The USN CSA thread

Actually the decision has not yet been made.

@ using the Hawkeye airframe: Problem here is that props are no good ASW platforms any more. Those submarines grew too good ears. And a prop tanker would force customers down and slow, also not good.
For an urgent CSA the Hawkeye airframe would of course be a basis when a Do328 – Do328JET type operation is done. Off with the turboprops and put some CF34 or BR710 there instead. Shouldn’t be too hard.

Hmm… Well, there’s always the “Greyhound 21,” a jet-powered (featuring two “CF-34 class engines” with exhaust routed around the landing gear). I don’t know how far Grumman went with the engineering, but it certainly is intriguing. Pics and a further description are available here for those who are signed on to the “Secret Projects” website board.

The CVF of the Royal Navy isn’t catobar, so wouldn’t have an interest in such an aircraft

Actually the decision has not yet been made.

@ using the Hawkeye airframe: Problem here is that props are no good ASW platforms any more. Those submarines grew too good ears. And a prop tanker would force customers down and slow, also not good.
For an urgent CSA the Hawkeye airframe would of course be a basis when a Do328 – Do328JET type operation is done. Off with the turboprops and put some CF34 or BR710 there instead. Shouldn’t be too hard.

Edit: DARN!!! I forgot about the landing gear. Already senile, or too much moonshine.

With the E-2D about to roll into production, might the most economical and wisest solution simply be to start producing a modernized version of the C-2 sharing powerplant, airframe, refueling capability and flight deck with the E-2D, similar to the fashion C-2As were again placed into production in the 1980s (a “C-2B” is you will). Especially if you consider there isn’t a market for much more than 40 or so airframes (with France, and perhaps the RN and Indian Navy as additional customers for a handful more).

I don’t see how there is much more money for development of a whole new airframe in the COD role (especially given the demands of getting off and back on a carrier).

The CVF of the Royal Navy isn’t catobar, so wouldn’t have an interest in such an aircraft

With the E-2D about to roll into production, might the most economical and wisest solution simply be to start producing a modernized version of the C-2 sharing powerplant, airframe, refueling capability and flight deck with the E-2D, similar to the fashion C-2As were again placed into production in the 1980s (a “C-2B,” if you will). Especially if you consider there isn’t a market for much more than 40 or so airframes (with France, and perhaps the RN and Indian Navy as additional customers for a handful more).

I don’t see how there is much more money for development of a whole new airframe in the COD role (especially given the demands of getting off and back on a carrier).

Especially that in case of the V-22 you pay for unneeded capability.
Generally, an E-2 may be a useful successor of an E-2. Update system and engines and you pretty much have a useful aircraft. There is not much to gain by technology, at best a few kg less weight and a few drag counts less. USN shares my opinion and procures E-2D.

The next best thing would be an updated turbo-prop using two more powerful engines and going into the Mach/CAS class of an A400M (.72/300), making it able to refuel fighter aircraft. That would require to develop a new wing.

I would actually not like the idea of a UAV. An aircraft that serves as airborne command post and sometimes just as eyes on the sea should have humans in the loop. I also don’t see the big cost advantage.

By the way: having two different fuselages wouldn’t make it too tricky, especially when we stay with simplified designs. It wouldn’t be useful for tanker though as such an aircraft is always weight an not volume limited.

The problem is inability of current USN/USAF in defining a clear need and fill it with a useful but simple system in time and budget. No matter what they ask for, the finally end up buying overpriced super systems full of unneeded capability. Like the V-22 or a supersonic air-to-air refueling aircraft.

Very much doubt it. Radar view angles wouldn’t even be half bad – that’s why the pointy end looks back. But putting a dish up there would result in the proprotor tips being around one meter above it in hover (maybe not even). And the dish would be in the propstream – not so good. Well, you could raise and lower it, of course; integrated with the damper system to keep the dish from shaking. And I wonder how the CoG would be affected by the thing.

Back when the Osprey was still JVX, there was an Army requirement for something similar, called SEMA-X. Concept art shows the radome installed on a forward-swept strut on the aft upper fuselage. Early 80’s. Talking about JVX – because of an “urgent requirement” of the USMC to replace the CH-46 no fly-off was held. Urgent. 🙂

Edit: Does anybody have an idea how much surplus electrical power a V-22 currently has?

The V-22 can’t be used as basis for a carrier-borne AEW platform. To put it under deck you need to rotate the wing parallel to the fuselage – and how do you mount your radar then? For a belly mount not enough ground clearance, for a side-looking fuselage mount too much masking by the engines.

This from http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm seems to show that suc a system would be viable.

Though personally I’d have thought something like an Ericsson Erieye with a fixed rear mount between the twin tails and a pivotable front mount that still supports the Array when the wings are stowed.

The V-22 can’t be used as basis for a carrier-borne AEW platform. To put it under deck you need to rotate the wing parallel to the fuselage – and how do you mount your radar then? For a belly mount not enough ground clearance, for a side-looking fuselage mount too much masking by the engines.

The V-22 isn’t much use for conventional forces. Should give them all to SOCOM.
And the Marines could get H-92 or H-71 to replace the CH-46. But then they shouldn’t pack so many troops into one airframe either, so give them H-60.

The best bet for a small STOVL AEW is an HALE UAV or an airship.

Not cheap, of dubious reliability, limited range and endurance, not capable of tanking for F types.

AEW version is considered a possiblity for the STOVL carriers UK, Fance, India, et. al operate. No reason to deal with the limitations if you are operating from CATOBAR carriers.

Matt

i have said this before, but how suitable would the v-22 airframe be for these jobs? That would increase production, with possibilities for UK, france, india aswell as the USA purchasing airframes

My understaning of abilities/size is limited, but hasn’t their already been talk of a AEW version?

I don’t like the two fuselage idea, for much the same reason I did not include UAV capabilities. The only way this could go forward is if it’s cheap, reliable and available quickly. Two fuselages means essentially two aircraft must be designed, at substantial cost. UAV capabilities as applies to this situation are expensive and complex. Fitted for, but not with is probably the best short term solution.

Range/endurance are obviously important, but I do not think speed is as critical. Speed induces too many other comprimises, and worsens the existing ones.

I agree with Distiller about needing poeple in the mix, we just aren’t at the stage where the computers can do everything 😉

Re: Chimera. One of the first designs showed forward swept wings… :confused: The extra stall performance would be nice, but :confused:

Operationally – yes, of course.
For the overall system – I doubt it.

Don’t say straight NO, say I doubt it. Has to be very carefully looked at. Developing two different fuselages, two different wing center sections, two different sets of just basic systems (not talking mission systems), two different main landing gears, lenghty development, lengthy flight tests, &c. For how many airframes? 40? 50?

And the “Chimera” idea rationalizes the thin AEW version with highly automated systems, incl off-board data processing. I dispute the viability of that idea – you need people onboard. Net-warfare is nice, but ONLY as long as the stand-alone capabilities are not compromised (and I’m one of the very early netcentric nuts). Same goes fot the ASW variante.

Btw, I think that on fat “Chimera” the landing-gear bulge – wing – engine complex would be too draggy. Would probably have to move the engine somewhat foreward. But apart from that I like it.

On the contrary, the “second fuselage” is vitally needed.

The extra-wide fuselage required for an effective COD aircraft (and “nice to have” for a tanker) reduces speed and range/endurance… which are needed for the ASW/AEW roles.

Thus, having a narrower fuselage for those variants and a wider one for the others makes good sense.

I would also add that the CSA could be used for an Army sensor/relay platform.
And I think it’s critical that it is optionally unmanned.

Look here for a nice concept.
The conventional approach. I think it pretty much sums up what a conventional CSA airframe should look like. I strongly question the second fuselage, though.
http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/Chimera.pdf

Regarding the question pod vs internal I’d say that a small aircraft like the CSA should have the hose on centerline. Using the COD configuration as basis would be ok I think, when using a plug-and-play light-weight tank, plus a special cargo door (basically with a hole) for the hose. Have to look at CoG here. Reason is I don’t think you get enough ground clearance for a buddy-pod under the belly.

Regarding the use as a bomb truck: Underwing stores could do most of the jobs. You don’t want to pile more than, say, two expensive stand-off precicion effectors (or ISR UAVs) on one platform. Otherwise I’d say find a way to drop it out of the backdoor of the COD.

What more missons? Manned/unmanned ELINT, if not done by BAMS. Later maybe even use as a laser/direct energy platform.