Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


US Navy News and updates

This is a discussion on US Navy News and updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; An older basic design than the S-3's engines....


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 10 votes, 4.00 average.
Old April 23rd, 2014   #1291
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,684
Threads:
An older basic design than the S-3's engines.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23rd, 2014   #1292
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 784
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
An older basic design than the S-3's engines.
The S-3 engines currently in the boneyard? Those are what LM are going to reuse with a notional new fuselage if I understand their proposal correctly. Or will it be brand new TF-34s as well?
colay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014   #1293
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,684
Threads:
Please read what I wrote. Older basic design. I didn't say anything about individual engines. I don't know the dates of manufacture of the TF34s in storage, but I doubt if they're still 1970s standard: GE improved the engine over the years.

I'm not trying to argue for this modified S-3 (I'm skeptical - seems to me it might be a modification too far), merely clarify & balance where I think what's being said is incomplete or tilted too far one way.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014   #1294
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,425
Threads:
What no one has mentioned and I don't know if its possible or affordable but how about a V-22 with a larger fuselage? It could be an opening for Bell to develop a larger heavier tilt rotor and market it to the Navy for COD and Army as a complement to the new utility type they are postulating.

A long short but I suppose it will come done to how long term the vision is on the requirements being set.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014   #1295
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,922
Threads:
I think part of the issue is that V22 doesn't have a pressurised cockpit so it can't cruise at efficient altitudes. That plus it can't swallow an engine whole - so bigger body, pressurised..
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014   #1296
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,425
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StobieWan View Post
I think part of the issue is that V22 doesn't have a pressurised cockpit so it can't cruise at efficient altitudes. That plus it can't swallow an engine whole - so bigger body, pressurised..
A V-22 with a longer, larger diameter cigar shaped fuselage, sponsoned main undercarriage, sans wing fold to keep weight down and greater span wing. Sounding more like a modelling whiff than a real project sorry. But then again look at what is being proposed for the Viking and apply it to the V-22, lets see what the end result is. Maybe something CN-235 size.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014   #1297
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 784
Threads:
Bell-Boeing's response to lack of cabin pressurization, not really an issue.


Osprey on the Truman, Fishing for COD

...Further, they say, the process of loading and unloading cargo and passengers has been well established by the predecessor C-2A. And, they note the cabin would be pressurized, an upgrade that would neebe added to the V-22.

V-22 backers don’t see this as a problem, though, and are not currently planning to offer a pressurized cabin. ”The V-22’s 25,000 ft .service ceiling is similar to other turbo-prop aircraft. Passenger flight operations are routinely conducted in the 8,000 to 12,000 mid-altitude ranges where the aircraft operates most efficiently,” says Bill Schroeder, a Bell-Boeing spokesman. “Unpressurized Navy passenger flights are cleared up to 13,000 ft.” He adds that the Block C weather radar, ice protection system and avionics support flying in all-weather/day/night conditions and air conditioning can be used on long flights for passenger comfort...
colay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2014   #1298
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 44
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by colay View Post
V-22 backers don’t see this as a problem, though, and are not currently planning to offer a pressurized cabin. ”The V-22’s 25,000 ft .service ceiling is similar to other turbo-prop aircraft. Passenger flight operations are routinely conducted in the 8,000 to 12,000 mid-altitude ranges where the aircraft operates most efficiently,” says Bill Schroeder, a Bell-Boeing spokesman. “Unpressurized Navy passenger flights are cleared up to 13,000 ft.” He adds that the Block C weather radar, ice protection system and avionics support flying in all-weather/day/night conditions and air conditioning can be used on long flights for passenger comfort...
Wouldn't the aerial tanker mission that the MV-22 is angling for be much more efficient (at least for jets) if it were done at a higher altitude (with a pressurized cabin)? Same thing for some sort of an AEW variant (which is much more theoretical / hypothetical / wishful thinking than planned capability at this point)
HurricaneDitka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2014   #1299
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
RobWilliams's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,757
Threads:
USN has awarded General Dynamics Electric Boat a contract worth $17.6 billion for 10 Virginia class attack submarines all to be built to block IV standard. The main improvement being the boat requires 3 major maintenance periods rather than 4 meaning increased availability for this batch.

General Dynamics Awarded $18 Billion by U.S. Navy for 10 Virginia-Class Submarines
U.S. Navy Awards

Good to see the contract awarded, although it's a bit odd when you think that the entire block would be completed within 5 years of the first boat being completed, what with the 2 per year build timeframe and all
RobWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2014   #1300
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major General
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,041
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobWilliams View Post
USN has awarded General Dynamics Electric Boat a contract worth $17.6 billion for 10 Virginia class attack submarines all to be built to block IV standard. The main improvement being the boat requires 3 major maintenance periods rather than 4 meaning increased availability for this batch.

General Dynamics Awarded $18 Billion by U.S. Navy for 10 Virginia-Class Submarines
U.S. Navy Awards

Good to see the contract awarded, although it's a bit odd when you think that the entire block would be completed within 5 years of the first boat being completed, what with the 2 per year build timeframe and all
The Australian DMO would be ecstatic if they could have 10 x Virginias, within 5 years, at under $20b. That's exactly the capability the RAN requires.
Someone should send both the Defmin and the Shadow the contract....then again ...the shadow is leftie Conroy.
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2014   #1301
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,922
Threads:
I suppose thinking about it, they probably need to get those Virginias built and in the water to cover the last LA's being pulled and before the SSBN program ramps up. Says something about the US industrial base when they can just shrug their shoulders a little and shake out ten world class boats, all of which I would expect to be built to schedule and budget.

Funny the things you can achieve when you order in blocks and keep the your yards running...
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2014   #1302
Defense Enthusiast
Major
kev 99's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 872
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StobieWan View Post
I suppose thinking about it, they probably need to get those Virginias built and in the water to cover the last LA's being pulled and before the SSBN program ramps up. Says something about the US industrial base when they can just shrug their shoulders a little and shake out ten world class boats, all of which I would expect to be built to schedule and budget.

Funny the things you can achieve when you order in blocks and keep the your yards running...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure I read somewhere that the last Virginnia was about 10 months early and way under budget.
kev 99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2014   #1303
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 44
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kev 99 View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure I read somewhere that the last Virginnia was about 10 months early and way under budget.
According to Wikipedia, the New Hampshire (SSN-778) "was delivered eight months ahead of schedule and $54 million under budget."

Edit to add: Under budget is nice to see, and too rare with DoD procurements these days, but keep in mind that that's $54M on a $2B vessel. That's like 2.7% under budget.
HurricaneDitka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2014   #1304
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,425
Threads:
I have said it before, if Australia were to buy MOTS Virginias I would be happy as. The money saved from the local sub build could then be rolled into sustainable domestic surface vessel construction and a civilian nuclear energy industry.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2014   #1305
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
FormerDirtDart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 206
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kev 99 View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure I read somewhere that the last Virginnia was about 10 months early and way under budget.
Last of the Block II boats, USS Minnesota (SSN-783), was delivered 11 months ahead of schedule. Photo Release -- Submarine Minnesota Delivered on Budget and Ahead of Schedule NYSE:HII

Unfortunately, the first Block III boats just hit a speed bump. PCU North Dakota (SSN-784) will not be commissioned as planned, due to a problem with the new "Virginia Payload Tubes" (VPT). Delivery of submarine North Dakota delayed to Navy | Navy Times | navytimes.com
FormerDirtDart is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:20 AM.