Marines Pushing Navy to Retire C-2 Greyhound

H46Bubba

H46Bubba

Well-Known Member
Had a friend send this to me last night. Seems like the Marines need to mind their own business! V-22 is a poor choice as a replacement as the Navy's new COD aircraft. Maybe our resident Greyhound driver Bunk22 can chime in.

0*6JsMjXK7qV9BwKmK.jpeg

A C-2 RESUPPLIES THE USS NIMITZ CONDUCTING AIR STRIKES ON AFGHANISTAN IN AUGUST. NAVY PHOTO
Marines Pushing Navy to Scrap One of Its Most Important Planes
Vital carrier cargo plane stands in way of Marines’ controversial tiltrotor

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/1fcfab7e77df

 
Ths C-2 does not fit into the Marines' glorious plans to recreate Henderson Field.
 
Is the V-22 the only current replacement plan? Seems like it could potentially not work out the way they hope...
 
Apparently there was a promo ad going around 'Hook last weekend for a "KC-3"......modified and enlarged S-3 with a buddy store, and a ramp in the back for cargo. Who knows.....maybe something could come of it :) The former S-3 guys in the squadron loved it
 
Dan208B said:
Is the V-22 the only current replacement plan? Seems like it could potentially not work out the way they hope...
Click to expand...
Northrop Grumman is looking to manufacture new C-2 aircraft for the Navy. The Navy is looking to head in that direction and should be placing an RFP for a replacement aircraft in 2016. The aircraft that are currently out in the fleet have have been through SLEP (Service Life Extension Program) and have had their service life extended till 2027.
 
its amazing they can land something nearly the size of a small airliner on the deck of a moving boat.
 
C-2A Greyhound
Propulsion: Two Allison T56-A-425 turboprop engines; 4,600 shaft horsepower each
Length: 56 feet 10 inches (17.3 meters)
Wingspan: 80 feet 7 inches (24.56 meters)
Weight: Max. Gross, take-off: 57,500 lbs (26,082 kg)

S-3B Viking
Propulsion: Two TF-34-GE-400B turbofan engines (9,275 pounds of thrust each)
Length: 53.3 feet
Wingspan: 68.7 feet
Weight: Empty, 26,650 pounds; maximum takeoff, 52,539 pounds

(lol, Navy gave up on metric units by that point on the list)

V-22A Osprey
Propulsion: Two pivoting Rolls-Royce/Allison AE1107C engines.
Rotor Diameter: 38 feet (11.58 meters); Blades per rotor: Three.
Weight: 60,500 lbs max gross weight
 
Last edited:
KSCessnaDriver said:
I'd say closer to a EMB-120 and small Dash 8. But don't give a certain cargo operator any ideas, next thing you know they'll be flying a 1900 to a carrier single pilot.
Click to expand...
If I flew one I would Jerry-rig a hook on the back and give it a shot... What's the worst that can happen?
 
Not to mention that the US-3A already flew as a COD for a number of years. With a little extra size, I'd imagine it could be a much more efficient competitor than a V-22. Those things are flying death traps, and I can't imagine one operating from a big deck. Where would they even put it.....it's much bigger than a COD with wings folded/etc.
 
H46Bubba said:
Had a friend send this to me last night. Seems like the Marines need to mind their own business! V-22 is a poor choice as a replacement as the Navy's new COD aircraft. Maybe our resident Greyhound driver Bunk22 can chime in.
Click to expand...

Yeah, even I know that this is a dumb idea.

The only thing I will disagree with the article about is the implication that the V-22 is unsafe. The crashes during development are well documented, and the problems that led to those accidents have been fixed. I was assigned to HMX-1 during the time of the d AZ and New River crashes.
 
USMCmech said:
Yeah, even I know that this is a dumb idea.

The only thing I will disagree with the article about is the implication that the V-22 is unsafe. The crashes during development are well documented, and the problems that led to those accidents have been fixed. I was assigned to HMX-1 during the time of the d AZ and New River crashes.
Click to expand...

I agree, that part of the article was not fair or accurate and the COD mishap in 2003 was mine :eek: It was accurate, nobody was hurt in it.

As it is, I have no dog in this fight as I'm retired and haven't flown the COD since 2006 but I will say the Navy is not big on change. The COD fits into cyclic ops while the V-22 does not. The COD supposedly can carry more and has longer unrefueled range but the 22 can land on small boys I think. IMO, the Navy needs to build brand new C-2B's, with modernized equipment....cockpit, ramp unloading/loading floor rails and make it more of a para drop friendly platform. The Navy has two VRC squadrons in VRC-30 and 40 but they aren't composite squadrons as they only fly one type of aircraft, the C-2...so they should be VR-30/40. Now they used to fly C-2's, US-3B's, C-130's, C-12's and T-39's (even C-1's) all out of one squadron. So a solution here might be to make them true composite squadrons again by adding V-22's to the mix. They Navy still has 48 on order is my understanding. They Navy can have the ability to not only work into cyclic ops but land on small boys, etc. Hell, bring back the US-3 Viking, fly all three. Obviously money, man power and mnx will be the issues.

Thing is about the COD is that it fly's like it looks, it's a pig of a plane. But it works and it works well. It's a mini C-130...it came about as the C-130 was too big to operate effectively from the boat. Funny thing is, I hated flying it, it was awful but the lifestyle is good. I know guys who the love the plane, love the community and want nothing more than to stay in it, fly the plane till their career is done. More power to them but for me, flying a dump truck, literally a plane that fly's like a dump truck was not fun. Though I have 500 traps in that pig, 250 from the left seat and 250+ from the right seat.
 
Last edited:
bunk22 said:
I agree, that part of the article was not fair or accurate and the COD mishap in 2003 was mine :eek: It was accurate, nobody was hurt in it.

As it is, I have no dog in this fight as I'm retired and haven't flown the COD since 2006 but I will say the Navy is not big on change. The COD fits into cyclic ops while the V-22 does not. The COD supposedly can carry more and has longer unrefueled range but the 22 can land on small boys I think. IMO, the Navy needs to build brand new C-2B's, with modernized equipment....cockpit, ramp unloading/loading floor rails and make it more of a para drop friendly platform. The Navy has two VRC squadrons in VRC-30 and 40 but they aren't composite squadrons as they only fly one type of aircraft, the C-2...so they should be VR-30/40. Now they used to fly C-2's, US-3B's, C-130's, C-12's and T-39's (even C-1's) all out of one squadron. So a solution here might be to make them true composite squadrons again by adding V-22's to the mix. They Navy still has 48 on order is my understanding. They Navy can have the ability to not only work into cyclic ops but land on small boys, etc. Hell, bring back the US-3 Viking, fly all three. Obviously money, man power and mnx will be the issues.

Thing is about the COD is that it fly's like it looks, it's a pig of a plane. But it works and it works well. It's a mini C-130...it came about as the C-130 was too big to operate effectively from the boat. Funny thing is, I hated flying it, it was awful but the lifestyle is good. I know guys who the love the plane, love the community and want nothing more than to stay in it, fly the plane till their career is done. More power to them but for me, flying a dump truck, literally a plane that fly's like a dump truck was not fun. Though I have 500 traps in that pig, 250 from the left seat and 250+ from the right seat.
Click to expand...
I gotta say that that nose alone isn't giving me any images in my head of speed or poise. :)

Looks kind of badass though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top