Home » Aviation » Navy’s COD Transition from C-2A to CMV-22B Accelerated; First V-22 Deployment Set for 2021


Navy’s COD Transition from C-2A to CMV-22B Accelerated; First V-22 Deployment Set for 2021

Concept art of the CMV-22 follow-on carrier onboard delivery aircraft. Boeing Image

The Navy has accelerated the sunset of its legacy C-2A Greyhound cargo airplanes and the transition to the CMV-22B Osprey, with the new tiltrotor aircraft now set to deliver in Fiscal Year 2020 and deploy in 2021.

The variant of the Marines’ MV-22B Osprey leverages a hot production line and will be able to go through a shorter testing process due to being so similar to an in-use aircraft. In fact, a contract awarded in June covers the final Marine MV-22s as well as the first 39 CMV-22s that will serve as the next-generation carrier-onboard delivery (COD) aircraft.

During a House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee hearing on Friday, Rear Adm. Scott Conn, director of air warfare on the chief of naval operations’ staff (OPNAV N98), told lawmakers that the transition was already happening as fast as possible.

“We have accelerated the sundown of the C-2 from 2027 to 2024. We have our first (CMV-22B) aircraft being built in Philadelphia today, going down the line. That aircraft will deliver in FY 20. We then have to do a modified [operational test] and [developmental test] and the only thing … we’re testing are the things different on the CMV-22 as compared to the MV-22. So that’s going to be a very compressed test,” Conn said.
“We then [reach initial operational capability] and get our first three aircraft to deploy in 2021. There is no means by which I can accelerate that any further. When you look at the [military construction], the training that’s required for our sailors to operate and maintain and the aircrew that have to fly it and get the hours they need, we’re going as fast as we can go.”

There are three main differences in the CMV-22B compared to the Marines’ MV-22B. The Navy’s aircraft will have an extended-range fuel system, a high-frequency beyond line-of-sight radio and a public address system in the back of the aircraft.

Due to the similarity in the aircraft, the Navy has already begun training with the Marines’ Osprey, with an all-Navy crew flying a V-22 for the first time in July.

Conn had been asked if there were additional funds the Navy needed to help get out of the legacy C-2s faster, and he said that, on the back end of the transition, “any additional aircraft at this point would relieve or provide a shock absorber during the transition, as we go from transition to deployment in follow-on detachments until we’re completely divested of our C-2.”

A C-2A Greyhound assigned to the Rawhides of Fleet Logistics Support Squadron (VRC) 40 launches from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) on Jan. 31, 2016. US Navy photo.

Subcommittee ranking member Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) had asked about additional funds for the CMV-22B program, noting that the C-2A fleet was aging and facing diminished operational availability. Conn said the planes were 30 years old and were “nowhere near where we want it to be” in terms of operational availability. Investments in aviation readiness yielded some improvement, with the planes hitting 40-percent operational availability in 2018 compared to just 32 percent in 2017, but he noted that wasn’t good enough to support a globally deployed fleet.

Despite the readiness challenges within the C-2A fleet, the planes had had an impressive record of safety until one crashed in the Philippine Sea in November 2017. The plane, from the forward-deployed Detachment 5 of the “Providers” of Fleet Logistics Support Squadron (VRC) 30, had 11 passengers and crew onboard – eight were safely recovered and three died in the crash.

The Navy located the wreckage of the plane in January after sending a salvage ship in December, but Conn said in the hearing that the plane may not be lifted from the sea floor until next summer.

“Our recovery and salvage efforts: we have the 22,000 feet of Kevlar cable to recover the aircraft that is at 18,000 feet of water in the Philippine Sea. We have to do some follow-on testing with the winch and the salvage vessel to be able to reel up this aircraft,” he said.
“And then now that we’re in typhoon season in that part of the world, we’re going to have to wait for the seas to abate. Our best estimate right now is, when we look at the conditions the ocean will provide, we’re looking late spring, early summer of next year.”

The investigation into that crash is still ongoing, he said.

  • vetww2

    The idiocy of using a 95 million dollar 24 passenger, low internal load travesty continues. A triumph for the lobbyists.

    • Al L.

      The current contracts as previously reported on this site add up to less than $77 million per CMV-22.

      • vetww2

        NOT INCLUDING GFE and I.

        • Al L.

          -I can comprehend letter case just fine, all caps doesn’t help.
          -What is “I”?
          -GFE on a V-22 is minimal and certainly not $18 million
          -You’re commenting anonymously on a blog, without some support and reasoning your comments are just hot air. Where is your support for a $95 million cost?

        • Kent San

          Wrong. Unit flyaway includes GFE.

          • vetww2

            Non so blind as those who look, but will not see, none so deaf as those who listen but cannot hear.

      • vetww2

        You still have not extended the courtesy of comment on my bio, or are you too embarresed?

        • Al L.

          I’ll keep this short:

          -without any verifiable connection to “vetww2” and proof of who “vetww2” is, it could your bio, someone else’s, or a made up bio
          -If it is your bio, you should not, repeat NOT, connect it to you in an open discussion on the internet. You will do nothing but invite trolls, spammers, spoofers & scammers to attack you with the info you have provided.
          -What matters on the anonymous internet is your arguments and your support for them. The appeal to authority in the form of trying to prove you are an authority only works if somewhere out there on the internet there is proof you are an authority and you argue like you are authoritative, neither of which is the case for you so far.
          -I will no longer discuss anything with “vetww2”. I suspect you may be losing your faculties or are not what you appear to be. I’m an anonymous stranger, why should you care what I think of your anonymous and unverifiable bio? It makes no sense.

    • PolicyWonk

      The C-2 has been an excellent aircraft, delivering value to the fleet and taxpayers for a lot of years. That said, I do see the value of the V-22, mainly because it can land on a larger variety of decks than simply that of a CVN.

      So this choice didn’t come as much of surprise, both due to the work of the lobbyists, and the versatility.

    • RunningBear

      The internal 20Klb. and external 15Klb. load capacities are comparable or exceed the COD capability.

      Also, ….the integration of the radar (hopefully upgraded to ISAR capability ala. MH-60R) and the multi-spectral sensor to improve the SA for the crew could greatly enhance the OTH SA for the CSG by simply adding MADL communications. The E-2D SA data could also be provided to the CMV-22B as it approaches the CSG by MADL.
      IMHO
      Fly Navy
      🙂

      • vetww2

        The highest internal lift ACHIEVED was 14,000# OR 24 troops and 2 pilots with reduced range. Maximum external load was 18,000# with speed reduced to 65 Kts. Don’t report a maximum combined best performance, ALSO, Duane, the Hunk-a-Junk is a late 20th century hoax. Look at the calendar. That was 30 years ago.

        • RunningBear

          Please provide your reference and I will gladly revise my comments, which have been publicized for the last 20yrs. for this 30th year of flight.

          Thank You,
          Fly Navy
          🙂

          • vetww2

            Argue with others who claim it is a NEW 2009 aircraft.

        • Graeme Rymill

          According to a 2016 thesis done for the Navy Postgraduate School “The V-22 has a larger maximum [internal] payload of 20,000 pounds than the C-2 maximum [internal] payload of 10,000 pounds for ground operations and 8,600 pounds for carrier operations.” The V-22 can land on a carrier at night. C-2 pilots are no longer qualified for night landings on carriers due to the high costs of maintaining that skill set.

          • b2

            The COD was always a day mission. for both C-2 and US-3A CODS in service from 1976….

            The V-22 in helo mode can lift a lot a short distance (<100nm) just like an H-53. So what does that have to do with the US Navy COD mission to the CVN? Nada…

            Open your aperture.

          • Graeme Rymill

            day mission 40 years ago with the C-2… day or night mission now with the MV-22… that’s called progress

          • vetww2

            Right on.

          • vetww2

            You can say the same the same for ANY helo.

        • Bob

          False. The most ever demonstrated external load was 9800 lbs using a stripped down test V-22 that just hovered for 25 mins 100 feet off the deck. In the fleet 6-8,000 lbs is the max for externals, which are rarely done due to aircraft instability in the hover and massive downwash.

          • Al L.

            Yeah right. Thats why there are multiple videos and pictures and stories, etc over the last decade showing an in service MV-22 carrying a M777 howitzer which weighs just under 10000lb with rigging.

            Guess those were just Marines doing impossible stuff.

          • Kent San

            Exactly. And since most ships are found at sea level 🙂 there is no high/hot limitations you might have to address in Afghanistan.

          • vetww2

            An M777 is 6800# without accessories.

          • Al L.

            Per the Defense Industry Daily M777 page intro:

            “The M777 ultra-lightweight towed 155mm howitzer has an integrated digital fire control system, and can fire all existing 155mm projectiles. Nothing new there. What is new is the fact that this 9,700 pound howitzer saves over 6,000 pounds of weight by making extensive use of titanium and advanced aluminum alloys, allowing it to be carried by Marine Corps MV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft or medium helicopters,…”

          • Secundius

            The only component of the Lightweight M777 made of Steel is the Reciprocating Barrel and Gun Breech…

          • vetww2

            I agree, I stand corrected. Look out for the demeaning comments. I was just trying to allow for some of the ridiculous claims.

          • vetww2

            Your arguing my point. My higher numbers were there to show that even with their numbers it was a flop. I am its #1 critic. I coined Hunk-A-Junk.

        • Duane

          The V-22 went operational in 2009 – that makes it a 21st century aircraft.

          • vetww2

            BUT, it took 20+ years to get it there.

        • Duane

          What is the max external load for a C-2? Besides zero?

          And don’t give us your crap about compound rotor aircraft that don’t exist in any operational form in the US military. The Navy cannot select or buy what does not exist.

          • vetww2

            If the compound 30,000# payload helo had started 30 years ago you still would talk the “popular” line for ths “old” craft.

          • vetww2

            IDIOTIC statement.So much for R&D. Only off-the-shelf.

    • Duane

      Get your facts straight: $72M for a OMV-22.

      No travesty. It’s called joining the 21st century.

      • vetww2

        Baloney, All V-22 costs have been juggled (check budgets) including the 2.5 billionh dollar development cost and all performance exagerrated choosing the best numbers from different conditions and combining them..

        • Mk-Ultra

          Baloney, all V-22 costs are there for anyone to check, (actually check the budgets and costs) and performance isnri exaggerated just because you don’t like it, sorry old timer. It’s the 21st century. Join it.

          • vetww2

            OK, if you are so sharp. List the ACTUAL costs including R&D, GFE, GFI and change orders from GAO reports.

          • Mk-Ultra

            Go ahead and look them up. You have my permission

          • vetww2

            Cut rthis age crap. If your physical prowess is no stronger than your mental, I can beat the heck out of you with one arthritic arm behind my back.

      • Kent San

        Just checked the budget docs. Pretty close. FY17 unit flyaway cost is $74.312M.

        • Duane

          Budget or appropriations line items don’t necessarily reflect contract purchase prices, and indeed usually don’t. DOD Budget or appropriations line items include government overhead for things like program management. The differential can be huge … in this case, the differential is probably just a couple million bucks because this is such a mature airframe with only minor modifications.

          • Kent San

            I’m VERY familiar with the Multi-year Three (MYP-III) pricing for Osprey. Actually, the FY19 P40s reflect year over pricing and there was both a funding recission to reflect that for FY18 (1st year of MYP-III) and a $1490M mark in FY19 for “excess unit cost” as a result. I was commenting on a false remark about the aircraft’s cost. No one said unit flyaway reflects all costs, but it is the incremental cost of an aircraft and is the most commonly used “price” metric.

      • vetww2

        Duane I would have a battle of wits wwith you but chivalry prevents me from arguing with someone who is only HALF ARMED!

  • Agent 916

    The V-22 is nice and all but I don’t see it being a effective replacement for the C-2A. Maybe we just need a new C-2, a C-2B or C

    • RunningBear

      Being able to slow to a vertical landing, will far out weight any slight improvements to be achieved in the C-2 upgrades. The addition of JPALS to the carrier fleet will greatly enhance the safety of all a/c coming aboard regardless of inclement weather. The commonality of the growing MV-22B fleet will make the CMV-22B even less expensive to operate by volume purchases of materials, parts, flight/ maintenance training, etc.
      IMHO
      Fly Navy
      🙂

    • b2

      You have excellent aviation instincts. Probably based on common sense and observation like many others here.

    • vetww2

      If this Hunk-A-Junk is so great how come the panel investigating it for then president Obama, rejected it for the next Presidential helicopter. The main reasons were low availability and safety? Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and THINK. You can’t give me ONE advantage or my stated disadvantages over a compound helo!

      • Al L.

        “You can’t give me ONE advantage over a compound helo!”

        ITS IN PRODUCTION AND REQUIRES MINIMAL DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING!

        (in your favored all caps text for greater comprehension)

        Read the article: the C-2 fleet is down to 32-40% availability. How long should the Navy wait for your beloved compound helo, or an S-3 redesign and rebuild, or a new C-2 production line to be built? Should it wait until there are 20 C-2s operating at 20%?

        • vetww2

          YOU CAN SAY THAT FOR ANY OF 35 AVAILABLE HELOS. In the early 90s, the following officers rejected Hunk-A-Junk” to no avail.
          Gen. Krulak, Gen. Jones, Gen. Gray, COMNAVAIR and others who would not like to be cited.
          All were astounded by the meteoric rise of the development cost for little advantage. The lobbyists beat us all.
          I am an aero with 60 years experience in design and development and I don’t make comments lightly.
          I fully apreciate loyalty and inherent support. I lost a “Gunny” son-in-law in the undeclared war in Nicaragua.
          After I retired, in 1994, after 30 years, I consulted with one of the development research companies. They finally solved most of the myriad manufactuting technology problems in the design, and even at one point told the Navy that all the problems would never be solved.
          Over the years I have detailed most of the faults of the concept, if you take the trouble to find them. I wii respond to SPECIFIC questins. I will also respond to questions about compound helos and why we should be going all out to develop them.

          • Mk-Ultra

            Sorry old timer. But modern Aircraft do all sorts of amazing things these days.

          • vetww2

            Don’t give me that solicitous “Old Timer” crap. I have, SUCCESSFULLY, worked on the !00 knot ship (Check “Guiness book of world’s records) for World’s fastest warship). and Laser weapon development areas (my patent is classified and assigned to the Navy). What “ADVANCED” systems have you developed?

          • Mk-Ultra

            Yet youre regurgitating nonsense the military has disproven about the safety of the V-22.

            And that just looks like you’re trying to hype yourself up.

            What are these “lazy weapon qreas” and what exactly did you do on that ship?

          • Al L.

            “YOU CAN SAY THAT FOR ANY OF 35 AVAILABLE HELOS”

            You can’t say that they can fly 1000 miles in 4 hours

            “Gen. Krulak, Gen. Jones, Gen. Kelly, COMNAVAIR and others who would not like to be cited. ”

            You have direct knowledge they would not want to be cited about what? How about Gens. Gray, Mundy, Hagee, Conway, Amos and Dunford. BTW Gen Kelly has never been in line to command changes to aviation programs until now and what is happening? V-22s are being built with nary a word from the White House.

            “I am an aero with 60 years experience in design and development”

            “After I retired, in 1994, after 30 years,’

            Now you are irking one of my peeves. You seem to be a fake.

            Retired in 1994+ 60 years experience + your other claims does not add up.

            You’ve claimed in the past to be a ship designer/engineer/program manager and now you are an “aero” with 60 years (?!?) experience. Want me to cite the number of programs you’ve claimed not only to be involved in but be an influencer in? But yet your refrain is almost always “if they only listened to me back when”

            You sound a lot like a guy on a donkey with a sidekick and a lance.

            “I consulted with one of the development research companies. ”

            Can you name it? What is a “development research company”. Name a company that fits this description today.

            “Over the years I have detailed most of the faults of the concept, if you take the trouble to find them. ”

            Really? Where? When? Apparently your thoughts are such gems we must go find them in some buried gold mine. They are too precious for you to give out, or even point too.

            NONE – OF – IT – ADDS – UP

          • vetww2

            You are correct on only ONE point. I mistakenly included Kelly, when I meant GEN Gray. BUT since you question without derision,(plausibly) my most fortunate career, I will give you a short(?) summary, that should account for my breadth of experience, I hope it settles any doubts that you may have, because I believe you to be honest and incisive.
            I am 91+ years old. I went to Stuyvesant H.S. in N.Y.C. arguably the best technical H.S. in the world. (4 NOBEL LAUREATES) I tested drop chine pontoons (Bretoon) at Stevens Inst. tank and designed model airplanes for Hobby Model Mfg Co. while in H.S.
            I went into Army in 1945, became a tank (M-26) driver. Never saw combat, Spent time in Alaska.
            I got my BSAeE in 1951. (60+ years ago. I recsived a dual M.S. in Engineering Mgmt and Ops Research in 1962 from Drexel U.
            I started out at Cornell aero lab in the wind tunnels (subsonic, transonic, supersonic and hypersonic.) As most of the 1500 engineers did, freebee, we helped Ed Dye invent auto seat belts and the Cornell-Liberty Safety car. Now in the Smithsonian. I tested Caravelle, F-8, P6M, Bullpup,and many others.
            Martin Co. liked my work and hired me as the experimental aerodynamicist on P6, in 1955. After P6 closed out I moved on to WS107A2 (Titan). This led to me becoming P.M. for
            Rentry Lifting Body, Bullpup, Mace, Solar Equatorial Mount, OGO, POGO and EOGO geophysical satelites, ASP, Atomic SeaplaneFor which I got a certiication at KAPL foe Nuclear Propulsion Engineering,and, finally, Gemini Launch Vehicle Airframe (a version of Titan 2).
            My Martin boss became MARAD R&D and recruited me to work JSESPO, Joint Surface Effect Ship Project Office, in 1967. Our 100 ton prototypes , the 100A (Aerojet) and the 100B (Bell), achieved a speed of 96.5 knots, and made the first vertical launch of a missile (SM2) from a Navy ship. I was promoted to become NAVSEA003/03R, IN1975. where I oversaw the development of AALC (now LCAC) SWATH, SEAMOD, advanced hydrofoils, Shadow and other advanced concepts like DDX and DDM (later DD963). I became a charter member of the Senior Executive Service. I was canned by SEC’Y Lehman, in 1982, for not giving him my R&D budget to put armored box launchers on the BBs, he wanted to reactivate. I became the P.M. of PMS 376, Spanish Ship Support Project where I worked on the A/C carrier and 4 FFG7 based frigates, In 1987, I returned to R&D uder RADM McCarthy. who made me, Director S&T Development. I retired in 1974, with a NAVY Distinguished Civilian Sevice Medal. After retirement I did Technical consulting for Piaseki Aircraft (Compound Helicopters,) CTC (Advanced Manufacturing Technology) and US NAVY (SEA SCOUT), SES, Shodow and hydrofoils. My patents ( classifed) include a 3 Laser anti-ICBM system and the Full House anti(anti-missile)missile, missile system; My unclassified patents inlude a GPS-based dog training system and an occupant powered, curb climbing wheelchair.
            I still have two small consulting contracts, one in program mgmt and the second in advanced welding procedures, including Traveling Vacuum Electron Beam..
            I believe this to be an incredible career, more by accident than design. If it astounds you, you have nothing on me. If you have any further doubts, please tell me.
            This is the first time I have done this summary. I guess I’ll save it.

        • Batou878

          I would have thought a rebuilt Lockmart S-3 Viking would have been a better “short term” choice till a proper COD replacement was found! Any thoughts on that?

          • Kent San

            Rebuilds are losers waiting to happen. LMCO proposed that and it was rejected instantly. You would need to break open the fuselage and expand it, pray it wasn’t a corrosion nightmare when you did (it likely would have been) and then re-engine it. When you were finished you still wouldn’t have had the space to fly an F-35 engine hot section in it. By the time to amortized the engineering expenses over 36 aircraft it would have been much more expensive than a V-22 and it would be a new old aircraft that was still limited to carrier operations.

          • b2

            “Rebuilds are losers waiting to happen…etc.”

            Maybe in your case related to most carrier jets/holes, P-3s put away but not the S-3…It was done for VX-30…

            The rest is conjecture on your part and still not reason enough to accept an aircraft capable of only 60% the capability required for its fundamental role. 1200 Nm COD….

          • vetww2

            Perfectly.Correct.

          • Al L.

            What Kent San said plus:

            -S-3 was designed mostly for long duration ASW tasks. As such it was assumed its life time number of cats and traps would be low and its landing loads would on average be low. Thats not how it worked out. It got used as a tanker and for other tactical aviation tasks. So my understanding is that though almost all S-3 in storage have many flight hours left in them, they dont have many Cat/trap cycles left without major work. Adding cargo hauling compounds this issue. This explains why the Navy wont due much with them, but wants to sell them to other countries as land based ASW.

            – There is no other “proper ” COD in existence except the C-2. It hasn’t been produced in decades, and its technology is old. They could update it with E-2D technology but the E-2D is a high value low density asset and as such the Navy didn’t spare expense in designing it. They cost more than $175 million and about half that is the airframe and half the AWACS package. So using E-2D as a basis for an update to the C-2 is buying into opening a new production line based off what is already a pretty expensive airframe.

            -Navy tests indicate the V-22 with added fuel will be a proper COD and comparable to C-2. It just trades some advantages of the V-22 for some other advantages a C-2 would have. The Navy believes the CMV-22 will be more flexible. There was an article that explained this on USNI News Aug 18 2018.

          • b2

            Re S-3: The avg cat/trap for those 70 plus S-3Bs iat AMARG is around than 2050 +/- with plenty of life left as you state. The FSFT of 2004 (after sundown was announced) pushed the cats traps limits out to 4300 total in a SLB… Consider it- the S-3 s unrefueled range is over 2000 nm… the S-3 can also lift nearly its own weight 27K and can launch off the carrier at 50K… Want more facts?

            You have forgotten of never read about the US-3A and its capability…two in AMARG accumultaed over 19K flight hours… Dodeg (DIego Garcia) to Gonzo Station was 1850 nm… That tells all.

            LM’s proposal of 2014, that was ignored by Big navy who sole sourced CV-22, and exceeded every requirement set for range, speed, and weight Suitablity, etc…Plus it was the only one that could carry the F-35 engine…

            I cant speak for C-2 but it far exceeds what the V-22 cannot do…

          • Secundius

            Only one problem! There are only TWO “Flyable” S-3’s and BOTH are operated by NASA. The Other are “Boneyard’d” in Arizona and New Mexico and being used as Spare Parts for the A-10 Warthog. Which has a 80% Commonality in Parts…

          • vetww2

            You can’t argue with fiction authors.

          • E1 Kabong

            “The Other are “Boneyard’d” in Arizona and New Mexico and being used as Spare Parts for the A-10 Warthog. Which has a 80% Commonality in Parts…”?

            80%?

            Do tell.

            What’s common, besides the engine core?

            Since the S-3 was made by LOCKHEED and the A-10 by FAIRCHILD….

          • Secundius

            How many Flyable S-3’s are there in the World! And which Countries are using them…

          • E1 Kabong

            Answer my question….

          • Secundius

            How many “Spare Parts” can Two “Flyable” S-3 Vikings use, if the other ~185 are in a Desert Boneyard somewhere…

          • E1 Kabong

            ALL 185 or so S-3’s are in “perfect” 100% serviceable condition, are they?

            Cute.

            Delusional, but cute.

          • Secundius

            Where “Exactly” in my comment did I say that there were ~185 Serviceable S-3’s! IF they were “Serviceable”, they’d wouldn’t be sitting in a “Boneyard” somewhere would they…

          • Al L.

            I am posting this in 3 parts since this site spammed the whole post 5 times.

            The performance numbers you quote are for the S-3 as currently built. The point of all this is that the S-3 as currently built cant carry typical COD loads as it does not have fuselage built for cargo. You cant roll on or roll off. It can be a logistics aircraft, it cant replace the C-2. It has to be rebuilt. It cannot get to V-22 or C-2 passenger or load size limits without a rebuild, certifications, testing, a new production line, design, development etc etc.

            You have no proven performance numbers for a rebuilt COD varaint of the S-3. And the US-3A numbers are useless as it carried only about 1/4 the passengers, 1/4 the weight, and had far less volume than the C-3 or V-22.

          • b2

            I have seen the LM proposals. They reused refurbished S-3B sections (wings, enginesgear) and basically offered a new design a non-aero affected fuselage with ramp entry. Postulated performance was near S-3B. BTW, this basic design was offered back in 1975 as a possibility but was rejected in favor of C-2. That means the “overdesigning slide rule guys” who gave us hi-performanc,e purpose built aircraft like the S-3, F-14 and A-6 came up with the idea. In my book thats why that idea was “medium-low risk”….

            The US-3A numbers may appear useless to you in the safety of your office on land but they were not for our powerful fleet that ruled the seas back then because it was only aircraft capable enough to deliver well over 1500 nm…

            Look you’ve won! the Navy is buying the V-22 and calling it a COD! I am just pointing out that it is not capable of truly performing the COD mission for todays requirement and that it was suspiciouslly/expediently pushed. There were/are alternatives. The rest is smoke… i dont want any.

          • Al L.

            “this basic design was offered back in 1975 as a possibility but was rejected in favor of C-2”

            So S-3 as a COD has been rejected twice by the Navy under 2 different leadership groups separated by decades. That s pretty conclusive evidence that Navy leadership does not believe it can meet the need.

            Lets apply occam’s razor: the simplest explanation for why 2 different sets of Navy leadership have rejected an S-3 COD is they know it wont work .

            “The US-3A numbers may appear useless to you..”

            They are irrelevant. The US-3A couldn’t come close to meeting most of the critical requirements of the mission. It was a niche aircraft for a limited need.

            “Look you’ve won! ”

            I dont want to win, I want to end the pie in the sky perfect solution thinking that has damaged our Naval capability. We need most of our programs built on low risk solutions and a small part taking higher risks. We dont need the Navy taking large risks on every critical capability. More “bird in the hand” thinking. The V-22 is most definitely a bird in the hand, an S-3 COD is in the bush.

          • Al L.

            The impact of the required changes to existing S-3 air frames life span is a high risk. Past efforts to reset aircraft (F-18 Ah-1 Etc) have often turned out to be far more expensive and difficult than anticipated. Adding an air frame reconfiguration to the mix only increases the risk. I have read that that average could be very variable and that the risk is not enough S-3 can be economically refurbished to get to the needed numbers and life span for a full COD fleet. Averages don’t tell the whole story.

          • b2

            No it is unacceptable to you and others because you dont believe in the possibility..buy new even if less capable like the CV-22..Don’t you see that doing this continuously for 30 years has led to this?

            I’ll tell you Al, what REAL hi-risk is… Not being able to fight and win in the vast spaces of the Indian Ocean and Pacific because you dont have real COD capability… I am not a COD expert but I am a War at Sea expert…

          • Al L.

            “Not being able to fight and win in the vast spaces of the Indian Ocean and Pacific because you dont have real COD capability.”

            Then the V-22 is a better solution. It can equal C-2 range with equal useful loads. It can air to air refuel. It can operate or just refuel on small airfields, heli ports, ships, etc. There are many more places to base and support CMV-22 than there ever will be for C-2 or S-3. Many more places to divert. It has the entire USMC V-22 logistics and operational system to fall back on. Anywhere the USMC can operate a MV-22 could support a CMV-22 including tiny islands. All the range in the world does not help if the few airfields the COD can land on or the flight path to them are disrupted by enemy activity. The V-22 provides much more resiliency and flexibility.

          • Al L.

            The COD program of record is 48 aircraft. If half the S-3 in storage only have 25% life span left, then the Navy will never get an effective COD fleet. To invest all that into an aircraft with only half its life left as well as accepting L-Ms promises and estimates when an acceptable aircraft with known characteristics, known costs, existing logistics system, established production line, known delivery schedule, etc. would have been foolish. Especially when the COD replacement has already been delayed too long.

          • b2

            They actually have 100% life left. The AMARG S-3Bs average about 11k and they could go to over 20K. At 400 hours year (30 years S-3A-B average) do the math. That is 20-25 years of full carrier use if brought back…

            The rest of your argument is gibberish.

          • Al L.

            Flight hour limit on the stored S-3 fleet is not the problem, its the cat/trap limit. If the Navy wanted to operate them only to and from airfields then they would be useful.

        • Duane

          Yup – but don’t forget the one big advantage of tiltrotors over compound rotor aircraft:

          The MV-22 EXISTS and is OPERATIONAL, and has been operational for a decade with a great operational and safety record, including in combat. Compound rotors do not now and never have existed in any US military aircraft, and therefore also have never been operational.

          Compound rotor aircraft, as of 2018, are nothing but vaporware.

          • vetww2

            That’s as dumb and shortsighted an answer as I have heard in quite a while. Throw out all the R&D; we have reached Nirvana!

        • vetww2

          I agree, wholeheartedly. The bird in the hand reality, BUT it doesn’t obviate the truth. If that were so, we would, NEVER, progress.
          The CAPS comment is perjorative and silly.

      • Al L.

        “how come the panel inveastigating it for then president Obama, rejected it for the next Presidential helicopter.”

        Because a presidential helo has very different requirements than a COD aircraft?

        -V-22 not suitable for landing on the Whitehouse lawn
        -V-22 internal and entrance height not suitable for “dignified” boarding and exiting
        -V-22 speed in excess of other helos used for Presidential escort
        -V-22 unsuited to typical short transits of Presidential helo
        -V-22 designed to self deploy and therefore poorly suited to transport in C-17 and C-5

        See any of those that apply to COD?

        • vetww2

          VERY COMPREHENSIVE AND ALL GOOD REASONS FOR JUNKING THIS LOSER. Sorry for the caps, but i occasionally hit the Caps Lock

          • ChuckCVG

            Its going into operational service. So I think your comment is a little off base.

          • vetww2

            Score one for the the lobbyist and the finest Congress, money could buy,

          • Secundius

            At the 1927 “Republican Convention”, playwright/author/comedian/cowboy Will Rogers claimed “That Republican and Democrats were equally corrupt, but it was only in the amount where Republicans excelled”…

          • vetww2

            LOVE IT>

        • vetww2

          No, just to the dozens of other helo designs.

        • E1 Kabong

          “-V-22 unsuited to typical short transits of Presidential helo”?

          Much like a COD shuttling stores from supply ships to a carrier?

      • Kent San

        Osprey was assessed by the White House arborist many years ago and it was determined that with a small shift in location and orientation on landing it wouldn’t harm the trees or bushes. French drains or large landing disks would be needed to insure no damage to the lawn. Not a show stopper.
        Al L below really hits the nail on the head though. A C-5 / C-17 fly much faster, so a helo you can load inside it is just easier to manage logistically.
        VIP flying isn’t the only HMX-1 mission. For the “get out of town” mission, the V-22 is peerless, but that’s not often discussed.

        • Al L.

          V-22 is in HMX-1. Its just not used for presidential transport. And while it could physically land on the lawn, I understand the V-22 parameters such as safe distances for the press, welcome party, cameras, lawn wear and tear etc. added to preferring a conventional helo that would allow staying closer to the VH-3D parameters and the historical lawn landing operation.

          Really V-22 just does not fit, its a 30 ton Helo and the VH-3d is a 10 ton helo. If a 30 ton helo would work for Presidential transport they would have just used the VH-53 D or F years ago.

          • vetww2

            If you can get a copy of the latest AIAA mag, you wlill find that the Army is now interested in the Sikorsky/Boeing COMPOUND helo, which will be tested late this year. It is FASTER than V-22, has no need for the complexities of transition and should come in at a saving. That is only a start. They do not give much detail, but I would appreciate if you explain this to the trogladytes in this post. All it took was to get Boeing into it, for political pull.

          • Kent San

            Are you capable of posting a fact? The SB-1 is slower and has a less range. Additionally the Raider Compound has difficulty scaling to a medium aircraft and thus the reason they haven’t flown it in forward flight yet and crashed the protype in the hover. Some of the “stuck in the 60s”Doughboys have thus starterd to say speed and range really don’t matter that much. Clowns.

          • vetww2

            A lot of hooey and you know it.

          • E1 Kabong

            Want to chat about the VH-71?

        • vetww2

          A rational argument. I fought the development of the V-22 since the Early 90s, Principally because of the many stupid requirements, which I have detailed many times before. To cite a few:
          1. The heavy weights of the engines and transmissions are carried at the ends of the winglets, like taking your groceries home with outstretched arms.
          2 The long 6 part, high speed (~About 25,000 RPM) crossshaft. if the engines were mounted on the fuselage the cross shaft, between engines would be 6 feet and the engine to rotor shaft would be one piece.
          3. In vertical mode, the rotors blow DOWN on the winglets, reducing lift by almost 20%. This required a 10% increase in rotor diameter, raising the tip speed. a vry critical operating factor (ask any Helo designer).
          4.The higher forward speed can (WITH DIFFICULTY) be achieved for several current helos, by compounding (seperating Lift and forward thrust.). Tilt wing would reduce some of my other objections.
          There are many more points, but this is a fair start.

      • Secundius

        Probably because the “Osprey” didn’t exactly have a 100% SAFE Safety Record. And nobody in the US Government was willing to Stick Their Collective Neck Out in the Remote Possibility of the President being Killed in a “Osprey” crash…

        • vetww2

          BANG> A home run.

    • vetww2

      Sounds good to me.

    • Ctrot

      Sorry, that simple and intelligent solution just isn’t “transformational” enough.

    • Kent San

      The V-22 will revolutionize logistics at sea. When needed it can resupply directly to other ships in the battle group and free he helos from doing the current hub and spoke approach. It can also operate at modified flight quarters, which means a few people to launch or recover a V-22 at night rather than firing up the entire deck and the cats and arresting gear. It’s also the ONLY aircraft that can deliver a F-35 engine hot section to the ship. But you wouldn’t know ANYTHING about that would you?

      • jetcal1

        I’m always amused by that. The C-2 could carry a TF30 if the lid was pulled off of the can. The issue with the F135 is what? the hinky engine transport gear approved by JAPO? The envelope is similar for both engines, maybe JAPO won’t let IM-2 install a burner duct and nozzle?
        I guess the days of the pirated depot manual are long gone. Might as well take the T/C off the fantail.

        • USNVO

          I don’t think there is any size restriction on the C-2 that couldn’t be resolved by doing a special transport frame like for the V-22. It just has never been done. In any event, a new build C-2B? could address any clearance, securing point, deck strength, or angle of loading issues. I have read there are potential issues with the engine during arrested landing when it was outside the container but that was a comment on this forum so not an official source by any means. It certainly seems solvable.

          I think the whole F135 issue is way overblown anyway. How many F404/F414 need to be replaced on an aircraft during a deployment? How many where the engine had to be flown in because there wasn’t a spare available onboard. The F135 should average less than half the number of changes since the F-35C has one engine that, at least theoretically, is supposed to be more reliable that the F-18. And given the reduced number of aircraft onboard, carrying a couple of extra engines doesn’t seem like a big issue.

          • jetcal1

            I see no reason to build a new C-2X either given that the decision has been made to go with the V-22. Worse case is we’ll just vertrep and accept the delay in transit as the seatrain bring the engine to the battlegroup.
            As far as consumption? We did around 100 F404 modules ( Not counting retrogrades.) my last cruise and averaged around 60 TF30 counting retrogrades.

          • USNVO

            Thanks for the numbers. Did most of the engines arrive by COD, VERTREP, or did they get delivered pier side during port visits? Using a COD to move an engine seems like a waste if you carry even a small number of spares (3-5 would seem to be more than enough) Certainly if you need the engines, but the T-AKE/T-AO/T-AOE regularly enters port to replenish FFV and Cargo Fuel anyway, why not take advantage of that..

          • jetcal1

            Did most of the engines arrive by COD, VERTREP, or did they get delivered pier side during port visits? Yes.
            We flew through engines and they would be delivered where ever and when ever possible. We ran out a couple of times and that was not pretty.
            COMFAIRMED made us send daily reports and then used our format without even a thank you.

          • Secundius

            A short lived Jet Powered based on the S-3 Viking COD/AEW/C aircraft proposed in 2001/02…

            ( http : // www . dept . aoe . vt . edu / ~ mason / Mason _ f / Chimera . pdf )

        • USNVO

          Now one thing a CMV-22 can do that a C-2 can’t is VERTREP a F135 in it’s shipping/storage container, overcoming the battle groups limitations on moving the engine by MH-60 or STREAM gear.

          • jetcal1

            It can sling I believe.

          • vetww2

            Then it is slow and short ranged’.

          • jetcal1

            Not a problem during a Vertrep.

          • vetww2

            Sure if you are bringing it from 200 miles away. What if it is only within the fleet, say 40 miles?

          • USNVO

            Why would you need to fly more than a 1000yds or so? Take off from the CVN, fly to the T-AKE/T-AOE/whatever ship has your engine, pick up the container with your external lift, fly back to the CVN. Repeat as required. Reverse the process with the bad engine. Then, when the T-AKE goes into port to resupply, they crane off the bad engine, put it on a cargo aircraft, and fly it back to the depot. Then, they load the new engines that were flown out to replace the spares and take them out to the CSG. The only time you need to fly an engine to the CVN is if you have used up all your spares and haven’t restocked them.

          • vetww2

            That is, EXACTLY, my point. You are exactly correct.

          • USNVO

            Not exactly.

            My point is that the CMV-22B can perform the traditional COD mission that the C-2 can, but can also be a heavy lift VERTREP helo for the CSG when required. In fact it just highlights the versatility of the CMV-22B. Even while the CVN is not flying and UNREPing, the CMV-22 can still deliver the typical COD service, once it is unloaded it can do a couple of heavy VERTREP lifts that exceed the MH-60s payload, and then fly back to shore as a COD again without having to prepare the flightdeck or cats.

            I don’t think that was your point.

          • Secundius

            IF the Shipping Containers Height is greater that 66.25-inches, it won’t fit. It the Containers width is greater than 68-inches, it won’t fit…

          • Secundius

            Unfortunately NOT in the Shipping Container (i.e. Tarp). Shipping Container exceeds the Width and Height of Internal Cargo Space of CMV-22B…

          • USNVO

            However they can VERTREP an F135 is its storage/shipping container from the T-AKE (or other UNREP ship) to the CVN, something neither the CSG helos or the STREAM rigs on the ship can do. The F135 in its container weighs just shy of 10klbs, easily within the CMV-22B to lift externally.

          • E1 Kabong

            “…is VERTREP a F135 in it’s shipping/storage container…”?

            Proof, please.

          • USNVO

            Well, the program office indicated the V-22 and H-53 can VERTREP a F135 hot section (the biggest part) in its shipping container when the whole brouhaha came up back in 2010. Nothing has changed since then. It weighs less than 10klbs and the V-22 can externally lift more than that. The container has lifting points and is designed to be VERTREP’d, but it exceeds the MH-60S 6000lb max load so no current CSG asset can lift it.

          • E1 Kabong

            STILL waiting for proof….

          • USNVO

            Are you lazy? Not familiar with Google-Fu? Try googling “F135 engine shipping and storage container” and reading any of the dozens links to the 2010 Navy Times article on it. But they merely repeat what the program office said, there isn’t anything like a picture of a F135 being lifted in its container by a V-22 or a H-53. So depending on your standard of proof, expect to be disappointed.

          • E1 Kabong

            Clearly, YOU are busted.

            Can’t back up your claims….

            Being disappointed, is something a lot of folks feel when they deal with you.

          • USNVO

            Like you have provided proof it doesn’t? This is so common knowledge that it is hilarious that you would even question it, I gave you the easy way to find all the information yourself. But since you can’t seem to do that,

            from the Navy Times, November 29, 2010.

            “The JSF Program Office says the V-22 Osprey, like the MH-53E helicopter, can externally carry the F135 engine module, the heaviest of the five components, at least 288 miles “in good weather.” ”

            Of course that isn’t proof, it is just me quoting an article that says the JSF Program Office said that.
            – It could be Program Office spin.
            – there are no pictures of a V-22 carrying a F135, and even if there was it could have been photoshopped.
            – That was in 2010, something may be different today! What about a quote from today?
            – What about proof the yellow gear can pick up the container with the engine in it?
            – Or proof it can be picked up by the T-AKEs Kingpost?

          • E1 Kabong

            Was that so difficult, sparky?

            LOL!

            “….can externally carry the F135 engine module….”

            So, NOT like the C-2.

      • vetww2

        SILLY argument.The V22 has ONLY one advantage, and many disadvantages over any helicopter. That is SPEED, Thi factor is ONLY useful for LONG distance logistics A useful one only under certain specific and RARE conditions. Consider, if the delivery point is to another ship in the fleet, the time difference is so small as to almost preclude converting and reconverting. If the distance is 200 miles, the difference is only 45 minute, less if you consider 2 conversion times. We will now hear from the zealots who will cite some exotic case where that would be a factor.

        • Kent San

          OKay, we’ll listen to you and not the US Navy. You wish to ignore the ability to go directly to ships and mobile logistics platforms that can only exist with the VTOL delivery systems that’s fine. Just glad you’re ignored.

          • vetww2

            HMMM. Maybe you haven’t heard, but there exists a type of aircraft known as a HELICOPTER. There are models which, believe it or not, exccd any convertaplane, in ALL aspects, except top speed.

          • E1 Kabong

            “OKay, we’ll listen to you and not the US Navy.”?

            Yeah, the USN has NEVER screwed the pooch, right?

            How’d that A-12 Avenger work out?

    • ChuckCVG

      Dude its a done deal. Really. So do you have a more constructive comment?

    • USNVO

      Thanks for summing up the C-2 argument so well, but you did miss the fact that the V-22 doesn’t have a Tailhook thereby destroying the fragile egos of the COD pilots.

    • Secundius

      Think of it as a “Spare Parts” issue. The C-2A share many of the same Spare Parts of the E-2C/D “Hawkeye’s”. Off which have no commonality with the CMV-22 “Osprey”. With no more Spare Parts being produced for the C-2A, the Spare Parts have to come from somewhere, that leaves only the E-2C/D production line and the “Boneyards” in the Arizona/New Mexico Desert. Of the Two Aircraft’s, which of the Two has Greater Overall Value to the Fleet. The C-2A “Greyhound” or the E-2C/D “Hawkeye’s”…

      • E1 Kabong

        What V-22’s are the USN currently using?

        How have those E-2’s & C-2’s made it this far?

        • Secundius

          And where specifically in any of my comments, do I mention the “V-22” by name. Home many other Countries use the E-2! And “IF” I were one of those Countries, I would a A “Indigenous” Parts Supplier already established for Routine Maintenance…

          • E1 Kabong

            Answer the questions….

            “And where specifically in any of my comments, do I mention the “V-22″ by name.”

            Right HERE:

            “Off which have no commonality with the CMV-22 “Osprey”. “

          • Secundius

            The “V-22” were “Prototype Ospreys” for the USMC, while the “CMV-22″ are Production Ospreys for the US Navy. If I were talking about the Prototypes”? I would have specified them by their designation of V-22’s and not CMV-22’s…

          • E1 Kabong

            Keep squirming….

  • cobra012297

    Always like new shiny things instead of improving proven systems.

    • RunningBear

      Always like life, old things wear out and can’t be improved and……..technology marches forward, the “cap and ball” technology is little better today than it was 100+ years ago!
      IMHO
      Fly Navy
      🙂

    • Duane

      Yeah. We ought to go back to wooden sailing galleys powered by slaves. A much proven system over thousands of years.

      • vetww2

        You bet. Read the September issue of Maritime Reporter and stand in the corner. Cap provided.

  • RunningBear

    – I’m only seeing the increased fuel capacity and C/G impact as the only change items to be tested, the others are simply adding switches, (no big deal).

    – In this day and time of flight simulators; training 1/2 the flight crews while the experienced Marine 1/2 flight crews temporarily take-over the OJT COD flights, is also a (no big deal).

    – So why are COD V-22 flights begining tomorrow and progress to CMV-22B when they come off the production line and complete OT&E?
    IMHO
    Fly Navy
    🙂

  • DaSaint

    Glad to see this officially accelerated IOC. It made no sense that development was slated to take longer than this, for a proven base platform. The extended fuel tanks require real engineering, I get that. The radio and intercom, REALLY? That should be a COTS system, as there are enough systems that fit those requirements already in use and/or production.

    • Kent San

      They are COTS systems. Simple integration. Even the redesigned fuel system wasn’t a heavy lift, just a but more complex as Navy insisted on fuel reserves for a fixed wing aircraft vs the rotorcraft. The long pole in the tent isn’t the aircraft, it’s the training and MILCON.

      • USNVO

        That and the CMV-22Bs were originally planned for later in the MYP contract. They obviously moved them up and bumped some of the other V-22s back.

        • Kent San

          Actually a little of both. Marines believed they could live with getting their pipleline and attrition aircraft ()what they are buying now) at the end of MYP-III and thus could focus $$ on F-35 and CH-53K in the interim. Good outcome for both parts of the DoN.

  • b2

    PAO Spin. Big time. Notice the story on V-22 IOC then digest the nuanced unknowns of the C-2 COD that was lost…Under the bus Grumman/C-2 community…

    Oh yeah- big CV-22 development time delay for some fuel tanks (not many) an HF OTS radio and a PA system (?Radio Shack?)….. Give me a break.. I cant breath for the smoke…

    Four years ago the V-22 was selected for this mission, SOLE SOURCE, over two other more capable proposals (one exceeded and one met the basic performance requirements…) that would continue the mission for blue water, peer-adversary CSG operations and instead chose this large, hot, limited capability albatross…
    All thanks to the uncaring Obama administration, the powerful USMC/BELL/BOEING partnerhip, the HASC head who comes from N. Texas where they assemble the Osprey, and finally, a weak, US Navy carrier aviation cadre who sold out for expedience (thinking they were clever?) .. more SuperHornets and maybe compromising for the MQ-25?…

    Sole source, No competition… No choice. Connect the dots- USNI has reported what the US Navy tells them for years right here on this site.

    • Duane

      There is no other source that can duplicate the CMV-22’s capabilities. That’s why the Navy sole sourced it.

      • Kent San

        Actually the requirement for 48 aircraft was established and justified over a decade ago. Navy just started buying them.

      • b2

        You’re right in one aspect Duane. There is a mission niche for it as vertrep machine. IMO. But not COD… VRC squadrons also have helos for this mission.

        They ignored the other, more true to the capabilities required, platforms and awarded it sole source… No one even noticed, the spin being so intense from that lobby Bell-Boeing-USMC-HASC head I talked about above. To the losers- NGrumman and LM, those 40 aircraft was notbig enough stakes…. Do they really care about COD when F-35, V-22, P-8, MQ-25, etc bring the big bucks?

        Another wrongheaded acquisition decision made before the new/old reality of blue- water, war at sea, peer adversary Naval combat loomed…With the V-22 the CSG just ties itself to land even more… And the nation’s Navy is undermined again.

        • Duane

          Nothing wrong headed about vertical landing and takeoff for a COD that serves both big deck CVNs (it doesn’t tie up a full deck crew, nor require cats or traps to deploy), small deck aviation amphibs that simply cannot use anything but STOVL or VTOL, or any other navy ship that cannot use anything but VTOL.

          Plus, not only is there a huge operational flexibility and capability benefit for the ships, the CMV-22 tiltrotor also opens up a great many more land based supply points for the fleet, in that a runway is not needed. At any time, there may be a need to ship stuff in from places that cannot land or take off a C-2 or its equivalent, and in wartime, many of our airfields (ours, and our allies) will get bombed and quite possibly taken out of service for at least awhile. With the CMV-22, it can land and take off from just about any open space of about 1/4 acre or larger, including roads and parking lots.

          • b2

            You don’t see the mission difference do you- COD at 1000+ nm range vs the short range and vertrep within 300-500. the original requirement said 1200nm….

            Like I said the V-22 may have a place for vertrep/short range as you so diligently point out, but not for the true bluewater “COD” requirement only old farts like myself understand. Even the C-2 COD was supplanted by the US-3A itself for ranges over 1500 nm by VRC-30 and 50. It is 1850 miles between Dodge (Diego Garcia) and the North Arabian Sea…. From the late 1970’s through the 1980s on Gonzo Stations and elsewhere. Only the Cold War endied Miss Piggy.

            The time during the Cold War when COD was required = todays postualted peer adversary/ blue water fight for the US Navy. Anything less will fail the nation.

          • Duane

            No you have your numbers wrong, probably confusing effective combat radius, which is a two way travel distance plus time on station, with range, which is a one way distance without time on station. Only RANGE matters for COD, because it is a one way trip with fuel at both ends. Even the standard MV-22 has a range of 879 miles, and the modiified CMV-22 specifically includes additional tankage to get to the required 1,200 mile range.

          • vetww2

            Horse Patooties. Show me one trip of thse ranges where it picked up a capacity lkoad and went that distance.

          • vetww2

            But, apparently NOT the White house lawn.

    • vetww2

      Right on. Please read my comment.

    • Al L.

      “Sole source, No competition.”

      There is no other source for a COD aircraft that could meet the need before the extant C-2 fleet starts to fall out of the sky. The V-22 is a hot production line, the other 2 proposals are on paper and their production lines don’t exist.

      • Bob

        The new E-2D is much better than the C-2, and it is a hot production line. Just leave off the dome and you have something with twice the payload of a V-22 and three times more range.

        • Al L.

          No.

          The C-2 fuselage is entirely different from the E-2 and would require a new and separate production and/or rebuild line as well as testing, certification, etc.

          The C-2 does not have twice the payload nor more than 3 times the range. Under comparable conditions the V-22 and C-2 have comparable limits with the C-2 better at some and the V-22 better at others.

          The deciding factor is the V-22 allows much more flexibility and efficiency as it can land whether the CVN deck is configured for traps or not 24 hours per day and can service the CBG from many more airfields or helo pads and even other ships. And the V-22 is in production. and available at low risk.

          • USNVO

            Actually, the V-22 and C-2 only have comparable capabilities when the V-22 uses a vertical takeoff and landing. If on the other hand, you use a rolling takeoff, the MV-22 can increase its MTOW by 8klbs, carrying roughly twice as much weight an equal distance. And while the USMC has obvious restrictions on rolling takeoffs, only using rolling takeoffs for ferry flights, those don’t really apply to the COD mission (last I checked the C-2s flew from conventional airfields). And yes, they have tested rolling takeoffs and landings on the CVN.

        • vetww2

          But it can carry too many troops. (40 vs.24) that would mean a smaller buy.

    • Mk-Ultra

      It’s always amusing seeing you guys come up with these elaborate conspiracies in your heads, find a way to complain about obama, and completely ignore the real life circumstances that actually happen.

    • Kent San

      John Lehman (SecNav) established a Navy Authorized Acquisition Objective (AAO) of 48 aircraft when the Marines established theirs at 360. The Navy simply just bought them as planned.

      • b2

        Ahh.. so something set down in the 1980s under then SECNAV about a developmental vehicle that has morphed into what it is, should define what type of aircraft the US Navy should procure to replace the COD delivery mission? the V-22 proposal, even then, was summarliry rejected as a replacement for the S-3 by 1989… You are hiding behind legalese process to make the CV-22 appear valid.

        Rather we should buy what we need, not what is a hot production line, or a contraption can do some of the job as a COD. That was 4 years ago when this sole source was awarded….. Yes, Congress allowed this to happen without thinking of the US Navy’s needs and the carrier naval aviators in positions of power just let it happen… Look who was N98 at the time…and where that person works today… Seems natural enough, right? wrong.

        • vetww2

          Perfectly stated. You are razor sharp.

        • Secundius

          Navalized Fokker C-9 (F28) Mk.5000 COD.

          ( https : www . airlinereporter . com / 2014 / 05 / airlines – landing – aircraft – carrier – oh – yes / )

          Sorry about Format, but “USNI News” has a self imposed Reversion to “Fact Checking” information…

        • Kent San

          Your brain is peas-sized and full of sh*t.

    • USNVO

      You mean as opposed to NG sour grapes?

      Or, and I am just spitballing here.
      – the Navy asked for proposals
      – they looked at the various pros and cons of how to do COD. Note that COD pretty much defines a Economy of Force mission.
      – they decided the V-22 was the best solution. So they went to the only tilt rotor manufacturer (Bell-Boeing) to develop and buy them since they are under a MYP contract. Happens with the H-60 all the time.
      – they had a plan for which aircraft were to be delivered when in the MYP.
      – then the Navy said, “H… S…!, the C-2 is worse than we thought!”
      – So DoN decided to change the production schedule so they can get them (C-2s) out of service quicker. So the CMV-22 was moved ahead of some of the MV-22Bs for the USMC.
      – So now the CMV-22s are moved up on the schedule to as soon as possible.

    • vetww2

      I cannot any longer argue with the sheep. Please tell them that ALL actual costs are in the GAO reports, including R&D costs. (which were limited to $290,000,000), GFE, GFi , change and added support costs.
      ALSO, the V-22 program has NEVER, met a deadline within one year, and , in most cases more

      • b2

        Yes sir.. Unfortunately this acquisition is water under the bridge… The requirements were steadily eroded to allow the V-22 to even compete…. The hubris and cheerleading for something that cannot perform the mission entirely (COD) will hurt US Navy naval aviation…especially now as we attempt to go back to our real core mission, unlike this unending LIC since 9-11, that being bluewater (no logheads, no diverts), war at sea, sea control against a conventional peer adversary, IE similar to USSR.

        This platform doesnt help that despite the touted bonus capabilities of a helo.. Like I said- only strong arm insertion by that Bell-Boeing-USMCHASC chairman lobby” led to this acquisition based on expedience and keeping that line open at all costs..

        My issue is that US Navy leadership is an oxymoron…they just go along and have for years…

        • vetww2

          You are a realist, who should not engender opposition. Very important. I, on the other, (and less practical) hand, am a dyed in the wool, lifelong, R&D type, who tries to achieve something not yet here, Your type is VERY much needed. Mine is more fun. BOTH are essential to progress.

        • Secundius

          The incentive to becoming a “Flag Officer”, overrides “Common Sense”…

          • vetww2

            My Career, My Service, My Country, in that order.

        • vetww2

          A peacetime problem.

    • vetww2

      THANKS!~ (all caps for enphasis.)

    • vetww2

      You let the crooked cat out of the propaganda bag. FOR SHAME.

  • airider

    Are the Brits going to buy it? Would make sense for them if they want to bring a more rounded set of capabilities with their new carriers.

    • Kent San

      They crave it. They have an F-35 engine issue to solve too. Just looking for the money.

    • Alistair Gilbert

      Unless we get a discount deal it’s unlikely. It’s simply down to cost even though it would make a great COD or AEW platform. The US Marines will be on board the Queen Elizabeth so hopefully they’ll bring a few with them and the people in charge will see the benefits.

  • RobM1981

    Not to over-simplify it, but: is the Osprey capable of operating while carrying whatever single heaviest item a COD has to carry? An engine, perhaps? Munitions? If it can, then the rest is details.

    Yes, it has a lower overall carrying capacity and a shorter range, so the supply chain has to be modified. OTOH, the VSTOL capabilities provide all kinds of new options, which also will change the supply chain. An Osprey can deploy while the ship is anchored, for example. Do we need to deploy as many helicopters, or can some hangar space be freed up to allow more V-22’s, to make up for the smaller individual COD load capacity? Can the V-22 operate in foul weather as well as the C-2 could? Etc.

    Logistics is that combination of art and science that intrigues a great many people. I’m guessing that they will find a way to deploy this new asset to improve the overall supply chain. Just a guess.

    • Duane

      No – the overall payload is higher for the CMV-22, and the range is not less – the CMV adds fuel tankage over that in the MV-22 in order to achieve the same operational range.

  • johnbull

    Maybe I’m a little dense, but this seems to make a lot of common sense. The old COD plane is getting long in the tooth as they say. Rather than create a new plane, or tweak an old one, do some slight modifications to this one. The inherent flexibility of the Osprey makes ideal for delivery purposes.

  • Buisness Orc

    will allow resupply from …anywhere. We can stash V-22’s full of smokeless tobacco and Cheetos in strategic areas.

  • RunningBear

    Thankfully the CMV-22B is in the USN budget and soon will be on the carrier flight deck. In the meantime, I’m not understanding why the USMC MV-22B can’t “fill in” for the COD, immediately??? If tanking is required for an extended range sortie, then the KC-130J could be made available as required to aerial refuel the Osprey!
    IMHO
    Fly Navy
    🙂

    • Secundius

      Current MV-22B’s lack the ability to be Refueled while in Flight. The [C]MV-22B, is a Block “C” variant of the MV-22B with Inflight Refueling capabilities…

      • RunningBear

        IICR there was a recent loss of a MV-22B in Okinawa resulting from an inflight refueling from a KC-130. Basket and hose damaged the tilt-rotor, resulting in a bumpy ride back to near the coast for the Osprey crew, before they went swimming. Now there are reputed to be 72 variations of Ospreys being “commonized” but at least one has that refueling probe in several videos.

        IMHO
        Fly Navy
        🙂

        • Secundius

          There were some MV-22B’s modified with Aerial Refueling Capabilities, but in order to accept the Modification. The MV-22B had give up something to accept the Modification, usually some Internal Volume Spacing (i.e. Internal Cargo)…

          • Al L.

            “There were some MV-22B’s modified with Aerial Refueling Capabilities,”

            Every production V-22 has a built in retractable refueling probe and mid air refueling capability. Its visible on the right front of the aircraft in almost every picture ever taken of the front of the V-22. Some test units had no probe, and some pre production units had a fixed probe.

          • vetww2

            How come you have not commented on my resume? I would be very interested, since I believe that I explained my background reasonably well. If I have satisfied your doubts, I would appreciate you withdrawing your comments. If not I will be glad to expand on any point.

      • Duane

        Not true … five seconds on Google proves otherwise.

    • Kent San

      Too busy doing their own missions to pick-up this one for the Navy. MV-22s were used in testing to validate the V-22 on the carriers and other ships though and Marines are training the initial Navy crews until they have an FRS. Marine OPTEMPO is so high, they have even had to resort to breaking squadrons into dets just to keep some aircraft in all the spots they are required.

      • RunningBear

        Sorry, that was a bit “tongue-in-cheek”; the canoe club would rather paddle the carrier back to the dock than have a Marine fly COD to their sanctified landing deck! I’m surprised they haven’t changed their name for the Osprey.

        If and when the Osprey comes aboard the CVN as the COD, then I’ll believe there may be a hope for the F-35 “Bee”; lol, lol, lol!!!
        IMHO
        Fly Navy
        🙂

        • Secundius

          As you say the USMC can call them whatever they want! But for the US Army it’s a Tradition that dates back to 1914 by Chief Apache John and the Last Great Indian Council as a means of preserving Indian Tribal Identity. Though U.S. Army Regulation 70-28, was rescinded in 18 June 1976. Tribal Names are maintained by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs and Regulated by the U.S. Patent Office. You read correctly, the US Patent Office…

        • Kent San

          A** clown squid turd.

          • RunningBear

            Off your meds, again?
            🙂

  • vetww2

    Thanks for that brilliant, cogent classic remark. Worthy of being engraved on your headstone, when the time comes.

  • Jeff

    Can the CMV-22B carry an entire F135 engine or does it have to be disassembled to load it and then reassembled to install it?

    • Secundius

      IF “Entire” includes “Lift-Fan” package as well, the answer is NO. IF F-135 Engine Only, the answer is YES…

      • Kent San

        Actually, No. But the engine doesn’t ship that way. The largest portion ins the hot section and a CMV-22B can carry that if the engine if hot section is removed from it’s shipping can and place on a dolly designed for the purpose. Pratt maintains the warranty on the engine provided it’s transported on the approved V-22 specific dolly. Bell/Boeing and Pratt worked to design it together.

        • Secundius

          And where specifically did I say it could. F135 with Lift Fan is ~369-inches long. Usable length of CMV-22B is ~250-inches…

          • Kent San

            So what? Meaningless. The entire engine system ships in five containers. None are a logistics headache aside from the hot section. Man, you’re dense.

          • Secundius

            Try some reading comprehension of said comments before posting you’re rhetorical questions…

  • vetww2

    If you had opposed this expensive junk for 38 years, winning every evaluation argument only to lose to lobbyists and paid off Congressional shills, you’d be a bit charry, too.

  • vetww2

    In the words of the late General McAuliffe, “NUTS.”

  • vetww2

    TO THE EDITORS> I realize that the technical arguments of a vehicle are not of great interest to you, but I think it is a diservice to the contributors to consign them to the nether regions, For example simple minded discussions of XXX-1 VS XXX-2 as a writer remembers is charming news to you reporter types but worthless to those of us who fight to improve our Service equippment. THIS is not meant to be perjorative, but only to provide a different point of view. I will not be miffed if you choose not to post it. As to my qualifications, please read my post, above. if you tell Norm Pohlmar what I have written, he will recognize me, instantly, because at one time he wanted to do my biography. If you do I would apprecate keeping it private, THANKS.

  • vetww2

    See comments below

  • Al L.

    “I think he means “giving” fuel”

    No he was clear, he said:

    “‘Current MV-22B’s lack the ability to be Refueled while in Flight”

    Clearly an uninformed statement.

    • Kent San

      Well, I think it’s certainly a poorly phrased statement as are most of his. I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt here in that loss of internal cargo has to mean because of a fuel tank installed that we know they are testing.

      Running Bears statement intiating this thread is most odd. If you hit the refueling hose with and rotor blade or a V-22 prop it’s just as bad. Sadly, since he knows so little about the aircraft and operations, he also doesn’t know that while the aircraft picked up a vibration as the result of hitting the hose, it probably could have made it back to Futenma, but the climate on Okinawa is so negative to Marine presence there, it was better to land it in the water and risk flying it over land.

  • E1 Kabong

    I can see you’re desperate for attention.

    Stalking website comment boards…..

    Sad.

  • Secundius

    @ Kent San.

    Do you! Without trying to Look It Up on “Wikipedia”. And IF you don’t want to be answered by “Blocking Comments”, DON’T ask Stupid Questions…