C-27J as COD

[Martin the Martian]

Leading on from the F.28 and C-9B as COD threads, would the C-27J make a good COD aircraft, or could it even be adapted into a KC-97J tanker or future multi-mission ASW/AEW aircraft for US carrier use? Thinking back to the C-130 trials all those years ago would the Spartan need to be modified for cat and trap ops or could it be flown off and on as it is?

After all, those C-2s and E-2s will have to be retired eventually.

No vested interest, just curious.

[chopper2004]

Don't know if it would fit elevators, hangarage, the largest airframes to operate off a carrier deck have been the E/A-3B Skywarrior a.k.a 'Whale' until the early 90s and RA-5C Vigilante both operationally. Then again it if the the airframe was solely kept on deck and never below and fixed on deck / predominantly shore based there be a lot of work to 'wet assembly' the airframe do something with the U/C and put an arrestor gear. Maybe even lower the weight of a conventional Spartan so it will not damage the flight deck or need to strengthen the flight decks.

Then again the US Navy managed trial with C-130 back in 63 :)

C-130 Carrier Landings November 1963 - YouTube



Cheers

[ORAC]

As I understand it the most likely options are to remanufacture the C-2s to an improved standard compatible the latest E-2s which is an awful lot cheaper in logistics, training and trials and/or buy V-22s - which offer the same logistics savings due to the USMC versions. Can't see how a new type -with al the design and trials cost for a very small order - could possibly compete financially or operationally.

[melmothtw]

The DoD's programme-of-record actually has 48 V-22s assigned to the US Navy, so maybe they'll exercise this one day for COD?

[Davef68]

Issues would surely be that (a) the C-27 airframe was not built to withstand trap/cat launches and (b) the wingspan is such that they would have to clear the parking spots either side of the current landing area.

[WhiteOvies]

Whilst an interesting idea, my understanding, like ORAC, is that the only 2 options are a rebuilt C-2 or V-22. Lots of adverts around NAS Patuxent River (home of NavAir and the test aircraft fleets) from both Northrop Grumman and Boeing for their respective aircraft. Trials have already been conducted with V-22 about how to fit a VSTOL aircraft into the CVN deck landing cycle without causing too many problems.

[sandiego89]

While the C-2 is likely a better COD for the carrier, the main selling point of the Osprey, that it can deliver to the entire battle group, will likely be the main pitch from the MV-22 team. In reality, I really wonder if a COD Osprey would deviate much from the current hub and spoke concept of using the CVN as the hub? While this sounds attractive as a marketing tool, I have not seen much evidence of Ospreys going straight to cruisers, oilers, destroyers yet. Imagine much in the way of deck trials will need to be done. I recall the on deck rolling issues of the Osprey needed to be adressed for LHA/LHD operations via software updates. Surely the pitching and rolling on a small deck like a DDG or CG would be much worse, not to mention pad weight/size limits.

Both have postive talking points:
C-2: proven, commonality with the E-2, complements to carrier launch/recovery cycles, likely lower cost.
Osprey: delivery to non CVN decks as well. Attractive as a "COD" for larger other ships such as LHD, oilers etc.

[GreenKnight121]

I do question whether staying with the C-2 is only possible with "rebuilds".

The E-2Ds are new-build airframes, surely it wouldn't take too much to build new C-2 fuselages, as the C-2 and E-2 share wings, tails, engines, flight control & navigation systems, etc.

[Mechta]

In cash-strapped times, 'rebuilding' may be more politically acceptable, despite the fact that what is actually received is, to all intents and purposes, a new aeroplane, with the exception of the tail number.

[ORAC]

Regarding the Osprey as a COD, how well does it cope with ghastly weather? Since they've been using it in Afghanistan and bought it for the Marines and SF, I'd hope pretty well. Biggest worry about the V-22 is it's unpressurised (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:ee72908b-a786-455f-8510-c35b64849f10), limiting passenger flights to 13,000ft, which could be a problem avoiding weather in tropical climes.

The C-2 proposed rebuild includes engines, avionics, empennage, propellers, centre wing box... in fact everything except the fuselage. Northrop's explanation is that the current fuselage is aluminium and has no life issues with flying for the full life of the planned build, plus it's more than adequate in size with loads limited by weight not bulk and an increasing impacting the deck footprint. However if a future requirement. e.g. carrying an F-135 engine power module (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20101129/DEFFEAT04/11290309/F-35-Engine-Can-t-Flown-Ships-C-2) for the F-35, then one can be designed to meet the requirement.

[GreenKnight121]

Hence the need for at least a few with new larger diameter & stronger floor fuselages... which will make the rebuilds go further.

[Evalu8ter]

ORAC,
I'd tend to agree with you; VSTOL operating limits are traditionally higher than CTOL as, as JF correctly asserts, it's always easier to stop and land than land and stop. The ELVA (Emergency Low Visibility Approach) we rehearsed to get our carrier qual enabled us to exploit the low speed regime to close to the deck in zero/zero conditions - doubtless the V22 would be capable of a similar trick with the advantage of diversion decks within a CBG not available to the C2...