Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stupid Move: Navy Will Buy V-22 Ospreys To Replace Its C-2 Greyhounds
Foxtrot Alpha ^ | 14 Jan 2015 | Tyler Rogoway

Posted on 01/14/2015 7:51:54 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki

Edited on 01/14/2015 8:08:37 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

In what is a highly controversial move, the US Navy has announced that it will procure tilt-rotor V-22 Ospreys to replace its venerable C-2A Greyhound Carrier On-board Delivery (COD) aircraft. Here's why it's such a terribly bad idea.

The C-2 Greyhound replacement saga has gone on for many years, but it has come to head in recent months with three main proposals being put forward as solutions. One would be to rebuild or build new C-2 Greyhounds based on the Navy's updated E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Airborne Early Waring and Control (AEW&C) aircraft. The Grumman E-2 is a developmental cousin of the C-2 dating back to the 1960s. The other two proposals included procuring tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey and a novel plan by Lockheed Martin to rebuild a portion of the defunct S-3B Viking fleet into COD aircraft, bringing the COD mission finally into the jet age. You can read an in depth report on all these options in this past Foxtrot Alpha feature.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aerospace; c2; navair; usn; v22
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: elcid1970

I think the Greyhound has foldable wings that allow for a smaller footprint when it is stored on a carrier. I don’t think there’s much you can reduce in the Osprey’s footprint, can you?


21 posted on 01/15/2015 2:12:20 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
I think the Greyhound has foldable wings that allow for a smaller footprint when it is stored on a carrier. I don’t think there’s much you can reduce in the Osprey’s footprint, can you?

Nope.


22 posted on 01/15/2015 3:32:54 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

That’s a lot smaller than I’d have thought. I wonder how long it takes to put in stow mode?


23 posted on 01/15/2015 3:34:43 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

The Navy or rather the Secretaries from SOD on down have been making stupid & damaging program changes in Naval Aviation since the days of Poppy & Cheney when the Tomcats were ended. This is just another added to the list. The C-2 were reliable and the design would still work. Ending the Hoovers was another stupid move.


24 posted on 01/15/2015 3:45:44 AM PST by cva66snipe ((Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
Just over a minute and a half, and after stowage it must be towed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_45aUrES-j0

25 posted on 01/15/2015 4:02:54 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

That’s pretty good.....


26 posted on 01/15/2015 4:19:55 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Great question....the CH-53 Sea Stallion has a foldable rotor system, so why not on the V-22?

I think post #18 nails it. Neither A/C is a total replacement for the other. There’s politics afoot.


27 posted on 01/15/2015 4:38:38 AM PST by elcid1970 ("I am a radicalized infidel.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
Compare the cruising speed and capacity of the two planes. Osprey wins on capacity, Greyhound wins on range (if you ignore aerial refueling) and they are pretty well matched on cruising speed. So at this point, I wonder what the writer’s agenda is.

Yes, I don't know what the authors beefs are. The C-2 was a decent aircraft. (I did two tours flying the thing), but at least on Wikipedia information, the V-22 has many advantages. The Greyhound does have some better range, but the difference would likely only be a factor on shore to shore missions. Flights to and from the carriers were less than 500 miles - well within the published range of the V-22. The refueling capability of the V-22 could also be a plus. There is always a tanker overhead the carrier. (at least there used to be-I haven't been there in a while)

If I was a current C-2 guy I would be excited to do the transition.

28 posted on 01/15/2015 4:49:04 AM PST by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
Osprey 652 cubic feet. Greyhound 860 cubic feet.

Perhaps, if the plane is delivering a cargo of Styrofoam peanuts. But number of bodies or pounds of cargo, the Osprey appears to have the edge. Although speaking of volume, try slinging an oversized load under a Greyhound and let me know how that works out.

29 posted on 01/15/2015 5:02:44 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Could an Osprey take on additional roles besides COD? Could the same plane ferry troops onto a beach head, perform ASW or attack small craft?


30 posted on 01/15/2015 5:16:01 AM PST by Dilbert56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
but I don’t see how anyone would want to do underslung from the kinds of distance involved in shore-to-ship transfers.

The location: USS Nimitz, anchored in the Bay of Naples, Italy. A Navy CH-46 was bringing two hydraulic motors for the catapult's retraction engine slug underneath on some sort of pallet. Just why they were slung underneath, I don't know. Poor choice. About half way between land and the ship, you saw the pallet tilt awkwardly and then one of the motors went kerplunk. I thought our Maintenance Officer was going to have a stroke.

31 posted on 01/15/2015 5:36:05 AM PST by csvset
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

The advantages of the V22 are not in the base-to-carrier runs. They are in the tactical arena... fleet to shore in a combat environment, underway replenishment, and tactical troop delivery.

The C2 is for all intents and purposes a single mission platform.

The Osprey is not. While it may not be as robust in the COD role, the presence of more V22 in this forward deployed arena gives operational commanders more war fighting tools.


32 posted on 01/15/2015 6:35:12 AM PST by BlueNgold (Have we crossed the line from Govt. in righteous fear of the People - to a People in fear of Govt??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot
The refueling capability of the V-22 could also be a plus. There is always a tanker overhead the carrier. (at least there used to be-I haven't been there in a while)

Not to mention the potential of being the tanker overhead.

V-22 Osprey to get a Tanker Option

33 posted on 01/15/2015 7:14:13 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot

I suspect a past or present link to Grumman or one of its suppliers. Doesn’t seem to be very easy to dig up a bio.


34 posted on 01/15/2015 2:30:01 PM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson