Navy’s newest COD

GMorrison

CMV-22 Osprey.

This seems like a horrible idea to me.

 

Well it does offer more versatility as to the types of ships that it can deliver to and from. All the amphibious warfare types can now receive direct COD flights instead of having the stuff transferred from the C2 fixed wing to a helo at the angle deck carrier. Not to mention the extended operating radius of action over standard helicopters. 

$100 million dollar mail truck, what's not to like!

That's what I was thinking Stik.  Much more versatility.  One of my DBAs husband is an Osprey pilot - never said anything negative about the mount.  I see them every day over MCAS Miramar.

Mixed feelings.  The Osprey is one heck of an aircraft.  I should make a great COD- other than the expense.  But the plan to supply ships other than carriers may offset some of that expense.  I think the Osprey is one recent aircraft that the US has developed that is a technology ahead of anyone else.

Between the Osprey and the JSF, The USN amphibious battle groups now have aerial capabilities for force projection that are far enhanced over their Cold War/Gulf War era predecessors

Don Stauffer

Mixed feelings.  The Osprey is one heck of an aircraft.  It should make a great COD- other than the expense.  But the plan to supply ships other than Carriers may offset some of that expense.  I think the Osprey is one recent aircraft that the US has developed that is a technology ahead of anyone else.

 

My feelings almost exactly.  I am a bit prejudiced though as the Boeing plant is only a few miles from me, just south of Philly.  It was one of my Accounts when I worked for IBM.

    Nino

The article I read in A+S suggested tht a better solution that the C-2 is needed, but the V-22 has serious issues as a COD aircraft. The conclusion being that something purpose-designed needs to be developed.

Among the concerns:

The V-22 cannot carry a crated F135 engine.

The cargo space is about 2/3rd the C-2 and the normal complement of two C-2s bring 50 operations personnel: three V-22s bring 88.

Is the crated F-35 engine too heavy to be carried by the v-22 or too bulky to carry inside the cargo compartment? If too heavy, that is a major issue. If too bulky crated, can it be carried internally on a dolly stand of some sort? or can it be carried externally crated as a sling load? But then again, adequate numbers of spare engines should already be onboard the ship at the time of departure for a cruise. 

Numbers of personnel carried cannot be addressed, but it is a smaller aircraft, so that naturally is a limitation that cannot be altered. Smaller airframe equals fewer seats and smaller cargo area.

As far as a new other design, the C-2 was designed off of the E-2 airframe, and built in small numbers. Nothing else is on the horizon to replace the E-2, and building a small number of fixed wing carrier capable new generation COD aircraft would be a very expensive proposition. Unless the French, the only other friendly Navy currently operating conventional carriers, have something similar for their CVs, and it can make it past the Not Invented Here (NIH) procurement obstacle course, the odds of developing such an aircraft are extremely slim. 

Other than cost, the main disadvantage of the V-22 versus a helo is that the Osprey cannot autorotate in an emergency.  The swept area of the rotors is less than that of a helicopter, and so it would come down pretty hard.

But the tiltrotor concept is a game changer and is therefore justified IMHO.  Regarding the cargo cabin size, I’m sure a “fat” Osprey or similar craft can be developed in the near future.  Also have to keep in mind the Osprey is the world’s first operational tiltrotor, so there will be bugs to wring out.

Nino

 

 

Don Stauffer

Mixed feelings.  The Osprey is one heck of an aircraft.  It should make a great COD- other than the expense.  But the plan to supply ships other than Carriers may offset some of that expense.  I think the Osprey is one recent aircraft that the US has developed that is a technology ahead of anyone else.

 

 

 

My feelings almost exactly.  I am a bit prejudiced though as the Boeing plant is only a few miles from me, just south of Philly.  It was one of my Accounts when I worked for IBM.

    Nino

 

 

My pension check now comes from Boeing.  I never was a Boeing employee while I worked, but after I retired, Boeing "bought" McDonnell Douglas, my former employer.  And, they bought North American, the first company I ever worked for in the aerospace industry.

Real G

Other than cost, the main disadvantage of the V-22 versus a helo is that the Osprey cannot autorotate in an emergency.  The swept area of the rotors is less than that of a helicopter, and so it would come down pretty hard.

But the tiltrotor concept is a game changer and is therefore justified IMHO.  Regarding the cargo cabin size, I’m sure a “fat” Osprey or similar craft can be developed in the near future.  Also have to keep in mind the Osprey is the world’s first operational tiltrotor, so there will be bugs to wring out.

 

The Navy/Marine Corps helo that the V-22 replaced, the CH-46, being  tandem rotor, did not exactly have good auto rotation characteristics either. 

I did a bit of reading on the C-2 vs V-22 COD information yesterday evening.  The encased F-35 engine situation is a matter of bulk/volume, not weight, and solutions have been developed, (Improvise, adapt, overcome) and there is only a three passenger difference in capacity between the C-2 and the V-22. The V-22 actually can carry more weight in cargo. And the V-22 can be refueled in flight, where the C-2 does not have that capacity. The C-2 has an advantage in that with a pressurized fuselage it can fly over bad weather, compared to the V-22 which is not pressurized. 

I wonder if the V-22's small cabin was dicated by carrier stowage requirements?  A while back, I looked into the cabin dimensions and was surprised how narrow and low it was.  I speculate that a follow-on design will correct that shortcoming.  And perhaps non-carrier based heavy lift designs will expand the cargo cabin even more and add pressurization.  But I'd bet money that a tiltrotor has lousy gas mileage, so for long distances the old C-130 would still be better.

Real G

I wonder if the V-22's small cabin was dicated by carrier stowage requirements?  A while back, I looked into the cabin dimensions and was surprised how narrow and low it was.  I speculate that a follow-on design will correct that shortcoming.  And perhaps non-carrier based heavy lift designs will expand the cargo cabin even more and add pressurization.  But I'd bet money that a tiltrotor has lousy gas mileage, so for long distances the old C-130 would still be better.

 

We are certainly looking at an apples to oranges comparison here. Yes, a C-130 has landed and taken off of a supercarrier. But the deck has to be mostly clear of the airwing to allow C-130 flight ops. I suppose a twin engined folding wing variant could be developed. But is it cost effective? These are not strategic bombers with a higher international political demand. These are flying cargo trucks, and get a lower priority on budget demands. Are they vital for day to day ops? Most certainly. But the powers that be are not going to sacrifice money for the pointy end of the spear for a new base of the spear.

Comparing gas mileage? Well the 22 has greatly extended unrefueled range and operating radius over comparable helos. But less than the aforementioned C-130. However both being basicly turboprop types, the range difference is more due to fuel capacity than anything else.

And yes a larger fuselage version could be developed. But it’s a question of funding. Is it cost effective. When the C-2 was developed, the Navy had far more  carriers in need of COD support than today. With only 10 carriers to support, it is hard to justify the cost of developing a new type compared to adapting an existing type.

Since it's my thread I can blather a little.

The V-22 has significantly higher payload capacity than the C-2, the problem is that the cabin is small 5'-11" x 6'-0".

So, what would a Super Osprey look like with a cargo area more like the Greyhound?

Interesting discussion; I'm warming up to the concept.

Stik, what I was getting at was that for long hauls, the C-130 makes more sense.  The Osprey is more suitable for the short/medium range mission, like ship to shore and ship to ship.  So yes apples to oranges.  I cannot imagine a tiltrotor with C-130 capacity basing on a carrier.  Maybe an army or air force type could be used in that capacity for things like disaster relief, but be land based.  Such a beast could be useful for those services other than COD.

All Right Youse Guys!

   lets be nice and consider the C123 Provider if we are going to talk about larger cargo than a V-22 can carry. If a 130 can land on a Carrier, the 123 should be able to do it to. Now think, the only problem is after it lands, Where the heck do we put it?

    Where do the wing folds go to accomodate this bird and not weaken the wing structures? How about a bigger V-22? well maybe it could be done. I say, get the bugs completely out first!

How about a carrier capable C-7 Caribou? 

All this discussion makes you realize how specialized that carrier borne aircraft really are. Without even going into tne folks who fly them, the machines alone are highly specialized for both their roles and the constraints  of the ships that they fly into and off of.

Another good little short hauler is the C-23 Sherpa. 

To Stik's point, these dudes have to fly in a lot of extreme weather with no secondary landing options, and slam onto a moving target.

I think the CH-53 is a truly awesome aircraft, but they just can't go too fast.

Hi " G " 

      The point here is Will it work with Cargo ability and Carrier ops? Yes, we need a longer range COD. Yes, We need more Cargo capacity in same.

 We just don't Need a Hundred Million Dollar Freight hauler. Surely there's something else out there. How a TurboProp C-47? (TIC) Actually the Osprey might be okay if they can deliver a larger version without breaking the Bank!

GMorrison

Another good little short hauler is the C-23 Sherpa. 

To Stik's point, these dudes have to fly in a lot of extreme weather with no secondary landing options, and slam onto a moving target.

I think the CH-53 is a truly awesome aircraft, but they just can't go too fast.

 

 

The 53 is a good rugged old whirlybird now. Pretty impressive to see them sling loading an artillery piece or LAV. But it wasn’t always so dependable. Back when the 53E was first being introduced into line service they were crashing left and right around where I lived. They were stationed at MCAS Tustin and the local paper covered all the crashes.

The weather thing is another area where the V-22 has a unique advantage. It can land vertically in rough seas mid ships on the center of a pitching deck that would likely not allow conventional flight ops. The Sea Harrier demonstrated such capability in the Falklands War.

And, of course, a lot of this was the cancellation of the S-3 Viking (for the "all 18 air wing") which kiboshed the concurrent C-3 program.

The C-3 was not perfect--it needed a loading ramp of some sort.  It also was unsuited for the Amphib ships.

The C-3 would have been an economical COD, but only if you are already stocking S-3 parts.  I remember that LMM was ginning up an E-3, to try and take over from the E-2D--which was a campaign to keep the S-3 going.  E-2D just had better loiter time and fuel efficiency, so, it's unlikely to be dethroned anytime soon.

V-22 really needs to have some follow-on development, and it's strange that we've not seen very much along that line.  Like a better rear ramp, as better drop line deployment system, a slightly fatter fuse--lots of stuff.

The V-22 concept satarted about 65 years ago with Hiller so give it a few more years Capn. Hooraw!!!