Home » Aviation » Navy Buys First V-22 CODs as Part of $4.2B Award to Bell-Boeing


Navy Buys First V-22 CODs as Part of $4.2B Award to Bell-Boeing

Artist’s concept of CVM-22s in flight. Bell-Boeing Image

Due to incorrect information in a press release, this post has been updated to reflect the correct number of Marine Corps V-22B Osprey aircraft that was awarded in a June 29 contract modification to Bell-Boeing. The Marine Corps will be getting 14 MV-22B aircraft instead of 34 and a total of 58 Ospreys are included in the contract modification. 

The U.S. Navy bought its first CMV-22 Ospreys for use as carrier onboard delivery aircraft as part of a $4.2 billion contract modification announced by the Pentagon last week.

Under the terms of the modification, Bell-Boeing will build and deliver the first 39 CMV-22B Osprey tiltrotor aircraft for the Navy; 14 MV-22B aircraft for the Marine Corps; one CV-22B for the Air Force; and four MV-22B aircraft for the government of Japan, according to the announcement.

For the Navy, these are the first Osprey’s purchased specifically to replace its fleet of 27C-2A Greyhound turbo-prop aircraft. Since the 1960s, the C-2s have served as the Navy’s COD vehicle. The Navy first announced plans to consider the Osprey as a Greyhound replacement in 2015.

The current modification follows a 2016 $151 million contract awarded to Bell-Boeing to complete the engineering work needed to adapt the V-22 to operate as the COD. Those modifications included an extended-range fuel tank and a high-frequency beyond-line-of-sight radio.

The Navy anticipates the Osprey COD program achieving initial operating capability in 2021, and fielding them to the fleet by the mid-2020s. In less than a decade, supplies, mail, aircraft engines and visitors will no longer experience the explosive sensation of being on a roller coaster in reverse as the Greyhound’s tailhook catches an arresting wire. Instead, the relatively delicate landing of an Osprey tiltrotor aircraft touching down on a pitching flight deck will become the norm. Introduction of the Osprey will also change how the carrier strike group uses the COD.

“With the incorporation of the V-22, I think the fleet will also see additional capabilities from the entire group at-large, because we now have the option of taking cargo and personnel to some of the smaller decks without first having to come to the aircraft carrier,” Marine Corps Lt. Col. Brett Hart, then-Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron (VMX) 1 executive officer, said in 2016 Navy. “With that considered, the carrier can expect to have potentially more flight deck and airspace freed up, allowing it to launch more sorties in support of combat operations.”

The following is the full text of the corrected Department of Defense contract announcement:

Bell Boeing JPO, Amarillo, Texas, is awarded $4,191,533,822 for modification P00008 to convert the previously awarded V-22 tiltrotor aircraft advance acquisition contract (N00019-17-C-0015) to a fixed-price-incentive-fee multiyear contract. This contract provides for the manufacture and delivery of 39 CMV-22B aircraft for the Navy; 14 MV-22B aircraft for the Marine Corps; 1 CV-22B for the Air Force; and 4 MV-22B aircraft for the government of Japan. Work will be performed in: Fort Worth, Texas (30.08 percent); Ridley Park, Pennsylvania (15.22 percent); Amarillo, Texas (12.73 percent); Red Oak, Texas (3.33 percent); East Aurora, New York (2.55 percent); Park City, Utah (2.20 percent); McKinney, Texas (1.33 percent); Endicott, New York (1.15 percent); Denton, Texas (0.91 percent); Rockmart, Georgia (0.80 percent); Irvine, California (0.78 percent); Rome, New York (0.76 percent); Crestview, Florida (0.72 percent); Erie, Pennsylvania (0.66 percent); Dublin, California (0.62 percent); Rockford, Illinois (0.62 percent); Tempe, Arizona (0.57 percent); Los Angeles, California (0.57 percent); East Hartford, Connecticut (0.55 percent); Minden, Nebraska (0.50 percent); Hazelwood, Missouri (0.50 percent); and various other locations within the continental U.S. (18.93 percent); and outside the continental U.S. (3.92 percent), and is expected to be completed in November 2024. Fiscal 2017 aircraft procurement (Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps); and fiscal 2018 aircraft procurement (Navy) funding in the amount of $1,113,956,972 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This modification combines purchases for the Navy ($2,847,293,666; 67.9 percent); Marine Corps ($1,038,248,567; 24.8 percent); Air Force ($75,705,989; 1.8 percent); and the government of Japan ($230,285,600; 5.5 percent), under the Foreign Military Sales program. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

  • DaSaint

    IOC 2021, and fielding to the fleet mid-2020’s. Approx. 10 years from decision to deployment. Wish that timeline were a bit shorter, especially considering it’s a mature platform, but it’s getting done. Interesting designation CMV. Thought they had mentioned HV-22 back in 2015.

    • old guy

      Junk is junk. If it was a good vehicle, a new model would take a couple of years to field. It has, already been in the works for 3 years, Why 2 or three more?

      • Duane

        It will take just a couple years to field (IOC in 2021).

        Your supposedly non junk compound helo won’t be IOC under FVL until 2032 at the earliest, if ever.

        The Navy clearly disbelieves your “junk” propaganda, as proven over the last decade that V-22 has been fully operational for the Marines and Navy (operating successfully from amphibs and big decks).

        • old guy

          nonsense, it’s been cooking since 2016. ‘Tomorrow and tomorrow creeps at it’s petty pace.’ Even Shakespeare could spot a phony.

  • old guy

    The V-22 is very expensive junk. The numbers quoted indicate a unit cost of 122,000,000 (correction, I was guessing at the usual 2X price increase , due to changes, We will see.) for a LESS capable, less available, high maintennance turkey. Gobble, gobble!! TECH guys Check out compound helo attributes and compare!

    • Al L.

      The numbers quoted come to about $56 million each. ($4.4 billion / 78 units) That would be quite a bargain.

      • airider

        Did the CMV-22 not have any development costs, or are they already paid for?

        • Al L.

          About $150 mill. Minor changes to the MV-22 design.

          • Duane

            Yup … added an aux fuel tank and a new comm radio … everything else is the same V-22 that has been successfully in service for a decade.

          • old guy

            Then why the 4 year lead time?

          • Al L.

            It was controlled mostly by anticipated C-2 retirement dates.

          • old guy

            That costs $150,000,000?

        • USNVO

          Yes and yes, See Para 4, $151 million in FY16.

          • airider

            Ah…thanks…just wondered where the development piece was.

      • old guy

        For a 23 passenger, questinable payload and range, poor availability hunk a junk? Ever hear of a compound helo? Half the initial cost, lower maintenance, more versatility, equal or better speed profile. The future, count on it.

        • Duane

          Compound helos of the weight class of Osprey are non-existent. Even if a compound helo is selected for FVL it won’t even be available til the 2030s at the earliest, while CMV-22 will be IOC in a little over 2 years, while 99% of that airframe has already been in operation for a decade with extreme success.

          Also, compound helos are still much slower than a tilt rotor, and no, compound helos are not cheaper than tilt rotors. If anything, once they actually exist (as of today there is no such US military compound helo) they are likely to be more expensive than tilt rotors.

          • old guy

            Total nonsense. I flew a Piasecki compound at 290 Kts, way back in the 90s. Estimated costs were 1/2 of V-22.. Duane check your data.

          • Duane

            You are not comparing apples to apples for a specific weight clasd.

            The Sikorsky compound helo mid weight FVL transport entrant (SB1) is spec’d at just 250 kt, while the competing Bell-Boeing v-280 is spec’d at 280 kts (Bell claims it will actually do 300 kts).

            Apple to apples.

    • Duane

      The Marines love their V-22s and have proven it is the opposite of junk.

      The CMV-22 carries double the cargo payload of the C-2, and can carry slinged oversized external cargo which the C-2 cannot do at all. The CMV-22 can land and take off from pretty much anywhere on land, while the C-2 must use an airport, and the CMV-22 can take off from and land on the smaller deck aviation amphibs, which again, the C-2 no can do. With the same speed and range as the C-2.

      Seems like a no brainer … far more capability and operational flexibility, for a similar unit cost.

      • airider

        CMV-22 is twice as expensive as C-2. While both can carry comparable loads, C-2 currently beats V-22 in range. Assuming that additional fuel tank for the V-22 makes up the range difference, the extra fuel weight means less cargo carried.

        While in-flight refueling could help with range, it’ll still have to give up cargo to hold extra gas, and the Navy’s current tanker situation is a joke.

        The only real advantage I see is the VSTOL capability which makes the “pocket carrier” amphibs more versatile

        • Duane

          Nope .. as Al I replied to old guy, the contract unit cost for CMV-22 here is $56M, and while no C-2s have been built for many years, the inflation adjusted cost of the last C-2 units delivered is well over $40M. The difference in capability and operational flexibility of the CMV-22 vs. C-2 is huge, while the cost differential is minor.

          The net result of adding the aux fuel tank will still be a huge cargo capacity advantage for the CMV-22 over the C-2 (perhaps “only” an 80% advantage rather than a 100% advantage). The CMV will still be able to externally sling oversize cargo up to 15,000 pounds, while the C-2 will still be unable to carry any external loads, meaning nothing that doesn’t fit thru the door or in the fuselage of a C-2 can be carried at all.

          The CMV-22 can still land and take off from any open space on land no bigger than a softball field, while a C-2 still requires long intact runways – a huge factor in wartime use when airports are primary targets of the enemy. And the CMV-22 can still land and take off from an amphib or expeditionary air base or possibly even an LCS flight deck, while a C-2 is strictly limited to big decks and cats and traps …. yet another humongous advantage for CMV-22.

          • tiger

            Bingo. It can land on something other than a CVN. Everything else the moan and whine crowd throws, pales in comparison to this.

          • Duane

            Old guys … and face it, the vast majority of USNI commenters are old guys … generally hate change, and so there is an entirely expected knee jerk negative reaction to any and every new or radically different aircraft, ship, missile, etc. etc. coming from the old guy crowd here. We’ve seen it over and over again, on OHP v LCS; Ford CVN v. Nimitz, along with EMALS v. steam catapult; F-14 Tomcat v. F/A 18 and F-35. Etc. etc.

            Same thing with the sailors. Along with garden variety misogynism and other varieties of bigotry, the old guys claim that back in their days, the sailors were real men, all of them just like John Wayne, whereas nowadays the sailors are all politically correct snowflakes who would melt down in the face of real rules and real warfare. I remember 40 some years ago hearing most of those same bitches about us young guys from the old guys then who now are mostly dead and gone. Some things never change. It was bullsh*t then and it is still bullsh*t today.

            blah blah blah

            …new/different is bad, old/familiar was better.

            blah blah blah

        • old guy

          Good analysis. V22 has been a disaster from the start. When I was in, Gens. Krulak and Jones, Navair and I tried, in vain, to kill it, but a big campaign $$$$ Congress shoved it down our throats.
          Do you carry your groceries home with the bags at the end of your outstretched arms?
          Do you like a loooong 5 piece cross shaft.
          Are you in love with high tip speed rotors? On and on.

          • Duane

            The Osprey is a longtime proven success … and you are long gone.

            Facts speak far more loudly than propaganda.

          • BBCods

            H-53’s are the current external lifters for the fleet, although SH60s do the vertrep, and if close to shore, the external load capability. In my 30 years as a C-2 pilot and Air Boss on a Carrier I can count 0 times where an external load had to come from shore. Not to say it doen’t happen but certainly the world didn’t end because the C2 couldn’t carry it.
            The MV-22 is a fair weather aircraft. Below 10k feet (no pressurization), and limited range while fully loaded (read the fine print on capabilities), is going put the crew right in the heart of weather. Some poor V-22 pilot will be pressured by a SAG Commander to get that DV out here (or CASREP), and will die trying while flying through icing.

          • Duane

            The V-22 is all weather – where on earth did you ever come up with that doozy? Sheesh!

            The service ceiling for the V-22 is 25,000 ft. For high altitude flights supplemental oxygen is used.

          • Duane

            But the H-53s don’t have anywhere near the range to satisfy COD. And they are more expensive to buy and fly than an Osprey.

          • airider

            What facts?

          • Duane

            The ones I cited that apparently went right over your head. Like a decade of extremely successful service for the Marines and from Navy vessels. And its performance specs. Again …. right over your head, zing!!!!

          • airider

            Zing….really? You know Duane, every time I think about engaging in any discussion which you are a part of, I have to keep reminding myself that apparently you’re the only one who has all the facts…and everyone else should just keep out. Although then the only one you’d be talking to was yourself…which would be appropriate.

          • Duane

            That is because you arm yourself mainly with hearsay, myth, and not very thoughtful analysis.

          • old guy

            Bum argument. I thought better of you. If you can get the analyses we put out in 1992 you would see how wrong you are.

          • Duane

            Somhow actual performance over a decade of post-IOC operations gets trumped by a 26 year old analysis of a design that evolved a great deal over the succeeding 16 years.

          • tiger

            Nice flame.

          • airider

            The Osprey has become a success after quite a few teething problems and Marine deaths. The biggest operator of vertical take off aircraft, the Army, doesn’t have the V-22 in the plans. They want something better. How about a little reality check on the fanboy side.

          • Duane

            The Army is evaluating tilt rotors now for FVL. The Bell tilt rotor seems to be the better, more advanced competitor than the Boeing/Sikorsky SB1 compound rotor for the mid lift H-60 replacement, which cannot even get off the ground. The V-280 has been flying for 7 months and reportedly was very impressive in maneuverability testing last month. The V280 has a different tilt rotor design than the V22, and has about half the rotor disk loading which greatly improves maneuverability.

          • tiger

            You must be the AOL fan still keeping them in business?

        • Rocco

          Agreed kudo’s!

        • USNVO

          Not exactly.

          The CMV-22 is no where near twice as expensive as a new build C-2A. It will probably be more expensive, but no where near twice as expensive.

          The MV-22 has slightly less range, but the CMV-22 will have equivalent range. In fact, using a rolling take-off, CMV-22 can carry a significantly heavier load than a C-2 just as far, not to mention in air refueling. And over a shorter distance, the payload advantage favors the CMV-22 even more.

          As for other advantages, just off the top of my head.
          – CMV-22 can take advantage of any MV-22/CV-22 upgrades. Way more of those as opposed to E-2Ds in service. Someone else will pay the development cost.
          – CMV-22 can be used to support humanitarian work since it can land vertically. C-2, not so much.
          – CMV-22 can utilize the MV-22 palletized in flight refueling system. Not that they normally will, but the could.
          – With a sling, a CVN based CMV-22 could perform rescues or medi-vacs at over 500nm from the CVN.
          – CMV-22s can skip the carrier and deliver straight to all other ships, not just LHA/LHD. Not a huge advantage in the minds of the aviation community but anyone who has waited a week for a part to find it’s way from the carrier will be happy. And, when the CVN is inport, other ships can still have stuff delivered.

          • Rocco

            Agreed…. Back in my day the COD would land during an unrep & it wouldn’t be a problem for a helo to haul supplies or mail to a Escort in the other side of the supply ship!!

          • tiger

            There is no “really” good argument for the C2. It has had it’s day.

          • USNVO

            Well, there are a couple. I don’t see them overcoming the benefits of a V-22 based force, but they exist.

            – It doesn’t require any new organizations. There are existing squadrons, RAG, schools, etc. That is worth something and change is hard. Significantly less churn with just following the same path.

            – It increases the personnel pool of E-2 guys making that program more efficient.

            – It should be somewhat cheaper in what is, after all, an economy of force mission. It won’t do as much but it will be slightly cheaper.

            – I think the biggest one in many aviators minds is that a C-2B would remain a “Tailhook” aircraft. They would still be special, but that is just the cynic in me.

          • Duane

            We already know the price of the CMV-22 ….the Navy just signed the contract. $56M a unit. We also know the price of the old C-2 adjustef for inflation exceeds $40M in 2016 dollars. Add another $10M for inflation to the mid-2020s when most of the CMV-22s will be delivered under this contract. The cost differential is nil.

          • USNVO

            You are correct we know the price but wrong that it is $56 million a piece. First, the initial story was in error and corrected to be 39 Navy, 14 USMC, 1 USAF, and 4 JMSDF. So from $4.2B for 58 aircraft we can see they are somewhere near $72.4m each. But, the Navy (blue) portion of the budget is right at $2.85B making for a final budget of $73million per CMV-22, which is right in line with previous costs estimates and since it includes the development funds, makes sense.

          • Al L.

            I would argue that a new C-2 would almost certainly be more than the CMV-22.

            The Navy would have to adapt the current E-2D into a new C-2. That would require an SDD contract as the C-2 has a different fuselage, flight characteristics and demands
            -The Navy developed the CH-53K from the CH-53E.

            Per DID:
            “April 5/06: SDD contract. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. in Stratford, CT receives a $3.04 billion modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-06-C-0081) for the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) of the CH-53K aircraft, to include 4 SDD aircraft, 1 ground test vehicle, and associated program management and test support.”

            The Navy would have to do a similar SDD phase for a new C-2. $3.04 billion divided by 44 ac = $69 million/ac. We can assume it would cost somewhat less for fixed wing a/c vs a rotary wing ac. $50 million is not out of the question. Note the Ch-53 contract was 12 years ago, costs have only gone up since.

            – The Navy is building the E-2d and we know the costs of building that aircraft without its substantial avionics systems:

            Per forcast international:

            “Price/Unit Cost: The unit cost of the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye is $173.60 million (flyaway cost in FY 2015) of which the airframe and two Rolls-Royce T56 engines make up a total of $89.47 million. The cost of the avionics package amounts to $63.92 million with other costs making up the remaining $20.21 million.”

            Again with emphasis: “the airframe and two Rolls-Royce T56 engines make up a total of $89.47 million.” Thats flyaway cost. It includes no development. So the risk based on current experience is that a new limited production run of 44 C-2s will cost near 3 billion to get to production including 5 test aircraft (same # Ch-53k and E-2d required) and then around 89 million each to build. For a total of possibly up to $158 million each. They wont cost less than $93 million each no matter what in 2018 since thats what an E-2d airframe costs.

            Low production military A/C which gain no leverage from civilian systems, are built only for the military and have little promise of extended sales or other use are extremely expensive. Eye wateringly expensive, no matter how mundane their role is.

          • USNVO

            The plan for the C-2(B?) was to replace the avionics, wings and center box from the E-2D on the existing C-2A fuselage. I doubt it would be as expensive to develop as the CH-53K since that involved an entirely new composite airframe, new engines, new rotor, new gearbox, new avionics, etc. In fact, the CH-53K it is entirely new but they kept the designation so it was an “upgrade”, kind of like the F-18E. But that all assumes they don’t find bad things when they tear the C-2As apart, the F-18A-D center barrel replacement should serve as a cautionary note for that.

            Having said that, it will still be expensive but, being a fixed wing design, it is also somewhat more efficient in flight than a tiltrotor and has somewhat lower operating costs. I would guess the total costs would be close but slightly more for the CMV-22, especially when you add in the higher costs for the E-2D (the higher costs for a the V-22 under the C-2B route, which already has a large operating base, is probably less).

            Either way, there are compelling reasons to buy the CMV-22 even if they are more expensive. I can envision the Navy buying 30 or so additional ones to keep 2 or 3 permanently on the carrier. They provide a unique long range vertical capability that would be extremely valuable (albeit in limited roles) and would now be more affordable since they are already doing the COD mission.

        • old guy

          Right on. Don’t forget , the V22 can only refuel in the helo mode requiring a SLOOOOW tanker

          • SolarWarden

            Lol. MV-22B’s midair refuel with KC-10’s all the time. You really are old all it would have taken was a little research and you’d know this info. Now go to YouTube and search KC-10 refuels MV-22.

          • USNVO

            One of the stated advantages of the KC-46 was it could refuel the CV-22 while the KC-45 couldn’t.

          • Al L.

            Video of V-22 refueling in airplane mode is all over the internet for years.

        • tiger

          Your end comment sticks a fork in the C-2. The ability to operate from non CVN’s.

          • airider

            This isn’t a black and white discussion, at least not from me. I saw from the moment the V-22 was being considered that leveraging the big decks across the fleet was part of the decision for COD. My biggest concern was that NAVAIR went for another round of acquisition that gave up performance in order to be more multi-role. NAVAIR track record on the Carrier for the past several decades has been poor in this regard. Exhibit A, Hornets acting as tankers. Also concerned that NAVAIR is putting too much high tech in what they are calling a tanker asset.

            Tanking needs to be fixed yesterday, and the UAV tech they’re considering isn’t gonna solve the problem as immediately as it’s needed.

          • Duane

            Carrier based tanking is problematic no matter what NAVAIR does due to physics. A decent sized tanker like a KC46 simply can’t operate from a carrier.

            The Navy is settling again for another make do solution with the MQ25, which like all prior carrier based tankers, can only dispense a few thousand pounds of fuel to one or two attack aircraft per tanking sortie.

            The Navy should just bite the bullet and go to land based tankers, and buy themselves a couple dozen KC46s. We have dozens of friendly allied air bases in all theaters of operation that could easily support tankers that can top off entire squadrons of carrier based attack aircraft on a tanking sortie, far more efficiently than the tiny little carrier based tankers can ever do.

      • old guy

        With an external load, the turkey makes an astonishig 85 knots, WOW! Duane, you are a good analyst. Look into the costs and performance of a full compound helo and join us naysayers. I have no bias or hidden motives, only knowledge, at 91, I am apalled at the number of bad decision that the Navy has made lately (V-22, LCS, DD1000, Amphib that can’t handle LCAC, No size increase in LCAC follow-on) OUCH

        • Duane

          85 knots isnot the limit. The limiting speed for external loads on CMV-22 is 130 knots, same as the CH53 and CH47. And that is vastly faster than no knots, because the C-2 can’t sling anything at all. And that is much faster than any transport auxuliary ship can take a package to the fleet.

          When your carrier or other CSG escort needs an oversize part transported over many hundreds of miles of open ocean, no other aircraft is capable of that mission at all. Not the C-2, and not any helo in existence.

          Even if a compound helo of that weight class existed (it does not) and could carry 15,000 pounds on a sling, it would still be slower than a tilt rotor, just as all compund helos are slower than all equivalent weight class tilt rotors. The Bell replacement for the H-60 class helo is 30-50 knots faster than the competing compound design … that is, if that design were actually flying yet, which it is not.

          • Rocco

            Not any Helo in existence!!! Really Duane!! Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes because your pretty pathetic!

          • Duane

            There is no US military helo with a compound rotor that is anywhere near equal to the lift of a V-22 that is in existence. There is not even a design for such an aircraft in existence and likely won’t be for another decade. The old fart keeps referring to a foreign design that is still not the equal of a V-22 …. and the US military will NOT be buying any foreign helos or any existing designs. That is reality. The old fart and you are living in a dream world that does not actually exist.

          • old guy

            CH-53. SAME SPEED WITH EXTERNAL LOAD.

          • Duane

            No … the CH-53 is limited to a max of 130 knots with an external slung load …. the same as CMV-22. Of course, the CH-53 can only cruise at 150 knots max even without a slung load, while a CMV-22 can cruise at 275 kt without a slung load.

        • publius_maximus_III

          That seems awfully slow to me. With an external load, are they unable to tilt the rotors fully forward, needing more vertical lift component from the rotors than can be provided by the wings at such speeds? If so, it seems the advantage of a tilt-rotor is less than a traditional helicopter with jet engines.

          • Duane

            old guy spouted untrue stuff.

            The CMV-22 is good for up to 130 knots for external slung loads, same as a CH53 or CH47, per the “DOD Multi-Service Rigging Manual for 2-Point Externally Slung Loads”. The speed limits for all aircraft vary between 80 and 130 knots, with the lower speeds for relatively light weights with large surface areas like prefab shelters or large radar antennas, all due to aerodynamics that equally affect all aircraft with slung loads.

            In any event old guy uses that as an argument that the ability to transport large external loads when needed doesn’t matter, when it clearly does matter. We are, after all discussing supply of large ships which in fact do have large parts (as do the aircraft deployed on a carrier) that occasionally need replacement at sea. The C-2 can’t do that at all, and no helicopter in the world has the required range even if it can sling an external load.

          • old guy

            LARGE??? Poo.

        • USNVO

          Well, with a external load a C-2A can’t fly at all.

          Since a full compound helicopter doesn’t exist and would have to be developed for a niche role, you might as well argue for a cargo airship.

          • old guy

            EXisting Helo designs could be adapted faster than the new turkey, most basic helos can be turned into a compound. For example Piasecki had a 330 Kt. Apache design, and 260 Kt CH-53

          • Duane

            You are not discussing actual US military aircraft, dude. The multi service FVL program is not even scheduled to produce its first aircraft, a mid weight H-60 replacement, until 2032 … and a heavier lift aircraft equivalent to a V-22 isn’t even on the schedule yet, so won’t be operational until at least the mid to late 2030s.

            Geesh! Give it up dude!

        • Rocco

          Lol

          • old guy

            I”m not holding my limited breath. I don’t even buy green bananas.

    • tiger

      Whine,whine, moan….

  • PolicyWonk

    I can see why the tilt-rotor option is attractive, and unfortunately it doesn’t surprise me. The old Greyhound unfortunately looks like its on the path to retirement, along with the S-3’s (a number of which had a lot of life left in them). The MIC can’t make money off of long-lasting/high-value airframes that are bought and paid for, and only bring in revenue for maintenance and upgrades.

    Look at all the places where work for the V-22 is parceled out: practically every state in the lower 48 gets a piece of the pie. This is reflective of what Eisenhower was warning about with the Military Industrial Complex, and why its so hard to kill even lousy DoD acquisition programs.

    The US should not allow any more than (for example) 40% of the US states to be involved in ANY defense program.

    This is part of the reason why I champion DoD acquisition reform. The system stinks, and its deliberately rigged against the US taxpayer, and therefore arguably against US national security.

  • Ed L

    This statement seems preplexing “With the incorporation of the V-22, I think the fleet will also see additional capabilities from the entire group at-large, because we now have the option of taking cargo and personnel to some of the smaller decks without first having to come to the aircraft carrier” Marine Corps Lt. Col. Brett Hart, then-Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron (VMX) 1 executive officer, said in 2016 Navy. “With that considered, the carrier can expect to have potentially more flight deck and airspace freed up, allowing it to launch more sorties in support of combat operations.”

    A Nimitz Aircraft Carrier has shown in the 1980’s the ability to handle up to and over 90 aircraft which include the F-14, A-6, A-7, F/A-18, S-3, E-2, the Greyhound etc. Also In the 80’s it was determine that with just F/A-18’s alone the number of Aircraft could be increase to 120. In the Gator Navy we used the Marines and Navy CH-53 for oversized loads. Most everything else with done with the CH-46 Seahawk Helicopter

    • Ser Arthur Dayne

      Ed I am wondering if it has to do with range? If I recall correctly, one of the HUGE selling points that the USMC made in promoting not just the capabilities but downright NEED for the Osprey was range, it was much, much greater than a CH-46 specifically … I know the CH-53 has a tremendous payload and I think a good range, not sure compared to the MV-22 though.

      • Ed L

        I was referring to the statement made by the Marine LTC. About making more room on a flight deck. On a flight deck of almost 5 acres which use to hold on average 80+ aircraft. And it appears now barely 60

        • Rocco

          Copy that!

      • old guy

        With an inexpensive update mod program it would beat in all but max speer, and with a compounding program it would confirm V-22s Hunk-A-Junk title.

      • Duane

        CH-53 is a heavy lift chopper, heavier than an Osprey. It has much shorter range and slower speeds, though, and all helos are inefficient flyers compared to fixed wing, or as compared to tilt rotors which operate mostly as fixed wing. The CH-53 is also a lot more expensive than the Osprey.

    • airider

      I concur about the LTC’s comment…a thing in the V-22’s favor is it could take advantage of the standard pallets that the bulk of the AMC is using across its fleet. C-2 design would have to be significantly modified for this.

      But, there are very few payloads for the fleet that actually require the standard pallet (large bulk items). I think the big thing here is a V-22 could hit the Carrier, drop off what was needed there, and then fly to other ships without having to remove the other cargo and rig it up for helicopters to bring over.

      This makes sense as long as the cargo removed for the Carrier doesn’t affect the other cargo still aboard, as well as the weight distribution within the V-22. If it does (most likely) then it will all have to be removed and repacked anyway negating the turnaround speed advantage. It would still only require one aircraft rather than the many it takes today.

      • PolicyWonk

        Indeed, the biggest advantage of the V-22 is its ability to land on small decks, such as a DDG or CG/Tico, etc. A C-2 can’t do that, and getting supplies from a CVN requires unloading and reloading to a chopper, which consumes time.

        It might not be as good an aircraft, but pragmatically speaking, it could very well prove useful.

        • Rocco

          Not in agreement a CH -53 or 46 can pick up heavy loads with a drop net much faster!! Even a sea king! Try standing underneath an osprey to attach the cable.

          • old guy

            Quit with your unseemly logic. It spoils the B.S. put out by the V-22 Hunk-A-Junkers!

        • Al L.

          A V-22 will never land on an existing DDG (except possibly a Zumwalt) or CG. It can land on all the amphibs and the replenishment fleet. So now instead of the task forces COD stock of goods all moving through the CVN during tactical launch/recovery cycles and then being distributed by helos, the haulage can be moved out of cycle to other ships and never need to move across the CVN deck. It could go from land to V22 to TAKE to DDG and never get within 200 miles of a CVN.

          The biggest advantage is that its not tied to the CAT/TRAP cycle, so COD can go on without impact to the tactical aircraft sortie rate as space/time is available.

      • Casey Cannon

        I honestly don’t know what you just said. By your reference to AMC I am assuming that you have confused USAF for USN. First, the COD only supplies the carrier. The reason for this is that both the COD and the carrier are owned by NAVAIR. That means the bird, the gas, the pilots, the cargo on board, and the deck it is landing on are all paid for from a different pot of money than the small decks – the PHIBS and CRUDES – which are owned by SURFNAV. The carrier is not a transshipment point for anything coming from or going to the small decks except passengers. Even if there was a mission critical part for a DDG flown out to a carrier, it would be the DDG’s helo going to get it. Now, when the carrier VERTREPs from an AKE or AOE it does so using its helicopters, specifically the -60 Sierras. At that point the replenishment ship is less than a mile away and the -60 is literally the best platform for the job because it is quick and agile while zipping between decks. When PHIBS (minus LHA/LHD) / CRUDES unrep they take fuel and stores simultaneously over the side, which is infinitely quicker (and cheaper) than having pallets flown back and forth, even if it can be done that way. And the replenishment ship picks up the stores for the PHIBS/CRUDES in the same place it gets its gas. They aren’t flown out. That would just be a waste of an aircraft. So, I’m sorry, but the V-22 COD will have absolutely zero impact for small decks, specifically CG/DDG. I don’t know what the Lt Col was thinking, but then again he probably has never set foot on either platform.

    • While it’s true a CVN’s flight and hangar decks can manage more than 60 aircraft, there comes a point of diminishing returns and more planes mean less capability. For starters anything over 90 is pointless because the ship can’t keep most of them aloft simultaneously. It’s a fuel management nightmare.

      In terms of deck management, more than 60-65 aboard impacts catapult availability. The boat is forced to park aircraft on the bow extension, shutting down cats 1 & 2 to free up the arresting zone. That means only port side cats 3 & 4 are used, but launches must trade off with traps in the same area.

      An air wing of 60-65 has the same sustained sortie rate as 70-80, and then it drops as the inventory increases. And to fit 120 planes, either the hangar deck is stuffed so tight a forklift can’t move or those are tiny A-4s and A-7s (both retired), or drones, and the only way to land a plane is if 20+ are in the air wondering if there will be space to land. More is not better.

      • Al L.

        Great explanation. Succinct.

    • Rocco

      Agreed!! You Forgot the Phantom!! F-4J & S!!

    • Jim Harvey

      The Sikorski CH-46 and HH-46 were called the “Sea Knight”. The SH-60 is the “Sea Hawk”. And let’s not forget that “Sub-dipping flying Winnebago”, the SH-3 “Sea King”.

      • Rocco

        Right on!

  • Ser Arthur Dayne

    Can I ask a question of the sailors (and Marines of course) on here that have experience on carriers? I read an article awhile back that seemed to suggest that the CODs (at least the C-2 Greyhounds) never actually “live” on the ship? In other words, they are “nominally” part of the Carrier Air Wing but they’re not actually ever stored on the ship? The article basically seemed to say they’re the delivery service to the carriers but then they go fly to a land base, hang out until they need to make another delivery (be it 12 hours later or 12 days later etc.) and then land and do it over again? The reason I ask is (well also, seems like it’s not *really* part of a carrier air wing if it’s not actually , you know, part of the carrier air wing) and also, I am wondering of the CMV-22s will live on the ship? I remember there was a lot of talk about the size of the Ospreys and especially in regards to our LHD/LHA/LPDs etc. Obviously the carriers have not got bigger hangars or flight decks, so wondering about space. Thanks much!

    • BBcods

      The Navy has gone back and forth on the COD “living on the Carrier”. Currenly both coasts conduct operations from the mail-head (shore) unless transiting. This is partly due to space considerations of 2 CODS on the deck at night or while not flying. Also C-2 pilots are not current for night traps (shipboard passenger operations are prohibited at night by NATOPS).
      I would anticipate that the current concept of operations is going to be the same for the CMV-22B.

      • Ser Arthur Dayne

        Thank you sir very much appreciated!

      • Rocco

        I could agree with you with carriers back when we had 15! & 10 different aircraft types! No reason why today that CODs can’t stay aboard ship especially with room to spare.

        • Sailor46 USN 65-95

          I served on five carriers and In an operational mode, there is never room to spare on a Carrier. I also served in VRC-50 72-75 the C2A is a big aircraft in terms of Carrier Ops, also the design of the wing fold system causes “space” problems when on board a carrier.

          • old guy

            Correct, As with the “no room” 18,000 ton Ohio subs, it was never set as a design goal. It results in non optimized spaces, many of which could be vastly improved.

      • Al L.

        “I would anticipate that the current concept of operations is going to be the same for the CMV-22B.”

        One of the advantages of the V-22 is it does not “trap” so Navy anticipates 24 hour COD availability – as long as there is a safe spot on deck it can come and go. Pilots will train night and day in the same way MV-22 pilots do.

        • old guy

          NEITHER DO C-53s

          • Al L.

            Even a CH-53K which costs more than a V-22 takes 50% more time to get anywhere at cruise speed. The older C-53s take longer and dont have the required range.

    • Rocco

      Yes there are 3 locations in the med that the COD with be forward deployed , Rota Spain , Siganella Sicily, & Naples Italy! Sometimes Crete depending where the Carrier group is deployed! However if the group is out of range an unrep ship brings us supplies mail & fuel all in one shot! In the event the COD is down not flyable.

  • b2

    This is more of the recurring tradeoffs and bad decisions foisted on the CSG by those who don’t understand bluewater naval aviation… The decision to go with V-22 as COD replacement was made during the Obama administration (2010) and was done mainly to keep the V-22 line open as a tradeoff. The V-22 was not selected because it was the best choice. Or because it even met the basic requirements for the COD mission (it didn’t on several categories), but that it was poitical acquisition. The USMC and the HASC chairman are the only ones to gain anything… Do some research…The other competitors for the COD mission a new Grumman C-2 and a KS-3 from LM never even saw a true competition and some exceeded the requirement the V-22 comes up short on… Nope, the US Navy just caved and selected Osprey for COD based on USMC and HASC pressure….No one in Congress even noticed…No McCain..no one…Ostriches all…..

    As a result of this, the CVN and airwings will be further dimished operationally during differnt times. Every small cut you know… Means that no F-35 engines delivered. No log capability beyond 6-800m (maybe less w/Osprey).. Of course the logistics posture of a CSG will not very good for a Blue water Navy war of course… Our capabilities diminish for expediency…..

    Of course Marines don’t understand true Navy Carrier power and they are over represented with all the 4 star and above leadership positions of our defense/military today… What do they know about strategic nucs?

    And here we go again…soon an award will be made for the MQ-25 program.. Another wrong move for all the right reasons, IMO this next blunder is associated with the V-22 decision and the continuing chain of bad decsions…

    • USNVO

      What mythical requirements are you talking about?

      Range meets specifications
      Payload meets specifications
      Number of Passengers meets specifications
      And yes, it can carry a F135, just in a special transport frame and not in a container which doesn’t really matter since there will be a container on the ship that will be empty anyway since the one pulled is flown back.
      It doesn’t even have to conform to the CVNs flight schedule.

      About the only thing it doesn’t do is land using a tailhook.

      • Rocco

        He’s a tool troll!!!

      • old guy

        What a perfect compact, baloney Statement.
        1, These specs were written to accept the V-22’s poor performance. It NEVER met any of the original specs (I was there). ACTUAL:variance to original reqmts
        1, 23 vs 31 passengers
        2, 15 kts low.
        3 Full operation capability on deck and in hangar.
        4. Single pilot operation (scrapped)

        • b2

          O.G. as are I,

          Also don’t forget range and that engine requirement dimished above…Look, my point is they selected V-22 for political expedience only…. I saw it in every decision and so could anyone who is capable of connecting dots… requirements morph into specs in todays world fer sure….

          Only the USMC/Bell-Boeing contingent joined at the hip and the HASC chairman can say for certain. “Rocco/Duane” are big proponents of V-22 and F-35 particularly the B model. They attempt to scorch the earth lol…They call us trolls…LOL.

          • USNVO

            First, the CMV-22 has a projected 1100nm range with payload and that was before using a rolling takeoff/landing or AAR.

            Second, can a F135 be transported in a C-2A? Nope, but it has been in a V-22, just not in it’s storage container (to be fair, they might be able to figure out of a similar system for the C-2A. Here is a question no one who ever screams F135 ever seems to answer? How many F414s require replacement each deployment.

            Sure, the decision for the CMV-22 is driven by some simple facts. It is in production, in service, and probably cheaper for the Navy than the alternatives (what you think think rebuilding a tired old aircraft with entirely new wings, engines, and avionics will be cheap?) to meet what is the definition of an economy of force mission.

          • b2

            An 1100 nm stunt maybe…not enough range for day to day ops….

            “Cheaper” is never my litmus for enabling combat capability of the US Navy embarked airwing. You prove my point with that statement. I will not take advice from any Marine/gator Navy/USAF type attempting to tell me what a CVN airwing needs… Nor a Business Development servant from the big three vendors… How do Duane and Rocco get to dwell in here and elsewhere in the DoD news domain “all f…ing day”? Who’s a troll?

            USNVO-The requirements of the CBAR of 2011 were dumbed down, and then followed up by a faulty CNA report so the V-22 could compete with a new C-2 and the LM KS-3 offerings. And then, suddenly, during the Obama administration, the V-22 was the best choice for a CVN cod? Nope. Pure political expediency in the selection. No competition was held- sole source award by the DoN….. Congress never said crap…Bottom line- 2-3 billion for the Bell Boeing company and plant of N. Texas…..Anyone faintly connected to Naval Aviation can connect those dots.

          • Al L.

            Lets get this straight: you are complaining that the Navy picked an existing ,operational, testable, producible, combat aircraft of known production and operational costs vs. an airplane that existed only on paper (KS-3) and Lockheed never turned into much more than a sales pitch, and another aircraft for which a production line has not existed for 3 decades and for which a line would have to be paid for to produce just 44 +- aircraft (New C-2x)

            ” suddenly, during the Obama administration, the V-22 was the best choice for a CVN cod?”

            There was no “suddenly”.
            The Navy first agreed to buy 48 V-22 2 decades ago.
            The USMC pushed the Navy to consider the V-22 along side its other COD options about 2011. The final decision in 2016 was based on experimental evidence using MV-22s to test how they could do the job vs the C-2 on actual ships in actual use starting in 2012. The conclusion was that the V-22 could do the mission just not the same way in the same cycle and with some distinct trade offs in advantages. The Navy prior to those experiments had no basis on which to judge requirements for a VTOL COD because for as long as it has had carriers it has only done fixed wing COD.

          • USNVO

            The specifications basically mirrored existing C-2A. Are you saying the C-2A is not good enough?

            The CMV-22B’s 1100nm is projected day to day, which is further than the current C-2A, especially with a full load. And that is before you use a rolling takeoff instead of a vertical takeoff which adds 8000lbs to the MTOW. Even the existing MV-22 will have a longer range in the COD role since the mission profile is significantly different.

            Admittedly, a C-2B? is projected at 1300nm with the new wing, engines and props, but it wouldn’t carry as much weight. And putting brand-new wings, engines, and avionics on a 30year old fuselage and certifying it to land on a carrier is not going to be cheap either.

            As to connecting the dots, well I have heard that argument before. Having two LCS designs is purely political. They basically said so at the time. But consider, a new C-2 program would have spent the same $2-3B in New York. Red State Texas which never voted for Obama vs. Blue State NY. I think you connected those dots out of order.

          • old guy

            Baloney. The only data I can find was the F-35 FUSELAGE carried as a sling load. If you have the access, go look at a V-22 and tell me how to get a complete F-35 inside. I would welcome anyone who has been in a V-33 to comment on this. Thanks

          • Al L.

            He said “F135” The F135 is the engine of the F-35. The largest aircraft engine for current carrier aircraft.

          • USNVO

            Reading comprehension, try it some time. F135 not F-35. One is the engine on a F-35, one is the aircraft itself. Makes a bit of a difference.

            Here try this, Google “F135 engine on the V-22 Osprey” (since a link can take you anywhere). The first result links you to an AvWeek article that explains it. There are numerous others including discussions of the USMC doing it for real on a LHD. Admittedly, it is only the power section, but that was the biggest section (it doesn’t arrive in just one shipping/storage container) so if that one works, they all work. And yes, the version on the F-35B is just like the one on the F-35A and F-35C and comes in the exactly the same container.

          • Duane

            bs on your political argument. Politics never favored V-22. There was no politics involved … just the FACT that the V-22 delivers more cargo and far larger cargo for flexibly than can any fixed wing, and for far greater distances at far greater speeds than any actual, existing helo.

          • old guy

            a long time ago I posted
            The failings in the concept, design and R&D cost prediction. This is a Congressional job and nothing more. If you can get the opinions of Gens. Krulak and Jones. You MUST be working for the B/B group.

        • USNVO

          So, just to be accurate.

          1. A C-2A carries 26 passengers which is less than 31 as well. A remanufactured C-2A would also not meet the requirement. So no existing platform met the “requirement” you cite, although to be fair your requirement doesn’t match the actual published requirement. Additionally, you don’t cite what the requirement is. Is it the threshold or objective requirement? Since a C-2 doesn’t meet it, one would think objective. So without knowing a threshold requirement you can’t say anything. And, a V-22 can carry 32 passengers on the floor, which they could actually do (but never would except in an extreme emergency) since they don’t do cat launches.

          2. 15kts slower? So what? Oh no, the COD takes 3hrs and 30minutes instead of 3hrs and 15minutes, that will make a huge difference in war fighting. The V-22 makes that up without being tied to the CVs launch and recovery cycle. It can even arrive on non-fly days. And again, threshold or objective requirement.

          3. Full operation on hanger deck. Is this threshold or objective. And you are correct, the Osprey can’t extend it’s wings on the hanger deck. So some maintenance must be done on the flightdeck. That is a real show stopper for an aircraft that isn’t based on the carrier.

          So to summarize, meets range, payload, and passenger requirements set and published by the Navy, as opposed to some mythical requirement no one seems to be able to point to. Has proven able to carry the F-135 something a C-2 can’t do. Has some advantages over the C-2 and some disadvantages versus the C-2. But, hey, don’t want to let provable facts get in the way of a good rant?

          Afraid they won’t invite you to Tailhook anymore?

          • old guy

            If you sit them on the floor, the C-2a could meet or exceed the passenger load (more floor space).

          • USNVO

            You could, but it might get uncomfortable and probably dangerous when they land or take off while there are actually real world circumstances where you might want to evacuate people, like an embassy for instance, where the capability makes sense for a V-22. For that matter, the C-2 seats are probably more comfortable as well, that is an important criteria too.

          • Duane

            In cats and traps, sitting unrestrained on the floor?

            Are you nuts, or what?

        • Duane

          You were on the losing side of the argument. Give it up. You lost.

    • Rocco

      You at it again!!!

  • chuckberlemann

    Have they solved to problem of the engine exhaust blistering the paint in the spaces below the flight deck when the engines are in the vertical position?

    • Graeme Rymill

      “On LHA and LHD ships, NATOPS procedures dictate that MV-22s suspend one of its two nacelles over the water while sitting on deck with the engines turning. If an Osprey remains on deck with its engines operating for more than 10 minutes, the engine over the deck should be reduced towards idle, and if the crew expects to sit for more than 90minutes the engine over the deck should be shut down. Typically, if a crew knows they will be on spot for more than 30 minutes they will shut down the over deck engine” On smaller ships they place portable heat shields under the nacelles.

      • old guy

        Junk, Junk, Junk!

    • old guy

      NO

  • David C

    Will this aircraft carry a F404 engine to the ship?

    • old guy

      Inside NO. Sling load, maybe.

      • Duane

        Nope. The Osprey carries the far larger and heavier F135 engine internally, so yes it easily carries the F404 engine, as well as the F414 engine internally.

    • Duane

      Yes

  • Graeme Rymill

    Can anyone definitively say why the C-2 can’t carry the F-35 power module? One source claims that the C-2 “is very cargo-weight limited at that [800-1,000 nautical mile] range.” A former COD pilot has stated “Our limit on engines was the J79 with an afterburner attached. We couldn’t take a full fuel load with one loaded onboard”. A J79 appears to weigh just 2,282 pound. An F-35 power module weighs 3,750 pound – significantly heavier. On top of that weight the F-35 engine needs a customised sled to slide it into the CMV-22. The total weight is 7,100 pounds. So does the C-2 fail to meet the range requirements for carrying an F-35 power module plus some sort of sled? Or is it simply that the engine simply can’t physically fit even if it had a special sled similar to that developed for the CMV-22? I am of course assuming the extremely large packing case the engine is normally transported in would be removed just as it will be in order to fit this engine into the CMV-22.

    • Al L.

      The problem is a c-2 lands by trap (SLAM!!! JERK!!! ut oh missed the wire!!! GUN IT and try again!) A V-22 lands like a pillow, so the engine cant be packaged or secured the same in a C-2. The physics end up being bad for the power module and bad for the C-2 airframe.

      • old guy

        SO does any helo. So what. It is still [email protected]

        • Al L.

          “Any Helo” doesnt fly 1000 miles in 4 hours.

          • old guy

            except compounds. ALSO, the V-22 only makes 65 to 80 Kts with an external load (1,000 miles /80 kts=`14 hrs not 4..

          • Al L.

            Tell me how many compound helos are in active military use today.

            We can talk fantasies or we can talk about reality. The Navy needs a new COD ac soon and no need to fund an experiment.

            “the V-22 only makes 65 to 80 Kts with an external load ”

            1. Not true. Its highly dependent on the load carried and conditions. The V-22 can fly in airplane mode with an external load. In fact it holds the record: 10000lb at 220kts. Typical USMC tactical loads have to be flown slow as they are not at all aerodynamic.

            2. The Navy has not selected the V-22 for COD because of its external load carrying capability. This would be a rarely or at most occasionally used capability especially since the F135 can be carried internally.

          • old guy

            Check your data. The V22 NEVER lifted 5 tons, internally and never exceeded 80 Knots with an external load. You must be getting this B.S. staight from B./B.

          • Al L.

            You dont know what you are talking about. Published USMC MV-22 demonstrated internal lift is 13000 lb. The V-22 set the external lift speed record in 1998. It was with an ideal load as a demo and not operational. It is published fact VMX -22 has tested it to at least 90 knots with operational single hook loads.

            This all comes from Navair, USMC, and aviation press sources. None of it is directly from Bell. I would insert links to the info but this comment section shuts out comments with external links.

            Navy COD administrative flights will not be subject to the same limitations as USMC combat flights.

            And as I said, what it can lift external is a minor issue for COD. The Navy did not select it because it can external lift . It does offer the benefit it can external more than an MH-60 and farther, so it could add some to the Navy’s Vertrep capacity at the margins. That had no impact on its selection.

            You keep pulling straws and they are all short.

          • Duane

            Sorry, old guy but you are spouting untruths.

            According to the DOD Multi-service Rigging Manual for 2-Point External Loads (yes, I looked it up on the internet, it is a public document), both the V-22 as well as all US helos including CH47 and CH53E are all subject to the same limited airspeeds carrying external slung loads, which tops out at 130 knots for relatively heavy, dense loads like vehicles, guns, pallets, etc. for all the heavy lift aircraft with only minor differences (5 to 10 knots) between any aircraft for a specified load defined by a particular piece of equipment.

            In other words, the CMV-22 can carry externally slung loads of as much as 15,000 pounds at up to 130 knots, same as a CH-53. The CH-53, being a much larger, 3-engine aircraft, can carry much larger external loads than can the Osprey, but it cannot carry such loads at any higher speeds than the Osprey as you implied.

            Lower airspeeds of as little as 80 knots apply to all aircraft if relatively lightweight loads with large surface areas, like shelters or radar antennas, etc., are slung externally. That is due to the aerodynamics of the load, not due to the capabilities of the aircraft.

            So CMV22 can fly just as fast as any CH-53 or CH-47 with an equivalent slung load, but the CMV-22 can fly that load much further than the helo can … and can return without the external load at more than 100 knots faster cruising speed than the helo.

    • Duane

      The CMV-22 can transport the F-135 engines for the F-35. But it requires a minor disassembly of the engine into two pieces that gets reassembled on the carrier. It is a minor job, just a couple hours. The F-135 engine is a lot larger than the GE F414 engines on the Super Hornet.

      • Graeme Rymill

        I know how CMV-22s can transport F-135 engines and that this requires breaking down the engine into modules. If you bothered to read my questions properly you would see that I knew that.

        My questions all revolve around why the C-2 can’t carry the F-135 engine.

  • Duane

    The argument I addressed here in this comment, “Sherlock” is substituting CMV-22 for a rebuild of the C2. So, the comparison of capabilities is exactly what this whole damn thread is about.

    Thanks for your irrelevent reply.

    Not!

  • b2

    BTW, re “Artist’s concept of CVM-22s in flight. Bell-Boeing Image.”

    Get those fancy proprotor helos out of the CV pattern and go to starboard delta. Too slow and ugly, cant keep up, take up too much space and cost too much for a simple trash hauler… In other words- They don’t belong.