The C-2 Greyhound Replacement is Coming
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 มิ.ย. 2024
- One of the oldest aircraft employed by the United States Navy on its aircraft carriers will soon be bidding us farewell.
The turbopropped, decked C-2A Greyhound, produced by Northrop Grumman in the 1960s, will be replaced by the CMV-22B, which will enter service in 2024.
In today’s video, we are going to cover the technical features and advantages the CMV-22B has over its predecessor. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
The C-2 Greyhound is a beautiful airplane, I want it to remain operational for many more decades, and never need to be replaced from the CMV-22B.
I work on the CMV 22, it's already in service. It's terrible for maintenance but overall Very fun to be a part of
the ability to land on smaller ships is a game changer in and of itself.
Time will tell if it is a good move although it seems to have notable advantages such as landing on the destination ship of the delivery. On the other hand easy maintenance of the C-2A and the fact that the pilots really loved them gives something of a mixed feeling for the transition.
My feelings are for upgrading existing systems. The Greyhound is a great aircraft and a huge workhorse.
VRC-50 decommissioned in the early 90's. You meant VRC-30. You also said the Air Force would have to modify the C-2's, the Air Force doesn't own or operate C-2's, the Navy does.
back in 1964/5 at an airshow on Wiesbaden AFB. There was a German JET rotor engine aircraft. It looked exactly like our V-22 but smaller. it had two jet engines on each wing tip. The pilot did a lift off and a small rotation of the air craft just before lining up for take off.
Of course it will! These rigs are incredibly adaptive, and have advantages over their present day counterparts currently in use, in any theater. Early issues with crashes and reliability have been absolutely corrected. Their current safety record is excellent.
Definitely a good, well usable design!
Though.. bit Ironic regarding the recent news about one V-22 crashing in norway ☠😅
You are joking. The accident rate on these have been white washed by the Marines because they want it so bad. Over 13 hull losses so far and one just 2 months ago 4 more dead body to marines arm. 50 dead bodies so far and they have just basically got operational. Initially 84 million out of tax payer pockets and with today's inflation rate over one hundred million.
🌹 GOOD JOB FAIR
The ships deck doesn't need to support the weight of the v22 if they use underslung cargo, it would also speed up turn around time, and maybe even deliver to ships without a helideck, possibly even submarines, underslung personnel might be a little "out there" but the rest would be very doable.
0:19 oh look it’s a V22 OSPREY
0:19 oh look it’s a V22 OSPREY
I am waiting for a shorter range "electric" VTOL. Electric motors have incredible HP/pound and they DON'T operate at high temps which "eat" expensive materials and have thousands of parts (many of which deteriorate).
one problem I see is that the big "paddle blade" propellers are quite efficient, complicated and vulnerable and need a high power gearbox. They could be driven by high power electric motors, but the battery weight for a long range VTOL is the problem for now. That's why I see shorter range Electric STOL and VTOL filling a need. Add up all the expensive frequently replaced parts in the Osprey and it is a money pit like all gas turbine powered aircraft. Nobody likes the reliability of piston powered aircraft either. The development costs of the V-22 are never coming back. Gas turbine engines are not "turn on and forget" like three phase induction motors which can last for decades and only have TWO bearings to wear (slowly). The same is also true for the new permanent magnet DC motors. The electric motors are just magnetic fields and electrons "chasing each other around". There are NO brushes from the olde days. The high power semiconductor electronics are already proven and Tesla and others buy them by the millions! Osprey's will be going to the scrapyard as soon as anyone bothers to build a short to medium range electric VTOL. Gas turbine engines waste more fuel energy making noise and heat vs moving the vehicle.
I know the major aircraft manufacturers will fight tooth and nail to keep a better less expensive idea from killing most of their business. There will be carefully contrived regulations that have nothing to do with safety slowing adoption of better ideas. Just remember there is NOTHING more reliable than a 3-phase induction motor or permanant magnet motor. See Tesla for examples. Efficiency is easily above 90% with current technology.
There are lots of uses for short range VTOLs Ex. commuter and , battlefield lifting people and supplies w/o being a "flaming fuel tank" due to battle damage or accident.
@@LuybXAzH2 I dunno about riding into combat in something that's 100% powered by lithium batteries. I can count on putting out a C fire (fuel) a lot easier than a D fire (material with self-oxidizing material).
i doubt it, these things are on their way out, they're fixing to find out rotor tech is no longer the way to go, but to develop non-rotor lift technology that can be far more compact, can fly far more stable, quieter, and doesn't require warm up starts
In Call of Duty are excellent convertoplan is V22 Osprey for evacuation OTG-141.
The Osprey is definitely the more versatile aircraft when compared with the C2. However, the C2's configuration is simpler, less complex, and easier to maintain. I don't see the C2 being completely replaced by the Osprey, based on availability and years of experience. But as time passes, and more maintainance crews and pilots become more and more familiar with the Osprey, the CV 22 WILL replace the C2 in most of it's transport functions. However, the C2 will continue to serve the US NAVY in it's other configurations until replaced by smaller, less expensive , compatible aircraft since it's cargo carrying function will no longer be it's primary function.
I agree with you on not decommissioning the Greyhounds right away. They most likely will become land base for operations, to make room for the V-22 squadrons. I worked on the C1-A and the first C2-A's in the 70's and 80's. Back then the C2's were not as rely able as they are now. The navy back then was so concerned that they were looking at converting the S-3 to replace the Greyhound. They had already made a few to test the concept back then due to the problems with the Greyhound.
I only suggest the land base concept because that is how it was done back then, before the Greyhound became carrier based. I was in the VR-24 squadron in Sigonella,Sicily and we had C1-A,C2-A,T-39(for medavac/VIP transport) and H-53(assigned, which later became HC-4.)
Some of the main problems with the Greyhound then were as follows:
APU Inop
Contaminated fuel due to paint in fuel cell pealing off after SLEP work.
Props going into auto feather or unbalance and even out of sync.
They had other problems but I only remember those that relate to Power Plants.
The C1-A's which I mainly worked on had to cover for the Greyhounds back then, but I also work on the T-39's and the Greyhounds. Did many engine and prop changes. Also back then the Greyhounds only had 4 blades and I was in Pax River when the new blades were being tested. They also were testing the V-22 concept at the time, a aircraft that did not past the testing. But it takes years to get a aircraft approved for military purchase. The F-18 was just in it's carrier testing when I left back in 1985.
I was hoping they would upscale the V-280 design with props that fold away in flight for jet engine use.
@@gvidvr Apariently you didn't listen closely at the very start of video not min. He's talking about the ending of greyhounds, their from the 60s , THEIR
DONE. In another 20 years no pilots
In combat only self governor drones.
C2 replacement already in service its called the v-22 osprey.
Sounds like they are looking for a job
for the Osprey not in combat .
It also appears that the Marines are the only branch with the mad skills to fly the tilt-rotors, from the articles I've read over the years.
@@ghazman6141 nah they have so many more class A mishaps than the air force.
And it has killed 43 personal so far!
Still waiting on a civilian version for use between large and small airports/airlines and from downtown heliport to downtown heliport for corporate business.
Keep on waiting man, I've had my preorder in for a decade now and they've stopped taking my calls.
The Osprey started out VERY poorly with safety and reliability issues and massive cost overruns and took forever to develop, but the end product is WELL worth it. The F-35B and Osprey make a powerful combination and turn craft like the Wasp or America into very capable light carriers. The Osprey is mostly replacing helicopters, which have a fraction of the speed nd range. This is similar tot he F-35B replacing the much slower and shorter ranged and less equipped non stealth unreliable Harrier II. I would like to see the navy make more things based on the Osprey, like an attack craft to replace the Apaches, an anti submarine version, a sea rescue version and even an AWAC version. This would reduce the costs of the Osprey even more and make light carriers even closer to the capabilities of the larger carriers.
A lot of US Marines died.
@@bighoss9705 how do you mean? Marines died from the accidents that the Osprey had?
@@bighoss9705 Yes. The original prototypes did not do well with 2 crashing and even with the redesigns, the craft had some problems and 2 more pre-production models crashed in 2000. By 2005 they had the final redesigns and it seems to be running great now. I question how useful it is for the Army, but for the Navy/Marines it is a powerful asset.
@@toddabbott781 the maintenance required for it is still terrible
@@UnseenAtom99 It is higher to operate than originally quoted, but not excessively so. Except for early testing it have been very reliable and safe. They do have an issue with sand so they might be restricted to landing on roads and parking lots or grassy fields... o risk damaging the engines, but this is not exclusive to the V-22. The capabilities though when compared to a helicopter is crazy impressive with both speed and range being WAY beyond what a helicopter can do.
You would think that cost overruns that significant would be considered criminal and a threat to National Security ? Imagine if these companies (knowing inflate costs after they are awarded contracts) where forced to be more vigorous and also liable to “Real” costs ? Imagine what we could be developing with those extra 100’s of Billons pilfered by contractors for the Zimwalt, The f-22 and F-35 ? Because these contractors are let of them hook and pocket Billions the US has to settle for FRACTIONS of Ships, Aircraft, Weapons development and other Vehicles weakening our Defenses and that most definitely is a THREAT to National Security and therefore criminal.
The osprey was the Ford Pinto of the aviation world .
If you're claiming that 400 CV-22's make for good economics in relation to the CMV-22 production, you should really add the total number of E-2 Hawkeyes to the C-2 production. After all: the main difference between the two is the fuselage: slender with a radome on top for the Hawkeye, bulky for the Greyhound. the tail section, the wings, the engines, the props and I believe even the cockpit were shared. Now, the total (450 or so) of Grummans still does not compare to the 400 CV-22's built annually, but it does give a fairer comparison.
New generation of USAF aircraft looks promising. Cannot wait to see these in action!!!!!
0:19 oh look it’s a V22 OSPREY
Thanks for an in depth and excellent article.
Love the v-22 osprey
Had a rough start but mostly all good now
I would say the Greyhound production price is like pennies on the dollar for an Osprey.
Didn't hear too much mentioned on this part of the comparison.
Can build 3 C2 to one of spray. Before inflation it was 84 million for the wonderbird
Man, that was the longest advert ever produced.
Ncis s1 e6 plane (4:26 in ncis epi)
Bell Boeings CV-22 is just the craft for the North Sea Oil Rig Shuttles. Is their the possibility of redesigning the fuselage with a boat hull and sponsons? for water landings like an old SH3A Sea King .
VTOL aircrafts like the V22 are a game changer. VTOL can replace traditional fixed wing and helicopters in a lot of areas
0:19 oh look it’s a V22 OSPREY
They are much quieter than a UH-1 or UH-64 also.
The authentic camp at Olustee every Feb is routinely overflown at least twice by choppers or fast movers.
One year an Osprey overflew us...it was almost overhead before we heard it; unlike choppers which we always heard coming several moments prior to their arrival.
Are there ground attack versions of the Osprey? Prob. not. we do have dedicated Ground Attack Helos.
Until you look at the numbers like missions dropped and picked up by the 53s
So this 40+ yr. old project is finally developing into some great possibilities. And,. it's an even greater example of public/congressional tolerance of costs & crises where there R "Great Expectations" 4 military advantage. Do we have anywhere near,. the same patience 4 expected benefits from social programs that R not "perfect at launch"? E.G, remember the ACA?
The osprey is still a deathtrap if it encounters engine trouble :)
It cannot glide and falls like a rock.. sadly..
5:39. Looking good.
The Technology is sound. Though I would like to see a development hybrid between this aircraft and the Sikorsky S 64 Skycrane. The diversity of that hybrid would be unmatched. As it wouldn't have to land to deliver its cargo. Wouldn't need a landing pad. fueling probs mount on ships could refuel it as well wile in flight. Each cargo pod can be specially designed to handle any mission including combat. Add stealth capabilities to the aircraft. It would be a fear of the skies. It could also replace the C 130. the C130 even loaded can land and take off from carriers without tailhooks or catapults. But the transfer of cargo is limited with speed of.
Amazing!!!
0:19 oh look it’s a V22 OSPREY
*THE OSPREY HAS EVOLVED AND MATURED INTO A INVALUABLE PACK-MULE WITH GRATER CAPABILITIES THAN THE GREYHOUND...AN ENGINEERING MARVEL FOR SURE!!*
An amazing aircraft. They sometimes fly over my home in Lincolnshire. But the sheer size of the damn things must restrict their capability. For example jungle clearings for the delivery and recovery of troops need to be bigger than for the Huey.
its rubbish
Well, after it killed a lot of people, including a Marine Corps general, it was basically rebuilt from the inside out.
Great technologi...... 👍👍
So I'm guessing here, but would this be a brand new category of aircraft for the FAA regs ? (ie. Rotorcraft Helicopter----Fixed Wing----Tiltrotor ?
no one wastes money like the military.
Think of this, if the Army adopts the V-280 Valor, that would allow the Army with the V-280 Valor to operate with the Marine corp V-22 in operations against a enemy.
What if the Osprey had an additional pusher blade configuration on the tail section to enhance speed?? 🤔
I like this new strong helicopters
Just got my first experience with a V-22 here in CR22 and i got to say, you expect it to sound like a helicopter, but its that times 3 with the bass turned to 11, it sounds sooo heavy i almost did no believe my ears, def in the top 5 helicopters i know.. sad about the accident tho, they should not have been flying at the time
Felt it in your chest lol
My only carrier landing I rode on was a C-2 Greyhound.
Hopefully they have fixed the problem with starting ground fires with the V22 when landing in dry grass fields.
They did.
@@justjuan589 They did. They choose not to land on grass anymore. Problem solved
During Nam the helicopter is the most valuable piece of equipment
Are we just saying random helicopter facts?
It's pronounced Grumman, not "Grooman". If you make a major mistake like that 15 seconds into the video, it's not exactly encouraging people to have any confidence in anything else in the piece.
For example...
Names of aircraft are assigned, not "awarded".
When you were talking about the CH-53E Sea Stallion, you showed a CH-53K King Stallion a greatly improved and substantially different variant.
I'm with you. These ROBO-Voiceovers are INFURIATING!
I was in VR- 30 from 1970-1973 . VR- 30 was using the C1- A trader COD .for on bourd delivery of mail and supplies. VR-30 was testing and training for C2A Grayhoindsinthe 1960's then the C2A Grayhoinds were transferred to VR-50 for the operation of the Grayhoinds. The C2A Grayhhound did not have the best saftey record the C2A Grayhoinds likes to through pieces of the props through the body of aircraft and killing members of the crew. I last good friend that was killed that way in the Med also all the Grayhoinds were downed in the in the late 1960's because of prop problems and VR-30 had send C1A trader to pick up VR-50 flights out Carrier off the coast of Vitnam to service the Carriers in the area. The C2A Grayhoinds has had three prop up dated to fix the trouble of bad props
.
C2 has a lot better safety record than the vs22 and has several hundred thousands of hours behind them. I would fly C2 any day over ofspray
The V22 is progress and It has improved over time to be reliable. Can they reduce the cost to closer to a helicopter, If they can that will be a real winner. I would like to see if they can make a spec-tor version?
Not possible.
For the simple fact of it has more components that need the same flight hour maintainance.
2 hub and rotor assemblies, 2 prorotot gear boxes, 2 pylon conversion actuators (normal helicopter don't have these at all)
Along with some other stuff.
It's simply never going to be possible to make the cost comparable to a normal helicopter, however I think they can get better than where they currently are.
@@justjuan589 one blade costs around $760K
What I will miss seeing is the C-2 taking off with the catapult
Osprey is complicated. This four jet HALO suggested will never be made.
True saying twenty twenty four not Twenny Twenny four!
Would it be possible (in the future) to see the bladed engines upgraded to a type of jet propulsion engine? Kind of like the VTO style used with the Harrier jump jet? Costs would be sky high no doubt, but the speed increase would be crazy.
Spied isn't high on the priority list for cargo aircraft. Cargo capacity and reliability are. Jet engines of similar thrust would be costlier, heavier, more complex and harder to maintain.There's also the issue of what to do about the jet wash doing VSTOL in grassy or brushy environments. The Navy probably wouldn't care much, but the Marines surely would. I'll bet you've never seen a Harrier land on anything but bare dirt ,pavement, or steel..
Jets Will limit you landing site since the heat Will damage the surface
It would pass everything but a tanker.
Fire, everywhere we land would be on fire in a matter of seconds
An ultra high bypass turbofan would be perfectly feasible in Navy and Air Force use, but not Army or Marine. If you only land on paved surfaces, you won't have problems. It's not the heat that'll give you trouble, but the concentrated speed of the jet wash. It's sort of like a garden hose vs pressure washer, both put out about the same flow, but they do it in considerably different ways. That jet is going to dig holes and throw rocks all over the place, including toward the aircraft and into the engines. A large disk from a V22 or helicopter rotor is spread out over a very large area, and even then you're kicking up a lot of dust.
The C2 will make a great air tanker for fighting forest fires
Yeah I'm all for phasing the C2 out so they wind up in the civilian market. The stoof was a great aircraft but it lacked turboprops for modern work.
📜BLM approves of all selected air Force units all📜
"The US Air Force" wouldn't have to spend a penny on improving the Greyhound. It's a US Navy aircraft.
The expense and complexity of VTOL isn't needed for ships that have catapults. Is night ops a critical part of mail delivery?
Oh wait, we need a VTOL COD to deliver engines for VTOL aircraft. I almost forgot!
That one aircraft it's all in the future
Time marches on, all things wearout. Better to replace a craft before structural failure.
I ordered 2021 version for myself.
Cool
The ability to transport jet engines sold me.
They have compound gravity lifters so they don’t crash so much
The c2 replacement is here
Check out the lastest crash shows how unpredicable the 22 is. Very dangerious landing on moving surface
.
?: Does this a/c have the range of the C-2? Can it fly, nonstop, unrefueled from Diego Garcia to a carrier in the North Arabian Sea which is about 2200 nm?
It does not have the same range. But it can be refueled mid-flight, so that is kind of a mute issue.
When Oh when are they gonna replace the prop with the jet???
super sir😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍
Still not sold on it!
But does it have speed and defend itself?
🇺🇸The V22'Osprey Is Just The Beginning! ✈🌎🌍🌏✈
This aviation concept is so far very impressive but if the flight speed could be supported by a single powerful jet engine and increase the flight distance with maximum capacity of 40 person on board where the total manufacturing cost is in a very competative price then it will became the most preferable choice of global aviation industry.
Say hello to a typical small regional jet airliner. And with it, the inability to land on any ship whatsoever.
Compromises need to be made, some aircraft are good at one thing, some are just "okay" at several things. The V-22 in it's various versions is one of those "Okay at many things" aircraft.
GROOMAN?
Is there an upgrade to the Osprey that will give it the airborne early warning capability of the Hawkeye?
0:19 oh look it’s a V22 OSPREY
The New COD! Sorry Grumman.
The picture ain’t even the plane you’re talking about. I can’t really watch this vid if you can’t get the picture right. How do I know you aren’t telling us any wrong facts? Thumbs down.
Chill dude. They are not permitted to display any of updates.
0:19 oh look it’s a V22 OSPREY
Its looke like in Avatar movie i loved it of its agility
When cargo planes get more expenceive than Stealthfighters something is wrong ,-))).And i know per unit cost does not equals operational cost after ,-)))).
The navy v-22 already entered service. Last year. This video is off
If tilt rotors already flew in the 1960s. Why did the cv22 start off having such a horrible crash record
We need helicopters that turn into jets when ascending, forget the whole tilt feature, its better for a vehicle to ascend to a certain height and have it deploy wings and a jet engine, while the propellers can fold in in flight and tuck itself away for increased aerodynamics.
Why would the Navy need a COD flight to deliver an F35 engine? That should be
something that is loaded before the carrier leave port. And the argument that
CMV-22B is going to be safer because it can fly at night is just crazy.
Though the navy does have space for several large and small components. If you think about it, it sort of depends on the type of ship that they deploy the F35s on, and the amount of F35s that they actually have attached to it. With most of the military aircrafts, after being used again and again and again, its not rare to see engines needed to be changed every so often, which if they run out of the stocked engines aboard the ship, then they would require a COD flight to deliver extra engines. For the nightflight scenario, I think it was referring to combat scenarios where if the enemy cant see you at night, then its kind of harder to be shot at 🤷♂️. As a Marine that mechs on the MV-22 and has flown in it day and night on to a ship, I can personally tell you that I trust our ospreys and have felt very safe every time.
Almost forgot to mention. When we flew over hostile territories in the middle east for transport or missions, you could feel the difference in the crew and passenger tension from the day vs night flights.
@@olliriummusic7951 Thanks for the info.
looks kinda like the V-22 Osprey
Northrop Groooomman ??
100%
Can it survive the loss of an engine? Can the Greyhound?
The osprey can operate single engine
Yes the Greyhound back in the 80's did survive a loss of engine after a Cat shot, one engine went to feather right after the shot and the pilots where able to recover and return to base in the Med. (Note this was when it only had 4 blades)
Greyhound successfully landed on carrier with one engine
Yes, as an Inflight Plane Captain in the backend, I made a C-2 single engine landing on the USS America in 1981, with a payload of 400 gallons of liquid oxygen. Just a tad scary after a bolter on the first pass. Great times!
So your saying these planes design came from a USA idea ?? I would hate to burst your bubble but the this design first came from a Canadian company which tested in the usa before dropping the project. Please get your information correct !!
It’s the future.
Why would the USAF do modifications on the C-2?
I think the Osprey already needs considerable upgrades or should be replaced altogether.
WTF???? It is actually still fairly new. And the Marine Corps has already paid for all the R&D for it, and paid for it in blood. A few crashed during testing and several Marines lives were lost. As time goes on, yeah...the various technology stuff can be upgrades...but replaced...nope. It give the Corps and the Navy more distance in flight, which was one of the big issues for the Corps, since helicopters have much shorter distance than it. Safer to fly than a helicopter as well. The Army is building it's own version of it.
@@kavik2825 safer? I was always under the impression tiltrotors had way more spectacular wipeouts than helicopters.
The osprey has tons of survivability features built in. And a better safety record than any military helicopter that I'm aware of.
Ncis s1 e6
I'm wondering why they can't use jet engine's these days instead of large rotors to power the Osprey as they would even fly faster.
Because jet engine pointing straight down is horrifying.
@@britishrocklovingyank3491 Well they have jet engines facing down already in the F-35 Lightning II Stealth Fighter Jet.
@@ianjensen7989 F35 doesn't land on unpaved surfaces like the osprey does. A jet engine will carve a nice hole or start a fire on the ground.
They would have to redesign the Entire Nacelle area. I can tell you Personally it is already a jumbled mess and a heavy aircraft, so it would need Alot of power to lift it.
Downvote for mispronunciation of the word, and name of the family, Grumman. And why would the US Air Force be concerned about the modifications of a Navy/Marine aircraft of which it has no version of its own?
The blades are big
why does it have 17 propellers.. weird number, and 22 engines? weird stuff
I'm having a hard time understanding why so many versions of same plane/helo . Are they not all Ospreys ? I get subtle differences each branch may need , but really don't get big differences in price . Or is that just the politics thing rearing up its ugly head ? Edit , I am wondering if they will ever make a double wing / 4 rotor version like what was in Transformers. Just curious.
here me out osprey gunship similar to the hind
will superseed many things
Grummen, not grooman. Please.
The Taliban sure would love those
I lived in Ukraine, 22 house
All they need is a C-130 with folding wings . It is already tested .
Google V-44
Im as big a Herky-bird fan as the next guy... but space is at a premium on carriers/phibs and the C130 even with folding wing, would take up too much of it.
@@billneuman2278 They would need fewer of them to replace the Gray Hounds , they could also fly out ASAP .
@@billneuman2278 Hinged-lid nose and tail would maybe squeeze it in.
The Osprey is so loud it gives it's position away for the Enemy forces.
So do all other aircraft
I really wish they would change that to 4 engines set the sequence not on the wing and either go electrical plasma are pure hydrogen jet fuel motor the rotors will always have a limited speed no matter what so why don't they just go. Jet engine the four of them leave out the blades make it work at Cary more than twice and what the huy could make it work at Cary 2 semi trucks full of cargo at a time
This is where our tax dollars are going. What a waste!!
your thumbnails are getting out of control