Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 9066
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:53 pm

I don’t recall the details of the process to replace the C2 Greyhound Cod


Were there other conventional fixed wing contenders for that role ?


What about aircraft such as the C27J ? Was it considered? It would have seemed a strong choice, with its large cargo capacity, good speed, pressurization (unlike the V22) and with its rugged construction modifying it with a tail hook and folding wings wouldn’t have been too difficult


Half a C130 load would be very useful
 
Newark727
Posts: 2544
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:19 pm

IIRC Northrop Grumman might have pitched an upgraded version of the C-2
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:29 pm

Northrop Grumman proposed upgrading the C-2 in a similar way as the E-2D. Lockheed proposed the C-3, rebuilt S-3 Vikings with a new fuselage with a ramp and cargo hold:

Image

Image
 
texl1649
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:05 pm

The “C-3” was imho the best option, but USN wanted more V-22’s.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:30 pm

texl1649 wrote:
The “C-3” was imho the best option, but USN wanted more V-22’s.


More? They didn't have any to begin with.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:43 pm

VSMUT wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
The “C-3” was imho the best option, but USN wanted more V-22’s.


More? They didn't have any to begin with.


Well fine but the USMC did, and it’s the same branch/logistics group. It also cost a ton more than the C-3 option would have, with less capability.
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1512
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:43 pm

Wow, I didn't realize there was a CMV-22B. My first thought is of course 'where are the going to put it?' ... the answer is.. they have to unload and reload before using the deck for anything else, so they don't really put it anywhere? I guess it folds to its fuselage dimensions, but maybe they're saying that's too much of a pain for a typical op?
https://news.usni.org/2016/08/03/navy-m ... experiment

Final line there is interesting, though. They do now have the ability to use same COD planes for America class, which will also operate F-35s and V-22s.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12586
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:44 pm

texl1649 wrote:
The “C-3” was imho the best option, but USN wanted more V-22’s.


Was the proposed "C-3" also the cheapest option? The V-22 isn't the cheapest right?

Max Q wrote:
What about aircraft such as the C27J? Was it considered? It would have seemed a strong choice, with its large cargo capacity, good speed, pressurization (unlike the V22) and with its rugged construction modifying it with a tail hook and folding wings wouldn’t have been too difficult


Seems like a very expensive option, could it even fit a carrier?
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6170
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:56 pm

Max Q wrote:
What about aircraft such as the C27J? Was it considered? It would have seemed a strong choice, with its large cargo capacity, good speed, pressurization (unlike the V22) and with its rugged construction modifying it with a tail hook and folding wings wouldn’t have been too difficult


Seems like a very expensive option, could it even fit a carrier?[/quote]

The C-2 has a 25 m wing span, the C-27 has 29 meters. Not that bad. Maybe adding folding wings to the C-27 would be worthwile...
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 623
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:02 pm

"can the c27j even fit on a carrier?"

Anything can fit anywhere as long as you throw enough money at and cut enough capabilities from it. That being said, it's not the absolute worst idea ever, but it wasn't cost effective.

The CMV-22 appears to be the most expensive, but most flexible option. The C2-"d" would certainly have been an improvement for the platform, but was the improvement what they needed? The thinking that I've seen is that the CMV-22 (c22 going forward) is capable enough for the primary COBD mission while also offering a few new capabilities:

It can also supply the gator carriers.
It can supply any other ship that has enough deck space to land a v-22, such as the independence LCS, the LPDs, etc.
It can retrieve and deliver items to shore side unimproved landing areas.
It creates the capability for the COBD craft to also do ship to ship delivery, where, before, that required the use of other platforms that might be otherwise tasked.
It can still land on a fouled deck as long as there is a cleared area, handy for doing COBD to a carrier that has been damaged. In some specific situations, a C-2 would be beyond the point of no return and the craft would be lost or no COBD mission would be possible.

So, it's certainly not ideal for the primary mission, but it can still do what's needed, and a while lot more.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:47 pm

Dutchy wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
The “C-3” was imho the best option, but USN wanted more V-22’s.


Was the proposed "C-3" also the cheapest option? The V-22 isn't the cheapest right?

Max Q wrote:
What about aircraft such as the C27J? Was it considered? It would have seemed a strong choice, with its large cargo capacity, good speed, pressurization (unlike the V22) and with its rugged construction modifying it with a tail hook and folding wings wouldn’t have been too difficult


Seems like a very expensive option, could it even fit a carrier?


No, the V-22 was far from the cheapest option. In fact, it was ludicrous, in both capability and cost compared to the others.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/stupi ... 1679559201

I don’t think it’s as horrible as Tyler does in that piece, but it is not...a great transition imho given our pivot to the Pacific, for the COD mission.
 
Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 9066
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:46 am

Interesting points

To me the big disadvantage of the V22 is its lack of pressurization, forcing it to fly at lower altitudes en route and in the weather rather than above most of it, not to mention the higher cabin altitudes


Don’t really understand why conventional fixed wing solutions weren’t given a chance, the most logical (and cheapest) solution was an upgraded C2, with the E2 as a template and still in use for the projected future that would have made a lot more sense with regard to shared spare parts as well
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3826
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:40 am

Max Q wrote:
Interesting points

To me the big disadvantage of the V22 is its lack of pressurization, forcing it to fly at lower altitudes en route and in the weather rather than above most of it, not to mention the higher cabin altitudes


Don’t really understand why conventional fixed wing solutions weren’t given a chance, the most logical (and cheapest) solution was an upgraded C2, with the E2 as a template and still in use for the projected future that would have made a lot more sense with regard to shared spare parts as well

Lack of ability to carry a fully assembled F135 engine with its transportation cradle for starters, and the ability to carry loads that are larger externally for starters.

Being able to sling a load directly from shore to other ships without having to unload the aircraft on the carrier, and repack it so it can be carried on a helicopter is a major asset as well. The V-22 can pretty much sling cargo to any ship in the fleet directly, carry more, and can fly further as well.
 
GDB
Posts: 14396
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:42 am

In the early 80's the original production C-2's were being considered for replacement, I recall what seemed an unlikely proposal, here it is;
https://www.airlinereporter.com/2014/05 ... er-oh-yes/
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2441
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:33 am

texl1649 wrote:
No, the V-22 was far from the cheapest option. In fact, it was ludicrous, in both capability and cost compared to the others.

Yes the V-22 is by far the cheapest option to get cargo to ships. I'm sick of hearing people say that it is expensive. Nothing can come close to the cost.

Previously when the carrier battle group required cargo all of the freight had to come to the carrier. Loads then had to get split onto helicopters to send to smaller ships. Multiple extra flights, extra aircraft and more space on the carrier flight deck is taken up handling freight to smaller ships. The V-22 can hop from destroyer to destroyer delivery cargo.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:50 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
No, the V-22 was far from the cheapest option. In fact, it was ludicrous, in both capability and cost compared to the others.

Yes the V-22 is by far the cheapest option to get cargo to ships. I'm sick of hearing people say that it is expensive. Nothing can come close to the cost.

Previously when the carrier battle group required cargo all of the freight had to come to the carrier. Loads then had to get split onto helicopters to send to smaller ships. Multiple extra flights, extra aircraft and more space on the carrier flight deck is taken up handling freight to smaller ships. The V-22 can hop from destroyer to destroyer delivery cargo.


How do you intend to work that?

More than a mailbag can't go as internal cargo for delivery to a ship that does not allow for the V-22 to land.

You can drop one external load per flight. I don't think you can attach a dozen individual loads externally
and drop those individually.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3826
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:37 pm

WIederling wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
No, the V-22 was far from the cheapest option. In fact, it was ludicrous, in both capability and cost compared to the others.

Yes the V-22 is by far the cheapest option to get cargo to ships. I'm sick of hearing people say that it is expensive. Nothing can come close to the cost.

Previously when the carrier battle group required cargo all of the freight had to come to the carrier. Loads then had to get split onto helicopters to send to smaller ships. Multiple extra flights, extra aircraft and more space on the carrier flight deck is taken up handling freight to smaller ships. The V-22 can hop from destroyer to destroyer delivery cargo.


How do you intend to work that?

More than a mailbag can't go as internal cargo for delivery to a ship that does not allow for the V-22 to land.

You can drop one external load per flight. I don't think you can attach a dozen individual loads externally
and drop those individually.

You can have the V-22 perform a pinnacle landing, with just the rear wheels touched down, and roll the load off the rear ramp onto the ship.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 5464
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:56 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
WIederling wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Yes the V-22 is by far the cheapest option to get cargo to ships. I'm sick of hearing people say that it is expensive. Nothing can come close to the cost.

Previously when the carrier battle group required cargo all of the freight had to come to the carrier. Loads then had to get split onto helicopters to send to smaller ships. Multiple extra flights, extra aircraft and more space on the carrier flight deck is taken up handling freight to smaller ships. The V-22 can hop from destroyer to destroyer delivery cargo.


How do you intend to work that?

More than a mailbag can't go as internal cargo for delivery to a ship that does not allow for the V-22 to land.

You can drop one external load per flight. I don't think you can attach a dozen individual loads externally
and drop those individually.

You can have the V-22 perform a pinnacle landing, with just the rear wheels touched down, and roll the load off the rear ramp onto the ship.


On a moving ship in pitching seas. Please.
 
User avatar
HowardDGA
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2021 8:02 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:17 pm

LightningZ71 wrote:
It can supply any other ship that has enough deck space to land a v-22, such as the independence LCS, the LPDs, etc.


Doesn’t the deck require further treatment to handle the downward-pointing V-22 exhaust during landing? Like what the America class needed for F-35s? Or do the newer ship classes already have this designed in?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14662
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:51 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
No, the V-22 was far from the cheapest option. In fact, it was ludicrous, in both capability and cost compared to the others.

Yes the V-22 is by far the cheapest option to get cargo to ships. I'm sick of hearing people say that it is expensive. Nothing can come close to the cost.

Previously when the carrier battle group required cargo all of the freight had to come to the carrier. Loads then had to9 get split onto helicopters to send to smaller ships. Multiple extra flights, extra aircraft and more space on the carrier flight deck is taken up handling freight to smaller ships. The V-22 can hop from destroyer to destroyer delivery cargo.


For the cost of moving a whole CBG a couple of hundred miles closer to the coast that costs nothing I presume?

Best regards
Thomas
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 623
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:14 pm

HowardDGA wrote:
LightningZ71 wrote:
It can supply any other ship that has enough deck space to land a v-22, such as the independence LCS, the LPDs, etc.


Doesn’t the deck require further treatment to handle the downward-pointing V-22 exhaust during landing? Like what the America class needed for F-35s? Or do the newer ship classes already have this designed in?


I've never seen it in print that the landing pads of any other ships, save for the gator carriers and the LPDs, have been properly prepared for the V-22. For sling loads, it shouldn't matter. For actual wheels on deck though, I guess it would be dependent on expected operational tempo. I did recently read where they were investigating an applied coating that would make it safer for v-22s to land on unimproved pads from time to time, but, I don't know if that ever was more than just a discussion.
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1512
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:18 pm

GDB wrote:
In the early 80's the original production C-2's were being considered for replacement, I recall what seemed an unlikely proposal, here it is;
https://www.airlinereporter.com/2014/05 ... er-oh-yes/


Oh, that's cool. Amazing that they were considering passenger jets like the F28 and DC9. Even today, I'd think the Q-400 stood a better chance of conversion than, say, the cr7 or a220, but I'm not sure that I have anything to support that supposition. You just get used to seeing E-2s and C-2s and assuming they're not jets for a reason. But... it's not like short field performance matters, does it? (Ironically)
 
petertenthije
Posts: 4298
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:10 pm

GDB wrote:
In the early 80's the original production C-2's were being considered for replacement, I recall what seemed an unlikely proposal, here it is;
https://www.airlinereporter.com/2014/05 ... er-oh-yes/

Maybe they can ask Rekkof to build a carrier capable F70. LOL
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2441
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:57 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
For the cost of moving a whole CBG a couple of hundred miles closer to the coast that costs nothing I presume?

Moving the whole CBG would only apply if the V-22 was landing on the carrier. It can land and refuel at a ship closer to shore.

The V-22 has a higher MTOW and lower empty weight than the C-2 greyhound. So with the same payload the V-22 can carry considerably more fuel. The V-22 has double the max payload weight compared to the C-2 (9,070kg vs 4,536 kg). The V-22 also has a higher ferry range 2,230 nmi vs 2,000nm.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_C-2_Greyhound


The Navy cargo V-22 is getting extra internal fuel capacity for even greater range.

https://militaryfamilies.com/military-n ... avy-fleet/
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:32 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The V-22 has a higher MTOW and lower empty weight than the C-2 greyhound. So with the same payload the V-22 can carry considerably more fuel. The V-22 has double the max payload weight compared to the C-2 (9,070kg vs 4,536 kg). The V-22 also has a higher ferry range 2,230 nmi vs 2,000nm.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_C-2_Greyhound


The Navy cargo V-22 is getting extra internal fuel capacity for even greater range.

https://militaryfamilies.com/military-n ... avy-fleet/


C-2 CV22B
OEW 15,307kg 14,798 kg

MTOW 27,216 kg 21,546 kg ( CV22B @ VTO! )

extra internal fuel is a glass dagger, useless for the use case.

so if you want that range you can airtanker 3.5t of fuel ( to overall MAX MTOW ) after liftoff.
That is quite a lot of hassle for operations.
 
Mat1776
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:21 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:09 pm

A cargo version of the E-2D Hawkeye seems to be the logical choice to me.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4178
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:57 pm

Y'all realize that the C-2 and the E-2 are old design using old materials and may only exists on old PCM drawings?

Even if the air frame is aluminum, the aluminum used may not be the more modern aluminum that facilitate/speed-up manufacturing.

And if the designs were mot digitized on to 3-D CAD system, then good luck getting any supplier to build your parts in any kind of realistic schedule or price.

bt
 
Mat1776
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:21 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:49 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Y'all realize that the C-2 and the E-2 are old design using old materials and may only exists on old PCM drawings?

E-2D Hawkeye is an old design, for sure, but it has been updated, and is still in production.
I don't know what it takes to convert an E-2D into a C-2 beyond removing the radome and its associated support structure, electronics, and adding a cargo ramp.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4178
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:42 pm

Ah, then chances are, they will have digitized the design.

bt
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 5464
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:00 pm

Mat1776 wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
Y'all realize that the C-2 and the E-2 are old design using old materials and may only exists on old PCM drawings?

E-2D Hawkeye is an old design, for sure, but it has been updated, and is still in production.
I don't know what it takes to convert an E-2D into a C-2 beyond removing the radome and its associated support structure, electronics, and adding a cargo ramp.


Well, that and a completely new fuselage. The tail and wings are common but beyond that not much else.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:34 pm

The bell medium lift army submission might make an interesting replacement in a dozen or more years
 
BestIntellect
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:20 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:58 pm

Mat1776 wrote:
A cargo version of the E-2D Hawkeye seems to be the logical choice to me.


Ummm....
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2441
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:11 am

Mat1776 wrote:
A cargo version of the E-2D Hawkeye seems to be the logical choice to me.

What a laughable choice. The Navy could buy a fleet of V-22 just for the development cost of a modified Hawkeye. The E-2D also has a lower MTOW than the V-22. Once you add that huge cargo bay it will have less range than the V-22.

The V-22 can land and deliver freight directly to nearly 100 US Navy ships including the following:
11 aircraft carriers
9 amphibious assault ships
11 Amphibious transport dock ships
12 Dock landing ships
2 Amphibious command ships
22 cruisers
11 littoral combat ships

Any of these ships can accept V-22 cargo flights from shore and control cargo delivery to the rest of the battle group. The aircraft carriers can then concentrate on this primary job.

It is highly likely some of these smaller ships will be located much closer to shore than the aircraft carrier. So the carrier can still get cargo from the V-22 even when it is far outside the range of any direct flight fixed wing proposal.

The original question: "Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2?"

This is like asking the question "Was the car the only candidate to replace the horse and carriage?"

We did have the option improving the horse and carriage with rubber tyres, fancy wheel bearings and electric indiactors instead of moving to cars. But we weren't that stupid when new technology arrived. We always had the option to keep sending freight directly to the carrier creating a bottleneck and reducing the carrier's offensive firepower.
 
Mat1776
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:21 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:55 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The E-2D also has a lower MTOW than the V-22. Once you add that huge cargo bay it will have less range than the V-22.


According to Wikipedia (yes, your disdain is noted...),

[MV-22B]
Maximum take-off weight VTO: 47,500 lb (21,546 kg)
Maximum take-off weight STO: 55,000 lb (24,948 kg)
Maximum take-off weight STO, ferry: 60,500 lb (27,442 kg)

Similarly, according to Flight Global ( https://www.flightglobal.com/cutaway-te ... 99.article )
[E-2D]
Maximum take-off weight: 57,500lb (26,800kg)

So, unless you are talking about the V22 in a ferry flight, E-2D has a higher MTOW.

As far as the weight of cargo plane version of the E-2D with the radome, the huge pylon, and all the AEW electronics removed, it should have significantly lower empty weight than the E-2D.

Although, I think it makes more sense to retrofit all the updated hardware from the E-2D to C-2 than trying to convert the AEW craft into a cargo plane.
And, as I said before, I don't know whether they still have active supplier chain and the tooling to produce C-2 Greyhound fuselage and its subsystems.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2441
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:46 am

Mat1776 wrote:
So, unless you are talking about the V22 in a ferry flight, E-2D has a higher MTOW.

I actually completely covered this already.

The highest MTOW for the V-22 is when it operates from a long runway, the same runway that the E-2 would operate from. The V-22 then has the higher MTOW on every flight. Forcing the V-22 to takeoff off vertical or limit it to short runways would be intentionally misleading.

I would suggest everyone read this PDF file

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a562098.pdf

Page 59 has payload range charts that list the multiple takeoff weights and with auxiliary fuel tanks.

Fuel Capacity
MV-22, gallons (liters). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,721 (6513)
CV-22, gallons (liters). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,025 (7667)

This internal fuel capacity is fine when carrying heavy loads or taking off vertical at sea. But in the new cargo delivery role with lighter cargo loads and taking off from a long runway the V-22 has plenty of takeoff weight available for fuel. That is why the new CMV-22B aircraft are getting extra internal fuel capacity added. The Navy knows they would always be carrying the current heavy auxiliary tanks as the flights are mostly long range. The tanks weigh around 800kg empty. More than a full aux tanks worth of fuel is getting added to the internal fuel capacity.

The C-2 can carry 4,500kg a distance of 1,300nm. The current V-22 can carry 3,400kg that distance according to that payload range chart. What is even more amazing the V-22 is using two of the heavy auxiliary tanks. Once this fuel becomes internal the weight saved in the tanks will allow it to easily exceed the 4,500kg payload of the C-2.

The V-22 has excellent range. The requirement to takeoff vertical has caused it to be extremely light giving more weight available for fuel and payload.
 
BestIntellect
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:20 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:02 am

I wan to point out that the Navy already has a COD version of the E-2D Hawkeye, which is the C-2A(R) Greyhound, you know, the plane that we're talking about replacing over the course of this thread. And yes, the C-2A(R)s have been upgraded to the same standard as the E-2Ds.

...man I love this place....
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:13 am

BestIntellect wrote:
And yes, the C-2A(R)s have been upgraded to the same standard as the E-2Ds.


*They have been updated to E-2C standard.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2441
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:52 am

VSMUT wrote:
BestIntellect wrote:
And yes, the C-2A(R)s have been upgraded to the same standard as the E-2Ds.


*They have been updated to E-2C standard.

Yes the E-2D has more powerful and efficient engines compared to the current C-2. The C-2 also does not have the digital cockpit of the E-2D. The proposal by Northrop Grumman was to give the C-2 the same engines as the C-2. Range was said to improve by around 150nm.

The V-22 is still far superior as it does not use the hub and spoke cargo model.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:42 pm

LightningZ71 wrote:
"can the c27j even fit on a carrier?"

Anything can fit anywhere as long as you throw enough money at and cut enough capabilities from it. That being said, it's not the absolute worst idea ever, but it wasn't cost effective.

The CMV-22 appears to be the most expensive, but most flexible option. The C2-"d" would certainly have been an improvement for the platform, but was the improvement what they needed? The thinking that I've seen is that the CMV-22 (c22 going forward) is capable enough for the primary COBD mission while also offering a few new capabilities:

It can also supply the gator carriers.
It can supply any other ship that has enough deck space to land a v-22, such as the independence LCS, the LPDs, etc.
It can retrieve and deliver items to shore side unimproved landing areas.
It creates the capability for the COBD craft to also do ship to ship delivery, where, before, that required the use of other platforms that might be otherwise tasked.
It can still land on a fouled deck as long as there is a cleared area, handy for doing COBD to a carrier that has been damaged. In some specific situations, a C-2 would be beyond the point of no return and the craft would be lost or no COBD mission would be possible.

So, it's certainly not ideal for the primary mission, but it can still do what's needed, and a while lot more.


But still not as good at VERTREP as the Phrog!

Yeah, I was like "are you sure?" when the V-22 was announced as the COD replacement but it makes sense especially for CASEVAC.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Sun Apr 25, 2021 9:33 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Mat1776 wrote:
So, unless you are talking about the V22 in a ferry flight, E-2D has a higher MTOW.

I actually completely covered this already.

The highest MTOW for the V-22 is when it operates from a long runway, the same runway that the E-2 would operate from. The V-22 then has the higher MTOW on every flight. Forcing the V-22 to takeoff off vertical or limit it to short runways would be intentionally misleading.


Which is moot. I've told you before.
The only time you can use full MTOW is when starting from a land base.

The V22 is not going by catapult or coming in by capture wire.

Thus all other contacts need to heed the VTOL limits.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Sun Apr 25, 2021 9:59 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The V-22 is still far superior as it does not use the hub and spoke cargo model.


Disagree. That is a matter of choice/priority by the US Navy. The V-22 as you note opens up new possibilities since it can support ships other than supercarriers. Doesn't necessarily make it or the model superior.

But if you ask me, the ability to resupply smaller ships is probably less valuable than suggested. The Wasp's and America's already carry a large contingent of MV-22s that can do the job. Destroyers and frigates have historically never had the need, and what they do need is typically stuff that gets delivered by a replenishment ship. The C-2 is less complex, probably way more reliable and easier to service and get parts for around the world.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2441
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Sun Apr 25, 2021 10:56 am

WIederling wrote:
Which is moot. I've told you before.
The only time you can use full MTOW is when starting from a land base.

The V22 is not going by catapult or coming in by capture wire.

Thus all other contacts need to heed the VTOL limits.

And I'll tell you again. Every time the C-2 brings in cargo to the carrier battle group it is taking off from a land base. So the V-22 taking off from that same land base can use the full MTOW every time.

When the V-22 arrives at the carrier most of the fuel has been burnt so it can land vertical with the cargo. So every time it takes off with its full MTOW it will be able to land vertical.

As cargo is only going one way it can takeoff from the carrier vertical and fly 1,400nm according to the payload range chart I linked to. The C-2 can only fly 1,300nm when bringing 10,000lb to the carrier so the V-22 has more than enough range to return to the land base while taking off vertical.

Taking off vertical with cargo would be used when sending cargo within the carrier battle group. The V-22 can take off vertical with the 10,000lb max payload of the C-2 and fly it 500nm which would easily cover any ship in the battlegroup. Even the King Stallion can't fly 500nm with that payload between ships.

I don't know why you are wanting the V-22 to takeoff vertical from the carrier and send cargo back to shore. That doesn't happen so it doesn't matter if that is the only situation where the V-22 cannot match the C-2. For argument's sake if that was needed then the V-22 could land and refuel at ship closer to shore.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10965
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:41 pm

So what are the chances of the V22 using the angle deck for a rolling take-off with cargo onboard, is the a/c capable of doing that?
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:54 pm

par13del wrote:
So what are the chances of the V22 using the angle deck for a rolling take-off with cargo onboard, is the a/c capable of doing that?


This seems to go into depth on the topic.
https://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=17415

no time read it ...
 
Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 9066
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Sun Apr 25, 2021 6:00 pm

Aside from the issues with deck coating could a V22 land on a DDG ?

Is there enough space ? I suppose it doesn’t matter if the engines and rotors are over the deck edge ?
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Mon Apr 26, 2021 7:44 am

Max Q wrote:
Aside from the issues with deck coating could a V22 land on a DDG ?

Is there enough space ? I suppose it doesn’t matter if the engines and rotors are over the deck edge ?


src: https://militaryfamilies.com/military-n ... avy-fleet/
New V-22 is designed specifically for the Navy

Beyond the versatility a tiltrotor brings, the Navy variant is designed to operate on all of the types of ship certified for the MV-22B, including:

Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser (CG),
Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer (DDG),
Freedom-class littoral combat ship (LCS),
Independence-class littoral combat ship (LCS), for Vertical Replenishment (VR)
Tarawa and America-class landing helicopter assault ships (LHA),
Wasp-class landing helicopter dock ship (LHD),
San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship (LPD),
Nimitz and Ford-class aircraft carriers (CVN) for both VR and Launch and Recovery (LR) operations, along with VR and/or LR operations to numerous naval supply ships in use today.
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1512
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Mon Apr 26, 2021 6:08 pm

WIederling wrote:
par13del wrote:
So what are the chances of the V22 using the angle deck for a rolling take-off with cargo onboard, is the a/c capable of doing that?


This seems to go into depth on the topic.
https://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=17415

no time read it ...


Fascinating even if I can't follow it all. It explains why the America LHA class has a thick white dashed line to the left of the runway centerline, as shown in the image here:
https://www.seaforces.org/usnships/lha/ ... ca-002.jpg
... because that is the V-22 centerline, for STO. You can see the V-22s on one centerline vs. the F-35's on actual center. The V-22 rotors don't clear the parking area unless they use the left side of the deck. And indeed, you see the rotors touching the lines that delineate the parking areas.

So the the answer is yes, it's capable, and one mention in the paper says that it's possibly safer than VTOL because the period of single-engine-out danger is shorter. The yellow transverse line closer to the bow might be the starting point for V-22 takeoff roll?
 
Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 9066
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:42 am

WIederling wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Aside from the issues with deck coating could a V22 land on a DDG ?

Is there enough space ? I suppose it doesn’t matter if the engines and rotors are over the deck edge ?


src: https://militaryfamilies.com/military-n ... avy-fleet/
New V-22 is designed specifically for the Navy

Beyond the versatility a tiltrotor brings, the Navy variant is designed to operate on all of the types of ship certified for the MV-22B, including:

Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser (CG),
Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer (DDG),
Freedom-class littoral combat ship (LCS),
Independence-class littoral combat ship (LCS), for Vertical Replenishment (VR)
Tarawa and America-class landing helicopter assault ships (LHA),
Wasp-class landing helicopter dock ship (LHD),
San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship (LPD),
Nimitz and Ford-class aircraft carriers (CVN) for both VR and Launch and Recovery (LR) operations, along with VR and/or LR operations to numerous naval supply ships in use today.



With respect to the smaller ships like the DDG does ‘operate off’ mean it can actually land on board or hover and deliver a sling load ?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2441
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Wed Apr 28, 2021 5:09 am

Max Q wrote:
With respect to the smaller ships like the DDG does ‘operate off’ mean it can actually land on board or hover and deliver a sling load ?

The smaller ships are vertical replenishment only with sling loads. Launch and recovery is on the larger ships the LHA, LHD, LPD and carriers.

Even the smaller helicopter deliver using sling loads. So in no way can the V-22 haters consider this a negative. Image

The V-22 can carry approximately 3 times as much a seahawk and deliver it twice the distance.
 
889091
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:56 pm

Re: Was the V22 tilt rotor the only candidate to replace the C2 ?

Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:43 pm

How much extra downward jetwash does the V-22 produce compared to a Seahawk (if any)? If so, do the loads need to be slung lower so that they hover higher?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObfdLy-QlsU&t=7s

Goto 02:35

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bikerthai, sovietjet and 20 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos