Bad ideas just never seem to die.
It would seem the adage is alive and well in the US Navy these days-at least when I read this little tidbit on the Navy Times web site.
The V-22 Osprey is making more and more appearances on Navy aircraft carriers, renewing discussion the tilt rotor could be the service’s next-generation carrier onboard delivery aircraft.
The Osprey has made several appearances on flattops so far this year, and it’s expected to keep showing up among the rest of the carrier fleet.
“If you need a V-22, we’ll be there this afternoon,” said Cmdr. Sean McDermott, the integrated product team lead for the Osprey at Naval Air Systems Command.
With a Marine aircrew at the controls, it first landed for tests on the carrier George H.W. Bush in February. After more tests on Bush in March and May, it completed a cargo delivery on the Abraham Lincoln and flight deck certification on the Harry S. Truman in July. It’s also scheduled for the Nimitz in October for flight-deck certifications.
There were reports that an Osprey was used to transport Osama bin Laden’s body to the carrier Carl Vinson, but the Navy would not comment on that matter.
Transporting a dead body is one thing-but that’s not the major specification that the COD should be built for. This idea was studied in the 90’s and properly rejected by Naval Aviation. It was killed then –and it should stay dead now.
What do you use the COD for?
Any replacement for the C-2 should have three overwhelming requirements:
A) Range. The ability to stage a decent distance from the carrier, make a hit-get unloaded and reloaded-with minimum turnaround time, and be fast enough to get back forth for at least a 2 hits per day.
B)Cargo Capacity. There is one overriding driver of what the COD should be able to carry. It should be able to move any engine for any carrier based aircraft in the current or projected inventory. The V-22 will never meet that requirement.
The C-2 does not meet that requirement now. It was supposed to-but the size of engine QEC’s ( The engine and its storage mount) has grown to the point where it cannot be safely accommodated. As a result engines transfer ship to ship-inducing a critical delay when inventories at an AIMD on the carrier get low. ( Something which happens from time to time, especially during long sustained flight operations).
C) Flying Qualities. The airplane should be relatively easy to fly and bring aboard. No matter what type of Airframe is chosen-the COD squadrons will remain unique entities. They will have aviators who will come in, and go out to/from other communities. The aircraft should be one that makes this transition relatively painless, but safe. Which is why-IMHO-the aircraft should be a jet, of a fairly large size but with the ability to be fixed on the ship if required. While the V-22 may have a foot print to do this also-it certainly does not meet the first two requirements. ( Note this also should probably revive the argument about night COD operations again, a contentious issue in itself).
In summary-beyond support of Naval Combat rescue and special operations, the Navy does not have a requirement for the V-22. Nonetheless it finds itself stuck with a buy of the aircraft that it did not want and it did not need. Now it’s trying to reverse engineer a role for them. That is almost always a breeding ground for the bad idea fairy, and it appears this time is no exception.