 2000 RIMPAC exercises. Edited January 18, 2015 by Check Six Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rightwinger26 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 All I got is that it's the Abraham Lincoln battle Group and the pic was taken on or before 2007. Edit: June 20, 2000 RIMPAC exercises. I'm glad I saw your edit, I was in CAG 2 on the Lincoln in '07, and our battle group was nowhere near that size, and pictures from RIMPAC '06 included all the other nations forces, about 45 ships in all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Joe Hegedus Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 And how long until the navy rolls out as ASW version of the Osprey (ASV-22?)? High dash speeds to the threat area, ability to hover for dipping sonar, even the ability to trail a towed array (maybe). I'm sure there's room under the inner wings for a couple of weapons pylons, and plenty of room inside for a modular ASW instrument suite. Under the wing is completely useless for weapons carriage, unless you want to give up the ability to fold it up. The right wing lays over the aft fuselage, and a decent part of the left one over the cockpit when it's folded. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LanceB Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 OK, serious question about that pic: What is being loaded is the "power module", which I am going to guess is just the engine core (compressor and turbine section), without any of the accessory section or burner section attached. It is certainly much too short to be a complete engine, as according to specs online the F135 is 220 inches/5.59 meters long. Since the V-22 has a bay supposedly 24'4"/7.41 meters long the length would not be an issue, but that power module in its shipping can is clearly a snug fit, and a complete F-135 engine is supposed to be 46 inches/1.17 meters in diameter, plus then the travel can and frame, and the V-22 is only 71 inches/1.8 meters wide and about the same in height, could this be where the problem is? And is it a problem? All the talking before this decision was made was that neither the C-2 nor the V-22 could carry a complete F-135 engine, and that was going to "be a serious problem". But as the TF30 and F110 are both larger in diameter and length than the F135, the Navy must have been going without the ability to fly in complete fighter engines on COD for decades. How did they manage? Obviously a carrier has I-level maintenance facilities on board, meaning they can strip down and rebuild an engine while underway. So is the power module the only bit they really need to worry about possibly having to fly in, and if so, has all this talk about the need to fit a complete F135 in a COD replacement been a bunch of nonsense? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rightwinger26 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 All the talking before this decision was made was that neither the C-2 nor the V-22 could carry a complete F-135 engine, and that was going to "be a serious problem". But as the TF30 and F110 are both larger in diameter and length than the F135, the Navy must have been going without the ability to fly in complete fighter engines on COD for decades. How did they manage? Jet shop only have limited repair capability, they can bust an engine down and rework it, but there are occasions when motors have to be sent to depot level. When engines come over or go out, they get passed via RAS or VERTREP. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LanceB Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Jet shop only have limited repair capability, they can bust an engine down and rework it, but there are occasions when motors have to be sent to depot level. When engines come over or go out, they get passed via RAS or VERTREP. Understood, I used to work on Harriers and if they needed an engine while at sea it came out by boat and then a -53 would fly over to pick it up. However it seems to me that some of the "controversy" has been that lack of capability to fly F135 engines direct to the carriers was a Very Bad Thing, and yet looks to be a "capability" that the Navy did not have nor worry about previously. And it seems that they don't worry about it now. I don't know - the specs say an F414 is quite a bit smaller than the TF30/F110/F135, but is it small enough to be packed in its shipping can and loaded on a C-2 for a flight to the carrier? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rightwinger26 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Understood, I used to work on Harriers and if they needed an engine while at sea it came out by boat and then a -53 would fly over to pick it up. However it seems to me that some of the "controversy" has been that lack of capability to fly F135 engines direct to the carriers was a Very Bad Thing, and yet looks to be a "capability" that the Navy did not have nor worry about previously. And it seems that they don't worry about it now. I don't know - the specs say an F414 is quite a bit smaller than the TF30/F110/F135, but is it small enough to be packed in its shipping can and loaded on a C-2 for a flight to the carrier? A 414 can is too big to fit in the back of the COD, and even if it could fit, it would have to be picked up length ways, only the 20k forklift is going to do that, and I don't think there are even fork extensions on the ship, ie never seen them. Besides, even if it did fit, and there were fork extensions, I wouldn't want to be the poor bastard to try it, I had to get a triwall that weighed probably close to 1,000 lbs on a COD, and was ready for a drink at the end of that evolution. 2 aircrewmen in front with wood levers, and four of us pushing from the back, it kept twisting and getting stuck on ribs. Not to mention we were dumb enough to wear turtlenecks in 115 degree weather! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Understood, I used to work on Harriers and if they needed an engine while at sea it came out by boat and then a -53 would fly over to pick it up. However it seems to me that some of the "controversy" has been that lack of capability to fly F135 engines direct to the carriers was a Very Bad Thing, and yet looks to be a "capability" that the Navy did not have nor worry about previously. And it seems that they don't worry about it now. I don't know - the specs say an F414 is quite a bit smaller than the TF30/F110/F135, but is it small enough to be packed in its shipping can and loaded on a C-2 for a flight to the carrier? You are correct. It seems to be one of the "faux unique problems" that get invented. Purely anecdotal, but a lot of the Sailors I know have been quick to say they have never seen a COD bring in an engine. I think they figured out a long time ago its easier to bring spares at the outset, or as you say go ship to ship via helicopter. Carriers are routinely being uploaded with fuel and ammo as it is... The same article with the V-22 pictures and the Core loading,: A Boeing representative told Navy Recognition during Sea-Air-Space 2014 that the V-22 could transport a F-35B engine, with the lift fan element being sling loaded. http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2333 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rightwinger26 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I think they figured out a long time ago its easier to bring spares at the outset, or as you say go ship to ship via helicopter. Carriers are routinely being uploaded with fuel and ammo as it is... Exactly, and spares there are. This is something everyone who builds a model carrier gets wrong, no fault of their own. The back of bay three, basically from the EL wells aft is the junk yard, or the stack, or whatever that ship decides to call it. Well all along the port side is stack s on engines in cans, when someone needs a motor, they dig it out, take the whole thing in the jet shop, uncan it, put it on a engine stand, the squadron does an acceptance inspection and takes it. Reverse the order for turning an engine in, but stop before canning it up. There is no capability for working on T-56. For smaller things like APU's, canopies, things like that, they are in store rooms under the stack, they unbury the hatch, and crane the part out, or if it's small enough, carry it up in a pinch. Not canopies, before someone asks. Lol Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LanceB Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 A Boeing representative told Navy Recognition during Sea-Air-Space 2014 that the V-22 could transport a F-35B engine, with the lift fan element being sling loaded. So that's what the part was that was going to need to be sling-loaded and was why the Osprey would "suck at COD". Interesting. Because that particular limitation is irrelevant to the Navy as far as COD. They will be operating the C model, which does not have the lift fan, and even if they could fly that part out inside a COD they would still need to slingload it over to the LHD, which is probably not going to be all that close to the nearest CVN anyway. That is also the one element I could see with the lowest need to be changed out. When I worked on Harriers I do not recall ever having to do an engine change for a birdstrike while in hover. We did do them for birdstrikes that happened in conventional flight, though. I think the noise kept the birds away when hovering, I would imagine the same would apply to the F-35, and with the way the lift fan works it would be even less likely they'd suck a bird through it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I think were some of this starts to fall apart for me is the V-22 is no longer an experimental machine. this isn't the unknown F-22 over the proven F-15C. This is an an aircraft that has been in service for over 8 years now. We know what it can do. The C-2 is the same deal, we know what it can do. For some reason the same formula of "young upstart vs wise old sage" is being applied here. the V-22 is younger but its not unknown. its cut its teeth. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I think were some of this starts to fall apart for me is the V-22 is no longer an experimental machine. this isn't the unknown F-22 over the proven F-15C. This is an an aircraft that has been in service for over 8 years now. We know what it can do. The C-2 is the same deal, we know what it can do. For some reason the same formula of "young upstart vs wise old sage" is being applied here. the V-22 is younger but its not unknown. its cut its teeth. Agreed. It's proven itself and it gives the Marines a capability that no one else has (especially when you remember that before this came on line, they were flying around in ancient CH-46's). The Osprey still has issues but so doesn't every other platform out there. Only question is whether it's the best fit for the COD mission. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sweier Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Can we name all the ship classes in that pic (and date taken)? (I'm particularly curious about the sub on the very bottom.) Not a chance, but there were five submarines involved. Take your pick from USS Cheyenne (SSN 773) USS Tucson (SSN 770) USS Kamehameha (SSN 642) JDS Natsushio (SS 584) HMAS Waller (SSG 75) Shane Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LanceB Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Only question is whether it's the best fit for the COD mission. "You have to haul trash with the trash-hauler you have, not the trash-hauler you might want or wish to have at a later time." Or something like that... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) Only question is whether it's the best fit for the COD mission. I think its funny that this is suddenly worthy of great internet debate and controversy. Nothing sexier than the COD mission Surely the Internet carrier logistical experten are going to have an opinion worth noting on this, and its not just some manufactured BS designed to get mouse clicks. Edited January 20, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Nothing sexier than the COD mission It's funny but I've always thought the COD mission was pretty cool. You aren't stuck orbiting for hours in an E-2, tactical jets definitely have the cool factor but they never really rocked me. The COD crews seem to spend a lot of time off the boat and away from the top brass. Any chance to go per diem and stay at civilian hotels instead of being stuck on a base or on a carrier is a definite plus. Also, you are getting multi-engine time so when you leave the Navy, you are more appealing to the airlines. All in all, it sounds like a pretty nice gig. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rightwinger26 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 The only time they are on the ship is when it transits from one station to another. The whole time you are on station, they operate from land, fly to the boat twice a day usually, and don't stay the night unless they break.............and get PAID!!! I hate them, lol Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bell-boeing-begins-designing-cmv-22b-with-151-milli-423786/ A $151 million contract awarded to V-22 tiltrotor manufacturer Bell-Boeing this week allows engineers to get started designing the US Navy’s future Osprey variant, the CMV-22B, which is replacing the Northrop Grumman C-2 Greyhound twin turboprop in the aircraft carrier logistics role at sea.Based on the US Marine Corps MV-22B Osprey variant, the navy’s “CMV” tiltrotor will come equipped with extra fuel bladders to extend its range from 860nm to approximately 1,150nm. That’s the most significant engineering challenge, but the service also requires a beyond line-of-sight radio and public address system so that crews can communicate en route to the aircraft carrier's deck, or between other ships in the battle group. Asset Image Bell-Boeing On 31 March, US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) announced the $151 million contract with Bell Helicopter and Boeing's joint V-22 programme office in Amarillo, Texas, which covers "non-recurring engineering services associated with the development of the capability for the Navy variant of the V-22”. NAVAIR confirmed that it covers the design changes for all three modifications, including the extended-range fuel system. More than 70% of the work will be done in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where Boeing fabricates composite V-22 airframes. Another 20% will be completed at Bell’s facility in Fort Worth, Texas. Just $15 million has been obligated at the time of the award, and work is expected to continue through September 2020. By that time, the first of 44 CMV-22B aircraft, which will be ordered in 2018, will begin delivered from Bell’s final assembly and checkout facility in Amarillo. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bell-boeing-begins-designing-cmv-22b-with-151-milli-423786/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bell-boeing-begins-designing-cmv-22b-with-151-milli-423786/ https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bell-boeing-begins-designing-cmv-22b-with-151-milli-423786/ Cool.. Any word if they are springing for new engines? At least there shouldn't be many sand clouds to fly through in the middle of the ocean, while landing on a CVN. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 Cool.. Any word if they are springing for new engines? At least there shouldn't be many sand clouds to fly through in the middle of the ocean, while landing on a CVN. There's an RFP made at the end of 2014. I think the challenge is finding a way to cram a new engine into the nacelle. There is very little room. New engine is a joint USAF and USMC RFP, maybe the USN hops on too? I would post an article but I'm on my mobile for a "common" USMC/USN of this COD version, the Marines happy to hop on with the longer ranged USN version. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 The COD crews seem to spend a lot of time off the boat and away from the top brass. Any chance to go per diem and stay at civilian hotels instead of being stuck on a base or on a carrier is a definite plus. Also, you are getting multi-engine time so when you leave the Navy, you are more appealing to the airlines. All in all, it sounds like a pretty nice gig. It's called the Air Force lol Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spongebob Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 COD's and engines have a bad track record. You aren't stuck orbiting for hours in an E-2 Sometimes. But also running the air campaign and close air support show during OEF and OIF was pretty cool. Providing overwatch, air support and MEDEVAC for convoy ops in Iraq in 2006 (what we called "OnStar" missions) was pretty dam cool too and one of the most rewarding things I did during my 21 years. More so than being on lockdown in a hotel and flying mail.But to each their own. From talking with the bro's at the VAW/VRC Wing, the big deal with the V-22 is opening up the COD mission to other air capable ships and locations. Instead of one of those places waiting for a couple days to get a critical part via the carrier hub and spoke system, the V-22 can take it directly to them. 2 more points: CODs have been SLEP'd at least once, some twice and all should have new outer wings by now. E-2D's are almost all new; there's a decent amount of government furnished parts (seats and props being examples) that are not new. HTH Spongebob Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.