I pretty much stopped reading when I got to this paragraph the third time.
“Although the Greyhound is faster, flies much higher, is pressurized, has a much larger cargo hold capable of carrying the latest fighter jet engines and has a much longer range, all critical components that let the carrier operate further from shores even in bad weather, the V-22 has the ability to land and takeoff vertically. Although this feature has no value for the baseline COD mission , the Navy sees this capability as something that can change the way it does logistics for the Carrier Strike Group. “
Why use something practical when something that will cost 5 times as much to procure and 3 times as much to maintain is available?
Perfect match for the little crappy ships.
Ought make Obola quite happy.
On second thought, scanning up from the bottom, I think I’ll just hit the abuse button. And perhaps you can edit out the vulgarities next time.
One of the cases being made for the HV-22 is that it can directly fly payloads directly to other ships in the CSG, rather than do the hub/spoke thing by taking them to the carrier then using a helo to move them to the final destination.
This doesn’t make a lot of sense given that the only other ships in the CSG that can actually land a HV-22 are going to be the logistics support ships. The helo deck on a Burke and Tico isn’t going to be able to handle a V-22 in COD-mode since even if the HV-22 can physically land (I’ve never seen evidence of it having been attempted) it’ll have to land backwards so that cargo can be transferred off the aircraft’s ramp.
That means the direct-delivery to the escorts can only happen using underslung loads that are dropped off while the HV-22 is hovering. Underslung loads are ok for inter-strikegroup transfers, and for the Marines hauling equipment ashore and back during amphib ops, but I don’t see how anyone would want to do underslung from the kinds of distance involved in shore-to-ship transfers.
Now I understand that the V-22 can fill something of a gap between C-2 and helo. It might, therefore, make sense to do a mixed buy of upgraded C-2s AND HV-22s, with the latter operating from the logistics support ships and replacing the Eurocopter Cougars currently being used. BUT that would probably require using Navy and not civilian crews (as is currently done) for flying and maintaining the birds.
pingWhat is going to be interesting is what will happen IF an honest man ever gets into the AG office. It's why RFK stopped a bullet. The slimy little shite didn't stay bought.
I've always wondered what would have happened if Papa Joe Kennedy hadn't had a stroke...
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.
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?
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.