NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Air Transportation Article Index : Current 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Turning V-22 Into A COD

September 24, 2009: The U.S. Navy is looking for a new COD (Carrier Onboard Delivery) aircraft. It is now using 35 aging C-2s (cargo versions of the E-2 radar aircraft, in effect, C-2 is an E-2 without the saucer like radar container above the fuselage, and all the electronics inside the fuselage). The C-2 can carry 4.5 tons of cargo (or 26 passengers), per sortie, to or from a carrier. Cruise speed is 460 kilometers an hour, and range is over 800 kilometers. The current C-2s are over two decades sold, and are being refurbished so they can go for another decade.

Since the navy has agreed to buy 48 V-22 tilt rotor aircraft, but has yet to decide what it would do with them, the COD mission seems like a suitable job. Both aircraft weigh the same (about 25 tons). The U.S. Marine Corps MV-22s can carry 24 troops 700 kilometers (vertical take-off on a ship, level flight, landing, and return) at 400 kilometers an hour. As a COD aircraft, the V-22 is similar as the C-2. That means a slightly slower (445 kilometers an hour) cruise speed, and the V-22 is more expensive to maintain, but can land on carrier more easily (as a helicopter) and can carry loads of up to 4.5 tons slung underneath. This enables the COD to deliver outsize objects (replacement components or structures for the ship, or aircraft parts that would not fit inside a C-2 (or V-22.)

The V-22 is the first application of the tilt-rotor technology in active service. The air force is already working on improvements (to make the V-22 more reliable and easier to maintain), but these won't be installed for another few years. The V-22 gives the marines and SOCOM a lot more capability, but, as it often the case, this is a lot more expensive. The initial production models of the CV-22 cost over $60 million each. SOCOM insists on a high degree of reliability for its aircraft. Thus the navy could get a cheaper replacement for the C-2 if it bought a similar aircraft. Not a big savings, because taking a commercial aircraft and "navelizing" it for carrier operations is expensive.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article MORALE: Chinese Troops Get Forked


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

LB    C-2's Forever   9/25/2009 4:22:10 AM
Buy new C-2's if the current fleet can't be rebuilt.  The carriers already operate E-2's so why add another new aircraft type that also costs more per hour to operate?  If the USN wants some CV-22's additionally for the fleet great but we don't have to bother with more expensive and slower v/stol aircraft on a supercarrier.  I had thought the C-2's were getting a SLEP?
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       9/25/2009 8:44:35 AM

 I had thought the C-2's were getting a SLEP?

Briefly discussed a bit about this elsewhere here some time ago.
IIRC, it was suggested (maybe a Northrop-Grumman article out there somewhere)
that equipping the C-2 fleet with some airframe fixes
(including newer-generation avionics and "glass" cockpit),
and more importantly,
the more powerful engines and 8-blade propellors of the new E-2Ds
(see the "Operational History" section of this C-2 wiki entry),
would improve them enough to keep them around a while longer,
until the USN actually had enough of a budget to allocate to develop
a new-build aircraft design.
 
As to that sling-load feature: no V-22 is going to transit
700km of ocean at 400km/hr carrying a 4-ton sling load.
Sling-loading means airspeed and range are both drastically reduced
because of the excess drag imposed by the sling load's shape
(not to mention what would happen to the aircraft were one of the
sling cables to break at those speeds and stresses).
And no, spending money to design large aeroshells to make the sling-loads
more streamilined won't solve the issue, because that'll add excess weight that
effectively reduces the payload that can be carried.
 
Any potential COD aircraft needs to be able to haul inside it
anything it's expected to carry to the carrier.
Ideally, it would help immensely if it were a natural STOL performer,
not relying solely on the carrier's catapults for take off and
4 wire traps to come to a stop.
 
Ages ago, it was even tested to see the feasibility of using C-130s
as COD transports.
 
 
...and again...
 
...although I certainly don't feel that's the ideal solution,
as it means a good many of the carrier's aircraft need to be below decks
when the C-130 comes to town.
 
The JCA program's C-27J Spartan and CN-235 / C-295 series aircraft
could've been ideal COD aircraft, providing they could've had
strong enough landing gear to handle the controlled crash landing into
the carrier deck,
and utilize nose-wheel-tow catapult launching when necessary.
The only catch these JCA aircraft had was a rather high vertical tailfin.
The C-2's adoption of the E-2's "double-H" tail kept overall height low
(necessary for below-deck storage and maintenance),
yet allowed the aircraft to maintain sufficient forward stability (yaw).
 
Too bad no one else saw much potential in using the C-2,
but again it was for the most part purpose-built to serve carriers.
Were it more widespread, and had better performance
(engine power, speed, payload, range, take off and landing run, etc),
this could've served a quite useful role outside of the USN's carrier operations.
Having the reaer-ramp loading feature makes it a superior cargo handler
when compared to other militarized civilian light cargo aircraft
the Pilatus PC-12, the original shorter-fuselaged DHC-8,
the Dornier Do228 and -328, or even the C-23 Sherpas
that the JCA would've replaced,
and certainly mainly others that are about the same size of the JCA contenders.
 
The USMC liked the idea of having their own AC-130-type gunships
to the point they're trialling packages for their KC-130 fleet to do it.
A C-2 airframe tricked out with all the gee-whiz gunship sensors
and a few light autocannon could've given them that.
 
Quote    Reply

fvdham       9/25/2009 4:14:37 PM
> Since the navy has agreed to buy 48 V-22 tilt rotor aircraft,
> but has yet to decide what it would do with them

Shocking. Where is the outcry?
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       10/5/2009 4:45:49 AM

> Since the navy has agreed to buy 48 V-22 tilt rotor aircraft,

> but has yet to decide what it would do with them



Shocking. Where is the outcry?


Can't they just give them to the Marines? Last time I checked the Marines were part of the Navy, or at least the same government department.
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver    re: c-130 or C-27   10/5/2009 1:30:53 PM
Mention was made of adapting a C-27's nose gear etc to use the catapault. Might JATO/RATO be a useable alternative? It comes to mind as I recently watched the Blue Angel's C-130 show...
 
That being said - where and how would you stow a C-27 on the carrier - even if you modified it with folding wing-tips.?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy