Why do you refer to the EFV as the EKV? Second time you have done this.

Dyslexia? Fortunatly mine is mild. I suspose if a way to transport a 40+ ton payload by helo is developed tactical uses will be found also. With that sort of payload a internally mounted 155mm cannon, auto loader, and large magizine would be my choice. :)

$hit!! didnt think about Dyslexia, If thats the case sorry WW2020 didnt mean to offend, thought you had heard of a vehicle with that designation.

No problem with me. I was not even diagnosed until an adult. Back in the early 1960s we were just called stupid. One learned to ignore it and move on.

How might our force of four heavy lifter per amphibious ship be employed? I assume the USMC wants to get from 25mile offshore to 200miles inshore on a vertical enveelopement. The heavy liftter can travel at least 250knots and I hope the LHD/LHA/LHA(R) decks can handle the 250,000lbs such a a/c might weigh, I hope!. How would you send them in? Capacity of over 100 infantry or a combat vehicle with 17troops and respectable armament of 30mm cannon or one high tech medium tank per aircraft per sortie.

The deck load sounds a bit high, but I dont know the numbers. Just intuition frm walking them. The 250,000 lbs writ above translates to 125 tons. How much does a C130 or C5 weigh? Other than moving a whole tank I cant see a big tactical advantage. For tactical reasons I'd druther see that 100 man group spread across a half dozen airframes. For logistics loads & general transport there are advantages to size. Range is also important for this hypothetical aircraft. Is it only to have a actual operational radius of 275 nautical miles?

You are talking about an approximately payload of the old C-141. With engine power increased to 56,000shp you would have a lift of 300,000lbs. In any event such an a/c would be limited to taking over the CH-53X spots while an initial study of heavy VTOL lift suggested 104 tons gross. I don't know the deck limits although gear might distribute weight efficently. Putting three engines per nacelle and gearing them to pump 18,000shp into the gearbox for helo and airplane ops might be too much but as far as pwr. is concerned, it takes time to develope a new engine vs. using multiples of existing engines which offers complexity and maybeye weight if not believability issues. If quad tiltrotor had a 57% empty to gross weight than scaling up to 250,000lbs may have 125,000lbs or 50% empty vs. gross weight leaving 45,000lbs fuel and 80,000lbs payload. Range when operating from prepositioning ship is limited unless aerial refuelling is used. Range operating from LHD would be greater because of a STO run for more fuel. Russia manages a 50% empty to gross sans advanced materials. Normal gross for C-130 is 155,000lbs with overload gross of 175,000lbs with 38,000lbs. cargo and empty weight of 76,000lbs. Even in VTOL mode quad tiltrotor offers increased range over helo and doubled speed so figure in twice as many sorties as CH-53X. You might find being able to fly in with armour to a large grass clearing to be advantageous while regular V-22s could continue to move troops and light vehicles. Attack variant of BA609 civil tiltrotor may provide Cobra gunship replacement as well as armed escort for Osprey and quad tiltrotors. Under consideration at this time.

I would like to add that command/control and gunship variants of quad tiltrotor are proposed by Bell as well as a prepositioning ship design that would accomodate 'basic quad tiltrotor' with 185 by 900 foot runways that have twelve STO deck spots and eight to ten in hangar. Twenty-eight basic models could supply an MEB with 1600 tons supplies per day 200 miles inland.

Is that 1600 tons per day (metric tons?) a sustained or surge rate?

Bell maybeye claiming a sustained rate since productivity is the selling point on V-22 and proposed quadtiltrotor. Army wants 1000kilometer radius with VL/VTO at midmission point and RTB with leftover fuel. Army needs 24-25 ton VTOL in any case. For speeds consider 300knots cruise after conversion from helo to airplane mode. For STO you are in intermediate mode. I sized my STOVL/VTOL for taking the EFV and the original FCS, the forty ton tank. Inside you would need over 12 width because of EFV dimensions. Elevator size for 'basic' quad tiltrotor was 90.5 by 94.5 feet for a/c with proprotors folded. Also offered for the job is Lockheed Martins' proposed fan in wing adapted from drive system for STOVL in F-35B but the lift fans are in the wings for more lift and more efficent lift since disk loading is less on wider wing fans versues the cramped fuelsalage fan of F-35B. There is a web site that extolls the virtues of quad tiltrotor through PDF files containing briefing slides that you can find on a Google search for quad tiltrotor. This library computer is limited to HTML.