Posted on 11/29/2010 11:23:35 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
The F-35C’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, contained in its Engine Shipping System, is too large for the cargo door on a standard carrier onboard delivery plane and for the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, the program office acknowledged in a response to a follow-on query from Navy Times. The engine can be broken down into five component parts, but just its power module and packaging alone won’t fit into the COD or the V-22.
The JSF Program Office says the V-22 Osprey, like the MH-53E helicopter, can externally carry the F135 engine module, the heaviest of the five components, at least 288 miles “in good weather.”
One outside analyst, Jan van Tol of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, wondered how the Osprey, in hover mode, could safely lower the module to the flight deck or pick up an out-of-service engine in higher sea states, given the heavy downdraft the aircraft’s 38-foot rotors generate when the engine nacelles are in the vertical position. When so positioned, with the aircraft hovering over the flight deck, the rotor wash can also affect sailors standing nearby – particularly those attaching the load sling, van Tol said. The GAO reported in 2009 that during shipboard exercises, the V-22’s downwash was so severe that in one instance, a sailor was directed to hold in place the sailor serving as the landing guide.
Heat could also be a problem. Depending on the amount of heat generated, sailors involved in sling operations could possibly be forced to wear heat-resistant suits, van Tol said.
Moreover, the Navy has no fleet V-22s and has no plans to acquire them. The Marine Corps flies the MV-22, but the Navy amphibious groups that carry its forces and aircraft to distant shores generally do not operate in the vicinity of carrier strike
(Excerpt) Read more at ericpalmer.wordpress.com ...
Ping
Let’s see, it’s too hot for carrier decks, weighs too much, costs too much... and now you can’t do long range COD of the engine. Just cancel the damn thing already.
ping
This will make the COD guys happy. Hauling engines sucks and can be dangerous if one breaks loose on a cat or trap. I know of at least one really terrible Cod mishap when an engine broke loose off the cat shot. It threw the CG so far aft that the plane pitched nose up and did a hammerhead stall into the water.
I wonder if all these “facts” are accurate or just invented by people who don’t want the JSF?! Do you think it is legit problems?
Sounds to me like the shipping container is the issue, considering there is not alot of size difference between the F135 and the F119 engine (that’s the F-35 and F-22 aircraft). Since the F-22 program has been cancelled, what do these naysayers propose we fly combat missions in?
You posted three separate articles against the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. What is your motive?
Don't think that vert. rep. was ever envisioned for the V-22 anyway, but no reason why H-53's cannot do it - 288 mile range w/ engine slung is more than enough - pick it up from the deck of a fleet supply ship and sling it on over to the carrier - what's the issue?
“Dogfight Erupts Over Costly Jet Engine .
Wall Street Journal ^ | 11/30/2010 | Nathan Hodge Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 2:14:56 AM by ErnstStavroBlofeld
An important skirmish in the battle over military spending is taking place in this industrial suburb of Cincinnati.
At stake is a program to develop an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, a stealthy, supersonic jet supposed to be the backbone of the U.S. fighter fleet for the next three decades. For the past four years, Congress has funded the development of the second engine against the wishes of the Pentagon, which maintains that only a Pratt & Whitney engine should be funded.
Congress could decide within days whether to fund a second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. .Defense Secretary Robert Gates drew a line this year, saying he would recommend the president veto any bill that continues funding for the second engine, which General Electric Co. is developing with Rolls Royce PLC at GE's Evendale plant. Congress faces a decision on the issue, perhaps as early as this week, as it tries to hammer out a continuing budget resolution for the current fiscal year.
GE's argument for the second engine is simple. By developing an alternate engine, the government would get a backup supplier, and competition between two suppliers would create long-term savings over the life of the $100 billion procurement.”
See, GE spent all that money bribing Obama (er, paying for Obama’s green energy tax increases) that they HAVE to get something back!
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
militates against
[You] ....GE spent all that money bribing Obama .... that they HAVE to get something back!
Ok, that is just insanity. How was this not a critical part of the design criteria from the start?
YGTBSM.
I’ve seen the video of that mishap many times.
2nd article in one day banging on Pratt and directly or indirectly trumpeting GE...
But I am so cynical.
Maybe more afoot here....
Rolls is suing Pratt and now this from GE? Why? Quo Bono?
Pratt has their Geared Turbofan and all it's Patents getting ready for production in 2013 which will be the launch engine on 3 new 100 seat aircraft designs.
In an industry that would do anything for a 1% reduction in fuel consumption, this engine will cut fuel consumption 16%. Rolls and GE have no trump card for this technology.
Are they trying to muscle them to "share the wealth" i.e. the patents?
Forty year old plane tech I guess. I agree with you, Im surprised the John Kerry viewpoint would be so popular here.
Slightly OT - geared turbofan kinda like a ducted propjet? Put that on an MPA and get some loiter time rivalling the old P-3’s
Sort of, the fan is still a fixed pitch blade fan and has no variable pitch mechanism, but they have some sort of a variable outlet on the Nacelle which I guess may act as such. The gear box gets rid of the miss-matching that has always been their between fan and LPT speed that compressor/turbine "Spool" can now run @ and optimal RPM and the gear box does the same for the fan. You don't have the air-drive mechanism you have in a Turboprop, the gearbox is more of a direct connection altough the gearbox as I understand it floats for no miss-alignment, that must be the breaktrough that really makes this possible.
One wonders how much time Captain van Tol has actually spent deployed on the flight deck of a LHA or LHD with an Osprey equipped ACE MEU since he retired in 2007 as opposed to sitting in his office reading error fraught GAO reports written by agenda driven accountants like David S. Chu.
van Tol commanded the USS Essex from August 2003 to February 2005. The last and only time Ospreys were aboard the Essex was in February of 2000.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.