mark@jarthur.Claremont.edu (Mark Anderson) (04/02/91)
From: Mark Anderson <mark@jarthur.Claremont.edu> An attack of wild conjecture strikes.... What is the Osprey's potential as an ASW platform? Is it sized appropriately to be able to use the helo pad that the LAMPS use? For all I know it may be just to big to even consider fitting there, or too small to carry all of the electronics that is needed. If it could fit, could it work out as a decent platform, in terms of -Payload More of the above. Basically can the Osprey carry the proper payload, or is it too big/small for the job? -Endurance Maybe superior to LAMPS type helos? It is probably more fuel efficient to cruise like a fixed wing craft, but would ASW use it often enought to be useful. The P3 seems to be effective that way, but is that "THE WAY OF THE FUTURE" -Electronics/Avionics: Is the airframe suitable for electronic support, does it have the space for whatever avionics it needs? (I guess that I am thinking about such items as vibration (though they claim they have that licked) and electrical bus capability for all the ASW stuff. -Dipping Sonar Could you put a dipping sonar on the Osprey? Would the downwash from the props, which I hear is pretty fierce, disturb the water too much? Or could this be solved by using a longer line for the sonar or something, and staying higher up. -Speed This could let it get to an area fast, and then start slowly cruising, looking. The speed would I imagine help its usable max range, in terms of minimizing transit time, and thus crew fatigue. It seems like this could offer something with some of the nice features of the P3 Orion ( I think that's it) and the LAMPS helo. Unanswered questions include: Is this niche useful? Is the role of ASW helo typically employed so close to the ship that many of the nice features of the Osprey aren't really useful or needed? Would a scaled down P3 type A/C with dipping capability be useful? I imagine using an airframe which is being used for many other roles could simplify some of the logistics problems of a new aircraft, but how valuable is that? Is it worth the cost? I guess that I see two possible views of the role of the ASW Osprey. One would be a shipboard helo upgrade which had the cruise capability of a fixed wing craft plus hover and all that that brings. The other would be a P3 sort of A/C which would take away range and size in return for dipping capability. I know that this is blue sky, and reveals a great deal of ignorance about ASW, but I was just curious... blast away. -- Mark A. Anderson mark@jarthur.claremont.edu Platt Campus Center manderson@hmcvax.bitnet Harvey Mudd College uunet!jarthur!mark Claremont, CA 91711
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (04/05/91)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> The planned SV-22 takes up a larger ground area than a CH-53E. It would NOT fit on board any ASW surface combatant's helo pad, much less fit in the hangar. Allan -- Allan Bourdius [MIDN 3/C (Marine Option)/Brother, Phi Kappa Theta Fraternity] ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu or Box 4719, 5125 Margaret Morrison St., Pgh., PA 15213
anderson@tybalt.caltech.edu (Eric R. Anderson) (04/07/91)
From: anderson@tybalt.caltech.edu (Eric R. Anderson) From a Bell/Boeing sheet on the "SV-22 as subkiller": "...the V-22 Osprey could make it possible to detect and defeat hostile submarines hundreds of miles from CV and protect non-CV assets such as AMPHIIBs, URGs, SAGs, BBBGs, and CONVOYs. ...Osprey is also shipboard compatible. It will base aboard aviation ships but will be capable of staging from the flight decks of an additional 80 to 90 Navy vessels, including all DD-963-class destroyers and CG-47 cruisers. The V-22 is capable of all-weather instrument flight, day or night -- even in moderate icing conditions. In an antisubmarine warfare role, the SV-22 would be capable of hovering to deploy and recover sensors and/or employ an advanced active sonar as well as passive sono-buoy tactics. Its avionics suite will be based on the Update IV package currently being developed by Boeing for the P-3 Orion. Improved sensors, including advanced radar and FLIR, will enhance the fire-control systems. The Osprey's weapon mix can include sub-killing torpedoes as well as antiship and antiaircraft missiles." It goes on to give some dimensions and performance figures: Length, aircraft mode: 57.9 ft Span, rotors turning: 84.6 ft Length, stowed: 62.6 ft Width, stowed: 18.4 ft Cruise, normal: 240 kn Dash speed: 275 kn Max mission radius: 660 nmi Max mission endurance: 3.9 hrs The last two figures are footnoted to the effect that they hold for vertical take off, with an 11 knot wind over the deck and 150 nmi forward staging. The last figure is also footnoted as being 25% hover on station. I don't claim to know the least bit about ASW, I'm just relaying some of the information I have on the aircraft. Make of it what you will. -- Eric Anderson eanderso@caltech.bitnet
vince@cs.washington.edu (Vince Skahan) (04/09/91)
From: bcsaic!vince@cs.washington.edu (Vince Skahan) In article <1991Apr6.021211.14847@amd.com> ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: >The planned SV-22 takes up a larger ground area than a CH-53E. It would >NOT fit on board any ASW surface combatant's helo pad, much less fit in >the hangar. it's also considerably heavier than a MH47E...but it was sure interesting watching them build a V-22 next to where they were refinishing the 47E prior to the rollout.... -- Vince Skahan vince@atc.boeing.com ...uw-beaver!bcsaic!vince
crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) (04/11/91)
From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) In article <1991Apr9.030457.2549@amd.com> anderson@tybalt.caltech.edu (Eric R. Anderson) writes: > From a Bell/Boeing sheet on the "SV-22 as subkiller": > > Length, aircraft mode: 57.9 ft Span, rotors turning: 84.6 ft > Length, stowed: 62.6 ft Width, stowed: 18.4 ft > Cruise, normal: 240 kn Dash speed: 275 kn > Max mission radius: 660 nmi Max mission endurance: 3.9 hrs My memory of helicopter capabilities is murky at best, but these capabilities do not seem much better than a conventional helicopter. I was under the impression that a decent "jetcopter" got about 200 kn, etc. How much better than a helicopter is the "SV-22"? Is a machine "25% more capability" worth the increased cost and space? Is there an effective "performance test" one could apply to the "SV-22"? -- Lawrence Crowl 716-275-9499 University of Rochester crowl@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department ...!rutgers!rochester!crowl Rochester, New York, 14627-0226