Lockheed Pitching Revamped Viking to Fill Carrier Cargo and Tanking Roles

[Pags]

But why?

Damned if I know the actual reason why taxiing helos is such a bad idea.

 

[Flash]

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.....

At a considerable loss in payload, a big tradeoff. Unless you have both the speed of the US-3 and the payload of a C-2 you could arguably lose more flexibility than you gain with just going with a US-3.

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?

One thing you have to keep in mind though is bringing back the S-3 is the considerable initial cost that will be very hard to justify in today's enviroment, no matter how much money you save by saving SH FLE life in the long term and even then that would just be an estimate.

 

[wink]

Damned if I know the actual reason why taxiing helos is such a bad idea.

I could see maybe the Blackhawk tail wheel arrangement being a problem if it is castering, rolling deck and all. But the Seahawk is different. As are all the other Navy helos I can think if. Get me an answer an this before close of business today.

 

[wink]

At a considerable loss in payload, a big tradeoff. Unless you have both the speed of the US-3 and the payload of a C-2 you could arguably lose more flexibility than you gain with just going with a US-3.

Well duh. We are talking about the speed and range of a (U)S-3 with the payload of a C-2 in the proposed C-3. No one is talking about a legacy fuselage.

One thing you have to keep in mind though is bringing back the S-3 is the considerable initial cost that will be very hard to justify in today's enviroment, no matter how much money you save by saving SH FLE life in the long term and even then that would just be an estimate.

And isn't that the way we always think, TODAY. 12-15 years from now when the affects of the current tanking mission on the Rhino is revealed everyone will ask why something wasn't done sooner. When the C-2 is experiencing reliability issues and has less in common with the E-2D we will ask where the replacement is. When some senators allied with the USAF starts asking why we have so many CVs when they are useless without the USAF, why we can't pony up money in the Navy budget for the new bomber that will strike from CONUS or pay for the new tanker we use all the time, we will wish we operated more independently.

 

[squeeze]

Damned if I know the actual reason why taxiing helos is such a bad idea.

Pags, this is not meant as a personal attack in any way, but that quote right there about sums up working with the air department on the LHD. "I don't know why we can't/do/don't do that, but we do because we can't/do/don't" (or "...because Forrestal").

Of course these are the same V22's landing and taxiing that likely complain at every APB that Harrier ops require the entire flight deck (for <10 min at takeoff only).

On topic: No, a Harrier motor won't fit in an CH-53 or V-22 (but you can fit an entire Harrier in a C-5). We probably wouldn't have to change them out so often afloat if retarded air departments didn't shot peen the deck with the aircraft aboard and not tell anyone.

 

[Gatordev]

Damned if I know the actual reason why taxiing helos is such a bad idea.

I don't have anything to prove it, but I thought one of the main reasons you didn't taxi helos was BECAUSE it has a free-castering tailwheel. Wink, you can't effectively taxi a helo unless you unlock the tailwheel, and none of the -60s have rear-wheel steering.

On a small boy, using the tilly bar is an "operational necessity" (or maybe it's a SHOULD NOT...I can't remember). That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, especially nowadays with the condition of the FFGs and their RASTs, but it's generally not SOP because you have a helo that would be ready to bang around the deck all willy-nilly (I've seen it happen when I was responsible for moving the helo on afternoon as the LSO and it was pretty scary).

 

[Pags]

Pags, this is not meant as a personal attack in any way, but that quote right there about sums up working with the air department on the LHD. "I don't know why we can't/do/don't do that, but we do because we can't/do/don't" (or "...because Forrestal").

Of course these are the same V22's landing and taxiing that likely complain at every APB that Harrier ops require the entire flight deck (for <10 min at takeoff only).

On topic: No, a Harrier motor won't fit in an CH-53 or V-22 (but you can fit an entire Harrier in a C-5). We probably wouldn't have to change them out so often afloat if retarded air departments didn't shot peen the deck with the aircraft aboard and not tell anyone.

No personal attack taken. I know a lot of boats have a history of being difficult for difficult's sake. My Air Boss, myself, and the Air Ops Officer worked very hard to be supporting of the MEU and we had a pretty good relationship. We pushed real hard to do out of the box stuff provided it wasn't prohibited by LHD NATOPS. We tried using different high power turn spots for the AV-8s (ended up cooking a light and the combing and the Marine doing the turn wasn't too thrilled about being pointed at the shitters in the aft bone). We caught AV-8s chinese on the bow when a shitter decided to leave FOD all over spot 7. In general, we had a great working relationship with most of the jump jet drivers. I tried to get the Boss to let me taxi a helo a few times ("boss, it says 'is not recommended.' it doesn't say prohibited.") but he wouldn't bite.

The shot on the flight deck is a bit of a sore subject with me, but I understand your frustration with it. It's not like we shot peened the deck because there was an alternative and we just hate jump jet guys. In many cases it's the only way to do it and you have to do it to get new skid on the deck to replace the old crap that's coming off in chunks. So, it kind of becomes a Sophie's choice: FOD a motor with shot or with chunks of non-skid. In theory you do it with good, known contractors and you ensure it's done properly. And in theory communism works. Even if done properly, there's a chance for some of the shot to get in to the wild and it doesn't take much to cause a giant problem. Once it gets in the wild there's no good way at the ship-level to effectively catch all the shot. Shot on the flight deck and FOD'd harrier motors was my professional hell for a month or so. How a jet that was supposed to be used from expeditionary airfields is so susceptible to FOD is another discussion altogether.

 

[Pags]

I don't have anything to prove it, but I thought one of the main reasons you didn't taxi helos was BECAUSE it has a free-castering tailwheel. Wink, you can't effectively taxi a helo unless you unlock the tailwheel, and none of the -60s have rear-wheel steering.

On a small boy, using the tilly bar is an "operational necessity" (or maybe it's a SHOULD NOT...I can't remember). That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, especially nowadays with the condition of the FFGs and their RASTs, but it's generally not SOP because you have a helo that would be ready to bang around the deck all willy-nilly (I've seen it happen when I was responsible for moving the helo on afternoon as the LSO and it was pretty scary).

On USNS ships there is no RAST so you used to have to use cargo straps and 20 of your closest friends to heave the helo into the hangar like it was a cannon on HMS Victory. Now they have a little tractor to move it around.

 

[Gatordev]

On USNS ships there is no RAST so you used to have to use cargo straps and 20 of your closest friends to heave the helo into the hangar like it was a cannon on HMS Victory. Now they have a little tractor to move it around.

I knew you guys had a tractor, at least at some point. Just a data point (and why the RAST came to be)...your helo was/is much lighter than the B/R (and F), though. I think that is why it's more conservative in the NWP. Of course once you start strapping on all those death dealing addons, I guess all bets are off.

 

[DocT]

They (Bell Boeing) are working the tanker side of the argument. See link:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/09/13/v-22-osprey-tested-as-aerial-refueling-tanker.html

I toured their facility a few weeks ago and they said they fit a mock-up of an F-35 motor in one to show it could be done.

As for the taxiing aboard ship I was told the power steering in the nose wheel is what makes it safe.

 

[PhrogLoop]

...I'm pretty sure all engines are unrepped or loaded on in port.

Sorry I don't have the exact numbers on me, but I VERTREP'ed two Hawkeye engines from the WALLY SCHIRRA to the VINSON. We were in the IO mid springtime and I think I remember the loads were about 5,000 pounds on a day where we calculated our lift capacity with a 10% power margin to be about 6,000 pounds. I was in a Block 3 MH60S with no batwings, no aux tank, and about a quarter tank of gas. It was a very slow (20-30 knot) crawl across the 1,000 yards from the supplying ship. I remember thinking that I would not be very comfortable flying more than a mile or 2 burdened like that. A plopter is not a 60S, but I'm willing to bet that those guys would feel the same way about tooling around with an external load that heavy (i.e. it's an awful idea).

 

[nittany03]

Hrm. I'm suddenly realizing I'd never actually seen an engine can come out of a COD, yet for some reason I assumed that it wasn't verboten if the circumstances dictated. Learning has occurred; I'll just go over here and haze myself.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Any of you guys seen the unnatural shades of red a CVN air boss's face turns when a CH-53 comes aboard? Any of you seen the same face when even the rumor of a plotter coming aboard starts to circulate?

If either of those beasts breaks on the flight deck - the flight deck is f@#ked. While V-22 cheerleaders won't like to see their baby grouped with a -53, the risks (due to immense size) are VERY similar.

Osprey is not a viable replacement for the C-2.

 

[Pags]

Any of you guys seen the unnatural shades of red a CVN air boss's face turns when a CH-53 comes aboard? Any of you seen the same face when even the rumor of a plotter coming aboard starts to circulate?

If either of those beasts breaks on the flight deck - the flight deck is f@#ked. While V-22 cheerleaders won't like to see their baby grouped with a -53, the risks (due to immense size) are VERY similar.

Osprey is not a viable replacement for the C-2.

Osprey PMA and 7th fleet was trying to get a v-22 from BHR to go do a demo on GW when were in the same neighborhood. I was floored at the pushback from GW's in-house risk assessment.

The odds of a turning helo breaking on your deck are slim. That's why you never shut one down. I'd be surprised that the Handler couldn't accommodate an errant 53 or 22. I get that it's not preferred and that it won't come without its pain points, but if you can take C-2s when they're not on the beach then you have room to stuff a shitter.

 

[wink]

I don't have anything to prove it, but I thought one of the main reasons you didn't taxi helos was BECAUSE it has a free-castering tailwheel. Wink, you can't effectively taxi a helo unless you unlock the tailwheel, and none of the -60s have rear-wheel steering.

I got it. I was just thinking that having the "tail wheel" on a SH-60 located further up the tail would make it a good bit more controllable. I am a high time tail wheel pilot so I get the dynamics. Still, back in the Big One they taxied tail wheel aircraft on smaller CV decks.

We probably wouldn't have to change them out so often afloat if retarded air departments didn't shot peen the deck with the aircraft aboard and not tell anyone.

Either this is a Harrier problem or a gator deck division problem. We had to have the same non skid and same deck maintenance requirements on a CV, lots more fixed wing ops, and I don't remember a single FOD for shot peen.