V-22 Chosen to be the new COD

[illinijoe05]

From my understanding the V-22 was designed with an NBC defense system which utilized pressurization but was scrapped due to weight considerations (aircraft could not hover OGE on a hot day with it), so adding pressurization may not be that difficult...

 

[nittany03]

That's one perception.

When I posted "outside the community," I wasn't referring to people who would be in a position to know what they were talking about. Could have picked a better phrase. I was thinking more about the non-flying airshow-attending, Aviation Leak-reading segment going all "ZOMG! it's a fighter now!"

 

[robav8r]

Sorry man, couldn't disagree more with you and that article. You cannot argue cost against a thing that doesn't exist. The "COD replacement" doesn't exsist. It's a SLEP'ed wing and a prayer NAVAIR drops big bucks. Ask the -53 community what extending beyond service life indefinitely gets you. Or the JSF program office about how "estimated costs" go.

The v-22 gets you in the ballpark and there's lots of places to go with it, plus it's already being built and has engineering resources. If the Navy pays for some conformal fuel tanks and cabin pressurization, you're most of the way there. Ass and trash will still get to mom.

Also, any article that calls the Osprey a death trap is suspect. It's operational safety record is stellar.

During BOXARG's last deployment, VMM-166 set a record for the longest V-22 flight (I believe it was 3 or 4 inflight refuels getting two A/C from RP to an airfield in Malaysia. I'm not a V-22 guy, but I've had a few rides and watched them operate up close. It may not be the "best" replacement for the C-2, but SynixMan is right, whats the alternative?

 

[Brett327]

I thought the Hawkeye line was still open? Producing an upgraded C-2 seems like a good alternative, or even opening it up for some offers from manufacturers.

Maybe actually planning for the end of life replacement of an airframe shouldn't be left up to hopes and dreams. Its our broken process and broken leadership that ignores these glaring problems, and we end up with -53's indefinitely extended, subs with no replacements, CG's that are rotting from the bottom up, etc.

To me the "its better than nothing" argument is absurd. Its that line of thinking that gets us the overpriced, underperforming equipment, that arrives behind schedule, and ultimately limits our capabilities. How about minesweeping with a MH-60S? Or how about according to the Navy our new surface combatant is going to be an "upgraded" LCS that is magically going to be lighter, faster, better armed, have better armor, be reliable, oh and don't forget they think its going to cost less than current LCS. Give me a break. I hate to say this, but I agree with Sal that this is going to all catch up to us in about 5-10 more years.

You're like the Adam Carola of AW, except you're not as funny.

 

[hscs]

@ low flier -

1) spare the hate - if you don't like who you work for - time to move on. The disposal of the equipment was planned for - it was the arrival or lack thereof- of a replacement that is the problem. A great plan can be interrupted when Congress decides the country needs to shift funding elsewhere.

2). USN has always had an option for 48 x V22s - they are now exercising the option. Airlines buy planes the same way.

3) I will be willing to bet that it will be cheaper for USN to exercise their option - rather than develop AND test AND build a logistical support chain for a new airframe. Oh, and you don't need to teach pilots how to trap, too.

4) most I have ever seen is 2x runs of 2 x CODs per day - and never at night. A V22 Det can make multiple day and night runs and even provide long range medevac.

5) final thought - COD requires cat and AG guys to be on the job even on a CVW no fly day - V22 does not.

 

[xj220]

Curious, can you take a V-22 to a small boy or is it too big?

 

[wink]

From my understanding the V-22 was designed with an NBC defense system which utilized pressurization but was scrapped due to weight considerations (aircraft could not hover OGE on a hot day with it), so adding pressurization may not be that difficult...

So your new easily pressurized V-22 COD will have limited OGE performance. May be fine for a COD but certainly something not be left to an "oh, by the way."

 

[squorch2]

Curious, can you take a V-22 to a small boy or is it too big?

You can take them to CLF ships for sure - and that is a soon-to-be-implemented plan.

 

[ltedge46]

Just to clarify, NAVAIR doesn't own the checkbook. The checks are cut by OPNAV, N98 in this case.

Currently working for N98, so thought I would chime in here. One thing to remember, N98 cuts the check for aviation but the account is controlled by N9, and ultimately the CNO. N9 also owns the bill for all the other warfare areas, surface, subsurface, expeditionary etc. N9 has a fixed amount of money to operate with and when something needs more money in one area, all the other areas are looked at to pay the bill. It's easy to schwak one P-8 from next year's budget when you need to come up with $200 million to pay for cost overruns on the latest shiny surface widget. We'll just buy that P-8 in FY20 instead.

 

[Pags]

Curious, can you take a V-22 to a small boy or is it too big?

Too big for CRUDES. Can work off of LSD, LPS, and bigger USNS decks.

 

[Uncle Fester]

I thought the Hawkeye line was still open? Producing an upgraded C-2 seems like a good alternative, or even opening it up for some offers from manufacturers.

E-2 production does not equal C-2 production. There's no COD line to reopen. They were never built in St Augustine (where the line is now); they were built in Calverton. There isn't enough excess capacity at SAMC to build on another line without a huge capital investment, and the NewCOD isn't a big enough program to justify it, for the company or the Navy. "Just build more CODs" isn't an available solution. Re-winging with E-2D wings, which was NGC's idea, solves just one of a long list of things that need to be fixed.

You're exactly right that the procurement process is fundamentally broken...but how is "we should've had a new COD by now" an argument against using the Plopter? Navy kicked the can down the road for years, starting with the CSA program, and yes, now we're in a corner with no good answers.

The C-2 needs a replacement, soon. What are our options that have a new airplane on the flight deck in less than 10 years? The Navy's choices boil down to take a less-than-optimal but lowest-risk route with the Osprey, or start up a new build program from scratch and hope and pray there's no hiccups.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Of course, they could just look into reviving this idea...

 

[Flash]

In somewhat related news it appears Japan is buying some V-22's and even an E-2D.

 

[sickboy]

Curious, can you take a V-22 to a small boy or is it too big?

I don't think so, but there are VERTREP procedures in 80T-122 for it. I can't imagine that one.

 

[robav8r]

Currently working for N98, so thought I would chime in here. One thing to remember, N98 cuts the check for aviation but the account is controlled by N9, and ultimately the CNO. N9 also owns the bill for all the other warfare areas, surface, subsurface, expeditionary etc. N9 has a fixed amount of money to operate with and when something needs more money in one area, all the other areas are looked at to pay the bill. It's easy to schwak one P-8 from next year's budget when you need to come up with $200 million to pay for cost overruns on the latest shiny surface widget. We'll just buy that P-8 in FY20 instead.

GEEK ! Dude, you've been in the pentagon tooooo long