E-2 Hawkeye/C-2 Greyhound

[Uncle Fester]

Does the Osprey have the legs to give the CVN blue-water ops capability?

What about payload? I know the JSF engine doesn't fit...

I think this argument came up a few months ago. As I recall the answer is that it can. Or that it wouldn't fit in the COD, either. I forget which.

There's plenty of good arguments why the V-22 shouldn't take over the COD mission. But the counter-argument is: what are you going to use instead? We can't build new ones, and there's nothing else there that could conceivably do the role. A clean-sheet would take decades. And the reman'ed C-2s are getting long in the tooth. The SLEP will take them a few more years, but even re-winging with E-2D wings and 427A engines (the other proposal out there) won't take traps off the airframe.

 

[robav8r]

Does the Osprey have the legs to give the CVN blue-water ops capability?

What about payload? I know the JSF engine doesn't fit...

Had a visit to VMFA-121 last week with the F-35 bubbas. They are taking six jets next summer on an east coast LHA. LOTS of talk/speculation about engine changes at sea & in the hanger. I've heard that the 53's are "capable" of vertrep'ing the engine containers, but it's not something anyone wants to do apparently because of the monsterous size and weight.

 

[707guy]

Anymore news in LM's proposal to pull S-3 fuselages out of the desert and throw new wings on them to replace the C-2's?

 

[wlawr005]

Well, the JSF engine thing is a big deal...from what I heard there is no AIMD support for the thing on the ship.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Well, the JSF engine thing is a big deal...from what I heard there is no AIMD support for the thing on the ship.

It is. But "the V-22 can't lift it, so use (hand wave) something else," isn't a plan, either. Even if the C-2 could carry it, which I don't think it can, we can't just fly the things into the ground and then start thinking about a replacement. Though apparently that's what we're doing, because nobody wants to spend perfectly good F-35 redesign money on something so unsexy.

 

[Flash]

I think this argument came up a few months ago. As I recall the answer is that it can. Or that it wouldn't fit in the COD, either. I forget which.

Pretty sure the engine won't fit in the C-2 much less the V-22.

 

[nittany03]

Anymore news in LM's proposal to pull S-3 fuselages out of the desert and throw new wings on them to replace the C-2's?

IIRC, the C-3 idea was the complete opposite. Refuselage S-3 wings, empennage and cockpit IOT fit the F-35 engine and sundry other stuff.

 

[Uncle Fester]

The C-3 idea is neat, but man, you're completely redesigning the airframe. You'd spend so much time and money on development and flight test (and you'd have to do a total airworthiness series in order to clear it to go to the Boat), I'm not sure I see how reusing parts from boneyard S-3s really saves you anything.

 

[wlawr005]

Didn't they learn that lesson with the T-45? By the time they made the Hawk a boat trainer, they ended up spending more money than a new airframe would have cost.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Any time you change the airframe, including major changes to CG or weight, you have to run it through a compete series of airframe tests, then re certify it at the Boat. In other words, pretty much all the flight testing you would've done with a new build, albeit with probably a lesser chance of finding big problems to fix (*cough F-35 tailhook cough*). So that's why, for example, they didn't make any airframe changes to the D that weren't absolutely necessary. There was discussion of rearranging the CIC so the crew could face forward on station, or going from four vertical stabs to one or two big ones, but it would've added years and millions to the program. If they didn't have to change it, they didn't.

So that's probably the biggest advantage to a CODsprey. It doesn't need any further development to haul trash to the Boat, and it's already in production. A "perfect" solution will take much longer and cost a lot more. Considering how much everyone bitches about gold-plated aircraft acquisition programs, embracing an 80% solution seems to have merit.

 

[SynixMan]

Fester is hitting the nail on the head. I imagine the VRC folks aren't too hot on losing their admin in Reno every year, but the CODsprey makes sense on so many fronts. Bell has already talked about changes to give the -22 longer legs to fit the requirement. It's a mature design that's currently in production. Add some sims in Norfolk for the FRS and you're pretty much there.

As far as the JSF engines, the Marines are cracking that code already without the C-2. Most engines in cans come via USNS and VERTREP. I can imagine picking the F135 would be a beast (~4k ish?) The once in a blue moon need to COD an F135 engine out to the CVN in the middle of the Atlantic is not the common problem we're trying to solve. It's moving daily ass and trash from a place with 5 star hotels and per diem to the boat. And the plopter lets you have VRC support more than CVNs now (Gators/LPDs/places without runways).

It's different, it hovers, so it scares people.

 

[ea6bflyr]

IMHO, what will happen is that the Plopter will win the contract and the Navy will have to adjust the way they do business.

 

[Uncle Fester]

...Add some sims in Norfolk for the FRS and you're pretty much there...

You wouldn't even really need to do that. Send the Navy studs down to New River for the FRS. It makes sense to keep -40 in Norfolk, since that's a log hub, but there's no reason to keep -120 the VRC FRS if there's no airframe/mx commonality and no need to get ready for CQ. The RAG is already huge and overloaded managing pilots, FOs and ACs for the Cs, Ds and CODs...adding a whole new airframe with totally different mx requirements (and one with no hook and that hovers, no less) would be a unnecessary mess.

IMHO, what will happen is that the Plopter will win the contract and the Navy will have to adjust the way they do business.

That's another plus to a CODsprey: it's not a new contract, it's an option on the existing contract. There's always been a notional 40-ish aircraft buy for the Navy penciled in to the -22 build plan. Committing to the buy gets the overall unit cost down, which is why the Marines all of a sudden care about VRC.

 

[Swanee]

Didn't they learn that lesson with the T-45? By the time they made the Hawk a boat trainer, they ended up spending more money than a new airframe would have cost.

We only bought the T-45 because the Brits were going to buy Seawolf class submarines. We took delivery first, and then they backed out of the deal.

 

[Uncle Fester]

We only bought the T-45 because the Brits were going to buy Seawolf class submarines. We took delivery first, and then they backed out of the deal.

Well, turnabout's fair play.