Home » Aviation » Navy Establishes First CMV-22B Squadron


Navy Establishes First CMV-22B Squadron

Squadron plank owners reveal the new logo for Fleet Logistics Multi-Mission Squadron 30 “Titans” (VRM-30) at the establishment ceremony. Cmdr. Trevor F. Hermann, the commanding officer, VRM-30, looks on, with Capt. Marcello Caceres, the commander of Airborne Command & Control and Logistics Wing seated on the left, and Vice Adm. DeWolfe Miller, the commander of Naval Air Forces seated on the right.

The Navy stood up its first squadron that will field the CMV-22B in a Friday ceremony. The Titans of Fleet Logistics Multi-Mission Squadron (VRM) 30 will be the first unit to field the replacement for the Navy’s fleet of C-2A Greyhound carrier onboard delivery (COD) aircraft.

“This platform is our future and when you look at the nature of the future fight, we need that versatility, that flexibility that’s going to be provided in every subsequent squadron that transitions,” Vice Adm. DeWolfe H. Miller, the Navy’s air boss, said during the ceremony, held in San Diego.

Compared to the C-2A Greyhound, the CMV-22B has an increased range, more cargo capacity, enhanced beyond-line-of-sight communications, and offers quicker cargo loading and unloading, according to the Navy.

In October, Navy officials announced they had sped up the transition to CMV-22B as the fleet’s COD. The first three CMV-22B aircraft are now expected to deploy in 2021, according to the Navy. The retirement of the Navy’s last C-2A Greyhounds is now scheduled to occur in 2024, about three years earlier than the previously announced 2027 retirement. Navy aircrews already started training with Marine MV-22 Osprey crews.

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

The following is the complete Dec. 14, 2018 statement from Naval Air Forces.

SAN DIEGO – The Navy held an establishment ceremony Dec. 14, 2018 at Naval Base Coronado to commemorate the establishment of Fleet Logistics Multi-Mission Squadron (VRM) 30, the Navy’s first CMV-22B squadron.

VRM-30 was established to begin the Navy’s transition from the C-2A Greyhound, which has provided logistics support to aircraft carriers for four decades, to the CMV-22B, which has an increased operational range, greater cargo capacity, faster cargo loading/unloading, increased survivability and enhanced beyond-line-of-sight communications compared to the C-2A.

“Where no instructions existed, no patch existed, no ‘here’s how we are going to perform our duties everyday’ existed, this team will define that. And it’s exciting because we can establish right off the bat those best practices,” said Vice Adm. DeWolfe H. Miller III, Commander, Naval Air Forces. “This platform is our future and when you look at the nature of the future fight, we need that versatility, that flexibility that’s going to be provided in every subsequent squadron that transitions.”

The first CMV-22B aircraft are scheduled to be delivered to the squadron in FY20. While VRM-30 awaits the arrival of the CMV-22B, Navy pilots and maintainers will train with the United States Marine Corps, which has flown the MV-22 since 2007. As the C-2A squadrons stand down, their pilots and aircrew will transition to the CMV-22B. The final C-2A squadron is scheduled to stand down in FY24.

The CMV-22B is the U.S. Navy version of the V-22 Osprey, a multi-engine, dual-piloted, self-deployable, medium lift, vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) tilt-rotor aircraft.

  • Curtis Conway

    May Fleet Logistics Multi-Mission Squadron (VRM) 30 have fair weather for their missions.

  • CharleyA

    Not sure the new aircraft has increased range / cargo capacity over the C-2 – detailed config stats please.

    • Secundius

      Rather lengthy “PDF” File of 459 pages…

      ( https : // www / public . navy . mil / usff / environmental / Documents / v22 – final / final – ea – transition – cmv-22b . pdf )

    • Duane

      Range is about the same, capacity of the Osprey is larger, and it has the ability to carry huge external sling loads that a fixed wing aircraft simply cannot do at all, and to transport F135 engines for the F-35, which the C2 cannot do at all .. and the Osprey has the ability to operate on and off most of our surface warships and auxiliaries, again, which a C2 simply cannot do at all … and the Osprey has the ability to operate from unimproved LZs on land, an important capability in time of war when air bases are the first targets hit, and again, this is a capability a C2 simply cannot provide at all.

      No contest.

      • CharleyA

        Not entirely true. Neither aircraft can carry fully assembled F135 engines internally in their standard shipping containers. The Navy has devised special racks that allow disassembled F135 components to be transported in either aircraft. I would imagine that a fully assembled engine could be sling-loaded with a V-22 from a support ship to the carrier or L Class boat. The Marines have to remove airframe components on their MV-22s to squeeze the engine through the ramp, then reattach them before flight. Not sure if the CMV-22 has been modified to mitigate this issue.

        • Duane

          The CV-22 can carry a complete F135 engine, it just needs to take it out of the shipping crate. And even removing it from the shipping crate is not necessary if it is sling loaded, which of course a C-2 can never do.

          A C-2 cannot haul an F-135 engine no matter what.

          A C-2 is a one trick pony. All it can do is land on and take off from full runways, be they on a big deck carrier or on land, and it can never carry a sling load or carry anything that doesn’t fit in its cargo door. Very limited capabilities.

          CV-22 opens up a world of other capabilities that C-2 simply “no can do”.

          • CharleyA

            Sorry bud, the Greyhound can indeed carry F135 modules – the cargo bay is larger than the CMV-22 bay. Both aircraft cannot carry the F135 + its container internally, hence the rails / frame solution. The C-2 is also faster, can fly higher (above wx,) and is pressurized. The V-22 COD program essentially keeps the V-22 line open for a few more years, long enough to support another tranche of MV-22s for the Marines in the 2020s. What the CMV-22 buy allows is a rapid development time frame vs. a new build / re-winged / re-engined C-2.

          • Curtis Conway

            Truth, Duane needs to give this one up. With just a little investigation one can see the pictures, and read the story.

          • Duane

            Facts are facts. CMV-22 haters ignore the facts .. they just don’t like new stuff. Same old, same old applied to anything new the Navy and DOD do, like a bunch of angry old cacklebirds chattering away, fact free.

          • Duane

            Yeah, if you break the engine up into little pieces they fit in the C-2. A fully assembled F-135 is carried internally by the CMV-22.

            You’re wrong about everything but pressurization. No aircraft can truly “fly above the weather” since thunderheads typically reach 50,000 ft or more. All aircraft fly around thunderstorms, not over them. The Osprey has a service ceiling of 25,000 ft which is more than sufficient for any mission (they’re not flying over the Himalayas), with oxygen provided to crew and passengers as needed.

            The C-2 simply cannot do about 75% of what the CMV-22 routinely and easily does, as I noted above. The C-2 is a an old, obsolete one trick pony, while the CMV-22 is a new many tricks herd of capability that the C-2 simply is unable to match, not even close.

          • CharleyA

            Or you can take the V-22 apart to fit F135 components inside the aircraft, then have to reassemble the V-22 on the prior to flight. Trade offs to both solutions. As for your other counterpoints, you are incorrect. But then you’re not a aviator, thus would not be expected to understand aviation wx, or how load factors affect operational altitude and ranges.

          • Duane

            Yes, I am a licensed pilot and aircraft owner – for the last 42 years.

          • CharleyA

            Then you should understand the BS you wrote.

          • Duane

            I understand the truths of which I wrote.

          • old guy

            No, you are only convinced.

          • alsotps

            Play nice. Differences of opinion DO exist even when looking at the same stats.

          • old guy

            VERY well said. Civility prevents childish conflict. I believe that there is NOT a single poster at this site that isn’t 100% for Navy and country.

          • Curtis Conway

            Excerpt from Naval Aviation News (8JUN17): “Where the V-22 really shines is taking the critical logistics out to a distance that gives the carrier strike group flexibility. The CMV-22B is designed to carry maximum cargo for more than 1,100 nautical miles, whereas the C-2 can’t fly that far in a maximum cargo configuration. Typical ship-to-shore planning is currently at a max range of 800-1,000 nautical miles, and the C-2A is very cargo-weight limited at that range. The Navy variant of the Osprey is not as limited—it will carry 6,000 pounds for 1,100 nautical miles, whereas the Greyhound can only take about 800 pounds of cargo with typical shore-to-ship mission planning constraints up to 1,000 nautical miles before it runs out of gas.”

          • USNVO

            Care to provide a link that the C-2 can carry the F135. I have never seen anything, outside of your unsubstantiated claim (which I consider hearsay). While the cargo box is bigger on the C-2, I have seen numerous claims (also hearsay, I am agnostic hear and just want something more official than faceless posters before I believe they are true) that there are other issues with the C-2. One specifically is that the rail system as used on the V-22 can’t provide sufficient shock protection to avoid potential damage to the engine during arrested landing (and no it is not the same as if the engine section was in an F-35C), something that isn’t an issue on the V-22 which land vertically.

          • CharleyA

            We are all “faceless internet posters,” are we not? I’d like to see more documentation about the selection as well. I haven’t heard or read about acceleration damage to F135 modules in arrested landings, but that certainly is plausible. The urgency to replace the C-2s was driven in part by the failure of the CSA (C-XX,) program, and not necessarily that a V-22 derivative was the ideal solution. But it will be interesting to see how the CMV-22B is used in practice.

          • USNVO

            We are, but carrying a F135 section on a special rail system on the V-22 has been demonstrated. The fact that they haven’t included the C-2 in having that capability lends credence to the claim that it is not possible. Again, I have heard several possible reasons but consider them all hearsay until I can see it in a verifiable source.

          • Secundius

            I suspect THIS is what you are referring too.

            ( http : // navalaviationnews . navylive . dodlive . mil / 2017 / 08 / 31 / nawcad – cargo – lab – refines – skip – for – f – 35 – engine – power – module / )

            I’ll see IF I can find an associated Video of the evolutionary use of the Wheeled Pallet System being used…

          • Secundius

            Follow up! Company that makes the Wheeled Pallet is “Marand” of Victoria, Australia…

            ( https : // www . marand . com . au / solutions / aerospace – ground – support – equipment )

          • CharleyA

            I’m skeptical because the C-2A rebuild (re-wing / re-engine) was an option up until it wasn’t, and the decision to pursue the MV-22 variant went forward We’ve known the F135 specs for a LONG time now, and the Navy knew they would have to support it on the boats. Seems doubtful they would keep the C-2A option alive if they knew it wouldn’t work. The Navy DOES have to justify its selection however, and I don’t think they were sold until the shipboard trials proved they could work the MV-22 into the cycles. The Marines were also facing the potential shutdown of the V-22 line if another customer wasn’t found before they could afford another tranche of MV-22s later in the 2020s (F-35s and CH-53s need to be purchased.) The Navy took over the Marines’ remaining production slots for the MV-22, and will act as a placeholder until the Marines re-prioritize or gain additional aviation funding

          • USNVO

            We look at events in a fundamentally different way.

            I see the rejection of the updated C-2 as an indictment to the projected cost of a “simple” update to the C-2. It couldn’t meet the requirements as is, and the changes needed to meet the requirements would require basically an entirely new aircraft (even if it was still just an updated C-2). That pushed the cost too high and the delivery schedule out too far to the right for what is an economy of force mission.

            Once it was clear that the updates to the V-22 could be accommodated with only minor changes, and the airframe could meet the requirements, it was the logical choice. Every aircraft has its strengths and weaknesses, but the Navy needed the cheapest and quickest solution to the problem that met the requirements. Note that there is no reason the V-22 fuselage couldn’t have been enlarged to allow it to carry the engine in its container, but the cost was prohibitive for an entirely new varient of the V-22.

            I am equally sure other issues were at play. But that is true of every option. Frankly, my skeptical nature assigns the fact that the C-2 is a “tailhook” plane while the V-22 is just a fancy helicopter the primary opposition to the CMV-22B.

          • CharleyA

            Maybe. The dimensions and weights of the F135 have been more-or-less known since the the F-35’s first flight in 2006 (and likely earlier.) The Navy would have eliminated the C-2 as a viable candidate long before they chose a V-22 derivative if a C-2 recap was not going to work. And I agree that other issues were (more than) likely at play.

          • USNVO

            Ah, you are missing the most important part.

            The C-2A wasn’t in the competition, it clearly doesn’t meet the requirements without major improvements in avionics, engines, etc. It was always going to be an “improved” version with new engines, new wing, rebuilt or new fuselage, new cargo handling system, new avionics, etc. A lot of it was based off the E-2D but it was going to require a lot of new stuff too. In other words, it was going to require a new program, cost a fortune to develop and test, and take a long time to complete.

            That would make sense only if an existing, in production, aircraft couldn’t do the mission. Once said aircraft was found (especially being in service with the USAF and USMC as well), the “re-manufactured” C-2 had no chance. Pretty much the same reason the Lockheed KC-3 had no hope of seeing the light of day either.

            For the mission, good enough is good enough. Kind of like the H-60 being used as a VERTREP helo. Not the best solution, probably not even as good as the aircraft it replaced, but good enough.

          • old guy

            The best choice could be compounding existing helo designs. Actually could be done as a mod to some, like the Apache. If you are not familiar with the difference, it seperates the lift and the thrust, the smaller rotor ONLY supplying lift (Flies level) and either a power take-off or seperate engine, supplying thrust.
            Results,
            1, Easier handling
            2. Higher top speed
            3. Lower rotor tip speed.
            4. No transition
            5. No long multi-jointed cross shaft
            6. Lower complexity (maintennance time and cost)
            7. Easier to fly.
            The main down check is that sidewise maneucer is more difficult.

          • USNVO

            And the fact they don’t currently exist nor have they every existed. Beyond that, a compound helicopter is great.

          • Except that compound helicopters don’t actually work – the SB-1 Defiant has just had it’s first flight delayed to 2019 after being originally planned for 2017.

          • Secundius

            I suspect what “old guy” might be referring to is the next step evolution of the venerable “Apache” (i.e. Apache-Guardian). Which has extended Wing Like protrusions similar to the AH-56 “Cheyenne” Test Bed Attack Helicopter. And is rumored to have a centerline Cargo Hook as well, to be able to carry the Lighweight M777 Howitzer if needed…

          • old guy

            Substitute endorsing “Jet-engine powered” and you guys would sound EXACTLY the same

          • old guy

            Hey guys comment on my post that has been shoved down to the nether regions.

          • Graeme Rymill

            The F135-PW-100 and F135-PW-600 engines are comprised of five modules: fan module, power module, augmentor module, nozzle module, and gearbox module. The F135-PW-600, {as used in the F-35B} has additional components, including variable area vane box nozzle, lift fan, lift fan clutch, driveshaft, roll posts, and 3-bearing swivel duct. As numerous articles attest the CMV-22B will be carrying just the power module not the complete engine. This is the heaviest of the five modules by far.

          • Duane

            That makes zero sense. If the CMV-22 can carry the largest and heaviest module of an F135 engine then it most certainly can carry every bit of the engine all at once. The volume of its cargo area and the cargo payload capacity all greatly exceed both the volume and the weight of a complete F-135 engine.

            The weight of an F-135 engine is but 3,750 pounds, which is but 1/6 the payload capacity of the CMV-22. The length of the F-135 engine is but 220 inches, or 18 ft 4 in., easily accommodated within the cargo area of the CMV-22.

          • Graeme Rymill

            If the CMV-22 can carry all 5 modules simultaneously it would not be as a complete engine. It would be in five separate parts.

            The F135 engine is modular to make it easier to repair. Modules are sent off to repair depots not complete engines. This dictates that modules are transported in individual containers no matter what aircraft or helicopter or vehicle is carrying them.

            Can a V-22 carry more than one separate module simultaneously? I have no idea other than to say that the standard module containers are hugely bulky which is why the power module container was unsuitable for transporting the power module in the V-22 and a special skid designed instead.

          • Duane

            Boeing built a special skid or rack to fit inside the CMV-22 and carry the entire engine in one piece, it apparently reduces the outside dimensions of the normal shipping crate for the F-135.

          • Graeme Rymill

            Pratt & Whitney built a special skid or rack to fit inside the CMV-22 and carry just the power module of the F135 engine.

            In August 2017 it was reported that:
            Pratt & Whitney has delivered the first production variant of a transport skid for the F135 power module via MV-22B Osprey aircraft to the United States Marine Corps, the company said in a statement.

            The MV-22B vibration dampening protective skid offers the Marine Corps a vertical replenishment (VERTREP) option to transport replacement F135 power modules for their fifth generation F-35B Lightning II fighter aircraft aerially from shore to deployed ships at sea.

            “The delivery of the first production variant of the transport skid to the Marine Corps is a significant milestone for the sustainment of the F-35B fleet,” said Ray Lindsay, senior director, F135 Sustainment, Pratt & Whitney Military Engines. “Having the capability to transport F135 power modules aerially while underway is a game changer.”

            Under the existing Systems Development and Demonstration Contract with the F-35 Joint Program Office, Pratt & Whitney is scheduled to deliver two more transport skids to the Marine Corps later this year. In addition, the United States Navy will also be able to utilize the transport skid to replenish and retrograde F-35C power modules during future deployments of its nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (CVN) as they begin to replace their existing Carrier Onboard Delivery (COD) aircraft with CMV-22Bs in the coming year.

            [Google “P&W delivers first transport skid for F135 power module” to find the online. Note the constant use of “power module” to describe the component being transported.]

          • old guy

            Not to mention a world of exagerated performance claims.

      • Bubblehead

        A V22 landing on an AB would be quite a feat. Not saying it cant be done but it wouldnt be easy. Sling loads have nothing to do with carrier delivery. They arent going to sling load supplies 1000 miles.

        • Secundius

          Usable Flight Space of Flight Deck of an “Arleigh Burke” measures ~52’07” in length by ~51’02” in width. Though the breadth of the “AB” is ~66’06”, it tapers to ~48′ at the fantail…

        • Duane

          An Osprey, just like a helicopter, does not need to land on a ship to supply a ship … it can sling a load, or it can winch it down, or even just roll it down the ramp to plop on deck depending upon the load

          With a C-2, no can do. All a C-2 can do is land on and take off from a CVN and no other ship in the Navy.

          In wartime, if a big part needs replacing, slinging it may be the only way to get it to the carrier strike group quickly. It may or may not be a 1,000 nm haul … it could be just a 100 or 200 or 500 mile haul … but when it absolutely, positively has to get there overnight, or the same day, a sling load can mean the difference between a ship dead in the water, or fully operational.

          As an interesting but related aside, the V-22s all have a rear ramp, and they are all capable of flying or hovering in reverse with a flat deck angle. So even a ship with a small fantail and even lacking any flight deck at all can receive cargo (or even passengers) from an Osprey as long as the ship is making minimum forward way … at least as long as the seas aren’t too big.

      • Bubblehead

        Range is not “about the same” and the less range combined with slower speed is less than optimal. Its really the only option without an expensive and timely design of a new aircraft. One of the more troublesome shortcomings is there is a blind spot in the middle Pacific carriers will be out of range of both Hawaii and CA Ospreys. But the shortcomings are partly made up by its vertical ability.

        • Duane

          Range is virtually identical for the CMV-22 – it differs in design from the standard MV-22 precisely in the addition of an aux fuel tank to make the range equal to or better than the C-2. Also, the published range of the CMV-22 is at max gross weight, while as another commenter pointed out above, the max range for a C-2 at max gross is far below its published max range. The CMC-22 can carry more stuff than the C-2 at much longer range and at about the same airspeed (241 knots cruise vs. 251 knots cruise speed).

      • b l

        The Greyhound cannot do everything an Osprey can do. But what it can do, it can do at a fraction of the cost. That alone justifies it, in the world we have today.
        During the 2nd world war, when a operational air unit received new aircraft, it would often keep a few of the older aircraft around, which were called “hacks”. These hack aircraft were then used for utility duties which would have taken the more valuable newer aircraft away from their primary duties.

        Keeping some Greyhounds as hacks to use when the impressive and expensive abilities of the Osprey are unnecessary would be a good idea.

    • old guy

      Sold on the basis of 24 passenger attack convertaplane.

      Never met a single spec, cost TWICE what was proposed. Congressional baby. Only exists because sub contracts are in almost every state. Instead of Osprey, it shold be called Taxpayer-prey.

      • Duane

        Meets specs, all of them. Cost is $72.1M for the standard V-22, a little more for the CMV-22 with its aux fuel tank and upgraded electronics. A bargain for what the aircraft does that no other aircraft on the planet, including the C-2, can come remotely close to doing.

        The Marines and AF absolutely love their V-22s, which have now been in service including in combat for more than a decade.

        • old guy

          Duane, I know that you are an advocate, but, please, answer the questions that I posed to Lockhart, above.
          To counter yourstatement on meeting ALL specs, the following specs were among those changed, from the RFP.
          Range, at top, cruise and max, no load, full load
          Speed, Top empty, full load.
          Full load lift. no range (transfer serviuce.
          Cross shaft vibration limit,
          allowable tip speed

      • GaryLockhart

        If willful ignorance was a capital offense, you’d be sitting on death row.

        • old guy

          I don’t know where you come from, but I will tell you that besides me, (I was Navy’s S&T Development Director, at the time, and have an M.S. in Aerodynamics), 3 Marine Commandants, one COMNAVAIR and one COMNAVSEA all tried to kill it. I lost a friend at Pax river in it and have written a paper on the technical flaws of the V-22. The V-22 is a product of Congress and lobbyists.
          Let me ask you a few Questios. If your answers are YES. You win. If, no, I win.
          1, Do you carry your groceries home with them at the end of outstretched arms?
          2. Do you push down on your childs’s shoulders when the child is trying to stand up?
          3. Do you run your airplane with the propeller tip speed supersonic?

          i’m afraid the ignorance is all on your side. Happy execution!

  • Bubblehead

    I think the USN is being a little deceitful. The range & speed of 22 is less than c2 if my memory serves me right. But the Navy version of 22 has increased range and slightly higher speed then USMC V22.

    • Duane

      Cruise speeds are within single digit knots of each other. Range is identical – what distinguishes a CV-22 from a regular MV-22 is the addition of an aux fuel tank that makes the range the same as a C-2.

  • old guy

    Best of luck with that over priced, under perfominng hunk-a-junk. It should be designated CMVBS-22.
    the BS stands for Below Standard. Hah, I fooled ya.

  • RunningBear

    MH-60S – external payload of 6,000 lb
    CMV-22B – external payload of 15,000 lb (dual hook)
    CH-53E – external payload of 27,000 lb
    CH-53K – external payload of 36,000 lb
    IMHO
    Fly Navy
    🙂

    • old guy

      MH-60S – external payload of 6,000 lb Max speed 70 kts
      Max range 450 miles
      CMV-22B – external payload of 15,000 lb (dual hook) Max speed 65 kts
      Max range 425 miles
      CH-53E – external payload of 27,000 lb Max speed 65 kts
      Max range 800 miles
      All numbers are approximate. but telling.

      • RunningBear

        USN C-2A external load 0.0kts.
        Actual
        Fly Navy
        🙂

  • Ed L

    well with parts in inventory for the Greyhound disappearing, something needs to be done.

    • Secundius

      “Harry S. Truman” received a “Sintering” Machine (3-D Metal Printer) in 2017, and “Essex” in 2014 to replicate Metal Replacement Parts on both vessels. Aerojet Rocketdyne successfully “Sintered” an RS-25 Rocket Engine in 2015, and plans to Start replicating more starting in 2024 to wean off of the Russian made RD-180 Rocket Engines…

  • DaSaint

    All the best to them. Looking forward to this new asset. Like Curtis, I think an AEW version needs to be developed. With phased array technology as it is, it shouldn’t be too hard to affix them on the fuselage and /or above the fuselage, similar to Saab’s AEW variant.

    • Secundius

      Only one problem? How would you mount the Swedish Saab “Erieye” Phased Radar Antenna! Rear supporting Strut is mounted to Aft Fuselage, and Wing Fold System of CMV-22B would interfere with wing folding system…

      • DaSaint

        I didn’t mean it literally. I have no idea how we would mount a phased array system above the fuselage. Maybe it folds flat in two pieces, then folds vertically. Dunno. I get how they could be mounted on the fuselage, as the Israelis do. Maybe it mounts underneath and folds down. Dunno. Point is, it’s a mechanical and electronic problem that is most likely solvable. Modern signal processing can stich together signals from disparate antennas into one coherent picture.

        That’s what high priced engineers get paid to do. Give them the problem: Mount a capable phased array AEW system to an Osprey for testing – and let them solve it.

        • Secundius

          Leonardo’s 7500E “SeaSpray” is a Phased Radar Array small enough to be Raised and Lowered through the Centerline Dorsal Hatch of the CMV-22B’s fuselage. It has an “Instrumental Range” of ~300nmi. and can detect Missiles up to ~200nmi. away. Complete Antenna Array weighs less than 100-kilograms…

  • USNVO

    It will be interesting to see what changes, if any, come about from the introduction of the CMV-22B. It is essentially a MV-22B with some additions for the COD role so it is still a very effective tactical transport.

    Everyone knows it can perform heavy VERTREP with the CSG, can fly during non-fly days on the CVN, or fly to CLF ships instead of the CVN if required. But it also has great potential for a variety of other missions.
    – Long range SAR for instance. If a pilot is lost 500nm from the CVN, there is nothing currently in the CSG that could rescue them. But a CMV-22 could easily fly much further, being AAR capable, and recover the pilot, provide assistance, or whatever.
    – AAR, although it would be somewhat limited in this role, it could augment existing tankers and future MQ-25s.
    – They would also be excellent assets for humanitarian support.

    Cost being no object (both personnel and dollars, which it always is), I could easily see an additional couple of aircraft added to the typical detachment to allow a couple of CMV-22s to always be on the carrier. There should be plenty of room.

    • Graeme Rymill

      “[CMV-22B] can fly during non-fly days on the CVN”
      One more advantage it apparently has over the C-2A is that the C-2A currently does not do night carrier landings. It has done so in the past but due to the cost of keeping the pilots night landing qualified this is no longer happening.

      • Graeme Rymill

        One more advantage:

        “The change to a helicopter-style aircraft means more flexibility for the Navy. The Osprey doesn’t require a carrier to be at “flight operations,” which takes a crew of roughly 50 sailors overseeing the equipment required to land and launch airplanes, Navy officials said. It takes only five people to land the MV-22.”

        • Duane

          That, and the fact that a CMV-22 can literally directly supply virtually any ship, whether warship or auxiliary. It can vertically land and take off on the ships with larger flight decks, and can winch, drop, or sling load supplies to any ship at all.

          C-2 can only land and take off from a big deck CVN or from a full, regular airport runway.

        • USNVO

          Beyond that, the VERTREP capability of the CMV-22 allows the movement of F135 in their shipping/storage containers from logistics ships to the CVN. Currently, the power section and shipping container weighs to much for the existing STREAM rig and exceeds the capacity of the MH-60S. Since the CMV-22 will be with the CVN, it can fly its normal COD mission to the CVN, do a couple of heavy VERTREPs with the logistics ships (doesn’t have to be an F135, anything over 6000lbs exceed the MH-60S hook capacity), and then do the normal COD flight back to shore. So you get a heavy VERTREP aircraft, something previously unavailable to the CVN except when near to MH-53E dets, as well as a COD.

      • USNVO

        I doubt the CMV-22s will be doing much flying at night, at least if they follow the same routine as the C-2. The big issue the C-2 had was, since they usually carry passengers, they didn’t fly at night anyway. So keeping the pilots proficient required dedicated qualification flights as opposed to staying qual’d with their routine flights. The same issue will follow the CMV-22. However, the ability to land outside the normal CVN flight times without major disruption to the CVN may make it more likely the CMV-22 will do non-pax flights at night making it easier to keep them proficient at night. In any event, if the COD has to do specific night qual flights to maintain a capability they rarely or never do, regardless of aircraft they probably will let the qual lapse.

  • Graeme Rymill

    The C-2A Greyhound has a 10,000 lb payload maximum limit for carrier operations. The F135 power module plus skid that has been developed weighs about 7,100 lbs. [See Naval Aviation News article –

    NAWCAD Cargo Lab Refines Skid for F-35 Engine Power Module ]

    The C-2A requires the use of a cargo cage for safety reasons when carrier landings and catapult takeoffs are required. This adds 1,543 lbs. Route support equipment routinely carries adds another 1,880 lbs. The winch equipment is about 280 lbs. [Weights taken from from the C-2A NATOPS Flight Manual found online].

    These weight additions would place a C-2A over the limit for an arrested landing. At maximum payload the C-2A’s range is reduced from the maximum figures often quoted.

  • RobM1981

    I would imagine that the gators have been using the V22 as a COD for quite a while now, right? Something tells me there is plenty of data behind this.

    I have a hard time calling a $70M aircraft a “bargain,” but we need what we need.

    • Secundius

      US Navy/NASA has be “Toying” with a COD variant on the V-22 since at least 2001…

  • b2

    This sole source, non competitive acquisition selection for a Carrier On Board Delivery aircraft is a bad replacement for C-2 if we really want to operate blue water against peer adversaries, but it is done.. Don’t spin it any further with specious “just as good” arguments… (they are spin/B.S.). We will live with it…

    There will be consequences because this insufficient, awkward aircraft, along with this ill defined, doomed to failure, MQ-25, an associated logistics component just awarded, will seal the deal for a CVN support aircraft future that makes the CVW -CSG weaker and less apt to be efficient… Mark me- Forget about challenging our adversaries very much like we were able to back in the late 1980s despite all the talk and it seems we will never learn.. Gimmicks/easy button never pan out.

  • MaskOfZero

    The V-22 had a bad start–but for years now it has proved invaluable, rugged, and tough.

    The flexibility now acquired by commanders because of the V-22’s capabilities is incalculable. There are so many valuable missions these aircraft could perform in a pinch, from replenishing a distributed fleet directly, to being a tanker for long range missions, in addition to ship-to-shore replenishment, anti-sub–the list is endless–it is a versatile platform.

  • old guy

    I understand that they are retraining fixed wing pilots to helo duty
    Wacky,wot? Does anyone have more info on this?

  • RunningBear

    The consensus appears to be Welcome to the Navy CMV-22 Osprey? and good bye to the C-2A (job well done). With the Corp wringing out “all” of the flight issues, the Navy can now adopt the “22” for all of the similar chores. Even the flight training will be performed by the Corp, until the Nav establishes their own FRS.

    Personally, with the “22”, the extension of vertical lift to the smaller flight decks will be a great resource for the CVB and perhaps even open up new tactical options for the “22”, ie; AAR (ro-ro), C2/ AEW for the amphibs, future gun ship, etc. etc.
    IMHO
    Fly Navy
    🙂

    • Secundius

      Keep in mind the Flight Deck of the Arleigh Burke measures approximately 52 feet by 51 feet and Not entire Aft End of the “AB’s” is Thermal Protected by the Down Wash of the CMV-22’s Blow Torch engines. The “Freedom’s” is ~1.5 times the size of the “AB’s”…

      • RunningBear

        ….but if not required, the sling can deposit a pallet or two of the much preferred boxes of money, on to the same deck!; which a C-2A ……cannot.

        IMHO
        Fly Navy
        🙂