Bell-Boeing start CMV-22B production
IIRC it was the size of various jet engines that was the design driver
On the plus side, the CMV-22 will fly farther with more weight—1,150 nautical miles with a 6,000-pound payload on a tropical day, versus 850 nm for the C-2. It will use a palletized cargo system that sailors can load beforehand, meaning it will spend even less time on deck than the bulk-loaded Greyhound. Vertical takeoff and landing makes for slow approaches to the carrier and ends the need for hair-raising, airframe-stressing arrested landings and catapulted takeoffs. The first CMV‑22 pilots are training to land at night, a task all but mythical for the C-2.
But the Osprey also has a few strikes against it. It has less interior space, and so cannot carry as many people or as much cargo; nor will it fit an assembled F-35 engine inside its protective canister, one of the COD’s primary requirements.
But the Osprey also has a few strikes against it. It has less interior space, and so cannot carry as many people or as much cargo; nor will it fit an assembled F-35 engine inside its protective canister, one of the COD’s primary requirements.
Administrator
/not as a mod
Some of you may not be aware that the American Navy is not dependent upon air for resupply at sea.
The RAF is occasionally myopic in its world view.
This myopia appears to have infected some of our frequent contributors.
Some of you may not be aware that the American Navy is not dependent upon air for resupply at sea.
The RAF is occasionally myopic in its world view.
This myopia appears to have infected some of our frequent contributors.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for range... remember that every V-22 variant (including the CMV-22B) is equipped with a retractable refueling probe - thus its actual range is "tanker availability/crew endurance/engine run-time".
Note also that the C-2 Greyhound was NOT equipped for mid-air refueling (although this could have been easily done).
The CMV-22 actually has a higher max internal cargo weight than the C-2A* (even though a smaller internal volume) - and the height/width of the cargo compartment is similar** but not identical. The higher ceiling in the CMV-22B means that some cargoes fit in there that wouldn't in the C-2.
Neither can carry an assembled F135 engine in its shipping container (only the proposed CS-3 Viking could have), but both can carry all sections of a F-35 engine - including the lift-fan of the -B - in an open transport frame (which has been developed and tested), just not fully assembled.
They have similar cruise speeds (V-22 241kt, C-2A 260kt), and the CMV-22 can operate off a larger set of ships - all helo-capable amphibs, as well as flight-deck-equipped destroyers, etc - meaning many cargoes would not have to be landed on a CVN then transferred to an H-60 to be taken to their destination ship.
Yes, the CMV-22 has only a 26,000ft service ceiling compared to the 33,500 of the C-2A.
* C-2A "max useful load" (including fuel) 20,608lb; max cargo weight from land 15,000lb; max cargo weight catapult launch 10,000lb
V-22 max cargo weight 20,000lb internal, 10,000lb slung load single hook, 15,000lb slung load dual-hook
A comment on max cargo weight - this is where mid-air refueling helps. Many aircraft (fighters, transports, etc) cannot take off with both a max fuel load and max payload... either they take off with full fuel and reduced payload or full payload and reduced fuel. If you do the latter in the CMV-22B, then you just top off from a tanker once airborne.
** C-2A cargo hold
Length: 27 ft 6 in (8.38 m); Width: 7 ft 4 in (2.24 m); Height: 5 ft 5 in (1.65m)
V-22 cargo hold
Length: 24 feet, 4 inches (7.41m); Width: 5 feet, 11 inches (1.80m); Height: 6 feet (1.83m)
Note also that the C-2 Greyhound was NOT equipped for mid-air refueling (although this could have been easily done).
The CMV-22 actually has a higher max internal cargo weight than the C-2A* (even though a smaller internal volume) - and the height/width of the cargo compartment is similar** but not identical. The higher ceiling in the CMV-22B means that some cargoes fit in there that wouldn't in the C-2.
Neither can carry an assembled F135 engine in its shipping container (only the proposed CS-3 Viking could have), but both can carry all sections of a F-35 engine - including the lift-fan of the -B - in an open transport frame (which has been developed and tested), just not fully assembled.
They have similar cruise speeds (V-22 241kt, C-2A 260kt), and the CMV-22 can operate off a larger set of ships - all helo-capable amphibs, as well as flight-deck-equipped destroyers, etc - meaning many cargoes would not have to be landed on a CVN then transferred to an H-60 to be taken to their destination ship.
Yes, the CMV-22 has only a 26,000ft service ceiling compared to the 33,500 of the C-2A.
* C-2A "max useful load" (including fuel) 20,608lb; max cargo weight from land 15,000lb; max cargo weight catapult launch 10,000lb
V-22 max cargo weight 20,000lb internal, 10,000lb slung load single hook, 15,000lb slung load dual-hook
A comment on max cargo weight - this is where mid-air refueling helps. Many aircraft (fighters, transports, etc) cannot take off with both a max fuel load and max payload... either they take off with full fuel and reduced payload or full payload and reduced fuel. If you do the latter in the CMV-22B, then you just top off from a tanker once airborne.
** C-2A cargo hold
Length: 27 ft 6 in (8.38 m); Width: 7 ft 4 in (2.24 m); Height: 5 ft 5 in (1.65m)
V-22 cargo hold
Length: 24 feet, 4 inches (7.41m); Width: 5 feet, 11 inches (1.80m); Height: 6 feet (1.83m)
I wonder if the CMV will also spend much time doing the VERTREP mission (sling load) to and from the replenishment ships. Can be much quicker than internal carry for certain loads.
(C)MV-22 and F-35 Engines
Which is one disadvantage of the Osprey - from the Air & Space article I linked previously:
Quote:
On the plus side, the CMV-22 will fly farther with more weight—1,150 nautical miles with a 6,000-pound payload on a tropical day, versus 850 nm for the C-2. It will use a palletized cargo system that sailors can load beforehand, meaning it will spend even less time on deck than the bulk-loaded Greyhound. Vertical takeoff and landing makes for slow approaches to the carrier and ends the need for hair-raising, airframe-stressing arrested landings and catapulted takeoffs. The first CMV‑22 pilots are training to land at night, a task all but mythical for the C-2.
But the Osprey also has a few strikes against it. It has less interior space, and so cannot carry as many people or as much cargo; nor will it fit an assembled F-35 engine inside its protective canister, one of the COD’s primary requirements.
Quote:
On the plus side, the CMV-22 will fly farther with more weight—1,150 nautical miles with a 6,000-pound payload on a tropical day, versus 850 nm for the C-2. It will use a palletized cargo system that sailors can load beforehand, meaning it will spend even less time on deck than the bulk-loaded Greyhound. Vertical takeoff and landing makes for slow approaches to the carrier and ends the need for hair-raising, airframe-stressing arrested landings and catapulted takeoffs. The first CMV‑22 pilots are training to land at night, a task all but mythical for the C-2.
But the Osprey also has a few strikes against it. It has less interior space, and so cannot carry as many people or as much cargo; nor will it fit an assembled F-35 engine inside its protective canister, one of the COD’s primary requirements.
The (US) Marine Corps can transport their F135-PW-600s for '35Bs in MV-22s in what I will call a suboptimal manner (the engine is exposed to the elements during (off)loading).
NAWCAD Cargo Lab Refines Skid for F-35 Engine Power Module
NAVAIR says the USN will be using the CMV-22s to move F135s for its F-35Cs. I assume using the same methods.
CMV-22 ferry flight demonstrates successful fusion of developmental, operational test
I hope the (UK) Royal Navy will get the same capability at some distant point. Also the RoRo refueling and RoRo ISAR capabilities.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.twz.com/news-features/cm...to-test-report
CMV-22B Osprey “Not Operationally Suitable” According To Test Report
Pentagon testers highlight major issues with the Navy’s Osprey as the entire V-22 fleet remains grounded following a deadly crash.
CMV-22B Osprey “Not Operationally Suitable” According To Test Report
Pentagon testers highlight major issues with the Navy’s Osprey as the entire V-22 fleet remains grounded following a deadly crash.
The Cv-22 USAF crash in November led to the grounding. Recent DoD press release is that they have figured out that issue and are working together, tri service, to implement a return to ops.
Marines have been firing them up and running them around on the ground, apparently, to keep the juices flowing.
I suspect that for the COD V-22 that issue being resolved removes obstacles.
Marines have been firing them up and running them around on the ground, apparently, to keep the juices flowing.
I suspect that for the COD V-22 that issue being resolved removes obstacles.
