Home » Aviation » V-22 Experiment On Carrier Shows Increased Flexibility Over C-2 In COD Mission


V-22 Experiment On Carrier Shows Increased Flexibility Over C-2 In COD Mission

MV-22B landing on the deck of USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70). Gidget Fuentes Photo Used with Permission

MV-22B landing on the deck of USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70). Gidget Fuentes Photo Used with Permission

Using the MV-22 Osprey as the basis for the Navy’s new Carrier On-Board Delivery (COD) is poised to add significant operational flexibility and reduce flight deck manpower requirements, the Navy’s Air Boss said today.

Commander of Naval Air Forces Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker said a recent Fleet Battle Experiment to begin integrating the V-22 tiltrotor into fixed wing cyclic operations on an aircraft carrier went very well.

In January 2015 the Navy chose to replace its decades-old C-2 Greyhound with a version of the Osprey dubbed the CMV-22B – which will be the Marine Corps’ Osprey, plus an extended range fuel tank, long-range communications and a public address system for passengers in the back. The decision raised several concerns about the cargo-carrying capacity of the Osprey, the range and altitude at which the tiltrotor could fly, and how a vertical-landing aircraft replacing a fixed-wing plane would affect flight deck operations.

Shoemaker, speaking at an event cohosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the U.S. Naval Institute, said there is no reason for concern.

By the end of the experiment, the crew of USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) had figured out how to land and unload the Osprey in about 20 minutes for passenger delivery missions and about 30 minutes for cargo delivery missions. That fits within the flight deck’s natural cycle, in which the plane might launch a number of aircraft at once, and recover a number of aircraft perhaps an hour or more later.

More than just being able to land and unload the cargo quickly, Shoemaker said using the V-22 instead of the C-2 greatly reduced the manpower burden on the ship. Because the Osprey lands and takes off like a helicopter instead of requiring the steam catapult launcher and the arrested landing gear like a fixed-wing plane, “it takes about six folks to launch and recover an Osprey. It would take about 40 or so to man up the ship to bring in the (current) COD. So that’s some unique operating benefits that I think come with the Osprey.”

Additionally, the Osprey can land on the aircraft carrier at night whereas the C-2 does not perform nighttime carrier landings. So the V-22 could land day or night, and even on days when the rest of the airwing is not flying and therefore the catapult and arresting gear isn’t running.

Shoemaker acknowledged that the inside of the V-22 is slightly smaller than the C-2, meaning the plane can deliver a bit less cargo or a couple fewer people, “but I think the way you do the reconfiguring of seats inside the Osprey gives you some opportunity to do passenger/cargo mix and quickly reconfigure in a way we didn’t have with the C-2.

“I think when we put in the extended range package that will be part of the CMV-22, it will be at C-2 range, comparable to that or even actually beyond, around 1,100-plus miles for legs,” the Air Boss added.

In total, “although we gave up a little bit in people and cargo, I think the flexibility the Osprey brings will be good,” he said.

  • Ed L

    Wait a minute, we use to watch the COD’s land at dusk and sometimes at night.

    • Kevin Carter

      The C-2 does not land at night because the amount of resources to sustain that are disproportionate to the benefit. An Osprey requires far less in maintaining nighttime currency compared to tailhook aircraft.

      • disqus_zommBwspv9

        Guess things have change since the Indian Ocean in 80 and 81. I saw one land at night around 0500. dawn was almost and hour away. We usually refuel the Carriers at night, except once we did cargo transfer (sending F-14 engines over) during the day. If I think about it, I can hear the protesting of the RAM system. When that Engine was half way over. They sure took up a lot of deck space in the Cargo area. too big for our cargo elevators on the Seattle.

      • Guest

        That doesn’t stop any of the other tailhook aircraft from landing at night – which in turn means all those other resources are manned up at night anyway.

        • Kevin Carter

          I’m not referring to the ship’s resources, but rather the maintenance on the beach as well as the hours of flight time necessary to maintain night currency. The juice wasn’t worth the squeeze, so they stopped doing it.

  • John B. Morgen

    However, it is another way to keep the V-22 production line open, nevertheless the CMV-22B is the better aircraft than the C-2 overall. If the cargo space of the said aircraft is smaller than the C-2, then Navy could have an enlarge version of the CMV-22B be built for naval service. The V-22 class type aircraft are the future for naval aviation.

    • Secundius

      There’s a “C” Variant in the Works, with Wider Fuselage. First Test Flight scheduled in 2019. and “Expect” (?) to be Operational sometime around Mid 2030’s. “C” variant, has Stronger Airframe for Possible “Gunship” Application…

      • Marauder 2048

        Source??!!!

        • Secundius

          Boeing Aircraft Company and Fighter Control – UK…

      • John B. Morgen

        This V-22C variant better be wide enough to hold the MXU-470A gun modules, M61A1 20mm guns, M2A1 40mm gun and also the 105 mm gun, or similar gun armaments on board the AC-130H gunships. A larger V-22 Osprey would be great, especially, it would have a much greater operational flying range than the smaller version.

        • Secundius

          Nothing is mentioned about Possible Weapon Systems. But Thinking More in the Line of a LaWS Pulse Fiber-Laser in the 150-Kilowatt Range. Because if its Mid-2030’s “Possible” Operational Status…

          • John B. Morgen

            The Mid-2030’s is a bit far off because and maybe the V-22 would be obsolete by then.

          • Secundius

            I Know! May not EVEN have Turboprops, but Turbojets by then…

          • John B. Morgen

            Yes—turbojets…..

          • Secundius

            There’s this website called DeviantART, where Conceptual Artists, Put Their Fantasies to Print. And Some Almost Look Real, Like in Photograph Form. There’s this “Tricked Out” MH-60 Helicopter with Wings anf Swivel-Mounted Turbojets at the End of the Wingtip. And Looking At It, You’ll Swear IT’S ACTUALLY REAL…

          • Donald Carey

            I am familiar with deviantArt – I post images there myself (screenshots from video games and photos). My user name there is 62Guy. There are some VERY talented artists there.

          • Secundius

            A Couple of Years Age, there’s this Website called TFB (The Firearms Blog). They Show a Picture of a Glock G-21 .45ACP Revolver, Which EVERYBODY “Wanted” and “Had To Have” including the Editor and Moderator of the Website. One Problem? “IT DIDN’T EXIST”! Somebody “Clip and Paste” the Picture from “deviantART” and Passed It Off As An Actual Existing Product…

          • Donald Carey

            Yup – other sites have been used for similar pranks, too.

          • John B. Morgen

            Have you seen the movie Avatar, if you had then there’s some futuristic V-22 type aircraft. There’s two conceptual artists that I know: one is named Syd Mead; and second one is named John Berkey. Both are outstanding artists.

          • Secundius

            Yes I Have,! Avatar II is in the Production Works too. DARPA took Great Interest in Some of the Designs and are Interested Enough to Try to Make Them a Workable Reality. Including “Marvel Comics” The Avengers “Helicarrier” by Tony Stark Industries (aka Ironman, Including a Working Ironman Exoskeleton Power Suit)…

          • John B. Morgen

            I thought the Avengers’ [helicarrier] was a bit extreme for the time period. However, it would do well for Star Trek, but as a carrier starship.

          • Secundius

            Yeah, Well? First WE (The “Human Race”) Have to Do is to Either Create Warp Drive Technology or the Space “Jump Drive”. Or Like “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy”, the “Infinite Improbability Drive” Engine…

          • John B. Morgen

            Star Trek makes good science fiction for a better world….

          • Secundius

            I Remember Watching “2001” A Space Odyssey” back in 1969, just after the Apollo 11 Moon Landing. And Saying to Myself, Great after 2001 “I’ll Be Living On the Moon”! It’s 2016, and the ONLY thing We (the Human Race) Have to Show For It, IS a NON-Rotating Space Station In Orbit with ONLY 3 People Aboard, NO Lunar Bases, Colonies, NO Mars Bases, NO Long-Ranged Ships of ANY KIND…

          • John B. Morgen

            I’d remembered watching the movie 2001 when it first came out, but we’d are so far behind from space development. I don’t think Congress nor the White House are really interested in space travel, and yes we have sent drone survey spaceships, but that is it. I don’t think Man is going anywhere into space. We have a better chance building more nonsense LCSs than landing on Mars.

          • Secundius

            I Tend to Agree. Congress, Is more of “What In It For Me NOW Attitude”, then “What Good for the People In the Long Term Attitude”…

          • John B. Morgen

            Since you have worked for Janes’ Information Group, which means you have seen many new types of weapon systems than ever before since the end of the Vietnam War. Yet Congress is more interested in approving a procurement of a new panzer than giving NASA the proper but needed funding for the Mars Program. There’s something wrong with our political system, which both of us agreed on.

          • Secundius

            WAR is Good for Business and Early Profits, SPACE Isn’t. At Least NOT in the Short Term. How Long did it Take for 1960’s Space Program Technology, to Find It Way Into the Civilian Market. WD-40, Was Invented By Space Scientist FOR Space Scientist ONLY. Until Some Space Scientist STOLE a Can And Used it At Home. It was NEVER Intended to be a Commercially Available Product…

          • John B. Morgen

            Indeed! I remembered the WD-40 story; good stuff!

          • Secundius

            Just to Clarify, Saying I “Worked For” Jane’s Information Group IS “Stretching It A Little”. I had a Somewhat Long Association with Them Isn’t. But YES id get to See and Talk About “Widgets” In Realtime, As Opposed to USNI News. Where “YOU” the Reader Discuss Events That Took Place Months and/or Some Cases Years Ago…

          • John B. Morgen

            Thank you for clarifying that to me.

      • Kevin Carter

        The Navy is not getting any “C” variant. As stated in other articles, the CMV-22B differs from the MV-22B in extended range, beyond line-of-sight communications, and a public address system for passengers.

  • tiger

    The better argument should be now you have a COD that can land on Amphibs & smaller Allied ships like the Japanese Kaga & the Uk/french flattops. So flex and foreign useability.

    • Secundius

      When DID “Kaga” EVER become an Allied Ship? “Axis” Ship, but NEVER an “Allied” Ship…

      • tiger

        Not that Kaga, the new one! JDS Kaga (ddh-184) the Isumo class of the JMSDF.

    • Secundius

      According to Reuters, Japan has Agreed to Buy 40 MV-22B Ospreys. 20 from Boeing (Boeing Confirms Sale) and the Rest to be Assembled in Japan, Probably by Mitsubishi which Also has Licencing Rights to Produce the F/A-35A’s…

      • tiger

        bingo! Finally, let the sales begin. Good news for the folks in Ridley Park, home of Boeing helicopter down the road. The Royal Navy might be next.

        • Secundius

          British, are More Interested in Buying Remaining Grumman C-2A Greyhound’s and Converting the into Gunships. TRW or Fairfax, VA. is Evaluating the MV-22B as a Possible Sale for the British Government. If “Evaluation”, shows to be Fruitful, a Possible Order for 27 Airframes is Likely. But Possible Building Vendor is the “BIG” Question? Either Boeing or Augusta-Westland…

      • Kevin Carter

        Is there a news article for that? It’s the first time I’ve heard of a number other than 4.

        • Secundius

          Considering I Mentioned the News Source of “Reuters”! Try Looking It Up Under That News Source…

          • Kevin Carter

            I did look that up… couldn’t find anything other than some 2014 articles that said Japan was possibly interested in up to 40 according to “inside sources.” That’s why I’m asking for a link on anything official.

          • Secundius

            I found YOUR’S without ANY Problems! The FOUR Reference was to 4 MV-22B’s used in the Japanese Earthquake Search and Rescue Incident. TRY HARDER…

          • Kevin Carter

            No thanks… I prefer to keep conversation with the professionals.

          • Secundius

            Or were you talking about the Initial Contract of 4 Airframes by the DoD in 20 July 2016 or the Actual DoD Contract in 31 July 2016, Contract Number #N61340-12C-0033…

  • Leatherstocking

    I still haven’t seen the range/payload and volume tradeoff between the C-2 and the CMV-22B. I like the flexibility of landing on other decks but range/payload is critical especially as we need longer legs where we lack shore facilities.

    • Secundius

      That is the $64,000 Dollar Question? ANYTHING weighing More than 10,000-Pounds has to “Underslung” on the CMV-22B. And Even with THAT, the LIFT Range is Reduced to 110nmi. Maximum…

      • Leatherstocking

        Thanks. I hadn’t seen that looking through the articles and websites. Both variants are 27,442 lbs MTOW with the CMV-22B at 15,032 lbs (MV-22B is 14,463 lbs empty). Some sources had 9,072 Kg cargo (19,958 lbs) although useful load would appear to be 12,410 lbs max so perhaps they fill it with helium or tanker up to full fuel after rotation from vertical to horizontal flight (there’s a 31,700 max weight in some sources which indicates you leave 4000 lbs of fuel on the ground until after take-off). In any case, 1150 mile mission range appears questionable. Upgrading the C-2 to the same RR engines on the E-2D would increase range to 1,400+ nm with a 10,000 lb load.

        • Secundius

          I Don’t Think the Engine Nacelles of the CMV-22B’s Make Full Auto Rotation while in Flight with “Underslug” Payloads. I’d Be Surprised, if they Actually Rotate Beyond 60(deg) of Vertical While In Flight…

  • vetww2

    After 25 years of fighting this EXPENSIVE HUNK-A-JUNK, I give up. If the Navy and M.C. want to waste their dwindling dollars on this over priced, underperforming idiocy, there is no stopping them. I am amused when they report speed and range of the empty craft and I(MPLY that the data is for a 15,000 pound load, which, at best must be slung externally. Next, they will claim it is a 44 passenger craft. I guess you can carry the other 21 passengers in swings underneath. BUT WAIT. The QUAD LIFTER is coming.

    • Secundius

      Look How Long it took the to Get Two Rotating Engine Nacelles too Work. It Looks Good in “Virtual Reality”. But Unfortunately, NO WAR I’ve Ever Heard of was Fought in Virtual Outside of a Game Box Program…

  • Secundius

    HMS Illustrious got Sold for Scrap…