Common Support Aircraft (C-XX) competition [2014]

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
970
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Will the Navy buy the Bell-Boeing V-22 to replace the Grumman C-2 Greyhound?

"Osprey on the Truman, Fishing for COD"
Posted by Amy Butler 2:16 PM on Apr 18, 2013

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:ee72908b-a786-455f-8510-c35b64849f10

The MV-22 Osprey is preparing to take a major step in the program's quest to garner more customers outside the U.S. Marine Corps and the Air Force special operations community.

The aircraft is onboard the deck of the carrier USS Harry S. Truman in preparation for trials to validate whether it is suitable to be considered as a replacement for aging C-2 Greyhounds.

The first phase of the assessment Starts April 19, when operators will be “conducting palletized cargo and cyclic operations” using the MV-22 on the Truman’s deck, says Rear Adm. William Moran, Navy aviation chief. This will include transfer of passengers, cargo and “cyclic flight operations.

Moran says that officials need to assess whether they can properly “stuff and unstuff” the MV-22 in line with the operations tempo of the carrier air wing, Moran told Aviation Week following testimony before the House Armed Services airland subcommittee hearing April 17.

Later in June, the assessment will enter a second phase whereby Navy operational testers will assess the aircraft’s integration into “cyclic operations” on deck for six days. This will be crucial, as the V-22 cannot be allowed to slow the fast pace of operations on deck if it is to be a contender for the COD mission.

Currently, the V-22 and an upgraded C-2, managed by Northrop Grumman, are the two options for the future COD mission. Moran says that after the assessment is complete, the Navy will determine whether the MV-22 can compete. If so, a competition is not likely to be funded until the release of the Fiscal 2015 budget proposal at the soonest.

If V-22 is not suitable, then the Navy will then go through the process of justifying a sole-source purchase of Northrop’s upgraded C-2 aircraft; these would share some common parts to the E-2D Hawkeye surveillance aircraft.

Northrop Grumman officials boast that this commonality is a plus for the aircraft, as it is already capable of maneuvering and parking on the deck with ease. They plan to add the E-2D’s T56-427A engines to the upgraded C-2, as well as new wings, digital avionics and an empennage common with the Hawkeye.

Company officials claim that the modernized “C-2A Greyhound will be half the total ownership cost of any other carrier on-board delivery solution.”

Further, they say, the process of loading and unloading cargo and passengers has been well established by the predecessor C-2A. And, they note the cabin would be pressurized, an upgrade that would need to be added to the V-22.

V-22 backers don’t see this as a problem, though, and are not currently planning to offer a pressurized cabin. ”The V-22’s 25,000 ft .service ceiling is similar to other turbo-prop aircraft. Passenger flight operations are routinely conducted in the 8,000 to 12,000 mid-altitude ranges where the aircraft operates most efficiently,” says Bill Schroeder, a Bell-Boeing spokesman. “Unpressurized Navy passenger flights are cleared up to 13,000 ft.” He adds that the Block C weather radar, ice protection system and avionics support flying in all-weather/day/night conditions and air conditioning can be used on long flights for passenger comfort.

The V-22 aircraft is capable of operating on the decks of smaller ships (though some certifications remain), allowing for cargo to be directly delivered to them from ashore. Using the C-2, the Navy employs a hub-and-spoke system whereby cargo is shipped to large deck carriers and then hauled by helicopter to smaller ships in the carrier group.

V-22 proponents say that direct delivery of personnel and cargo could garner savings from the current operational concept.

Both contractors say that parts and service would be low cost owing to the presence of like aircraft in the fleet. However, neither company has provided concrete cost data for public consumption.

Moran says the Navy has completed an analysis of alternatives to review options for the mission. The COD aircraft in service now are suitable until the late 2020s unless an unforeseen problem crops up, he says.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
970
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"Battle brews over US Navy C-2A Greyhound replacement"
By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC
08:15 10 Apr 2013

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/battle-brews-over-us-navy-c-2a-greyhound-replacement-384445/

A battle is brewing between Northrop Grumman and Bell-Boeing over the US Navy's nascent requirement to replace its ageing fleet of Northrop Grumman C-2A Greyhounds.

Bell-Boeing, with the strong backing of the US Marine Corps, is urging the USN to replace its C-2s with its V-22 Osprey tiltrotor. While the navy is officially on board to buy 48 Ospreys, the service has never found a niche for the machine nor has it allocated funding to pay for those aircraft.

For Bell-Boeing, an opportunity arose when a USN analysis of alternatives showed that the only suitable follow-ons to the Greyhound for the carrier onboard delivery (COD) mission were the V-22 or a modernised C-2. A draft request for proposal might be issued as early as 2014.

"The COD recapitalisation, that's sort of a good opportunity for the navy to really get involved with the V-22," says Joe Weston, Boeing's business development manager for the Osprey.

The V-22 and the C-2 have very similar range and payloads, Weston says. Moreover, not only can the Osprey deliver supplies to the carrier itself, but it will be able to transport those goods out to the rest of the vessels within the carrier strike group as needed, he says.

But Steve Squires, Northrop Grumman's C-2 programme director, says that a modernised Greyhound would be the most cost-effective solution for the USN.

"We think we have the best platform, the most capable," he says. "It's purpose-built to be a COD aircraft."

The C-2 has a range of over 1,300nm (2,408km) and is fully pressurised, allowing it to fly above the weather carrying 10,000lb (4,540kg) of cargo, Squires says.

Northrop Grumman, he says, is already producing new E-2D Hawkeye airborne early warning and control system aircraft, which uses an airframe that is mostly common with the C-2, apart from the Greyhound's more rotund fuselage. Producing a new C-2 is essentially just building a new fuselage while keeping the E-2 systems and empennage.

But while manufacturing a new C-2 would be easy, Northrop Grumman says it believes a modernisation strategy is the one to follow. Squires says that Northrop Grumman's incremental modernisation path would migrate upgrades from the E-2 production line onto the C-2, which would reduce the cost per flying hour of the aircraft and defer structural upgrades until absolutely necessary. When the time comes to upgrade the aircraft's structure, there would be many choices available because of the C-2's simple aluminium construction, he adds.
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,644
Reaction score
6,203
Not to be confused with the old ACMA/C-XX!

The Navy will decide over the next two years how it will modernize its fleet of 35 cargo planes that move passengers and supplies from bases on land to big-deck aircraft carriers at sea. The nearly five-decade-old transports, called C-2A Greyhounds, are still in working order, but a portion of the fleet must be either refurbished or replaced before its lifespan ends in 2028.

The Naval Air Systems Command’s carrier onboard delivery advanced development program office plans to solicit industry bids in 2014. The competition is likely to become a showdown between incumbent Northrop Grumman Corp., the original manufacturer of the C-2, and Bell-Boeing, maker of the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft.

Northrop Grumman will propose to rebuild existing aircraft and extend their service life by nearly two decades. Bell-Boeing will offer the V-22, a hybrid that combines the functions of a helicopter and a turboprop aircraft. The company has the backing of the Marine Corps, a champion of the Osprey that has made no secret of its desire to see a larger V-22 presence across naval forces.

The Navy insists that more than just two options will be considered for the modernization of the C-2 fleet. An analysis of potential choices was completed in 2012. The study looked at multiple alternatives, said Naval Air Systems Command spokeswoman Paula A. Paige. Among them: A service life extension program for the C-2A; new construction of improved C-2s, V-22s and improved V-22s; a common support aircraft (C-XX) concept, and a “clean sheet” aircraft design.

Bidders were asked to submit white papers in June. A solicitation for contractor proposals will go out in late 2014, with a due date 90 to 120 days later, Paige said. A contract award is now planned for fiscal year 2016.

The contents of the Navy’s analysis-of-alternatives study have not been released, but industry insiders with knowledge of the findings said the V-22 option scored more favorable reviews than anyone had expected. They surmise that Northrop’s and Bell-Boeing’s bids will be fairly evenly matched, and that the battle for the Navy’s contract will be contentious.

The Navy declined to comment on specific contractor proposals. “It is too early in the process to speculate on details of a competition and potential alternatives leading into a competitive procurement,” Paige told National Defense.

Bell-Boeing officials said they have not seen the study, but are optimistic about their chances against industry powerhouse Northrop Grumman. The company — a partnership of Bell Helicopter in Fort Worth, Texas, and Boeing Rotorcraft Systems in Ridley Park, Pa. — regards the C-2A modernization program as pivotal to its future, as U.S. military orders for the V-22 soon will plateau.

The V-22 first flew in 1989. The Marine Corps began testing it in 2000 and fielded it in 2007, despite a series of crashes that cast doubts on the safety of the aircraft. It is currently in service with both the Marine Corps and Air Force Special Operations Command. The Osprey is now part of the presidential helicopter fleet and in recent years was deployed in both combat and rescue operations over Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

Northrop Grumman, for its part, believes it has the upper hand because rebuilding existing aircraft will cost the Navy far less than buying $67 million apiece Ospreys.

The Greyhounds have been workhorses since they started flying in 1964, and are responsible for ferrying passengers and supplies from shore bases to carrier decks. The fleet of 35 aircraft is showing its age, and the Navy will need to start a modernization program before the airframes begin to experience fatigue-related problems. Northrop Grumman has proposed to update the airframes with new components that would be common with the Navy’s E-2D Advanced Hawkeye radar plane, which the company expects to begin building in 2015.

Remanufacturing C-2 aircraft with components that already are being bought for the E-2D will reduce costs for the Navy, said Steve Squires, director of C-2 Greyhound programs at Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems. “We want to provide the Navy with the lowest cost alternative,” he said in an interview.

“We will be remanufacturing the existing fuselage and replacing the necessary components with parts of the in-production E-2D Hawkeye,” he said. A modernized C-2 would include the cockpit, wings, engines and digital avionics of the E-2D.

The Hawkeye recently completed fleet tests, and Northrop is negotiating terms for a multiyear contract for 32 aircraft. It is projected to join the fleet by fall 2015.

Squires said minor modifications would extend the service life of the C-2 fleet by 20 years, or 7,500 flying hours. This calculation is based on the Navy’s average use of the C-2 of 375 hours per year.

Refurbishing naval aircraft can be a risky proposition because airframes take a beating at sea and damage might not be noticeable until the aircraft is disassembled. Squires said the C-2 fleet is not expected to suffer fatigue problems until the 2020s. “There is a lot of capability in this airplane,” he said.

The C-2 program is a reminder of the risks involved in remanufacturing older airframes. The Navy unsuccessfully sought in the late 1990s to extend the life of outdated P-3 Orion maritime surveillance aircraft, some of which had been flying since 1962. The Navy in 1994 awarded a contract to Raytheon Co. to remanufacture 32 P-3s. The work involved replacing, upgrading, and refurbishing the fuselage, wings, spar caps, flaps and empennage, installing new control cables and portions of the avionics and electrical wiring. Raytheon found that there was more corrosion-related damage than had been expected. Because it was a fixed-price contract, Raytheon concluded that the additional damage could not be repaired for the previously established cost. So the Navy and the company agreed to end the contract after only 13 aircraft.

Bell-Boeing officials hope that past troubles with remanufacturing programs will persuade the Navy to buy new airplanes, even if that requires a larger upfront expenditure. “They are going to put a 40-year-old fuselage underneath all this new equipment. … Invariably all this ends up costing more than budgeted,” said Ken Karika, manager of military business development at Bell Helicopter, and a former Marine Corps V-22 pilot. The Osprey would cost more money upfront than the remanufacturing option, but the Navy would save in the long run, he said.

Another consideration for the Navy is how the Osprey would blend with carrier flight operations. The V-22 would be a new addition to the carrier deck, although the aircraft has been flying off large-deck amphibious assault ships.

The Navy agreed to test the Osprey’s ability to land on a carrier and deliver cargo, and to conduct COD [carrier onboard delivery] missions during breaks in combat jet launch and recovery cycles.

Brian Scolpino, program manager at the COD advanced development program office, said V-22s have flown off flight decks on five separate aircraft carriers. As part of “risk reduction efforts,” he said in a statement, the V-22 program completed in April the “crawl” and “walk” phases of a test known as a military utility assessment. The third phase, which he called “run,” was scheduled for mid-June.

These utility assessments, Scolpino cautioned, should not be characterized as “trials,” as their only purpose was to check how the V-22 integrates with aircraft carrier operations.

Karika said Bell-Boeing officials, at press time, had not been informed of the results of the military utility assessment.

He said the company is optimistic about the V-22’s prospects in a future competition. The Osprey, said Karika, beats the Greyhound in cargo capacity. Its maximum internal capacity is 20,000 pounds, compared to 10,000 pounds in the C-2. The expected service life of a V-22 airframe is 10,000 flying hours.

Karika acknowledged that transitioning from the C-2 to the V-22 for COD duties might appear simple in theory but would require adjustments in how logistics missions are planned and executed.

“We’ve been doing COD missions the same way since the 1960s,” he said. The C-2 flies to the carrier and, after it lands on deck, crews distribute the cargo to multiple helicopters that ferry passengers or deliver supplies to the rest of the strike group.

With the V-22, deliveries could be made point-to-point because it can land and take off vertically, like a helicopter, while the C-2 requires a runway. “This approach would save time and fuel,” Karika said. Ospreys also would be able to conduct rescue missions or medical evacuations from any surface ship or submarine in the strike group, he said. “The carrier becomes more relevant with Ospreys.”

Navy officials have expressed concerns about the V-22 downwash when it lands. “Everyone asks [about the downwash],” Karika said. “It’s really a matter of understanding the V-22. It is different from a helicopter,” he said. “Downwash are narrow areas. If you know them, you avoid them.”

Karika said the Navy also might consider using the Osprey as a refueling tanker for Hornet jets during recovery and launch operations. Bell-Boeing will be testing the Osprey in refueling missions later this summer, he said.

The pressure on Bell-Boeing to win the C-2 competition will grow if sales to the Marine Corps and the Air Force begin to taper off. “We have a hot production line,” said Karika. About 230 aircraft have been delivered to the Marine Corps and Air Force Special Operations Command, and 60 more are under contract. Company officials expect future orders from foreign customers such as Israel and possibly other Middle Eastern nations.


[LINK]
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
970
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
This is a related topic:

"MV-22 Osprey trials for COD on U.S.S. Harry S. Truman"

Source:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,19148.0.html
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
970
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"Marines Pushing Navy to Scrap One of Its Most Important Planes"

Source:
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/1fcfab7e77df
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
6
Triton said:
"Marines Pushing Navy to Scrap One of Its Most Important Planes"

Source:
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/1fcfab7e77df

The Marines are truly incredible. Thanks to David Axe we now know who is really running the show with the US Navy. ::) They apparently call the shots with COD influence already according to him:

And when the Navy test-landed a new Northrop-built drone aboard an aircraft carrier in July, the Marines arranged to fly the chief of naval operations and the secretary of the Navy to the flattop in a V-22 to witness the event. C-2s normally handle passenger service to the carriers.

This of course had nothing to do with the carrier being just a short hop away in a V-22, rather than needing an entire C-2 to transport some VIPs to a flight test. What one-sided, knee jerk "reporting" by Axe.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,819
Reaction score
1,506
One of my great frustrations with the digital age. Idiots like Axe can gain a voice. If he wants to talk about comic books then I suppose he has some credibility, when it comes to aviation and defense related issues he is less than a conspiracy theorist.
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
6
yasotay said:
One of my great frustrations with the digital age. Idiots like Axe can gain a voice. If he wants to talk about comic books then I suppose he has some credibility, when it comes to aviation and defense related issues he is less than a conspiracy theorist.

agreed. I am absolutely shocked at just how biased this is though: There is no thought of comparison or objectivity. I seriously hope he is being paid by Northrop Grumman that would at least help this make some sense. :-\

Oh well. If we wants to crown the Marine Corps the De Facto rulers of the half the armed services, I'll go along with it. BTW this Colonel Masiello:

Masiello’s idea: replace the C-2 with V-22, an aircraft no one had considered for the Cod mission until the Marines butted in. “I might be considered biased,” Masiello admitted as he declared the V-22 “an ideal platform for aerial resupply for the Navy.”

Pretty impressive for an O-6. He came up with the idea and managed to cajole the Navy into it? Astounding. This would be like your 7 year old kid convincing you to give them your car keys to get some cigarettes at the store a few miles away.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
970
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Allow me to offer my apologies. The URL was shared by Sean Meade of the Ares blog, I believed it was credible. I guess I am giving Aviation Week more credibility than they might deserve. I presumed that the information was vetted. That they weren't re-posting links to articles in which the author made up his facts. Shame on you, Aviation Week.
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
6
Triton said:
Allow me to offer my apologies.

No worries. I had not seen it, its garbage but I enjoyed it for reasons other than what was intended. ;D
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
6
Triton said:
TaiidanTomcat said:
Triton said:
Allow me to offer my apologies.

No worries. I had not seen it, its garbage but I enjoyed it for reasons other than what was intended. ;D

I am pretty annoyed and the credibility of Aviation Week has fallen a couple of notches.

They linked to this article, a couple weeks ago:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/147327/lower-f_35-costs-need-a-pinch-of-salt.html

which is a biased, un researched hit piece heavy on assumption.

Not to be too O/T but I am curious if there is an "internal struggle" about where to take their online magazine in the future.

They can be well researched, smart, conservative, even handed and respected by people in the biz and in the know. OR they can try and "go for clicks" from the masses which means vitriol that is too good to check in order to keep large groups of people "entertained" is linked to and other stuff that is "more interesting than honest" to put it tactfully.

Better explained here:

http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/why-the-onion-is-wrong-about-cnn-and-miley-cyrus-1200589821/


If Aviation week writes an even handed report about the C-2/V-22 tradeoffs the clicks will pale in comparison to the Trolling that Axe embraces. And he embraces it in a big way, as he is a little blog on a big internet trying to break into a market.

Long story short? Don't trust Aviation Week
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
304
Replace the C-2 with the V-22? Are you all crazy! If they do that then how will the rest of us earn our Orders of the Hook and get to experience catapulting and arresting.
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
6
Abraham Gubler said:
Replace the C-2 with the V-22? Are you all crazy! If they do that then how will the rest of us earn our Orders of the Hook and get to experience catapulting and arresting.

Anyone who complains about V-22 downwash has never been behind a COD on the cat either...

I can't believe Axe only mentioned the V-22s crash record as well:

On 29 April 1965, YC-2A #148147 ditched into Long Island Sound on a test flight, killing all 4 crewmen.[8]

On 2 October 1969, C-2A #152796 from VRC-50 crashed in the Gulf of Tonkin en route from Naval Air Station Cubi Point to USS Constellation (CV-64), killing all 6 crew members and 23 passengers.[9]

On 15 December 1970, C-2A #155120 from VRC-50 crashed shortly after launch from USS Ranger (CV-61), killing all 4 crew members and 5 passengers.[10]

On 12 December 1971, C-2A #152793 crashed en route from Cubi Point to Tan Son Nhat International Airport, killing all 4 crew members and 6 passengers.[11]

On 29 January 1972, C-2A #155122 crashed while attempting to land on the USS Independence (CV-62) in the Mediterranean Sea, killing both crewmen.[12]

On 16 November 1973, C-2A #152787 crashed into the sea after takeoff from Chania International Airport, killing 7 of 10 persons on board.[13]

Thats 61 killed in 6 crashes by my count, can't believe he didn't mention that. :-X

cva43cod73pm6.jpg
 

cluttonfred

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
1,410
Reaction score
163
Website
cluttonfred.info
I was about to say that it's not quite fair to compare Greyhound to Osprey when it comes to accidents, because surely there have been lots more Greyhounds built, but according to Wikipedia it's 160 to 58 in favor of the Osprey. I do imagine that the rate of accidents per hour for the Greyhound is much less than the Osprey due to the Greyhound's many years of service.

The real argument is going to be operating cost--while the V-22 would add significant new capabilities the CTOL aircraft will never have, it will also be a hell of a lot more expensive. On the other hand, there is no ready-made replacement for the C-2 as any existing modern aircraft would require MAJOR modifications for CTOL operations.

I suspect the COD replacement will be tied to the Common Support Aircraft program--developing one new modular CTOL platform probably makes sense, perhaps using CESTOL technology. Otherwise, it's uprade the C-2 or go with the V-22. What other options are there?
 

Spook

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
148
Reaction score
16
Karika said the Navy also might consider using the Osprey as a refueling tanker for Hornet jets during recovery and launch operations. Bell-Boeing will be testing the Osprey in refueling missions later this summer, he said.

PATUXENT RIVER, Md., Sept. 5, 2013 – The Bell Boeing V-22 Program, a strategic alliance between Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. [NYSE: TXT] and Boeing [NYSE: BA], has successfully completed an initial test of the V-22 Osprey performing as an aerial refueling tanker. Adding this capability to the tiltrotor aircraft would further advance its versatility in combat, humanitarian and ship-based operations.
In the August demonstration over north Texas, a V-22 equipped with a prototype aerial refueling system safely deployed, held stable, and retracted the refueling drogue as an F/A-18C and an F/A-18D Hornet flew just behind and to the side of the aircraft.
“Adding aerial refueling tanker capability to the V-22 will enable operators to execute a wider variety of missions with greater flexibility and autonomy,” said Vince Tobin, Bell Boeing V-22 program director. “This will save time and money by maximizing the efficient use of aircraft and personnel.”
Future Bell Boeing tests will put aircraft in a fuel-receiving position directly behind the V-22, connect receiver aircraft with the refueling drogue and, ultimately, refuel a variety of aircraft in flight. The V-22 is a combat-proven tiltrotor that can fly horizontally at high speeds and high altitudes like an airplane, and take off and land vertically like a helicopter.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/Bell-Boeing-V-22-Osprey-Deploys-Refueling-Equipment-in-Flight-Test
 

Attachments

  • 1174675_688917244469588_1132658073_n.jpg
    1174675_688917244469588_1132658073_n.jpg
    9.9 KB · Views: 1,236

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
6
I was about to say that it's not quite fair to compare Greyhound to Osprey when it comes to accidents, because surely there have been lots more Greyhounds built, but according to Wikipedia it's 160 to 58 in favor of the Osprey. I do imagine that the rate of accidents per hour for the Greyhound is much less than the Osprey due to the Greyhound's many years of service.

actually its 230 units delivered so far with more on the way (total 360 so far).

The real argument is going to be operating cost--while the V-22 would add significant new capabilities the CTOL aircraft will never have, it will also be a hell of a lot more expensive.

Do you know the operating cost of the two by any chance? This claims roughly $10K CPFH:

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/02/05/its-great-time-to-run-v-22-osprey-program-potus-duty-multiyea/

More COD talk:

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-future-cod-aircraft-contenders-the-bell-boeing-v-22/
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
304
cluttonfred said:
On the other hand, there is no ready-made replacement for the C-2 as any existing modern aircraft would require MAJOR modifications for CTOL operations.

As I understand it the CTOL COD option of the future is just a C-2 upgraded along the lines of the latest E-2. The C-2 is still a variant of the Hawkeye so can be easily (comparitively) upgraded with the latest in Hawkeye engines and so on.
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
6
Abraham Gubler said:
cluttonfred said:
On the other hand, there is no ready-made replacement for the C-2 as any existing modern aircraft would require MAJOR modifications for CTOL operations.

As I understand it the CTOL COD option of the future is just a C-2 upgraded along the lines of the latest E-2. The C-2 is still a variant of the Hawkeye so can be easily (comparitively) upgraded with the latest in Hawkeye engines and so on.

yep. Big plus for the C-2 with that.
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,542
Reaction score
1,208
Here some pictures showing scale models for the Common Support Aircraft (C-XX) competition, which were displayed at the Sea-Air-Space 2014 Exposition, April 2014.
[list type=decimal]
[*]Bell-Boeing HV-22 COD in US Navy colours
[*]Lockheed C-3 COD
[*]Grumman C-2 Greyhound Modernisation (C-2 fuselage + E-2D wing, engines, cockpit & avionics)
[/list]


Source: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1714
 

Attachments

  • HV-22_COD_USNavy_SeaAirSpaceExpo2014_navyrecognition.jpg
    HV-22_COD_USNavy_SeaAirSpaceExpo2014_navyrecognition.jpg
    70.7 KB · Views: 952
  • Lockheed_S3_COD_scale_model_SeaAirSpaceExpo2014_navyrecognition.JPG
    Lockheed_S3_COD_scale_model_SeaAirSpaceExpo2014_navyrecognition.JPG
    135.7 KB · Views: 942
  • C-2_COD_upgrade_SeaAirSpaceExpo2014_navyrecognition.jpg
    C-2_COD_upgrade_SeaAirSpaceExpo2014_navyrecognition.jpg
    165.7 KB · Views: 908

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
970
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Published on Apr 27, 2014

Steve Squires, C-2 Greyhound Program Director at Northrop Grumman, explains how the C-2 platform could be modernized and the benefits of this modernization during Sea-Air-Space 2014 naval defense exposition.

http://youtu.be/iconlFkzfbI
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,542
Reaction score
1,208

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,872
Reaction score
2,368
Got to admit I didn't expect this, but the Osprey is the only option that woudn't require some non-trivial development work (even the C-2 Mod would require a bunch to testing to mate the new wing to the old fuselage), so I guess it shouldn't be a surprise after all.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,437
Reaction score
3,271
TomS said:
Got to admit I didn't expect this, but the Osprey is the only option that woudn't require some non-trivial development work (even the C-2 Mod would require a bunch to testing to mate the new wing to the old fuselage), so I guess it shouldn't be a surprise after all.

Also it should be able to fly from amphibious assault ships in support of the F-35Bs.
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,542
Reaction score
1,208

Attachments

  • Bell_Boeing_HV-22_Osprey_USNavy_model_SNA2015_1024x576.jpg
    Bell_Boeing_HV-22_Osprey_USNavy_model_SNA2015_1024x576.jpg
    109.7 KB · Views: 439
  • Bell_Boeing_HV-22_Osprey_drawing_SNA2015_900x644.jpg
    Bell_Boeing_HV-22_Osprey_drawing_SNA2015_900x644.jpg
    465.9 KB · Views: 83

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,542
Reaction score
1,208
The HV-22 COD for the US Navy can carry the the F135 engine internally in its cargo bay. But I don't know yet how a fully loaded HV-22 COD affects the shore to carrier range and speed?
[...]
One of the key requirement of the new COD platform is the abbility to transport the F-135 engine for the F-35C Lightning II / Joint Strike Fighter. The above picture shows two solutions for loading the "engine power module" inside the V-22 cargo bay: one with a pallet railer, the other with extended cargo rails.


One advantage of the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft over its competitors would be its ability to conduct COD missions for big deck amphibious ships such as the America class LHAs or Wasp class LHDs. Another advantage is that a U.S. Navy V-22 could conduct VERTREP (Vertical replenishment) missions in addition to the COD missions.


A Boeing representative told Navy Recognition during Sea-Air-Space 2014 that the V-22 could transport a F-35B engine, with the lift fan element being sling loaded.[...]

Source: www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2333



Edit:
HELI-EXPO: Israel could double V-22 order size, Bell says
By: STEPHEN TRIMBLE, WASHINGTON DC, 24th Feb 2014 Source: Flightglobal.com
[...]
Last week, Bell demonstrated a key capability that could improve the V-22’s appeal to naval and amphibious customers. One of the deficiencies of the Osprey has been an inability to carry the container that transports the Pratt & Whitney F135-600 engine for Lockheed Martin's short take-off and vertical landing F-35B.


Bell and P&W developed a new “frame” that replaces the container, allowing the V-22 to carry the power section of the F135 engine to an amphibious carrier, Garrison says. The new equipment was demonstrated last week in Fort Worth, Texas, he adds.[...]
Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/heli-expo-israel-could-double-v-22-order-size-bell-396274/
 

Attachments

  • HV-22-Osprey_COD_Aircraft_Carrier_Delivery_3.jpg
    HV-22-Osprey_COD_Aircraft_Carrier_Delivery_3.jpg
    183.2 KB · Views: 124

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,872
Reaction score
2,368
So now that the Navy is fixing its surface ship designations (LCS to become FF, etc.) perhaps they can turn an eye to fixing the Osprey designations as well. HV-22 is completely absurd for an aircraft intended mainly for COD. It ought to be a CV-22, along with the Marine assault version. The Air Force can have MV-22 for the Spec Ops birds, as they should have done from the outset.
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,542
Reaction score
1,208
The US Navy will replace the aging Grumman C-2A(R) Greyhound with the tilt-rotor HV-22 Osprey as carrier onboard delivery (COD) aircraft, US sources confirmed on Friday 27 March 2015. Manufacturers Bell and Boeing, who have developped the Osprey together, are set to provide the Navy with 44 HV-22s for a price of 86.8 million a piece. The first Ospreys are planned to enter service in 2020, with the final to be in production in 2024. Unlike the MV-22 assault tilt-rotor in use with the US Marine Corps, the USN HV-22 will have an external fuel tank, adapted SATCOMs, a modified shipboard landing system and other stuff not incorporated on the Marine Ospreys. The HV-22s are likely not to be armed.

Source: airheadsfly.com - HV-22 WILL REPLACE US NAVY GREYHOUND CODS

The Navy Osprey, dubbed the HV-22, will differ from the Marine Corps MV-22. The HV-22 will feature an external fuel tank, different communications and navigation capabilities, high frequency radios, a shipboard landing system and a public address system.

Source: lubbockonline.com - Navy moves forward with V-22 plan for Bell Helicopter
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,542
Reaction score
1,208
[...]
In fact, the biggest and most important question has now been answered regarding the aircraft's behemoth engine produced by Pratt & Whitney. One was successfully brought aboard the Wasp May 20 via MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor aircraft. It now sits in the ship's maintenance hangar.
The successful exercise proved that the engine could be placed on a custom-built cradle that fits in an Osprey without surpassing weight and balance limits that would degrade the tiltrotor's handling beyond acceptable limits.
[...]

"One (F135 engine) was successfully brought aboard the Wasp May 20 via MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor aircraft". According to the Reuters report, the V-22 carried only part of an F135. In order for the V-22 to win the COD selection it had to prove that it was able to carry an F135 internally - as the engine doesn't fit into the V-22 load bay, it has to be broken down into five seperate components.


Sources:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/20/lockheed-martin-fighter-idUSL1N0YB03520150520
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/05/26/marine-f-35b-conducts-first-operational-testing-at-sea/27983193/
 

Attachments

  • F-35B_F135_custom-built cradle_MV-22B_Osprey_USMC_20150527.JPG
    F-35B_F135_custom-built cradle_MV-22B_Osprey_USMC_20150527.JPG
    59.2 KB · Views: 46

cluttonfred

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
1,410
Reaction score
163
Website
cluttonfred.info
This looks very much like one of those procurements that has become so politicized that very little common sense was applied to the final decision. An updated Greyhound would seem to be about perfect for the very specialized job it was designed for and has done well for decades. A zero-time overhaul and cargo conversion of mothballed S-3 Viking airframes would also have also made a lot of sense. Fitting a square peg into a round hole and saying the V-22 Osprey can handle the job that it doesn't have the range or the hauling capacity to do is pure politics designed to keep the V-22 production line going, nothing more. It's disappointing that the Navy seems to be going down that road.
 
Top