V-22 to Replace C-2?

In your opinion, is replacing the C-2 with the V-22 a mistake?

  • Yes. It is a mistake to try to replace the C-2 with the V-22.

    Votes: 13 72.2%

  • No. It is smart to replace the C-2 with the V-22.

    Votes: 5 27.8%
  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .
N

No Joy

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
1,387
Display Name
No Joy
Home Airfield
ISZ (closed) OXD
Marines Pushing Navy to Scrap One of Its Most Important Planes
https://medium.com/editors-picks/1fcfab7e77df

I think the V-22 is an expensive, higher risk, high maintenance, highly complex, aircraft that is highly valuable in a few narrow niches. In most cases I think it is inappropriate for the V-22 to try to fill the shoes of the C-2.

I think that the C-2 fleet should have a overhaul and retrofit (Replace legacy electronics, with modern electronics.) or the C-2s should be replaced with a similar type of aircraft that is relatively safe, relatively cheap, relatively low maintenance.
 
Last edited:
As a former Marine Aviator I will say that aside from static displays at airshows the C 2 had the BEST mission in ALL of Naval Aviation. Let me see if I can get you to understand - you get a twin engine turbo prop, a government credit card and no real supervision. Just call in to the fleet HQ to get a mission. You could EASILY "break down" at just about ANY shore side airport ! Funny, they never really seemed to break onboard the carrier.........
 
I was at Tailhook this year and Bell Boeing was there with a display solely for promoting the replacement of the C-2 by the Osprey.

It can't fly as fast, as far, as high, carry as much, has smaller internal dimensions, and isn't pressurized. The only argument that made any sense to me was the ability to cut the time to get parts and people to non-CVNs.

It doesn't make much sense to me. The answer is the C-2B, but like seemingly everything now these days I'm sure the result will have little to do with improving capabilities and more to do with other "issues".
 
Last edited:
I've been under the impression that the C-2 can do almost anything that's needed including AWACS, refueling and other chores. If that's true, why would they want to replace it?
 
wabower said:
I've been under the impression that the C-2 can do almost anything that's needed including AWACS, refueling and other chores. If that's true, why would they want to replace it?
Click to expand...

Because Boeing needs money and they are promising the USMC a lower per plane price on theirs if they can get the Navy to buy a bunch of them. It's military fiefdoms and budgets vs. the US taxpayer.
 
The two aircraft really fill two different missions , the v22 was designed for the marine in field mission. The c2 works great for the navy.
 
Well, I've seen firsthand that the V-22 can actually land and not burst into flames or explode or whatever it does, and it's pretty cool. I don't know enough to make a judgement, though.
 
Same thing as happened with the F-35. Marines can't afford airplanes on their own so drag in somebody else to help pay the bill.

Doesn't matter if the other guys want or need it, whatever "it" is, the USMC has the most powerful lobby on the Hill. They know how to get things done.

Cheers
 
turbofan said:
It can't fly as fast, as far, as high, carry as much, has smaller internal dimensions, and isn't pressurized. The only argument that made any sense to me was the ability to cut the time to get parts and people to non-CVNs.
Click to expand...
Which in reality doesn't make sense since the only ships (other than CVNs) that can land the MV-22 are amphibious ships which already deploy with, you guessed it - MV-22s!

MV-22s in a Carrier Strike Group are worthless compared to a C-2 for the reasons you mentioned.
 
Last edited:
X3 Skier said:
Doesn't matter if the other guys want or need it, whatever "it" is, the USMC has the most powerful lobby on the Hill. They know how to get things done.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...that is a stretch.

Yes, the Marines were successful in keeping the F-35 alive, but in all seriousness, that is all they have been successful in. Several key USMC projects have been killed or put on complete hold, such as the EFV which was desparately needed to replace the AAVs.
 
Same thing is happening with the P3. The P8 is not nearly as capable and when fueled up for Long range, requires more runway that just about any NAS has, and has no provision for abort.

Using 8,000 feet of runway it has the range. But no place to depart from.
T54 engines are going to be mainstream for a long time.
I wonder who got paid off?
 
That old C2 is a fine old aircraft, but they are really old.

They were made at the same time as the E2A. buno 151617.

circa 1963
 
So are B-52's, most even older.

Tom-D said:
That old C2 is a fine old aircraft, but they are really old.

They were made at the same time as the E2A. buno 151617.

circa 1963
Click to expand...
 
Tom-D said:
That old C2 is a fine old aircraft, but they are really old.

They were made at the same time as the E2A. buno 151617.

circa 1963
Click to expand...

According to the article another batch came out in 1980 and the line is still up to provide brand new ones for $13MM less per copy than a V-22, or upgrade with new wings, panel and overhaul the rest for less.
 
Henning said:
According to the article another batch came out in 1980 and the line is still up to provide brand new ones for $13MM less per copy than a V-22, or upgrade with new wings, panel and overhaul the rest for less.
Click to expand...
Got a reference for that?
 
Dunno. No my yob to compare them. The crews who fly nap-of-the-earth bombing runs are impressed by the maneuvers and stresses they encounter. I'd guess both planes are built to withstand their operational environment and repaired when they don't.



Tom-D said:
That's true, but how many B-52 have seen the stresses that the carrier ops have given the C2.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Dunno. No my yob to compare them. The crews who fly nap-of-the-earth bombing runs are impressed by the maneuvers and stresses they encounter. I'd guess both planes are built to withstand their operational environment and repaired when they don't.
Click to expand...
So was the A6, gone due to cracking wings, the EA6B gone (almost) due to cracking wings, the E2s are up to the delta versions, all new airframes, engines and systems.

Cat shots and arrested landing have their toll.
 
Fearless Tower said:
There is an old adage in Navy/Marine Corps avaition.....aircraft are always FMC when fly-off day comes.
Click to expand...

I managed to FOD a motor (destroyed the compressor/fan section) a few days before the fly off, and that hog got craned off. There goes your theory :D
 
Art VanDelay said:
As a former Marine Aviator I will say that aside from static displays at airshows the C 2 had the BEST mission in ALL of Naval Aviation. .
Click to expand...

They also had the worst duty in all of west Pac. VP50 NAS Cubi Point 12 on 12 off 7 days a week. bunk checks at 2400 each night and no over night passes for any enlisted.
 
I don't know squat about the internal politics of the Navy, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the C-2 is more suited to its mission.

-Rich
 
bbchien said:
Same thing is happening with the P3. The P8 is not nearly as capable and when fueled up for Long range, requires more runway that just about any NAS has, and has no provision for abort.

Using 8,000 feet of runway it has the range. But no place to depart from.
T54 engines are going to be mainstream for a long time.
I wonder who got paid off?
Click to expand...

Bruce, I asked before and you never answered. Which current P3 base doesn't have 8000 feet available?
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Bruce, I asked before and you never answered. Which current P3 base doesn't have 8000 feet available?
Click to expand...

You would have to inspect every approach plate in the world to know that.

NAS Whidbey simply moved the lines to qualify. 8001' and 8000'
I wonder how many NASs have the over run area to do that ?
 
Henning said:
I think the issue is if it USES 8000', balanced field requirements will stretch runway requirements considerably beyond that.:dunno:
Click to expand...

Sure, if it actually uses 8000 feet. I've seen transcon 737's takeoff in less than 8000 feet, which presumably are loaded similarly. What the numbers actually are, I have no idea.
 
Tom-D said:
You would have to inspect every approach plate in the world to know that.

NAS Whidbey simply moved the lines to qualify. 8001' and 8000'
I wonder how many NASs have the over run area to do that ?
Click to expand...

So there is a P3 based at every airport in the world? News to me. Maybe that's why we have such a budget problem. Bring them home, no sense to have our stuff protecting other countries.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
So there is a P3 based at every airport in the world? News to me. Maybe that's why we have such a budget problem. Bring them home, no sense to have our stuff protecting other countries.
Click to expand...

P-3s are based all around the world because they provide ASW for our Navy fleet and ELINT for our intelligence agencies. It's about as economic of a platform for the job as you can find.
 
One of the problems with replacing the C-2 with the MV-22 is the extreme amount of heat you blast the deck with when those engines/rotors are in the vertical position. I seem to remember they were having a problem with the deck life on amphibs when the MV-22 first showed up to the party. That coupled with everything else that has been discussed really makes this NOT the solution we really weren't looking for anyway. But then again, as has also been discussed with the P-8 replacing the good ole papa 3, the government sometimes makes poor choices on when and how to upgrade the fleet. Boeing can make a damned convincing presentation for new aircraft when the opposition is a Cold War era aircraft.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top