The Monster COD thread (homage to the C-2A Greyhound)

[Flash]

Older designs, but also older airframes, too, I think. The USMC "T"-model 130s are ancient.

Some of the KC-130's had 148 buno's the last time I checked, that is A4s timeframe !

There are a few odds and ends around, the VP-3's were 149 Bunos and Pt Mugu has some DC-130A's, I think the only A models left in the US military. The oldest 'fleet' though I believe is the KC-135 one. They have been modified with new engines and cockpits but they were delivered from '57-'65. That is old, like A4s old.........

 

[Gatordev]

Curious, is the V-22 intended (or able) to operate off of small boys? I read where it's shorter in length than the -60 but it's 30-ish feet wider than the 60's rotor diameter. Are the flight decks on a destroyer/cruiser big enough for it to fit?

I was wondering about this myself. Prop arc alone seems to be bigger than a -53 (at an angle). Have the Resumes even been updated for the Osprey yet? Anyone know?

 

[cosmania]

Believe me, I'm not defending why it takes so long, just stating what I know to be the case. I have actually been to several production lines including that of the E-2 and it's virtually hand built. Actually, aircraft are built at lightspeed compared to Aircraft Carriers.

Just for engines, we need lots of time to respool up an assembly line. I suppose lots of dollars could speed it up, but there are literally hundreds of special tools that need to be dusted off, unrusted and identified. Nobody pays Grumman to store old C-2 tools, so likely they are piled on top of each other in a metal box. There is a lot more tribal knowledge involved in US manufacturing than most would care to realize. I would say from "desire" to have an airplane until the time it's flying is a good 4 years. Aircraft manufacturing is not like the Toyota automated line.

 

[phrogdriver]

I was wondering about this myself. Prop arc alone seems to be bigger than a -53 (at an angle). Have the Resumes even been updated for the Osprey yet? Anyone know?

LHDs, LHAs, and LPDs, yes. I don't know for sure, but don't think they've done the others.

 

[NozeMan]

Since Kmac mentioned the -53, thought I'd pose a different question....

How often does the -53 community do lifting/cargo for a carrier group? Does it supplement the Air Wing's C-2s, or does it provide a different capability that the C-2s and -60s don't have?

I'm not trying to bag on CODs or HSC, but I've been leaning toward the helo/53 world and was curious on how solid the future was for Navy -53s. Some of the gouge/briefs I've heard says that the Navy's -53 is irreplaceable because of it's shear lifting ability.

Looking forward to some insight!

 

[Beans]

The DoD seems to be thinking about it. I (aero major) had a senior class project which was a paper study on a C-2 replacement. Requirements were that it could land on the carrier (although one idea bypassed that), and carry a TEU. Bonus pts for aerial refueling and easy integration. We had three groups w/ three concepts: a monster seaplane that could handle sea state 3, a C-130 retrofitted to land on a carrier (mostly AFROTC guys in that group), and an entirely new bird w/ folding wings that just barely fit on the elevator. I was in the new bird group.

The profs got the idea from a Defense Science Board Task Force (DSBTF) report of August 2003, which called for a "Joint Inter-Theater Airlift Concept": see p 87 of http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/seabasing.pdf.


Just a regular 3hr/4hr sized course, so nothing too detailed, and we were all clueless as to how any of this stuff would really work, but here's what we came up with:

 

[kmac]

Since Kmac mentioned the -53, thought I'd pose a different question....

How often does the -53 community do lifting/cargo for a carrier group? Does it supplement the Air Wing's C-2s, or does it provide a different capability that the C-2s and -60s don't have?

The only time I've personally seen it was in the gulf. That's really one of the few places that they've got the range to be able to get to the ship. Additionally, they were only used when there was a big backload of cargo stuck on the beach (such as when the CODs were busy with the "regional engagement" mission). Since they take up a lot of space and are on deck for a long time, no fixed wing ops can take place. Therefore the hits were always at ~0530... before standard flight ops. The biggest contribution to the carrier was that they hauled a lot of stuff. Most of the time though there's not a huge backload that the COD cannot take care of in a couple of days.

The DoD seems to be thinking about it. I (aero major) had a senior class project which was a paper study on a C-2 replacement.

I'm surprised college students even know about the C-2, let alone do a senior design project on one. I'm not sure if you included it on your project, but you've got 2 things going right for you: swept wings and turbofans. Unfortunately the straight wing turboprop is horrible for getting from point a to point b quickly. Sure it makes sense for loitering at altitude (like an E-2), but that's just not our mission.

And were you planning on having an S-3 style tail with that beast?

 

[Beans]

We had an H-tail for a while, then eventually decided to go w/ a "regular" tail. If I remember correctly, we figured if someone can make the wing hinges (please excuse if terminology is off) as strong as they'd have to be, they could handle the tail, too.

 

[TheBubba]

Beans,

That's some pretty cool stuff. Sure beats the hell out of my design project.

Cheers,
Bubba

 

[Swanee]

Some of the gouge/briefs I've heard says that the Navy's -53 is irreplaceable because of it's shear lifting ability.

Looking forward to some insight!

I have heard the same thing from a few -60 guys here in Norfolk. They just don't see the -60 replacing the -53 with any type of success.

 

[scoober78]

Let me preface this by saying...IR major!


The swept wings make sense to me...as do the turbofans...but why 4? Why not just strap two upsized engines? Seems to me that you just add more complexity, more consumption more maintenance etc...without adding more capability. No?

If this is way off base...see the above...

 

[kmac]

And i thought you COD guys just sat on the beach and drank, I guess you still have some work to do killing the rest of those functioning brain cells.........

Unfortunately there are a lot of issues here and there that arise on a daily basis that the boat guys just don't know about. Don't get me wrong, it is very rewarding to sleep in a stable (and usually silent) room, have a beer at the end of the day, and get to see some new places on the no-fly-days. However, most guys don't understand all of the intricacies of flying C-2s.
*Mission is officially planned by Strike Ops, but really is directed by Suppo, CAGMO, Flag Air Ops/PAO (for DV warfare), and Cag Ops O (still not sure why, but it is always the case). Each one is giving you different information and yet we're supposed to be planning on how best to do operations (assisting Strike Ops).
*The Handler hates CODs. That's a rule.
*External factors almost always lead in delays. Is the COD missing the overhead time? Does it have civilians on the inside of it? Now you understand why the CODs are late. Punctuality in some foreign countries doesn't mean the same thing as it does in the US military. Hell, I had some fuel guys go out to lunch 5 minutes before our fuel reservation (Thailand). We didn't get to take off for another 3 hours. Another example is when there is a 1000 Fed Ex flight arriving and yet there's a 1215 overhead time. That means the Fed Ex has to arrive, the beach det has to get whatever gadget they need, get it through customs, then drive it over to us, load the plane, and get us out the door in less than an hour. That's pushing it in an ideal world. I certainly don't envy Strike Ops when having to incorporate CODs into the schedule.
*The USAF isn't very flexible. That's also a fact.
*Ship's beach det. Some folks are very competent and some ship's entire beach det is horrible. They can make or break a mission just as much as the aircraft being up or down, but when the C-2 is late to the ship... it's the COD guys' fault. Most guys on the ship don't realize how important a role the beach det is. Unfortunately some think it's just a "good deal on the beach" and rotate folks through who really have no right being there.

Anyway, I'm not ranting at all. I love what I do and sometimes you just have to shrug your shoulders.

 

[Beans]

OK... so this was about 2 1/2 years ago, so I don't remember too much. I went back to read the old report and realized I had put up views of a design we scrapped. Sorry kmac, no more TFs or swept wings. I would guess that we couldn't get the low-speed thrust we needed w/ TFs. Props are much more powerful at lower speed and that must have set it, which meant a switch to straight wings. I would imagine that a handler would not like this aircraft.

scoober - I think, when we had them, we probably chose 4 because 2 would be too low and then FOD & engine strike risk goes up. Also we were limited to existing engines. But yeah complexity, maintenance would get worse.

 

[MasterBates]

Beans, I like your design.

Like has been said though, I probably would go with 2 large motors vice the 4 medium motors..

Unless you have some really cool/novel idea why 4 is a good plan.

 

[Beans]

I should've been on this board back when I was an undergrad. The real-world input from here would've been helpful. For props, if we went to two engines, they would have been so big that they'd be moved too far outboard and then you couldn't fit on the elevator. Plus, it starts to look like the A/C that began this whole discussion....