C-2 Final Flights

I got to experience a cat shot off the Stennis in the back of a C2 years ago. The plan was ancient even back then but it was pretty cool.
 
I wouldn't say I was ever very comfortable riding in one, and I didn't do it more than a half dozen times, but it is sad to see it go. Much better purpose built aircraft than the bastardization of the V-22 will be IMO. They should have clean-sheeted this thing. But just like the 737 replacement, I guess the $$$ wasn't there in the minds of the short-sighted. A friend of mine almost died in the back of one (a C-2) that went down off the coast of Japan maybe 8-10 years ago. I believe he has no recollection of how he made it from underwater inside the plane to the surface.
 
knot4u said:
What about the E-2s?
Click to expand...

They’ll be around for a long time. We are currently in the process of replacing all the E-2C’s with brand new build E-2D’s. The transformation wasnt complete last i checked, but there are a large amount of -D’s in service now compared to just a few years back. They’ll be around probably another 30+ years.
 
///AMG said:
They’ll be around for a long time. We are currently in the process of replacing all the E-2C’s with brand new build E-2D’s. The transformation wasnt complete last i checked, but there are a large amount of -D’s in service now compared to just a few years back. They’ll be around probably another 30+ years.
Click to expand...

The Air Force has expressed an interest in the E-2D. Joint crew is more likely.

AF has cancelled plans for the E-7 and there’s no budget to SLEP the E-3 scheduled to be retired by 2035.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
The Air Force has expressed an interest in the E-2D. Joint crew is more likely.

AF has cancelled plans for the E-7 and there’s no budget to SLEP the E-3 scheduled to be retired by 2035.
Click to expand...

Yeah not sure what they are gonna do about that. The E-2D is not ideal for their use-case I’d say, for a lot of different reasons. I’d argue it is even less suited to their needs than the E-7.
 
///AMG said:
Yeah not sure what they are gonna do about that. The E-2D is not ideal for their use-case I’d say, for a lot of different reasons. I’d argue it is even less suited to their needs than the E-7.
Click to expand...

In their E-7 cancellation announcement, they mentioned the E-2D taking on some of the E-3 tasking and there have been discussions at NAVAIR.
 
///AMG said:
They’ll be around for a long time. We are currently in the process of replacing all the E-2C’s with brand new build E-2D’s. The transformation wasnt complete last i checked, but there are a large amount of -D’s in service now compared to just a few years back. They’ll be around probably another 30+ years.
Click to expand...
So this isn't a safety issue? Aren't the C-2 guys held in high regard on the carrier? They bring more than just the mail and some folks say landing that contraption on a carrier requires a skill set pointy nose jet pilots never learned.
 
knot4u said:
So this isn't a safety issue? Aren't the C-2 guys held in high regard on the carrier? They bring more than just the mail and some folks say landing that contraption on a carrier requires a skill set pointy nose jet pilots never learned.
Click to expand...

I think it is a safety issue for the C-2. They had one production run, a billion years ago (ok maybe the last rolled off the line in the early 80’s?). Unlike the E-2 which has had several variants. Even the outgoing E-2C is a lot newer, not to mention the brand new production E-2D’s replacing them. What you say about landing is true in part. They are without a doubt, more challenging, but that is mostly because the margin for error is way smaller with such a long wingspan. There have historically been other jets with similar issues, namely the Tomcat, Skywarrior, and I imagine to a lesser extent, the Vigi. I personally was witness to an E-2 that had a long bolter, drifted right, and struck the tails of 5 different Super Hornets and Growlers parked on the bow. It lost nearly half its right wing, and diverted to a place in the Middle East. That was wild. Grumman built tough airplanes. But a testament to how little slop those guys have. That being said, they also have turboprops with instantaneous power (no spool lag like we have in jets), and they fly approach at like 100 knots. So there are parts that are hard, and there other parts that are much easier. But they sure used the rudder a whole lot more than we did on approach, so there is that. And they didn’t have FBW controls like we do. I’m sure that the F/A-18 and F-35 are the easiest planes to land on a carrier in history. That doesn’t make it always “easy”, but relatively speaking, our friends in Prowlers and Hawkeyes probably get the award for busiest hands/working the hardest in modern times. God knows what those old guys dealt with in much less aerodynamically friendly airplanes in generations past. I think the C-2 was a little easier, since it didn’t have the weird aerodynamics of the dome. But they still had the size constraints.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top