TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Navy will buy V-22 Osprey to replace C-2s
The USN has made the move recently to issue a memorandum of understanding for the procurement of V22 for use in the CODs Role for CVNs.
This has like anything related to the Osprey started a onslaught of accusations of misappropriations back alley dealing.
They Attack the Osprey as a poor choice for the Role due to short range lower airspeed, lacking pressurization, being unable to carry the F135 Engine having a higher operating cost, Lower personal capacity Higher procurement cost,
I have also see one individual bring up lack of Armament on Osprey....
They normally then retort that the USN has been buying brand new C2's in the Form of the Latest E2D Advanced Hawkeyes, or point to Lockheed Martin's Viking rebuild.
Now let's Define the COD's Role. Carrier Onboard Delivery is no a mission that goes directly into combat as is so The Armament argument is bogus in this case unless the Navy intends to Use it for Combat search and Rescue in which case V22 normally comes standard with a 7.62mm MG. there is the recent work on missile and Rocket launchers as well. The Marines Tested a Remote Turret with a Minigun in the Guardian defence system that has a few issues though as it takes up three seats in the aircraft, the remote control system has caused issues of motion sickness and the system takes up payload, in the future a turret mounted in the Nose of the Bird slaved to the pilot's helmet like those found in attack choppers could resolve those issues. However for Carrier onboard delivery it's not a need.
Shorter range, lower Air speed are real issues.However Osprey is built to be refueled in air extending it's range. lower air speed is not that big a issue after all consider that realistically C2 is already the slowest fixed wing platform off the deck of a CVN but consider the critical speed is not the max speed it's the cruise speed and Cruise for the C2 is 251 knots, well the V22 still slower at 241 knots.10 Knots so your not loosing as much speed as the critics would like you to think.
Lacking pressurisation is a real issue I cant counter that. It restrict the Osprey's altitude to below the cloud boundary
Lower Capacity. C2A has a 10,000 lb payload MV22B Osprey 20,000 lb. Osprey does only seat 24 compared to the 26 of the C2A and the cargo bay is smaller this requires workarounds the primary issue with the F135 is the container. Boeing and Prat and Whitney have resolved that with a frame system and either rails or a Trailer.
Higher procurement cost, As numbers of buys continue individual unit cost will drop. Higher operating costs is a real issue. but the Navy can get more bang for it's buck by using V22's for a number of task including Tanker, CSAR and potentially ASW.
The Safety of the Osprey, Since entry into service has improved substantially. and as to the Rate of accidents? Prior to entering the Marines Fleet service the Rate was 77.3 per 100,000 operating hours CH53E was by comparison 159.0, F14A was 78.7.
Critics like to then point to the two best known alternatives The S3 Viking rebuild and Recap of the C2A.
the "C-3" rebuild seems great but, the Navy has removed all it's support systems form it's force This means that if the USN did the rebuild It would have to start over from square one on training and spare parts. the rebuild would not be zero investment affair it would cost millions not just for modifying but also refurbishing the airframes, training and establishing a spareparts system.
C2A recap would be far more realistic except there are only 58 ever built and 5 have crashed. Some might try and Argue that the E2D is just a C2 new build with a radar. this is bogus. C2 Fuselage and Landing gear is unique from the E2 series. C2 compared to E2 is like C130 compared to P3 Orion. so the number of available Airframes is low this means a recap would involve a complicated headache as the Navy cycles units in for rebuild well leaving enough in service to handle day to day needs. the costs and complexity as well as potential time delays would drag the program behind schedule and over budget
HV22? Ready to go in the system, established training and supply chain, the navy could set specifications and make orders tomorrow.
The USN has made the move recently to issue a memorandum of understanding for the procurement of V22 for use in the CODs Role for CVNs.
This has like anything related to the Osprey started a onslaught of accusations of misappropriations back alley dealing.
They Attack the Osprey as a poor choice for the Role due to short range lower airspeed, lacking pressurization, being unable to carry the F135 Engine having a higher operating cost, Lower personal capacity Higher procurement cost,
I have also see one individual bring up lack of Armament on Osprey....
They normally then retort that the USN has been buying brand new C2's in the Form of the Latest E2D Advanced Hawkeyes, or point to Lockheed Martin's Viking rebuild.
Now let's Define the COD's Role. Carrier Onboard Delivery is no a mission that goes directly into combat as is so The Armament argument is bogus in this case unless the Navy intends to Use it for Combat search and Rescue in which case V22 normally comes standard with a 7.62mm MG. there is the recent work on missile and Rocket launchers as well. The Marines Tested a Remote Turret with a Minigun in the Guardian defence system that has a few issues though as it takes up three seats in the aircraft, the remote control system has caused issues of motion sickness and the system takes up payload, in the future a turret mounted in the Nose of the Bird slaved to the pilot's helmet like those found in attack choppers could resolve those issues. However for Carrier onboard delivery it's not a need.
Shorter range, lower Air speed are real issues.However Osprey is built to be refueled in air extending it's range. lower air speed is not that big a issue after all consider that realistically C2 is already the slowest fixed wing platform off the deck of a CVN but consider the critical speed is not the max speed it's the cruise speed and Cruise for the C2 is 251 knots, well the V22 still slower at 241 knots.10 Knots so your not loosing as much speed as the critics would like you to think.
Lacking pressurisation is a real issue I cant counter that. It restrict the Osprey's altitude to below the cloud boundary
Lower Capacity. C2A has a 10,000 lb payload MV22B Osprey 20,000 lb. Osprey does only seat 24 compared to the 26 of the C2A and the cargo bay is smaller this requires workarounds the primary issue with the F135 is the container. Boeing and Prat and Whitney have resolved that with a frame system and either rails or a Trailer.
Higher procurement cost, As numbers of buys continue individual unit cost will drop. Higher operating costs is a real issue. but the Navy can get more bang for it's buck by using V22's for a number of task including Tanker, CSAR and potentially ASW.
The Safety of the Osprey, Since entry into service has improved substantially. and as to the Rate of accidents? Prior to entering the Marines Fleet service the Rate was 77.3 per 100,000 operating hours CH53E was by comparison 159.0, F14A was 78.7.
Critics like to then point to the two best known alternatives The S3 Viking rebuild and Recap of the C2A.
the "C-3" rebuild seems great but, the Navy has removed all it's support systems form it's force This means that if the USN did the rebuild It would have to start over from square one on training and spare parts. the rebuild would not be zero investment affair it would cost millions not just for modifying but also refurbishing the airframes, training and establishing a spareparts system.
C2A recap would be far more realistic except there are only 58 ever built and 5 have crashed. Some might try and Argue that the E2D is just a C2 new build with a radar. this is bogus. C2 Fuselage and Landing gear is unique from the E2 series. C2 compared to E2 is like C130 compared to P3 Orion. so the number of available Airframes is low this means a recap would involve a complicated headache as the Navy cycles units in for rebuild well leaving enough in service to handle day to day needs. the costs and complexity as well as potential time delays would drag the program behind schedule and over budget
HV22? Ready to go in the system, established training and supply chain, the navy could set specifications and make orders tomorrow.
Last edited by a moderator: