Home » Aviation » Navy Not Following Marines’ Lead in Developing V-22 Osprey Tanker


Navy Not Following Marines’ Lead in Developing V-22 Osprey Tanker

Undated photo of an aerial refueling test from a Marine Corps Bell-Boeing MV-22. U.S. Marine Corps Photo

Undated photo of an aerial refueling test from a Marine Corps Bell-Boeing MV-22. U.S. Marine Corps Photo

The Navy has no immediate plans to explore using its planned fleet of V-22 Ospreys carrier onboard delivery aircraft to refuel its carrier aircraft, while the Marines are actively looking to include a tanking capability in its own tilt-rotor V-22s by 2017, service officials told USNI News on Monday.

Last year, the Navy selected the Bell Boeing V-22 to be the replacement for the service’s aging fleet of Northrop Grumman C-2A Greyhoud carrier onboard delivery (COD) that’s used to bring on supplies and material from shore to an embarked aircraft carrier.

While the has Navy touted some benefits of selecting the Osprey — its easier to get supplies to a ship at long range since the V-22 can land on more ships, not just the carrier — it’s not talked about the using the Navy Osprey as a refueling platform.

“While there is always a potential to leverage other V-22 capabilities down the road, our focus remains on seamlessly transitioning the Navy variant of the V-22 into the airwing to fulfill the carrier onboard delivery mission,” Navy spokesman Lt. Rob Myers told USNI News on Monday.

For its part, the Marines are currently developing the V-22 Aerial Refueling System (VARS), which is being developed in parallel with the planned first Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter deployment in 2017, according to the Marine Corps’ 2015 aviation plan.

Similar to the Harvest HAWK roll-on weapons kit for the Marine’s Lockheed Martin KC-130J, the system will be able to roll on and off the aircraft as needed, USNI News understands.

The goal of VARS is to include an organic tanking capability to the Marine Air Combat Element (ACE) of an embarked Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) starting with tactical fighters and then moving into other aircraft.

For the Navy, the next tanking option is less obvious.

At the moment, the service’s Boeing F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets serve as the tanking platform for the carrier. The Navy has expressed concern it’s burning through its fighter flight hours faster than anticipated in part due to the tanking mission.

Up to 20 percent of Super Hornet sorties from a U.S. carrier are tanking missions and the Navy is very interested in taking the burden of the strike fighter force, USNI News understands.

How service will get there isn’t clear.

“The Navy will incorporate carrier-based organic tanking capability requirements into future aircraft studies to include the possibility of tanking capability with the recapitalization of C-2A, existing strike fighters and future manned or unmanned aircraft,” read the latest Pentagon aviation outlook report to Congress, the so-called 30-year aviation plan, released last week.

The service didn’t include an aerial refueling capability in its COD requirements, USNI News understands.
Lockheed Martin, in its bid to replace the COD C-2s proposed refurbishing old S-3 Viking anti-submarine warfare (ASW) into a COD that could refuel from the carrier but lost out to the Bell-Boeing V-22 COD.

Unmanned aircraft, could eventually take over the role, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said last week.

The NAVAIR’s preferred set of requirements for the Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) also includes the ability for the unmanned aerial vehicle to tank other aircraft.

  • Why is Navy planning so consistently off the mark, or outright disastrous? They picked the wrong COD aircraft to go with the F-35, now they’re compounding the mistake. Then they’ll compound it again by throwing away UCLASS’ ability to give the carrier air wing its strike reach again (and more).

    * Burning through fighter flight hours unnecessarily, while complaining about coming shortages? Check.

    * Picking a COD aircraft that will hurt new fighter readiness rates due to problems transporting engines? Check.

    * Missing out on long-range penetrating strike that would let the CAW reach beyond enemy missile range? Check.

    Just amazing.

  • Curtis Conway

    This is a mistake on the US Navy’s part. At least a presence should be there by NAVAIR so the capability, should it be needed, will be a less hard transition with US Navy V-22s.

    I would prefer to see the S-3/C-3 solution (KC-3A Super Viking facebook page) developed. Even the US-3B with F135 engines in pods on the outer wing stores stations (although I would not want to make that arrested landing), and tanking capability for the Carrier Air Group, would be a far better solution . . . we just can’t afford it (Bird in the Bush).

    As for the unmanned taker version, a lifting body construct of composite materials will carry much fuel, and automating the tanking sequence for refueling will be like turning on landing lights at an auxiliary field. Hope nothing goes wrong. Wrong place to be under any circumstances.

    Now the Amphibious Ready Groups need AEW&C in the V-22 for Expeditionary Tasking.

    • Turbineguy

      S-3 is a great platform, and could easily perform the tanker role economically. But what would be the point of hanging fighter engines on it? You can’t replace a 9,000lbst engine with a 28,000lbst (dry) fighter engine that’s much bigger. Plus the CF/TF-34 is an excellent, proven engine. Why mess with success?

      • Curtis Conway

        Your missing the point. Our problem is transporting an F135 engine to the ship as spares or replacement engines. This is a logistical support issue. A past suggestion was just put it in a container on the outer wing stores station, which would place nearly two tons on that wing stores station (container and all). That’s a little much, and you would probably have to carry two just to maintain weights and balances for the recovery, if at all.

        If there is any upgrade to the engine on the S-3 it would be to upgrade to a more modern CF-34 with better ‘everything’ including ‘time on wing’ with all the improvements folded in from CFM-56/CF-6/GE-90 technology insertion, which is already showing its stuff in commercial applications of the most recent CF-34.

        • Turbineguy

          Aha, didn’t realize it was a reference to the COD mission. Apologies for that. Agree that hanging F135s on the wings would create too much bending moment. The Lockheed proposal for a C-3 stretch to carry an engine internally sounds like a low-risk option. And the CF34-3 would be the best choice as it’s a COTS solution. Now all they have to do is build it 🙂

          • Curtis Conway

            Why not the CF34-10E? Of course looking for the best Mean Time Between Failure (MBTF) and best Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC) for thrust rating is what we are looking for, with just a little more power & reliability for those long Pacific transits. I’m hoping for a Spirit AeroSystems fuselage along with the new CNS/ATM flight deck.

          • Turbineguy

            I doubt a thrust increase from 9k to 20k would be required for a stretch. If anything, the -8C would prob be more than adequate depending on the new MTOW.

          • Secundius

            @ Turbineguy.

            US-3B, ~57,219 lbs. MTOW…

          • Curtis Conway

            It’s not until we get to the CF34-10A that we get to the more accessible LRUs for maintenance availability, and fewer parts, with improved hot section. I would think you would want a de-rated CF34-10E with a smaller fan so we can take advantage of all the new technology.

          • Turbineguy

            But that defeats the purpose of going COTS. The engine you describe is a hybrid, and would come with a pretty steep development cost spread out over just a few aircraft. Better to derate an -8C (or not) and let the maintainers deal with the LRU issue imho.

          • Curtis Conway

            You sold me. I’m just thinking of the numbers on the CFM56-7B that is doing so well. At some point, regardless of what the USAF tells you, we are going to have to build a newer A-10. The engine you described will probably be its engine too. What . . . almost 10K more thrust.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            The A-10C Warthog, is getting a upgrade. But not the Engines, they will say the same CF34-GE100A’s @ 9,065 lbs./st…

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            What about the CF-34-8E @ 14,500 lbs/st. You go from a 28:1 to a 28.5:1. It’s more commonly used on the Bombadier CRJ900 Series…

          • Turbineguy

            Okay, that’s only 5k over the S-3A’s MTOW. Not sure how much extra thrust might be required, if any.

          • Secundius

            @ Turbineguy.

            If the Two Zero say’s it can be done. I will defer to their judgement…

          • Turbineguy

            Two Zero?

          • Secundius

            Turbineguy.

            Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Testing and Evaluation Squadron VX-20. Also known as the Two Zero…

  • sferrin

    If they gave the tanker role to the V-22s what mission would the Super Hornet perform then? (Heh, yeah, I know- cheap shot.) Thing is the USN cuts back the number of combat aircraft on it’s CVNs and then it goes and makes many of that lower number into TANKERS. That they don’t have common Tanker/COD/ASW airframe is beyond embarrassing.

  • Holygigidy

    Using the V-22 as an aerial refueling platform makes all the sense in the world.
    1) All the Assault ships will be using them (I.e; the Marines), so they will be flying all over the fleet anyways.
    2) Its a roll on, roll off package so all new, dedicated Ospreys do not need to be purchased, you can outfit the ones you already have and revert back if need be.
    3) Its already paid for and being developed.
    4) Ospreys are cheaper per hour to operate than an F-18, cheaper to buy, and can carry much more fuel. (twice as much as a tanker F-18, based on some quick math.) 5) Ospreys can load up on fuel from any ship in the fleet (basically), not just the carriers, saving space on the carrier flight deck and the expense of needlessly transferring fuel to the carrier from the supply ship.
    6) The wear and tear on the F-18’s is greatly reduced
    7) the real combat effectiveness of the entire carrier is greatly increased because you no longer need some of your compliment of F-18’s out fitted for a non-combat role, even though you could still do it if the situation called for it (refueling in contested airspace). Basically, you would be transferring (possibly) the entire tanker role off the carrier flight deck and giving the combat ops (and others) more space, personnel and aircraft to work with.

    I’m struggling to think up a single negative with using the V-22 as our workhorse naval refueling tanker. Any single little thing you can come up with (if anything) can just be countered with “you can still use your F-18’s as tankers if you need to, and use the V-22 everywhere else.” and “Its cheap, there is zero risk in trying it.”

    Who am I kidding. A cheap, effective and quick solution that would solve many problems all at once. No wonder the Navy isn’t interested.

    • Curtis Conway

      “saving space on the carrier flight deck . . . “. We have already cut the airwing in half. Since when did deck space become an issue? Argumentative point, but you make it because the ‘Powers that be’ always make it and it is such a small consideration, that it boggles the mind. With Ford it’s even less a problem.

      ” . . . you would be transferring (possibly) the entire tanker role off the carrier flight deck . . ” now there is a concept that a carrier sailor will probably never wrap his mind around. A ‘Replenishment Ship in company’ can become exactly that. The aircraft is the capability. Its support system can be as mobile as the aircraft, except for perhaps maintenance. That maintenance CAN be on the carrier.

      • Holygigidy

        Flight deck space isn’t an issue because we are not at war (ISIS doesn’t count) and do not need to field every available aircraft. Even if deck space isn’t an issue running the maximum number of sorties, a carrier still has a limited number of F-18’s to work with. I think that number is around 60 or 70. If you are also using your F-18’s for tanker duty, that means a number of those must be diverted from its intended combat role. It could be a significant percentage of the available fighters when you realize an F-18 carrying the max number of external tanks (5) can only refuel a single other F-18 in flight.

        If a war with Iran or some other country breaks out, we don’t want a big percentage of our carrier based fighter force on the scene running a fuel delivery service, instead of combat, that could easily be run by other aircraft more capable for the role that are based on other ships.

        • This is not so much an issue of the Navy missing an opportunity than it is about the Marines closing a critical gap. At air shows the USMC has been proudly showing off its CH-53 Super Stallions being refueled inflight by C-130 Hercules planes, but those Hercs don’t launch from carriers or amphibs. The F-35B will need the gas too. So the Marines are more desperate for a ship-launched refueler than the Navy.
          .
          Secondly, USMC aircraft are technically on the Navy budget; the Navy buys those Marine V-22s. So this refueling package and its development can proceed apace while knowing IT ALREADY IS ‘NAVALIZED.’ Let the Marine program finalize it.
          .
          Lastly, the unmanned UCLASS program will happen. It will have the cruise speed and altitude capabilities of the manned jets it flies with, unlike the V-22. Without refueling, the UCLASS may remain aloft for 12 or more hours, so F-18s won’t be refueling it. And if it can perform as a high altitude tanker at 400+ mph, the Navy must factor this into its long-term air wing planning. So let the Marine V-22 tanker program mature and let UCLASS happen.

    • old guy

      Mostly any budget surplus. You godda be a company rep. A $100,000,000.00 per copy, plus development cost, 2,000 gallon, low altitude, MACH .5 tanker versus an EXISTING $60,000,000.00, 1100 gallon MACH 1.2/1.8 low/high altitude tanker. TIME MARCHES ON. Oh, by the way when was ANY development or unit cost or performance goal of this turkey, ever achieved? You want more negatives? Poor availability, poor safety record, high maintenance cost. Its vaunted top speed does nothing for its helo missions.
      As to speed I can go FASTER by converting most helo designs to compounds. Piaseki did it twice. Keep your eyes on the compounds for the future of large and fast helos.
      As to your comments:(1) Half truth, (2) False, (3) So what. Stop it.
      (4) False, False, True, (5) False, (6) Specious, (7) BS Salespitch.

      As I said, YOU GODDA BE A COMPANY REP.

  • Pingback: Navy Won't Use V-22 for F-35 Refuel Platform LexLeader()

  • Secundius

    If the Navy ever goes to a Light Aircraft Carrier, they may have to rethink the KV-22C Tanker option…

  • Paladin

    Why should the Navy develop it’s own Osprey tanker? They can simply pile-on to the USMC production line. The USMC has done this for decades; turn around is fair play.

    • Secundius

      @ Paladin.

      It’s only a matter of time before the Navy starts Fielding their own F/AV-35B’s. And when that happen’s there going to need the V-22C Osprey model line..

  • old guy

    HOORAY for Navy. This company welfare baby gives about as much “bag for the buck” as a bonnet at the Kentucky Derby. Flash, but no value.

  • b2

    The bottom line is the V-22 line needs to be kept open at all costs. The HASC chairman’s district assembles Ospreys and the USMC would propose the V-22 as a space shuttle replacement in order to further the same end……That is why we are here.
    Bringing the V-22 aboard the carrier as a COD is a mistake, attempting to make it a carrier overhead and recovery (definitely not mission) tanker is unthinkable. It ain’t fast enough, doesn’t fly high enough and just isn’t tactical. It’s as expensive as a SuperHornet and costs more per hour to operate (flt hr costs are more than just fuel). That Hornet you saw in the photo behind the V-22 with a drogue is a staged event. That extra six feet into reliable 24/7, all weather, day/night 500 feet or 20000 feet overhead “trick or treat” tanker is not possible from a physics or engineering standpoint and proving me wrong will cost billions. I am sure the V-22 can refuel helicopters and other Ospreys fine but not a jet with structural damage trying get aboard mother during blue water ops! Look, I’ve never seen a carrier aviator telling Marines how they should do their business on the ground.. Who are they to advise us on what we need as tankers for tactical carrier aviation that won the Battle of Midway?
    the C-3 was the best choice all around and offered a tanking package that would actually improve the SuperHornets airwing capabilities. IE- they could be used as strikers/fighters first instead of as tankers. The C-2 is as piss-poor a tanker possibility as the Osprey. Plus, that C-3 could carry the F-35 engine and have more than twice the range as the requirement the V-22 will be hard pressed meet! Something has to give carrying more fuel- people/cargo….poof- there goes all the original requirements…
    Now you know why we really need to buy more SuperHornets. We need more carrier tankers. I feel Naval Aviation’s pain and it’s going to get worse. V-22 just exacerbates it….
    Enough already. I’m pumped full of smoke from the Bell-Marine machine.
    b2

    • Holygigidy

      What is this C-3 you keep mentioning. I only heard about proposed upgrades to the C-2, not an entirely new aircraft.

      Besides, the V-22 can land anywhere, while your C-3 can only land on a carrier and the V-22 can carry twice as much as the C-2. It can also move supplies between nearly any ship in the fleet, as well as perform the outside shipments. It also wouldn’t need a runway to pick up the deliveries destined for the fleet, which is an obvious war time advantage (or to reduce the range needed for pickup and delivery).

      Personally, I find a VTOL platform to be perfect for naval reasons. The advantages are significant in comparison to the drawbacks IMHO.

      • Curtis Conway

        Facebook: look up KC-3A Super Viking. Modified S-3 (new fuselage), CNS/ATM Compliant flight-deck and perhaps an upgraded CF-34 engine..

      • Secundius

        @ Holygigidy.

        No they actually can’t. The Premise that the Osprey can land Anywhere is an oxymoron, it can’t. It’s Size, Weight, Down-Wash, Heat Generation, etc. Prevents it from landing anywhere. It can do a Zero Altitude Hover on most Naval Ship’s, But Land Directly On Them, NO…

        • Holygigidy

          If its going from ship to ship, it can just sling load whatever it wants to deliver if that ship can’t handle an Osprey, no need to ever land. If its inbound from long range and needs to deliver to a ship it can’t land on, it can transfer the cargo to a sling load on the carrier pretty quickly first. That, and it can land on all the ships that really matter, like the carrier, assault ships and supply ships.

          • old guy

            So can ANY helo. Its vaunted speed claim was its selling point. It was and is $100,000,000 (Meleagris gallopavo). Gobble, gobble

          • Holygigidy

            So now Helos should be doing COD? Might run into a range and speed issue there, slick. Your arguing points now just for the sake of arguing.

            So whats your plan? Develop an entirely new aircraft? One with zero parts in common with any aircraft the navy uses? One that only performs one task? Sounds cheap.

            The Osprey might be pricey, but it already exists and can perform a million different jobs. The more you buy, the cheaper it is.

          • old guy

            It is an overpriced travesty. Putting the weighty engines at the end of the stubs makes about as much sense as carrying your grocery bags with your arms outstretched. Next is a Quad lifter. SHEER IDIOCY.

          • Secundius

            @ old guy.

            You would think that 50-some years of experimenting who Vertical Lift. That DARPA would at least a Modicum Knowledge of Designing a proper Heavy-Lift V/STOL Transport Aircraft. I have to agree with on the Quad-Tilt Rotor concept. It took over twenty-years to make the V-22 Osprey, operational and it’s still a WIP…

          • old guy

            Years ago, when I had a good office, I mustered GENs. Jones, Krulak and Grey in an effort to kill this turkey, when it passed a one billion dollar overrun. All agreed, but the politics was too strong. It joined the HUMMV (supposedly a Jeep replacement), the battleship reactivation and the LHA as the dollar sinks of the DOD welfare budget. WHAT A SHAME!

    • James B.

      I know you like the S-3 COD idea, but the Navy isn’t going to build it.

      Between mounting a bladder in the back of a V-22 COD and flying a five-wet Super Hornet, Ospreys are a lot more efficient if you need that much gas. If you don’t, the refueling pallet and the buddy stores for Super Hornets are both removable, so it doesn’t have to be an either/or proposition.

      Last, the Osprey can do the mission: tanking overhead the CV stations at 6000ft, and they don’t fly the tanker track at stupidly fast speeds, so the only issue is wash of the Osprey’s props, which doesn’t seem to be an issue.

      • b2

        JamesB:
        You said:
        Para1- OK, that’s obvious but it doesn’t make it right. All for the reasons of political expediency USMC obstinacy and Navy aviation stupidity as covered above.
        Para2- Never said V-22 couldn’t be either/or. BTW the same goes for the C-3, except the capabilities are doubled range real payload and ability to really be an overhead and mission tanker with much more give like the old KA-6D carried.
        para3- No true. The Osprey cannot dash at 350 kts to intercept a Hornet on bingo or maneuver fast enough to be right there when a nugget bolters for the 4th time, blue water. It cannot consolidate fuel efficiently nor can it do a lot of things a real fixed wing jet can do as a tanker. Plus it costs $80 million each for a half good tanker/half good COD aircraft…C’mon lets be real. V-22 proponents know as much about cyclic carrier strike ops/bluewater power projection as I do about ground maneuver warfare. Marines should not have been part of any decision on CODs or tactical tanker aircraft. This V-22 is a square peg coming into a round hole….Ignorance, political expediency and fantasy all merged…
        Which equals another lousy tradeoff we live with continuously and a less capable warfighter…

        • Secundius

          @ b2.

          The New Block III variant using AE-1107C Engines rated at 10,000-shp/each. Boosts the performance by 17%, increasing the Maximum Airspeed to ~356-kts. (410mph). Internal Cargo Capacity is increased to 12,000-lbs and External to 25,000-lbs. for a range of ~110nmi. (~126smi.)…

          • old guy

            Sorry, my man, but at 410mph, the rotor tip speed is well supersonic and both inefficient and destructive. If you shorten the rotors, yor efficiency goes to Hades and a larger % of the down flow impinges on the wing stubs. Its name would still be Meleagris gallopavo.

          • Secundius

            @ old guy.

            The only thing it can think of, is that made Prop/Rotor Blade Broader at the Tip’s to keep the Blades from going Supersonic. They did the same thing on the Lockheed Electra…

          • old guy

            Tip shape has nothing to do with going supersonic, only RPM and diameter. Electra props only ⅓ V22, and no winglets to blow down on.

          • Secundius

            @ old guy.

            If they kept the Reduction Rear the same, all they need to do was to give them Broader Tipped Propeller/Rotor Blades. The CH-53E Super Stallion has a 7-Bladed 35-feet long by 30-inch wide Rotor Blade, while the CH-53K King Dragon has a 7-Bladed 35-feet long by 35-inch wide Rotor Blade. Increasing Lift, Increases Performance as well. All the V-22 is, is a Helicopter that Thinks it’s an Airplane as well. Honestly, what are going to do with a 4.5:1 Glide Ratio, Control the Crash Landing…

          • old guy

            ALL of the -53s have a subsonic tip peed a bit lower than Mach.92. The design could be modified (big job) to a compound that could make 300 knots. Just keep the basic fuselage.

        • James B.

          For the C-3 to be a viable option, it would need to exist at least in prototype stage by now. As an artist’s conception, the design looks nice, but stats are still largely notional. As a functional T/M/S in the fleet, the C-3 would not have common components with any other major platforms, and would need a new FRS stood up.

          As for savings, the wings and tail might be reusable, but the avionics would have to be all new, and the engines might have to be new as well. Pretty soon you’re paying to develop a brand new aircraft, which is not cheap.

          • b2

            You’re partially right. By not jumping on this 3 years ago we are behind… however shoehorning the Osprey in the airwing is worse. Forcing this for support/logistics reasons is what has gotten us into this inferno on everything including F-35 and all its variants…Consider that.

            Analyze what LM was able to do to reconstruct P-3 wings and fuselages since 2008. Impressive. This S-3 to C-3 challenge is med low risk. Did you know slide rule engineering developed the idea back in the 1970’s, so one can figure that the concept is over engineered. The concept offers cockpit options from two active service aircraft. Additionally here is no weapon system/sensor package and this isn’t a fighter- excess power and real estate. Not quite rocket science in other words…
            Re training and RAGs- yep we have to be original..I know that is tough nowadays…

            More challenging than adding a PA system to a non-pressurized, huge deck space consuming hybrid cargo aircraft but worth the return because it’ll be the right tool for the job. that’s something I learned a long time ago.
            As for Mr. Secundius, adding new engines, sponsons for fuel and qualifying the V-22 for tactical tanker ops at sea will cost more than the delta to produce C-3!

      • Frank Finn

        This has been a stimulating debate between some obviously knowledgeable participants without the usual personal attacks that are the mainstream of most other forums. Having been a Marine truck driver I recognize that I am ill qualified to add to the conversation but am genuinely interested in ensuring that our military receives the best equipment possible, and as a tax payer I want the most value for the dollar. With that in mind, it seems that too much emphasis has been put on multi role capabilities at the expense of performing the tasks at hand. Since current tactical aircraft coupled with precision guided ordinance are far more lethal, the all hands alpha strike is no longer necessary, thus the smaller air wings. That has freed up deck space that could be used (but isn’t) for more tactical air or alternately, dedicated tankers that would be far less expensive and more capable than supersonic fighters pressed into service. Which would be more beneficial? Having expensive fighters getting worn out being inefficient tankers, or refurbishing and optimizing Vikings as dedicated tankers? It is my understanding the S-3 fleet was retired with significant life remaining in the airframes and avionics. What kind of upgrades would really be needed to fill this role? Maintenance could not possibly be greater than that needed by F-18s or MV-22s, is it? Also, isn’t a significant amount of tanking done in close proximity to the carrier immediately after takeoff due to weight restrictions and then upon return to enable extended landing evolutions? I would guess that the MV-22 would serve well in that role allowing the F-18 tankers to only be required to accompany strikes. As with the question of energy use, why not an all of the above solution rather than a narrow compromise that costs more and is less efficient?

        • James B.

          I’m a big fan of specialized aircraft; expansively multirole aircraft tend to be compromises on many things. I definitely agree that the airwing needs tankers that burn less gas than F-18s.

          On the S-3 COD idea, it won’t actually reuse much of the boneyard parts, and it would add a completely different design to the airwing’s supply and maintenance issue.

          If I had my choice, the eventual COD replacement would be a C-2 based on the the E-2Ds being built right now. I would have it either certified for ramp-down flight or plumbed to trail a drogue; either way it would be able to carry a bladder like KC-130s dow.

    • b2

      Basically some of y’all are just talking tactically about missions (COD/overhead tanking) you are ignorant of, and about fixed wing carrier operations you cannot fathom. Real carrier aviators know what I’m talking about. Anyone familiar how stuff really works from an ops analysis/engineering perspective can understand it too. Of course a C-3 can’t lift vertically but we already have helicopter lift in a CSG, right?
      What we are talking about isn’t a comic strip and war ain’t playing “Transformers”….Of course I don’t expect an infantry commandant, a submariner CNO, or a reserve LT, SECNAV to comprehend but I would expect that some carrier aviators out there, still on active duty, would push back on this diet of stupid ideas…There are better options available for naval aviation.
      I’ll stick to my point- this Navy V-22 “shafting” is all about expediency, politics and what’s best for the Corps.

  • LiberalsSuck

    The Marine Corps is a department of the Navy. The men’s department. Give them the equipment they ask for if you want the job done.

    Semper Fi

  • TTotten

    The issue with the osprey for this role is its relatively short legs. Even for COD, the osprey is shorter ranged than the greyhound. The Navy can’t afford another range reduction. This mission for the osprey makes sense for the Marines, they operate off LHAs and other non-CVN platforms. This gives them an adaptable platform for that role without relying on Navy or USAF assets. The Navy should select something with more dwell time.

    • Holygigidy

      Don’t the assault ships generally operate with or near a carrier strike group for protection?

      As for range, that’s BS. The F-18 has a 450 mile combat radius. The V-22 has a 430 mile combat radius. Basically the same, only the V-22 can refuel 2 fighters instead of just one. It can also operate off any ship, including a supply ship, when a tanker F-18 must stay with the carrier and also removes a combat asset from use.

      Its not like they couldn’t still use the F-18 in the tanker role if the situation requires it.

      • TTotten

        Assault groups are fully independent formations. They often operate away from carriers. In a full-scale war, ideal operations would involve operations with a carrier group, but it would depend on availability. Both amphibs and cvns would be in short supply. As for range, the hornet is also short ranged, another Navy decision to increase sortie generation at the expense of range. My reference is more towards the range capabilities of the C-2A and the previous tanker aircraft used, such as the modified versions of the A-6 and S-3. That is the type of capability that the Navy should be moving back towards in its next selection for a organic tanker capacity.

        • Holygigidy

          You concentrate on range reduction, but ignore the huge advantages the VTOL platform gives you. The V-22 can land on any ship in the fleet and transfer supplies between them (I.e; supply ships). It also does not need an improved runway to pick up the supplies in the first place, an obvious advantage during war time and under most circumstances would negate the range advantage of more traditional aircraft.Oh, and the C-2 carries half the payload of the V-22.

          Thing is, a V-22 is so much more versatile. It can be used for almost anything. It can get used to tanker F-18’s one day and play COD from a supply ship or a random parking lot the next. Combat drops, humanitarian assistance, search and rescue, you name it the V-22 can do it, where a C-2 (or whatever) can’t.

          • Secundius

            @ Holygigidy.

            Where do you get HALF. The last time I looked the Useful Load for the Greyhound was 10,000-pounds, whereas the Useful Load of the MV-22C is 12,000-pounds. I don’t think that Sling-Loading a Greyhound is even possible. And the best Sling-Load Range for the Osprey is only 110nmi…

          • Holygigidy

            You are correct on the loading, read the wrong stats, but in addition to the slight edge in weight loading, the MV-22 also has a bigger cargo area and can sling load.

            Sling loading may be short range, but ship to ship transfer usually is and its a capability the greyhound lacks entirely.

          • TTotten

            I concentrate on range reduction because, without significant investments on the part of the Navy in greatly improving the reach of the carrier, it will become completely outclassed. Increasing strike range and combat radii are the most important things the Navy needs to focus on. That is why it is the most important thing. CVNs need the range. The amphibs are the place to have the advantages of the VTOL, which I agree there are many. But that is rightfully placed with the Marines, not the Navy. The Navy will still have the COD V-22s, thus could at any point down the line purchase some of the same kits, or borrow them from the Marines, but a tanker aircraft needs to be much longer ranged, as does the rest of the air wing.

          • Holygigidy

            There is only a 30 mile reduction in combat radius between the V-22 and F-18, if neither is carrying an external fuel load. Refueling would generally happen well away from the maximum combat radius of the F-18 anyways. In nearly any case, the combat radius of the tanker can be much shorter than that of the fighter

            “The Navy will still have the COD V-22s, thus could at any point down the line purchase some of the same kits”

            This is just as true about the F-18. If they need the range, speed or high refueling altitude, they can still use the F-18 as a tanker if need be. They are already using a ton of Ospreys for COD and tanker development is paid for already by the marines. Its a cheap, quick and effective solution to replace the F-18 for tanking on 90% of missions

          • TTotten

            But the point is, the Hornet has insufficient range as a fighter to begin with, even with tanking. The Navy needs to move to longer range aircraft in general.

          • Secundius

            @ TTotten.

            Then your talking Airships or a Reaper/Triton type Drone Tanker…

          • TTotten

            Actually I’m talking about a number of naval aircraft that thew Navy used to operate but no longer does. An update to a number of strike craft or long range bombers that flew off Navy carriers would be sufficient. An unmanned drone would, however, be more ideal. A surveillance aircraft with a dual-role as a tanker, interchangeable packages.

          • Holygigidy

            True. The F-35C will have a 615 mile combat radius (internal fuel), so that will be an improvement. Carrier based aviation is always going to be a jumble of compromises, but double that range via external fuel or mid air refueling isn’t a bad number.

          • TTotten

            Agreed, but it needs to be only the beginning. The Navy needs at least 1000nm to make the carrier more lethal. If they don’t, then it may be time to consider smaller carriers or none at all. Reliance on the shorter range tactical aircraft will not carry the day (IMHO.)

          • Holygigidy

            They can exceed 1000nm with external fuel tanks. Not sure why you would really need to go much farther and increasing the fuel loading further will only take away from other capabilities

            They already have smaller carriers. The F-35B will fly off assault ships which is why the STOVL requirement for the F-35B was so important. Replace the harrier, which has long since been obsolete and spread out our naval air capabilities at the same time.

          • Secundius

            @ Holygigidy.

            Just exactly is, “whose they”. If your referring to Gator-Freighter’s, they hardly qualify a Small Carriers. The “Harrier”, is hardly Obsolete. The US. Navy/Marine Corps gave the “Harrier” a Life Extension unit ~2025, so they must pretty “Highly” of the Aircraft…

          • Holygigidy

            Assault ships are the same size as any of the aircraft carriers operated by any country not named the United States.

            Yeah, they extended the Harrier to 2025 because they had no choice. That’s when the F-35B is expected to be combat ready and there is not other possible replacement.

            Seriously, the Harrier can’t even fly at supersonic speeds, and until recently had no night flying capabilities.

          • Secundius

            @ Holygigidy.

            Just because it looks like an Aircraft Carrier, doesn’t mean it is an Aircraft Carrier. It was designed to Deploy, Support and Protect the Marines fighting it the area, Not a Fleet Auxiliary Support Aircraft Carrier…

          • Holygigidy

            I understand what an Assault ship was designed for, and what the operational differences are. But, its still a ship that can launch fixed wing fighter jets. Its still an aircraft carrier, obviously. It has air power capabilities not unlike the “true” carriers operated by any one of our adversaries or allies. We just use them differently because they are smaller and we have much, much better ships to perform that role.

            The F-35B will transform the assault ship role and the bar for naval power in general. Its a game changer. The Harrier is too weak to do much more than support our ground troops when we already had air superiority. The F-35B changes all that and it makes the assault ship a true force multiplier in terms of air power, against well or poorly equipped adversaries alike. It diversifies and multiplies our true naval air power from 10 ships to 20. That’s HUGE, even if the 10 assault ships are not as effective in the role.

          • Secundius

            @ Holygigidy.

            If you want a Smaller Aircraft Carrier, Then Build One. Don’t take a ship that Design to do one thing, and turn it into something it was never meant to do. Just so you can supplement and existing Carrier Force Structure. What are the Marine’s suppose to do in the mean time, Learn how to SWIM.

            And your not bringing the Force Structure to 20 Carriers. Consider yourself lucky at 13, considering is your convert them into the Carrier role. Their Air Group will be about 20 aircraft’s apiece…

          • Holygigidy

            You don’t get it. Assault ships will do exactly what they always have been doing, only FAR more effectively than with just the Harriers. The mission of those F-35Bs will still be primarily to protect those ground troops. However, since assault ships can now field highly capable 5th generation fighters, they would also be very useful fighting against modern enemies as well. They could FAR more effectively support a carrier strike group if the occasion called for it. Sure, they can only field 20 F-35B’s versus 70 F-35C’s on a Nimitz, but that’s still a crazy amount of firepower. An assault ship like the Wasp, with 20 F-35B’s, would still be far more effective and capable in combat than any other carrier in service in the worl outside the US Navy. Remember, a single carrier strike group fields more air power than the entire air force of most countries.

            The USS Wasp, alone, with just F-35B’s, would have taken down the entire Iraqi air force in 2003 single handidly.

          • Secundius

            @ Holygigidy.

            The Peacetime Air Wing Complement for a Nimitz class Aircraft Carrier is ~80 Aircrafts, Wartime ~100 Aircrafts. Ford class Aircraft Carrier, Peacetime ~100 Aircrafts and Wartime ~130 Aircrafts…

          • Holygigidy

            They do not carry anywhere near that right now. My number of 70 combat fighters is probably being optimistic.Its 80 AIRCRAFT, not fighters, especially since they use many of them for tanker duty right now. Same standards apply to assault ships. Being 1/3 as capable as a full blown super carrier is sill better than any single carrier on the block to date

          • Secundius

            @Holygigidy.

            Where in my comment do I say All Fighters or Combat Aircraft, I said Complement of Aircrafts…

          • Holygigidy

            Fine, then use that same standard when talking about assault ships, which could have a compliment of 42 aircraft, (depending on loadout) not 20.

          • Secundius

            @ Holygigidy.

            You show where 42 aircrafts operated at one time on a Wasp or Tarawa class Gator-Freighers…

          • Holygigidy

            From Wikipedia:

            “For a full assault, the air group can be maxed out at 42 Sea Knights, while a Wasp operating in the sea control or ‘harrier carrier’ configuration carries 20 Harriers (though some ships of the class have operated as many as 24), supported by six Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk helicopters for anti-submarine warfare.”

          • Secundius

            @ Holygigidy.

            That wasn’t the Question? I already know what Wikipedia say’s. My Question was, at what time did they deploy and operate 42 aircraft’s AT THE SAME TIME…

          • Holygigidy

            When has a Nimitz ever operated 80 (100 during war time) aircraft at the same time? Being capable of carrying X number of aircraft does not mean you can actually field all of them simultaneously, that goes for any ship.

            I don’t understand what your point is.

          • Holygigidy

            The air group on a Wasp is up to 42 aircraft with up to 24 of those being Harriers.

          • Secundius

            In TOTAL, Sir. The ship can’t carry and/or operate that many aircraft’s in a single operation. At best 20 at any given time…
            In TOTAL, Sir. The ship can’t carry and/or operate that many aircraft’s in a single operation. At best 20 at any given time…

          • Secundius

            @ Holygigidy.

            In the Assault Configuration, the Wasp can operate 22 aircrafts safely. In the Sea Control Configuration, the Wasp can operate 26 aircrafts safely. AT NO TIME did the Wasp either Carry or Operate 42 aircrafts…

          • old guy

            Whereas the V-22 PAVO can fly at Hypersonic speeds and carry hundreds of passengers to orbit WOW, what a bird!
            What are you smoking, these days?

          • Secundius

            @ old guy.

            Yup, He’s a live one alright. Not much above the Collar Bone, though…

          • old guy

            How about Presidential helicopter, OOPS I forgot he turned it down. Smartest thing he’s done.

      • Secundius

        @ Holygigidy.

        Combat Radius, has nothing to do with range of a aircraft. Combat Radius, applies to Flying CAP (Combat Air Patrol’s) Missions. I don’t what the Formula is for 2015, but I remember it as. Maximum Range minus Reserve Range divided by Pi divided by 2 equals Combat Radius…

        • Holygigidy

          Combat Radius is the range an aircraft can take off, perform its mission, and return to its point of departure. Thats what both an F-18 or V-22 would be doing in the statement I gave

          The way I used it is accurate

        • old guy

          In t6he case of the PAVO, CAP should probably stand for “Civil Air Patrol.”

      • old guy

        you may have missed a key point. The V-22 would take almost 3X the time to get to a rendezvous near its combat radius and then require the fighter to descend to an inefficient altitude to refuel.

        • Holygigidy

          I’m sure they could figure out how to pressurize the V-22 so it can fly higher. Any possible alternative is going to be a prop plane and have this problem regardless, unless you really think using the F-18 for fuel delivery is a viable long term solution (its not).

          Either way, using the V-22 as a tanker doesn’t stop you from still using the F-18 to tanker if the situation calls for it, but aerial refueling should usually be planned well in advance.

          • old guy

            The V-22 PAVO is NOT pressurized, nor can it be due to its fuselage design. To make it a good airplane you would have to change the fuselage, the engine mounting and the rotors. Sort of like the farmer who had the same axe for 20 years, only changing the head twice and the handle 3 times.

  • old guy

    WOW, A $100,000,000.00 plus development cost, 2,000 gallon, low altitude, MACH .5 tanker versus an EXISTING $60,000,000.00, 1100 gallon MACH 1.2/1.8 low/high altitude tanker. TIME MARCHES ON. Oh, by the way when was ANY development or unit cost or performance goal of this turkey, ever achieved?

  • disqus_89uuCprLIv

    Smart move. Let the Marines pay for the R&D for the mod then adopt it when mature. Clever budget strategy.

  • Pingback: Atm Tactical. Cod. C857 | index - local atms guide()

  • Pingback: Atm Tactical. Cod. C857 | how-to bank atm guide()

  • Pingback: Atm Tactical. Cod. C857 | skimming - atmsecurity()

  • Pingback: Cns Atm Wiki | locator - atmlocator()

  • Pingback: Cns Atm Wiki | atm - theatmguide()

  • Pingback: Atm Tactical. Cod. C857 | fees - atmfees()

  • Pingback: Martin Dragonfly Jones Atm | direction - atmlocator()

  • Pingback: Atm Tactical. Cod. C857 | secure - portableatms()

  • Pingback: Atm Tactical. Cod. C857 | tricks -atmfees()

  • Pingback: Atm Tactical. Cod. C857 | franchise - atmbusiness()

  • Pingback: Atm Tactical. Cod. C857 | international - worldwide atms()