Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- Idlewildspotter
- Posts: 44
- Joined:
C-9 Replacement
Is it safe to assume the C-9 Skytrains will be replaced by the 737BBJ Presumably the -7?
Re: C-9 Replacement
Idlewildspotter wrote:I meant the E-2
Lol. There is no way you are going to get a 737 on or off a carrier. They were just upgraded to the -D model, so they won't be going anywhere soon. Will probably have to be a clean sheet design when the time comes.
-
- LightningZ71
- Posts: 688
- Joined:
Re: C-9 Replacement
There is a vague idea being kicked around to begin long term development on a version of the cv-22 that could be used in the AWACS role. While there would seem to be some distinct disadvantages with this approach, it does have some advantages.
The V-22 platform will be in the DOD inventory for a long time to come, meaning that it will gain from support commonality and won't suffer from platform orphaning like the E-2 will.
It has VSTOL capabilities, meaning that it can operate from both the super carriers and the assault carriers. It can also trade range and operate from large heli pad platforms like LPDS and the SOCOM mobile sea bases (think converted cargo ships) and even has the capability to land on an escort ship heli pad in the case of a fouled deck situation.
With the CV-22 supposedly taking over for the C-2 greyhounds, they will already be on the ships, establishing a support network. Eliminating the E-2 reduces the number of air frames being supported, making inventory management more efficient.
Training commonality for pilots. Training on a cv-22 should largely apply to the "ev-22" and eliminate the need for separate training for the E-2.
Space efficiency:the rotating wing stowage system on the v-22 makes it more space efficient to keep below deck than the E-2, which can't become as narrow.
This is NOT to say that the ev-22 would be ideal. Those huge prop-rotors will make for significant blind spots in coverage, requiring that the sensors be "creatively" mounted to maximize coverage. They have far less range than the E-2, though there is the possibility of increasing tankage. They are more complicated, requiring more maintenance per flight hour. They are statistically more dangerous to operate, though this is improving.
The V-22 platform will be in the DOD inventory for a long time to come, meaning that it will gain from support commonality and won't suffer from platform orphaning like the E-2 will.
It has VSTOL capabilities, meaning that it can operate from both the super carriers and the assault carriers. It can also trade range and operate from large heli pad platforms like LPDS and the SOCOM mobile sea bases (think converted cargo ships) and even has the capability to land on an escort ship heli pad in the case of a fouled deck situation.
With the CV-22 supposedly taking over for the C-2 greyhounds, they will already be on the ships, establishing a support network. Eliminating the E-2 reduces the number of air frames being supported, making inventory management more efficient.
Training commonality for pilots. Training on a cv-22 should largely apply to the "ev-22" and eliminate the need for separate training for the E-2.
Space efficiency:the rotating wing stowage system on the v-22 makes it more space efficient to keep below deck than the E-2, which can't become as narrow.
This is NOT to say that the ev-22 would be ideal. Those huge prop-rotors will make for significant blind spots in coverage, requiring that the sensors be "creatively" mounted to maximize coverage. They have far less range than the E-2, though there is the possibility of increasing tankage. They are more complicated, requiring more maintenance per flight hour. They are statistically more dangerous to operate, though this is improving.
Re: C-9 Replacement
While not by much, the V-22 is also slower than the E-2. More importantly, it's service ceiling is a fair bit lower than the E-2.
Could a mod please edit the thread title? Ty.
Could a mod please edit the thread title? Ty.
Re: C-9 Replacement
Slug71 wrote:Idlewildspotter wrote:I meant the E-2
Lol. There is no way you are going to get a 737 on or off a carrier.
Highly improbable but not necessarily impossible.
In the late 60's Boeing proposed the 727-100 for a Navy COD (Carrier Onboard Delivery) aircraft. Engineering was done for strengthening the gear and attaching a tail hook -- my understanding is even some FCLP's (Field Carrier Landing Practice) were flown but nothing came of it.
Re: C-9 Replacement
7BOEING7 wrote:Slug71 wrote:Idlewildspotter wrote:I meant the E-2
Lol. There is no way you are going to get a 737 on or off a carrier.
Highly improbable but not necessarily impossible.
In the late 60's Boeing proposed the 727-100 for a Navy COD (Carrier Onboard Delivery) aircraft. Engineering was done for strengthening the gear and attaching a tail hook -- my understanding is even some FCLP's (Field Carrier Landing Practice) were flown but nothing came of it.
Interesting.
-
- LightningZ71
- Posts: 688
- Joined:
Re: C-9 Replacement
Ignoring the significant height issues associated with it, is it in the realm of possibility that a C-27J spartan could be modified to operate as a COBD frame? This would have to include folding wings and something being done to the tail as well as arresting gear and a launch bar (though a bridle would likely be better).
Re: C-9 Replacement
Slug71 wrote:7BOEING7 wrote:Slug71 wrote:
Lol. There is no way you are going to get a 737 on or off a carrier.
Highly improbable but not necessarily impossible.
In the late 60's Boeing proposed the 727-100 for a Navy COD (Carrier Onboard Delivery) aircraft. Engineering was done for strengthening the gear and attaching a tail hook -- my understanding is even some FCLP's (Field Carrier Landing Practice) were flown but nothing came of it.
Interesting.
Also a Fokker F-28 proposal:
More info about it and other proposals: http://www.airlinereporter.com/2014/05/ ... er-oh-yes/
Re: C-9 Replacement
There also was a proposal for a DC-9 COD. Never went anywhere.
-
- LightningZ71
- Posts: 688
- Joined:
Re: C-9 Replacement
Stranger things have operated off of carriers...
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/odd/odd46.jpg
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/odd/odd04.jpg
(Credit both images to the World Aircraft Carrier photo gallery list)
The QRSA looks like it might have been promising...
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/odd/odd46.jpg
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/odd/odd04.jpg
(Credit both images to the World Aircraft Carrier photo gallery list)
The QRSA looks like it might have been promising...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests