Marines Pushing Navy to Retire C-2 Greyhound

bunk22 said:
Hell, bring back the US-3 Viking, fly all three.
Click to expand...
New C-2's or another purpose-built conventional COD aircraft is the only thing that makes sense to me.

I think the Navy would have been well served by retaining the Vike as a utility fielder (tanker, COD-lite, patrol). Too bad that nobody put up much of a fight for the S-3.

I'm waiting for somebody at NavAir to make a case for a COD Hornet.
 
Last edited:
Pilot Fighter said:
New C-2's or another purpose-built conventional COD aircraft is the only thing that makes sense to me.

I think the Navy would have been well served by retaining the Vike as a utility fielder (tanker, COD-lite, patrol). Too bad that nobody put up much of a fight for the S-3.

I'm waiting for somebody at NavAir to make a case for a COD Hornet.
Click to expand...
The Navy is already looking for a replacement for the MH-60's and they have only been in the fleet for 10 years! We knew when someone had the grand scheme to help out Sikorsky to unload the Army's extra airframes, that in the long run it wouldn't live up to the hype! The whole CSAR thing isn't panning out. NavAir is taking too long to implement the weapons mods and tactical suites that they said would be out in the fleet years ago. The HM bubba's want the new CH-53K and don't want to give up the MH-53's for MH-60's and the HSC guys miss the versatility of the H-46. The only ones enjoying the MH-60 are the NSW guys.
 
Didn't someone post something not too long ago about how every time they got launched on one, they thought they were going to die?
 
Our only vertical lift assets should be helicopters and they should meet the needs of the respective services.

Harrier, Osprey, F-35B - all tremendous wastes of resources.
 
H46Bubba said:
The Navy is already looking for a replacement for the MH-60's and they have only been in the fleet for 10 years! We knew when someone had the grand scheme to help out Sikorsky to unload the Army's extra airframes, that in the long run it wouldn't live up to the hype! The whole CSAR thing isn't panning out. NavAir is taking too long to implement the weapons mods and tactical suites that they said would be out in the fleet years ago. The HM bubba's want the new CH-53K and don't want to give up the MH-53's for MH-60's and the HSC guys miss the versatility of the H-46. The only ones enjoying the MH-60 are the NSW guys.
Click to expand...

Is HSC, now what HC has been renamed to, or something like that?
 
Pilot Fighter said:
New C-2's or another purpose-built conventional COD aircraft is the only thing that makes sense to me.

I think the Navy would have been well served by retaining the Vike as a utility fielder (tanker, COD-lite, patrol). Too bad that nobody put up much of a fight for the S-3.
Click to expand...
You neglect to mention that the S-3 is just generically bad-ass, as well. ;)
 
Stupid question, how would using the V-22 versus the C-2 effect the ability of the ship to continue launching and recovering other aircraft?
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Stupid question, how would using the V-22 versus the C-2 effect the ability of the ship to continue launching and recovering other aircraft?
Click to expand...

A COD can land anytime during the standard recovery but a V-22 cannot, it will have to land before or after recoveries, like helo's but it needs more area to operate is my understanding. Not that it can't be done, it can but it's easier to recover an aircraft with other aircraft.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
Our only vertical lift assets should be helicopters and they should meet the needs of the respective services.

Harrier, Osprey, F-35B - all tremendous wastes of resources.
Click to expand...

Harrier pilots might disagree :) Certainly the Brits during the Falkland conflict might really disagree but then again, that's all they had.
 
bunk22 said:
Harrier pilots might disagree :) Certainly the Brits during the Falkland conflict might really disagree but then again, that's all they had.
Click to expand...
When the Brits decided carrier aviation wasn't a priority they lost their ability to project power.

The Harrier remains a mediocre attack aircraft with limited range.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Stupid question, how would using the V-22 versus the C-2 effect the ability of the ship to continue launching and recovering other aircraft?
Click to expand...

Like Bunk said, it would be an issue during cyclic ops, which is the normal way a ship operates. Basically, the V-22 would need to be able to fit into the spot just in front of the tower/island. Normally that is where they stash the COD for unload/offload, and this doesn't affect the ability to continue flight ops as the airplane in that position doesn't foul the landing area. A V-22, I'm pretty sure will have a tougher time fitting in there. Let alone if the thing breaks down and gets stuck on the flight deck. Obviously it is a vertical lift aircraft, so it would theoretically be landing in the helo spots on the port side of the ship, but what they would do with it after that remains a mystery to me. They would have to shut it down there (which is right in the LA), and then tow it to the COD spot/Hummer hole, and then wait for the deck to completely clear again, tow it back out, and start it up. Reason being the rotor/prop arcs and proximity to the tower and all the other parked aircraft. If that makes sense....
 
Pilot Fighter said:
When the Brits decided carrier aviation wasn't a priority they lost their ability to project power.

The Harrier remains a mediocre attack aircraft with limited range.
Click to expand...

Well, except in the Falklands where they projected it just fine, as both a fighter and attack jet lol Even has a better kill ratio than say, the Hornet. Lets see, 23-0 vs 2-1. Just saying, those historical facts (granted, without looking into the enemy fought, capability, etc). Though more Harriers have been brought down by SAMs/ground fire for sure. I have no dog in that fight, just saying.
 
///AMG said:
Like Bunk said, it would be an issue during cyclic ops, which is the normal way a ship operates. Basically, the V-22 would need to be able to fit into the spot just in front of the tower/island. Normally that is where they stash the COD for unload/offload, and this doesn't affect the ability to continue flight ops as the airplane in that position doesn't foul the landing area. A V-22, I'm pretty sure will have a tougher time fitting in there. Let alone if the thing breaks down and gets stuck on the flight deck. Obviously it is a vertical lift aircraft, so it would theoretically be landing in the helo spots on the port side of the ship, but what they would do with it after that remains a mystery to me. They would have to shut it down there (which is right in the LA), and then tow it to the COD spot/Hummer hole, and then wait for the deck to completely clear again, tow it back out, and start it up. Reason being the rotor/prop arcs and proximity to the tower and all the other parked aircraft. If that makes sense....
Click to expand...

Can a C-2/E-2 or V-22 fit in the hangar deck?

And if a C-2 breaks onboard the ship, do the resident VAW det mechanics fix it?
 
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.

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
Click to expand...

Unless I'm mistaken, Marines ride in navy aircraft, so it's a little their business.
 
MikeD said:
Can a C-2/E-2 or V-22 fit in the hangar deck?

And if a C-2 breaks onboard the ship, do the resident VAW det mechanics fix it?
Click to expand...
All three can go below. I understand that V-22 needs to spread its wings for engine work, so that would really eat up some space.
 
rocketman5150 said:
Unless I'm mistaken, Marines ride in navy aircraft, so it's a little their business.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. If they can pass the cost overruns to someone else, it's great for the Marines. As for going to the V-22 totally, I think its a bad idea. Could I see replacing 30% of the C-2's with the V-22, that might make some sense.
 
We had them operating as our COD during most of a workup cycle back in the Spring. They landed in the LA, either at the stern or right in front of the tower, in between cycles and they folded up very quickly to be stowed, much faster than the helos. Overall, I think everyone was very satisfied with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top