More trouble for the Cv22 Osprey
Discussion
Trevatanus said:
Actually it’s the CMV22 Marine version which according to The Pentagon, is not operationally suitable for the carrier re supply mission. I don’t know anything about building aircraft, but why can’t they get this aircraft reliable?
Another procurement fiasco.The replacement for the C-2 with the V-22 is a political driven procurement, based on skewed requirements to favour the V-22, and not one based on common sense, operational needs or even financial sense.
New build C-2B's would make far more sense, operationally and financially, which is what many in the USN are wanting.
I'm sure Rob Roy would prefer to stick with the Greyhound, nothing like a catapult launch, and the build up to it 
https://youtu.be/ZyMrOQCpYhs?si=g9rCMm_L0BCN5Z9S
https://youtu.be/ZyMrOQCpYhs?si=g9rCMm_L0BCN5Z9S
It certainly made no sense to me why the Navy would go for a far, far more complex aircraft with a smaller internal capacity to do the job of a flying 'Italian Job' bus (carries people or roll-in freight).
The only real advantages of the CMV-22B was that it could deliver direct to helidecks on smaller ships and had spares commonality on ships carrying other V-22 variants.
The only real advantages of the CMV-22B was that it could deliver direct to helidecks on smaller ships and had spares commonality on ships carrying other V-22 variants.
Stupid aircraft choice is stupid. It's as expensive and complex as a helicopter but as large as an HGV. Total porkbarrel, it's reasonable to observe updating C2 with all the updates applied to the E2 would be very expensive on a per airframe basis but it makes so much more sense operationally and the through life costs would be much lower.
hidetheelephants said:
Stupid aircraft choice is stupid. It's as expensive and complex as a helicopter but as large as an HGV. Total porkbarrel, it's reasonable to observe updating C2 with all the updates applied to the E2 would be very expensive on a per airframe basis but it makes so much more sense operationally and the through life costs would be much lower.
The prices I've seen quoted was a new build C2 was about 60% of the cost of an Osprey, with operational costs about 50% of the Osprey, in terms of cost per flying hour, as the Osprey needs nearly 200+ people more for the same numbers of aircraft to maintain them as a C2.The C2 can fly higher as well, and has a slightly longer range, and is less challenging in terms of deck ops.
hidetheelephants said:
Stupid aircraft choice is stupid. It's as expensive and complex as a helicopter but as large as an HGV. Total porkbarrel, it's reasonable to observe updating C2 with all the updates applied to the E2 would be very expensive on a per airframe basis but it makes so much more sense operationally and the through life costs would be much lower.
I'm not sure you're correct... It's seems far more complex than a simple old helicopter...I can't help but look at it and wonder that a conventional twin turboprop transport - among the lines of c-295, c27 etc - either re-engined with Pegasus , or turned into compound aircraft where the engines that are effectively turboshafts anyway run through a gearbox to split/combine forward propellors and lift rotor(s) would be simpler and more reliable.
Teddy Lop said:
I'm not sure you're correct... It's seems far more complex than a simple old helicopter...
I can't help but look at it and wonder that a conventional twin turboprop transport - among the lines of c-295, c27 etc - either re-engined with Pegasus , or turned into compound aircraft where the engines that are effectively turboshafts anyway run through a gearbox to split/combine forward propellors and lift rotor(s) would be simpler and more reliable.
All very expensive; they have a satisfactory plane in the C2 Greyhound, it's just a bit old and hasn't received the modernisation the E2 has despite having a high level of commonality; apply the same modernisation to it and it can serve for another 40 years.I can't help but look at it and wonder that a conventional twin turboprop transport - among the lines of c-295, c27 etc - either re-engined with Pegasus , or turned into compound aircraft where the engines that are effectively turboshafts anyway run through a gearbox to split/combine forward propellors and lift rotor(s) would be simpler and more reliable.
hidetheelephants said:
Teddy Lop said:
I'm not sure you're correct... It's seems far more complex than a simple old helicopter...
I can't help but look at it and wonder that a conventional twin turboprop transport - among the lines of c-295, c27 etc - either re-engined with Pegasus , or turned into compound aircraft where the engines that are effectively turboshafts anyway run through a gearbox to split/combine forward propellors and lift rotor(s) would be simpler and more reliable.
All very expensive; they have a satisfactory plane in the C2 Greyhound, it's just a bit old and hasn't received the modernisation the E2 has despite having a high level of commonality; apply the same modernisation to it and it can serve for another 40 years.I can't help but look at it and wonder that a conventional twin turboprop transport - among the lines of c-295, c27 etc - either re-engined with Pegasus , or turned into compound aircraft where the engines that are effectively turboshafts anyway run through a gearbox to split/combine forward propellors and lift rotor(s) would be simpler and more reliable.
This the USMC political mafia trying to get their way as usual.
The C2 can't transport the F-35 engine and can't be modified to fit one either, which means a new "blank page" design would be needed.
The V-22 can fit an F-35 engine without having the core aircraft design changed, plus it can be modded to do extra tasks as required with some limitations.
That was the main reason the V-22 was chosen - fitting an F-35 engine into an existing without mods required - and the C2 was ignored because it couldn't.
The V-22 can fit an F-35 engine without having the core aircraft design changed, plus it can be modded to do extra tasks as required with some limitations.
That was the main reason the V-22 was chosen - fitting an F-35 engine into an existing without mods required - and the C2 was ignored because it couldn't.
IanH755 said:
The C2 can't transport the F-35 engine and can't be modified to fit one either, which means a new "blank page" design would be needed.
The V-22 can fit an F-35 engine without having the core aircraft design changed, plus it can be modded to do extra tasks as required with some limitations.
That was the main reason the V-22 was chosen - fitting an F-35 engine into an existing without mods required - and the C2 was ignored because it couldn't.
I've seen in the back of a C2 and there's enough room for engines, they must have carried engines for F14s and the F35's is developed from the latter, if the extra indivisible length is the issue even fuselage plugs strike me as a lot cheaper and more practical than succumbing to the 'Whooohooo V22!' lobby.The V-22 can fit an F-35 engine without having the core aircraft design changed, plus it can be modded to do extra tasks as required with some limitations.
That was the main reason the V-22 was chosen - fitting an F-35 engine into an existing without mods required - and the C2 was ignored because it couldn't.
Edit to add;
I hope the congressional reps and senators who were lobbied by Boeing enjoyed their porkbarrel.
thewarzone said:
The Navy is right to say that the C-2 can’t carry the F-35’s engine inside its standard shipping container, a bulky configuration that weighs 9,350 pounds. But the CMV-22B, despite its now proven ability to land and take off with a higher gross weight, can’t, either.
thewarzoneEdited by hidetheelephants on Thursday 15th February 15:22
hidetheelephants said:
IanH755 said:
The C2 can't transport the F-35 engine and can't be modified to fit one either, which means a new "blank page" design would be needed.
The V-22 can fit an F-35 engine without having the core aircraft design changed, plus it can be modded to do extra tasks as required with some limitations.
That was the main reason the V-22 was chosen - fitting an F-35 engine into an existing without mods required - and the C2 was ignored because it couldn't.
I've seen in the back of a C2 and there's enough room for engines, they must have carried engines for F14s and the F35's is developed from the latter, if the extra indivisible length is the issue even fuselage plugs strike me as a lot cheaper and more practical than succumbing to the 'Whooohooo V22!' lobby.The V-22 can fit an F-35 engine without having the core aircraft design changed, plus it can be modded to do extra tasks as required with some limitations.
That was the main reason the V-22 was chosen - fitting an F-35 engine into an existing without mods required - and the C2 was ignored because it couldn't.
Edit to add;
I hope the congressional reps and senators who were lobbied by Boeing enjoyed their porkbarrel.
thewarzone said:
The Navy is right to say that the C-2 can’t carry the F-35’s engine inside its standard shipping container, a bulky configuration that weighs 9,350 pounds. But the CMV-22B, despite its now proven ability to land and take off with a higher gross weight, can’t, either.
thewarzoneEdited by hidetheelephants on Thursday 15th February 15:22
said:
To get the F135 into the cramped confines of the Osprey’s main cabin, the Navy will need to use a special pallet that leaves the engine exposed to the elements, including corrosive salt-filled sea air and water. Ground crews will also need to remove certain external aircraft components to prevent them from being damaged during loading and unloading and then reinstall them before the tilt-rotor can get going again, which makes the entire process take longer. The Marine Corps uses this procedure to support its F-35B Joint Strike Fighters deployed on amphibious assault ships using its MV-22Bs.
Both MV-22 (9 years ago) and CMV-22 (3 years ago) have already shipped F-35 engines whilst deployed at sea and done so internally which is something the C2, for all its "OMG is the best thing ever!!!!!!!!" cheer-leading, can't do despite it still being good at a whole bunch of stuff the CMV-22 isn't good at.CMV-22 (2021) - https://seapowermagazine.org/navy-conducts-first-a...
MV-22 (2015) - https://navyrecognition.com/index.php/naval-news/n...
EDIT - Re:Fuselage Plugs - If they could've, they would've, so my guess is that at some point its been looked at and found to be unfeasible for the C2 to be lengthened (cost, physical issues?).
Edited by IanH755 on Saturday 17th February 13:08
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff