It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Navy puts down the dog. V-22's to take over COD.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Goodbye to the Greyhound. The supply horse of the modern Navy is being taken out into the woods. And in my opinion, a very dumb decision. One certainly motivated by big business and not by strategic naval knowhow. Let's hear what you think,



The DoD has decided to "upgrade" to a platform that still cannot accommodate an F-135 engine. “The container for the engine is too large to be carried in the aircraft,” said Bell CEO John Garrison. This is not true of the trialled C-2.

The rationale here is that it gets around the current "hub and spoke" method of delivering goods to the carrier group support vessels. Something that ain't really broke in the first place. But there are arguments there.

The V-22 (soon to be Navy dsg. HV-22) doesn't have the range, the speed, the cargo capacity or the altitude to fulfill this mission anywhere close to what the Greyhound could do. Forgetting its tiny legs, compared to a hound, it's biggest draw back is simply it's altitude. A V-22 is not pressurized, which means it cannot climb above storm systems to deliver crucial supplies to CVBG's in the middle of a fight far off in the ocean. Even if it had the range to do so anyhow. Currently the Osprey can't fly through any inclimate weather whatsoever.

It has also been said that a V-22s exhaust will damage a carrier deck.

So why is this happening?
Well the Osprey production run is coming to a close soon and with Boeing/Bell seeing that it's foreign sales aren't anywhere near what they wanted they are looking towards every nook and cranny to sell as many birds as they can. This smells, stinks and tastes to high hell like awful DoD procurement BS.

Alternatives?
Many. Not that they were given the chance, but Lockheed has proposed reintroducing the S-3 Viking (to a C-3 variant) as a jet COD option. A few models were even modified for such purpose. Not to mention the massive amounts of refueling it would provide.

Also why not turn the dial back a bit further and revisit some of the great ideas of converting small airliners for carrier ops. Plenty of large aircraft have landed on CVs including C-130s and even U-2s.
Why not an F-28

Or what about a DC-3?

Hell even a 737!

ALL would be better options in my opinion than the Osprey. It just baffles me how they think this is going to work when the damn thing can't even fly over weather or carry a single engine internally. In a theater such as the Pacific this seems like logistical suicide.

It's criticisms?
Well it's an aging platform, the Greyhound. Old systems and lack of modern avionics. Yet the Navy awarded Grumman with a $795m contract to upgrade all of it's Hawkeyes (essentially the same aircraft) with ultra modern amenities. There is no reason why this couldn't be done with the C-2 at much less cost. Most of that money is going towards the new radar systems. An Osprey at $70m a piece is NO bargain.


Goodbye old friend.
Anyone with me on this?




posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
What would we do without Pentaweenies to screw things up royally.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Oh, I don't know...suppose save a few billion a year?



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   
As a former C-2A Mech this is a travesty.. Speechless



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   
They can't overcome certain deficiencies, down draft, down draft and down draft.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

How cool would it be to see one of those regional jets splash down on a carrier deck though?



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: aholic

The problem with the airliner type alternatives is that they'd be ridiculously expense maintenance nightmares.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: justwanttofly

And seriously limited in life cycle once they start slamming them into the deck.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

More so than an S-3? I could also see the C-37 being a great candidate. Already in use with the USAF and USCG, parts available and proven itself over salty maritime conditions. A Gulfstream V is essentially the same weight as an F-14, bulk up it's hind legs and strap on a tail hook!
edit on 15-1-2015 by aholic because: sp



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic

The S-3 was purpose built to do it. Any kind of commercial aircraft would have to have new landing gear installed, a new center wing box, new wings attached, a beefed up hydraulic system installed at a minimum.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
saw this announced a couple days ago on foxtrot alpha. doesn't make sense



edit on 1/16/2015 by howmuch4another because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

It's all about money, and politics, as usual.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: howmuch4another

It's all about money, and politics, as usual.


agreed. but its gonna cost big in the long run. I don't subscribe to jet mods or the like when keeping the hound works just fine. combined with the Hawkeye upgrades it's a head scratcher for sure.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

Of course it's going to. But when you have the clout of Boeing behind something, and Pentaweenies looking for jobs after they retire, the warfighter generally gets screwed in the long run.



new topics




 
3

log in

join