Sea-Air-Space 2015 – US Navy V-22

V-22_Carrier_Onboard-Delivery_1

NAVAIR has recently unvieled it’s plan for the COD version of the V-22 Osprey at the recent Air-Sea-Space 2015 expo in Washington DC. Via Navy Recginition:

Colonel Dan Robinson, NAVAIR V-22 Program Manager, gave the latest on U.S. Navy variant of the V-22. It was made publich in February this year that the U.S. Navy would procure the Osprey to answer its future Carrier Onboard Delivery requirements. As of now, the U.S. Navy is planning on procuring 48 Ospreys. The Osprey typical Navy missions will include:
– Sea Based Logistics (including COD)
– Personnel recovery (including SAR)
– Special warfare (with US Navy Seals)

A model of the Osprey in Navy colors was also on display:

V-22_Carrier_Onboard-Delivery_2

The COD version of the Osprey will replace the venerable Grumman C-2 Greyhound which has been in US Navy service since the late 1960’s. While there’s no question a new COD aircraft is needed, the V-22, as currently configured has a range problem when comapred to the Greyhound.  NAVAIR is looking at increasing the range by increasing the size of the sponsons which house the main landing gear.

Grumman's C-2 Greyhound first flew on 18 November 1964.
Grumman’s C-2 Greyhound first flew on 18 November 1964.

9 thoughts on “Sea-Air-Space 2015 – US Navy V-22”

  1. Rant on:
    I don’t care what the justifications (excuses) are. Look up “doing it wrong” in the dictionary and there’s a picture of the codsprey.

    Rant off.

  2. I’m not sure I wouldn’t have kept the C-2 another few years to get a more informed jury where the Osprey is concerned. This new COD can’t possibly carry as much cargo weight as the C-2 and now there’s “range” issues.

    1. And the range issues will be even worse with a spare jet engine underslung because it doesn’t fit inside.

      I don’t understand how this could be any more cost-effective than building more C2s, especially when life-cycle costs are considered. And the C2 uses the same wings, engines, and empennnage as the E2, which is still in production.

    2. To note, unless they’ve found a solution, the largest and heaviest subassembly of the F135 engine and its container also can’t be transported in the C-2. Just buying more C-2s without a solution/redesign for that won’t work either.

      1. Instead of changing the entire COD concept, just bring along more F135s on deployment. It’s not like the ships are crowded with 85 plane air wings.

    3. When a carrier deploys there’s a giant (~20′ tall) pile of stuff – including spare engines – in Hangar Bay 3.

  3. Someone is trying to pull a fast one. Adding SAR and SF missions shows that finding the best COD wasn’t the driver behind selecting the Osprey. If the Navy needs something more than MH-60S and the V-22 is the answer fine, then the Navy can buy them for that, but buying them as not-so-great CODs and then announcing those missions smacks of dishonest intentions from the start.

Comments are closed.