Marines Pushing Navy to Retire C-2 Greyhound

[USMCmech]

Hmm - interesting. I've never heard settling with power being more difficult to recover from from helo to helo based on size, but there is a different recovery procedure between tandem and single rotors. Essentially in a single forward cyclic gets you flying again, and in a conventional tandem (47, 46) lateral cyclic does it. I'd guess with the 22 forward would be the way to go.

*Disclaimer that the best recovery is prevention.

The crew chief on that mishap had been my roommate for a few months before he transferred over to Pax River, so I followed the investigation very closely.

The pilot in that mishap was a C-130 pilot who had cross-trained into helos to help develop guidelines and tactics for using the V-22 at high altitude and long range flight (something that most helo pilots don't do very much of), so he was not nearly as experienced helo pilot as his rank and flight time would suggest (not to say that he was not a good pilot, but he was fairly new to helicopters).

On approach to the airport, the pilots became distracted and did not begin their descent early enough. He tried to compensate by increasing his rate of descent rather than going around for another approach. During his descent a conventional helo would have been in VRS, but later flight tests would show that the V-22 is actually very forgiving when it comes to settling with power. However he also added some rudder at the last minute (possibly to bleed off some airspeed) which caused the left (I think) rotor to enter VRS while the right was not. This effectively caused the aircraft to do a Vmc roll at low altitude. This was obviously unrecoverable and resulted in a nose first crash killing all aboard.

 

[H46Bubba]

One of our supervisors in my air branch is a former HC UH-46 pilot. He gets pissed because whenever someone asks him what he flew in the military (not yet knowing his branch) and he says -46s, they automatically assume he was a Marine. They never assume he was a Navy -46 driver. He said that life as an HC pilot aboard an AOE or AE or whatever ships the -46s were on was a hidden gem life, what with their being civilian crewed ships mostly. I guess some ships have civilian Pumas doing VERTREP now.

Yeah, there's been B-model as well as F-model SH-60s showing up at the boneyard for storage fairly regularly.

I see what you wrote above with the transitions, what then is HCS? Is it the same as HSC?

HCS = Helicoper Combat Support Special Squadron
HSC = Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron

HCS no longer exhists. HCS-4 is now HSC-84 and HCS-5 was distablished. HC-85 took over their role and became HSC-85. HSC-84 is still operating the HH-60 and HSC-85 is the first Naval Air Reserve Squadron top operate the MH-60.

 

[MikeD]

The crew chief on that mishap had been my roommate for a few months before he transferred over to Pax River, so I followed the investigation very closely.

The pilot in that mishap was a C-130 pilot who had cross-trained into helos to help develop guidelines and tactics for using the V-22 at high altitude and long range flight (something that most helo pilots don't do very much of), so he was not nearly as experienced helo pilot as his rank and flight time would suggest (not to say that he was not a good pilot, but he was fairly new to helicopters).

On approach to the airport, the pilots became distracted and did not begin their descent early enough. He tried to compensate by increasing his rate of descent rather than going around for another approach. During his descent a conventional helo would have been in VRS, but later flight tests would show that the V-22 is actually very forgiving when it comes to settling with power. However he also added some rudder at the last minute (possibly to bleed off some airspeed) which caused the left (I think) rotor to enter VRS while the right was not. This effectively caused the aircraft to do a Vmc roll at low altitude. This was obviously unrecoverable and resulted in a nose first crash killing all aboard.

The VMC roll was the final nail; as had they remained in VRS with the high descent rate, a very hard landing with aircraft damage, but possibly survivable, might have occurred. Whatever would've happened would've likely been potentially survivable than what did occur, but of course, this is all after the fact analysis Im well aware. An unfortunate set of circumstances that all added up at the worst possible time. Not that it would've made any difference, but the lack of any CFR at that airport apart from a pickup-mounted 150lb dry chemical tank, didn't help any potential for survivability, if there even was any. Avra Valley Airport (now Marana NW regional) is just up the road from me.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Unless I'm mistaken, Marines ride in navy aircraft, so it's a little their business.

My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment, Sir!

 

[MikeD]

HCS = Helicoper Combat Support Special Squadron
HSC = Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron

HCS no longer exhists. HCS-4 is now HSC-84 and HCS-5 was distablished. HC-85 took over their role and became HSC-85. HSC-84 is still operating the HH-60 and HSC-85 is the first Naval Air Reserve Squadron top operate the MH-60.

Ok, -85 is the ramp we use then at NZY when we go there for water ops; so thats what they do then.

Given a choice, I'd have liked to do HAL. I remember HH-1K Huey gunships flown by USNR squadron HA(L)-5 out of Pt Mugu in the mid-1980s.

 

[H46Bubba]

Ok, -85 is the ramp we use then at NZY when we go there for water ops; so thats what they do then.

Given a choice, I'd have liked to do HAL. I remember HH-1K Huey gunships flown by USNR squadron HA(L)-5 out of Pt Mugu in the mid-1980s.

View attachment 25168

HAL became HCS when they tranasitioned to the HH-60.

 

[rocketman5150]

It's not the V-22. It's the procurement process that encourages the manufacture to try to get one service to convince another to buy an aircraft so that the first service with the aircraft will get them at the origin contract price, rather having to pay more for them, because they underbid the contract. I'm sick of getting fleeced by corporations as a tax payer, simply because the corporations know they can basically do whatever and get away with it.

So, you'd rather they pay more? Is that what your saying as a taxpayer?

 

[Old Dominion Flyer]

I read an article today about using the V-22 for aerial refueling. If the V-22 replaced/supplemented the C-2 it would be on the ship for a limited amount of time, correct? But if it operated as a refueler would it have a permanent place aboard the ship? Is there really a current need for another aerial refueling platform?

 

[H46Bubba]

I read an article today about using the V-22 for aerial refueling. If the V-22 replaced/supplemented the C-2 it would be on the ship for a limited amount of time, correct? But if it operated as a refueled would it have a permanent place aboard the ship? Is there really a current need for another aerial refueling platform?

The Marine's only aerial tanker in their inventory is the KC-130's. Other than that, they have to rely on the Air Force or other NATO country's tankers. For the Marine Hornet squadrons attached to a CVW they rely on the Navy's F/A-18E/F that are equipped for inflight refueling. Equipping the V-22 for as a tanker greatly increases the range of ACE (Air Combat Element) on the Amphibs.

 

[Ian_J]

The crew chief on that mishap had been my roommate for a few months before he transferred over to Pax River, so I followed the investigation very closely.

The pilot in that mishap was a C-130 pilot who had cross-trained into helos to help develop guidelines and tactics for using the V-22 at high altitude and long range flight (something that most helo pilots don't do very much of), so he was not nearly as experienced helo pilot as his rank and flight time would suggest (not to say that he was not a good pilot, but he was fairly new to helicopters).

On approach to the airport, the pilots became distracted and did not begin their descent early enough. He tried to compensate by increasing his rate of descent rather than going around for another approach. During his descent a conventional helo would have been in VRS, but later flight tests would show that the V-22 is actually very forgiving when it comes to settling with power. However he also added some rudder at the last minute (possibly to bleed off some airspeed) which caused the left (I think) rotor to enter VRS while the right was not. This effectively caused the aircraft to do a Vmc roll at low altitude. This was obviously unrecoverable and resulted in a nose first crash killing all aboard.

Wow - very interesting. Thanks for the write up.

 

[deadstick]

The crew chief on that mishap had been my roommate for a few months before he transferred over to Pax River, so I followed the investigation very closely.

The pilot in that mishap was a C-130 pilot who had cross-trained into helos to help develop guidelines and tactics for using the V-22 at high altitude and long range flight (something that most helo pilots don't do very much of), so he was not nearly as experienced helo pilot as his rank and flight time would suggest (not to say that he was not a good pilot, but he was fairly new to helicopters).

On approach to the airport, the pilots became distracted and did not begin their descent early enough. He tried to compensate by increasing his rate of descent rather than going around for another approach. During his descent a conventional helo would have been in VRS, but later flight tests would show that the V-22 is actually very forgiving when it comes to settling with power. However he also added some rudder at the last minute (possibly to bleed off some airspeed) which caused the left (I think) rotor to enter VRS while the right was not. This effectively caused the aircraft to do a Vmc roll at low altitude. This was obviously unrecoverable and resulted in a nose first crash killing all aboard.

Very interesting. Kicking the nose off to the side made it susceptible to VRS like the tandems Ian described. That manuever was a f/w thing (and works for single rotor helicopters). Primacy, maybe?

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

So, you'd rather they pay more? Is that what your saying as a taxpayer?

No, I'd rather we get them at the originally contracted price or tell Bell & Boeing to go sell them to someone else.

 

[///AMG]

If I'm not mistaken, HSC-84/85 primarily do NSW type stuff, and are sort of hand picked rockstars.

 

[H46Bubba]

If I'm not mistaken, HSC-84/85 primarily do NSW type stuff, and are sort of hand picked rockstars.

Yes, both strictly support NSW. They do a lot of deploying at a moments notice too! Someone in NAVAIR or Air Reserve really loves the HH-60. HSC-85 had MH-60 Sierras till 2011 when they renamed the squadron after the disestablished HCS-5. They had their MH-60s taken away and were given HH-60s. Every NSW bubba I keep in touch with, absolutely hate the HH-60! They were the biggest proponents of going with the MH-60. The MH-60 gives the NSW guys the ability do a dual fast rope insertion and the cabin is much larger with gunner positions which are like the UH-60s which keep the crewman/gunners out of the way of the main doors.

 

[Jimmy_Norton]

What does NSW stand for?

 

[MikeD]

What does NSW stand for?

Naval Special Warfare

 

[Jimmy_Norton]

Naval Special Warfare

thanks

 

[Bandit_Driver]

I don't see the 22 being good for carrier ops. I can't see some trying to land it in foul weather. What are they going to do, try and winch it down, like they do the chopers? Seems like a plane would be easier to land in bad weather.

 

[bunk22]

I've seen a design for a C-2B, which included modern avionics, air to air refueling and an ability to refuel other aircraft. Also had upgraded cargo loading abilities as well as an improved para-drop platform.

Years ago, supposedly a study was done to find a better platform than a C-130 to conduct missions in Antarctica, to replace the C-130's. Nothing was found to be better than that platform and the C-2 Greyhound is much of the same. It's not fun to fly but it's a tough aircraft and does its mission well. It's not a fighter that has to be better than the competition, the enemy, it just has to be good enough to do its job and it does it well.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

I've seen a design for a C-2B, which included modern avionics, air to air refueling and an ability to refuel other aircraft. Also had upgraded cargo loading abilities as well as an improved para-drop platform.

Years ago, supposedly a study was done to find a better platform than a C-130 to conduct missions in Antarctica, to replace the C-130's. Nothing was found to be better than that platform and the C-2 Greyhound is much of the same. It's not fun to fly but it's a tough aircraft and does its mission well. It's not a fighter that has to be better than the competition, the enemy, it just has to be good enough to do its job and it does it well.

Yeah, but can Northrop Grumman deliver an upgraded C-2 for less than 100 million a piece? I'm a buyer at anything under 100 million. Give me a fourth rudder and I'm in for $150 million.