Home » Aviation » NAVAIR Details Changes in Navy V-22 Osprey Variant


NAVAIR Details Changes in Navy V-22 Osprey Variant

An MV-22 Osprey, assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 166, launches from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75). US Navy Photo

An MV-22 Osprey, assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 166, launches from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75). US Navy Photo

The Navy is in the early stages of planning its carrier onboard delivery (COD) replacement platform, which will be a baseline MV-22 Osprey plus an extended range fuel system, high-frequency radio and public address system, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) officials told USNI News this week.

Navy and Marine Corps leadership in January signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) stating that the Navy would begin buying a variant of the Marines’ tiltrotor platform beginning in Fiscal Year 2018. Since then, spokesman Billy Ray Brown said, NAVAIR has been preparing for an anticipated FY 2016 engineering change proposal (ECP) by conducting an analysis of options for the development of the three changes needed to create the Navy variant.

Though the January MOU called the Navy variant the HV-22, in contrast to the Marines’ MV-22 and the special operations CV-22, Brown said the Navy has not officially named the Navy variant yet.

“In Fiscal 2016, the Navy will begin implementing an engineering change to incorporate the new systems required for the Navy V-22,” Brown said.
“The engineering change will add an extended range fuel system, high-frequency radio and public address system. The engineering change is planned to be incorporated into the V-22 production line with the FY18 procurement of Navy variant V-22s, with deliveries commencing in approximately 2020.”

Brown added that “long-range aerial logistics support capability is critical to seabase operations,” and therefore the longer range fuel capability – and a high frequency radio to support over-the-horizon communications to support these greater distances – would be needed.

The Marines MV-22 variant is already considered a long-range platform – Boeing claims a 428 nautical mile range with 24 Marines onboard, but thanks to aerial refueling the Marines in December 2013 flew more than 3,400 nautical miles from Spain to Djibouti and then another 800 nautical miles to Uganda.

Still, the Navy is seeking a range of 1,150 nautical miles without aerial refueling. Brown said the aircraft would need more fuel to reach that range, which requires trading off other capabilities such as the number of passengers. Whereas the Marines would be using the MV-22 to transport battle-ready Marines and their gear, the Navy variant would be able to go farther but carry less weight while transporting people and equipment.

“The Navy’s minimum requirement for the V-22 Navy variant is 1,150 nm,” Brown said.
“To best support the Navy’s ‘rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region’ as directed by the Defense Strategic Guidance (January 2012), the COD requires the ability to transport cargo loads at least 1,150 nm under the environmental conditions most commonly found in the Pacific [area of responsibility].”

The public address system would also be needed to communicate with passengers in the back of the aircraft, which is not needed when the MV-22 and CV-22 transports Marines and special operators with their own radios and communications gear.

Brown said there are no deadlines or anticipated costs yet for the engineering work. The Navy is awaiting budget approval before it can move ahead with the ECP in more detail.

After a February hearing on Capitol Hill, Vice Adm. Joseph Mulloy, deputy chief of naval operations for integration of capabilities and resources, told reporters that Marine Corps Reserve pilots who are already trained to operate the MV-22 would join carrier airwings to fly COD missions on the first few deployments once the Navy variant delivers in FY 2020. Marines will train Navy crews to operate and maintain the platform.

Mulloy went on to say this would be a great opportunity for integration as a “naval aviation” force.

“Ultimately the V-22s in the COD mission will have extra tanks and other things on them,” he said.
“What the Marines are interested in is, if it can go longer and fly longer, the Marines may want to get into what I call the Navy variant. The Navy variant may become a naval variant.”

Brown said that the Marine Corps could decide to include any or all of the changes into its MV-22 and would work with Bell-Boeing to arrange those changes. Even if the Marines do not adopt these changes, both services using the Osprey should bring down cost, and Brown said “commonality between the V-22 variants means that there should be no deviation from current MV-22 processes, procedures and required spare parts,” which would create efficiencies in the training and logistics pipelines.

  • NavySubNuke

    Makes sense – should be a lot cheaper to make the fuel tanks bigger and add a PA system to an existing airframe than to design a new one from scratch. Hopefully they don’t botch the job!

  • Curtis Conway

    No pressurization. It’s a shame. More range, and safer flight level (over the weather). Seed capital for things to come.

    • Secundius

      @ Curtis Conway.

      V-22 Osprey’s can be “Pressurized” to Maximum Service Ceiling of 25,000-feet…

      • Curtis Conway

        Source ?

        • Secundius

          @ Curtis Conway.

          Amended, My Bad. Original design concept called for Pressurization of Cabin. But Rotating Wing Root prevents proper sealing of fuselage. A Pressurized Pallet System can be installed, but limits load carrying capabilities, However Pilot and Co-Pilot Cockpit would remain Unpressurized…

  • muzzleloader

    For all the supposed discussion and debate between continuing with an upgraded C-2 or the V-22, it seems the navy brass made their decision a long time ago.

  • Pingback: Military Aviation and Naval news()

  • b2

    Worst idea, ever. A Trojan Horse that means the end of a true blue water COD capability and portends doom for carrier aviation despite fuel tank additions and wow, a PA system! Maybe they can throw in a CB radio!
    I’m underwhelmed. Another hollow victory for the powerful Bell-USMC consortium.

  • 2IDSGT

    It’ll be interesting to see how this turns out. The V-22 gives up some performance points against the C-2, but can land on a much wider variety of ships.

    That said, the C-2 is a very old design that was required to land on carriers smaller than the Nimitz-class. One wonders is the V-22’s selection will eventually free-up money for a vastly more-capable COD clean-sheet design.

    • disqus_89uuCprLIv

      Appears to have an unstated (at least publicly) requirement to be able to respond to NEOs and for assault ops.

    • Secundius

      @ 2IDSGT.

      There are NO, COD replacements of any kind in the Foreseeable Future. Viking and Osprey were it. It was the Marine Corps that Pushed Hard for the Removal of the C-2A Greyhound. Not the Navy…

      • 2IDSGT

        @ Crybaby

        The Navy knew that it didn’t have the resources/rationelle for upgrading/maintaining an outdated niche platform like the C-2. If they had, it wouldn’t have mattered how hard the USMC pushed.

        • Secundius

          @ 2IDSGT.

          The Navy should still upgrade the C-2 Greyhound, instead of “Putting All Their Egg’s Into One Basket”. It was the Marine Corps Hierarchy that pushed the Replacement of the Greyhound’s. The Lower Echelon wanted to keep the Greyhound. As a Long-Hauler and Comfort Courier, the Osprey is out of it league…

          • 2IDSGT

            @ Crybaby

            Stop pulling conspiratorial narratives out of your a$$.

            The C-2 was due for upgrade/replacement anyways… yet another program for the Navy or an aircraft already in-production. Just because the USMC saw an opportunity doesn’t mean the Navy chose wrong.

            … and “Lower Echelon”? Who the fVck talks like that in the USN?

          • Secundius

            @ Jughead.

            I never said I was in the Navy…

          • 2IDSGT

            United Nations Space Command then?

            Stick to comic-book reviews kid.

          • Secundius

            @ JAFO

            Same to you Man…

  • old guy

    HUNK-A-JUNK V-22 100+megabucks. 23 passengers, Could not show ONE advantage over a REAL workhorse, long rejected. A 45 passenger COMPOUND helo that would cost under 100meg/copy and have none of the complexity and vulnerability of this idiocy.

  • What happened to the proposal to redo the C3’s?

    • disqus_89uuCprLIv

      Doesn’t have a PA system. Too expensive to retrofit one.

  • Pingback: NAVAIR Details Changes in Navy V-22 Osprey Variant – USNI News | Bring the heat, Bring the Stupid()

  • disqus_89uuCprLIv

    Some clarification would help understand the public address system.
    Does it mean an intercomm?
    Are combat troops now communicating with the current V-22 cockpit using their tactical radios?

    Is this version going to include a seat for a public information officer to operate the public address system?

  • How about a megaphone. Cheap and dose not need wiring. Or maybe the flight engineer who is wired to the pilot and co-pilot could yell. Wonder how much an intercom will cost BIG bucks if a beltway bandit is doing it. Redesign, new whatever, etc. Why just not take some used” intercomms from the bone yard fleet. Can’t be too hard to wire up. Do they carry parachutes on the V22? Crew getting into their chutes would catch the passengers attention. Hand signals folks, middle finger (we bought the farm say a prayer, thumbs up (OK) point down (landing), buck -up (do like the airlines (demo seat belt) – look like puking (rough weather), hand signal like a wave (brace for water landing), crossing yourself (grab your butt and say good by), etc, etc.

  • Marjus Plaku

    So this tells me the Navy envisions running battle groups at about 1,200 miles apart. Should be easy for those Chinaman missiles to find in weather and seas. Only an area 1,200 miles in radius.

    • Secundius

      @ Marjus Plaku.

      Probably more like 1,000 to 1,035nm. if your operating with a 10% fuel reserve. I think Wing Pylon Fuel Tanks are out of the question, with a 4.5:1 Flight Ratio. Too much “drag” for wings, Conformal Fuel Tanks are the Best way to go. If flying “CAP” duties, range from ship is ~164nm…

  • Secundius

    Possible Variants include:
    1. AV-22C: Attack or Combat Gunship.
    2. CV-22C: USSOCOM, Long-Range Special Operations.
    3. EV-22C: AEW&AESA, Airborne Early Warning.
    4. HV-22C: CSAR, Combat Search and Rescue.
    5. KV-22C: Tanker
    6. MV-22C: Marine Infantry, Soldier and Equipment.
    7. MTV-22C: Medical Transport, Air Ambulance.
    8. SV-22C: Subsurface Airborne Warfare.
    9. VV-22C: US. President (Marine One).

  • KenofSoCal

    The question still unanswered is can the COD V-22 carry the F-35 motors or not?

    • Secundius

      @ KeneofSoCal.

      Technically NO. Not with the Stern Ramp in the Closed Position. Internal Length of Cargo Area is ~18-feet, F-35 J-79 Turbo-Jet is 18-feet 4-inches. But if Stern Ramp left open, YES. Engines measure 18-feet 4-inch in length by 3-feet 10-inches wide. You could in theory carry two J-79 engines if they were stored side-by side. Engines only weigh 3,750-pounds apiece, lift capacity with internal cargo on “C” model is ~12,000-pounds. And NO, you can’t stack the engines, with Pallet and Framing it would exceed interior cabin height which just over 7-feet…

      • KenofSoCal

        So, ~one at a time. More boxes to load/unload pre & post deployment for almost half the airwing.

        • Secundius

          @ KenofSoCal.

          Air you grievances too Boeing, I didn’t design it…

        • Secundius

          @ KenofSoCal.

          Well the Navy could try Navalizing the C-130’s again, like the Marines did in 1963. With thetr KC-130F’s. It was impressive to watch it land on the Forrestal. Must have been a “Real-Son-of-A-Bitch” too Cat Launch though…

          • KenofSoCal

            21 unassisted launches – no cats. Just have to beach the entire airwing to have operating room.

          • Secundius

            @ KenofSoCal.

            It was a joke! I suspect JATO Rocket’s, I can’t taking off under it’s own power. Engines weren’t that powerful back then…

        • Secundius

          @ KenofSoCal.

          Isn’t that the way it worked on the C-2A Greyhound, too. One engine at a time. Considering “Trap Catches” on a Carrier Deck, Carrying One Engine is far safer that Carrying Two…

      • GAR9

        Just for the record, neither the V-22 Nor the C-2 could carry the F135 internally when it was in the carrier designed to protect the engine in transit.
        The proposed cargo version of the S-3 was said to be able to do so, but that aircraft would be getting a entirely new fuselage as art of the conversion. A new transport container is supposedly being designed.

        In an emergency situation the V-22 could carry the F135 in its carrier externally. A C-2 trying to do that would give a whole new meaning to the phrase “ramp strike”.

  • Rob C.

    Only logical way solve it is aside from adding external tanks to side of the fuselage is properly make the Osprey longer. Though that will trigger alot of changes in the design, possibly re-design of entire thing. I wasn’t a fan of using V22 as the alternative making updated C2. Least C2 can fit the replacement engines they need. V22 still helicopter with stubby wings, changes to make it bigger is more complicated i would think in comparison to a conventional aircraft.

    • Secundius

      @ Rob C.

      The problem is the “Osprey” is still technically a “Rotary-Wing Aircraft” that also functions as a “Fixed-Wing Aircraft”. If you Throw-Off the Center of Gravity on a Rotary-Wing Aircraft, your going to have Fatal Consequences in Vertical Flight. If you lengthen the airframe, your going to have too reposition it Wings, Extend and Broaden the Wings, and Mount More Powerful Engines. You’d be better off, building a new aircraft from scratch…

  • Secundius

    Just in case anybody’s interested, the Northrop X-47B Pegasus. Has be Zombie’d from the Cemetery and given a Two-Year Extension on Future Testing, according to War Is Boring…

  • Brad Hayes

    What about a Marinized C-27? Why not Viking? This V22 seems like its going to limit the fleets flexibility?

    • Secundius

      @ Brad Hayes.

      Wasn’t designed to operate from an Aircraft Carrier. NO Tail Hook, would make it nearly impossible to land. Not enough ground, would cause fuselage damage to the Airframe. Wings and Tail Section, don’t Fold for Hangar Storage. And EMALS, would Rip the Nose Gear right off the aircraft. And finally, Just too Big…

      • Brad Hayes

        I was thinking it would be navalized and would use its great STOL…for takeoff and landings…They put a Herc on and off a carrier in the sixties..No need to hangar…thus no folding wings…no need for hook…and no need for cat shot….Or a Turbinized C-7 Caribou maybe…or a Buffalo..

        • Secundius

          @ Brad Hayes.

          The C-27, also has Gas-Turbine Engines. Both the Caribou and the Buffalo are both no longer in service. And in 1963, a Marine Corps KC-130F made a Emergency Landing of an Aircraft Carrier (I think the Forrestal), but required a Dock-Side Crane to be Lifted Off the Flight Deck. No a follow up Note, Wing Tips came within inches of Hitting the Control Island upon landing…

          • Brad Hayes

            Jimmmy Flatley landed and took off repeatedly to prove a Herc could land on a CVN. Not a emergency. Also “Inches” is incorrect. The reason they did not pursue a C-130 option was due to it limiting the ships predictable proximities and it took away its main stealth of being at sea , moving, and being undetected. Now, with a 1550 nautical mile range, we are back to that factor. Also there was no way to hangar it. Might as well use a C-27Js or a few Hercs to really do it right…. that are optimized to fly aboard ship…Either way its a difficult fix but very very doable. As far as old C-7s and others, there is a outfit in Cape May NJ that is putting PT6s on Caribous…and that is one tough airplane as is. Regardless, to me it just makes sense to build new C-2s. That airplane does great as is. Its not impossible to build new ones. But a off the shelf C-27 would work just fine and I dont think you need to be using V22s for this job.

          • Secundius

            @ Brad Hayes.

            Problem SIR, How do you make TAKE-OFF’S. JATO Rocket would Severly Damage the Flight Deck after EVER Launch. Rendering the Flight Deck Completely USELESS to any other Aircraft’s, with the exceptions of Helicopters and Tilt-Rotors. The ONLY other aircraft that can Safely Land and Take-Off from a Carrier Deck. Is the Rockwell International OV-10 Bronco. Slight Problem though, Air Lift Capacity is Limited to 3,200-pounds or LESS, F135 Turbofan, while Theoretically can Support the F135 Turbofan, if you REMOVE the Cargo Doors at the rear of the Aircraft. The F135 Turbofan, weigh’s 3,750-pounds. 550-pounds over the Maximum Cargo Air Lift Capacity…

          • Brad Hayes

            A Herc can do a deck run. It does not need JATO. Your argument is flawed. You cite numbers well but i don’t think you grasp logistics or flight. The OV10 isn’t even a player and therefore shouldn’t have even been suggested. Cmon. You’re striking me as contrarian. V22 is a bad choice for a replacement is all I am saying. And IF you were going to have a new replacement type ,(which I think is dumb) It makes sense to reman the C-2 line, or if too much money to do that vs. units made, , which probably is the damn case, then C-27, C-144, Turbine C-7, S-3, or ? There are plenty of STOL types that can land and takeoff of a CVN, Question is which would do the range/load/speed as close as the C-2? Our tax money should not be wasted on V22s in the COD role. VERTREP maybe…but not COD.
            Mission first and tools available or tools we can make work should be the decision goals of NAVAIR COD planners. Not putting the ship in a box to get the mail and parts and hazarding its stealth.

          • Secundius

            @ Brad Hayes.

            The Flight Deck of the Nimitz class is ~1,092-feet in length, the Gerald Ford class is ~1,106-feet in length. The C-130J, requires a minimum of 3,000-feet. Where are you going to get the Missing ~2,000-feet from, Sir. Even a Carrier traveling at 33-knots, isn’t going too Mysteriously make to the Lost Distance on a plane weighing between 155,000 to 175,000-pounds Maximum Take-Off Weight. The engine, even at Full-Throttle isn’t going to produce enough thrust, to compensate for the Short-Fall, Sir…

          • Brad Hayes

            The ship moves into the wind……..Are you just reacting and typing and using google to prove your point? You don’t fly military do you? Wind over the bow….is relative.And why would you load max gross takeoff anyways??? OMG. C-2, or the C-27 would enable the carrier to live outside that dumb 1550 nautical mile limitation the V22 would restrict it to. And as I mentioned, the Herc was shelved as a COD option because it couldn’t stay overnight aboard due to lack of deck space and fitting in the hangar deck… C-27 or C-144 and C-2 do the mission great for log. C-27 just might be able to do what C-2 did if you had to choose. Mission first and right tools for the job. …New C-2s

          • Secundius

            @ Barry Haynes.

            The WIND in question would have to be a Category 4 Typhoon on the Saffir-Simpson Scale to generate that much lift. And, I can’t Actually see anyone STUPID Enough to try to Take-Off in that Weather from a Carrier’s Flight Deck while Pitching on ALL X, Y, and Z axis’s ALL AT THE SAME TIME, Sir. Are You That Stupid…

          • Brad Hayes

            Dear lord. My name is Brad you geek….lol…and yeah arguing with you over flying is pointless. Much less naval air. Enjoy your keyboard and google facts and fantasies about navy aviation.

          • Secundius

            @ Brad Hayes.

            Sorry about the Name Mix-up. But, realistically speaking. I don’t this The US. Navy is That STUPID to use a C-130J as a Aircraft Carrier COD, Sir…

          • Brad Hayes

            You cant even spell or make grammatical sense. Keep comments to yourself if you cant even correctly write coherently.

          • Secundius

            @ Brad Hayes.

            My Bad on the grammar, I had a Stroke 3-years ago. As for the C130J COD, why don’t try ask the others in this forum, about your “Harebrained” idea on the IDEA…

          • Brad Hayes

            Apparently in 67 it wasnt a hairbrained idea then either. As warfighters you have to think out of the box sometimes. Clearly you cant and clearly you are not a aviator or a warfighter. Your a keyboard guy.

          • Secundius

            @ Brad Hayes.

            If they didn’t employ it in ’67, I’m Fairly Current their not going to in 2015 either. I think a Open or Close Cycler approach would be a better system…

          • BetterHalf

            Carrier decks are no longer straight; they are angled. LA is not long enough to support normal landing or takeoff. Also deck is never empty, but as full as possible during operations. C-2’s “get in the way” enough as it is, much less a Herc. Focus is and will remain on rapid VFA-xx response, everything else is background. VTOL or hook are the only plausible ways to operate efficiently underway.

  • Pingback: Navy Getting ‘Smarter’ About Tanking Mission As Super Hornets Approach 6,000 Hours | Aircrew Systems()

  • Pingback: Navy Getting ‘Smarter’ About Tanking Mission As Super Hornets Approach 6,000 Hours - Association of Naval Aviation in Virginia Beach, Virginia - Hampton Roads Squadron()

  • Pingback: Radio Controlled V 22 Osprey | planes - remote control shop()

  • Pingback: Radio Controlled V 22 Osprey | remote control speed cars()

  • Pingback: Radio Controlled V 22 Osprey | small - rc speed boats()