The US Navy received the first transport convertiplane CMV-22B

The United States Navy received the first CMV-22B tiltrotor transport, the machine passed all the necessary tests. It is reported by Flightglobal.

According to the publication, this is the first tiltrotor of forty-eight ordered by the US Navy. According to previously announced plans, the first production CMV-22B should go to the U.S. Navy in 2021.

The CMV-22B transport tiltrotor was developed by order of the U.S. Navy based on the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor and is expected to replace the outdated C-2A Greyhound carrier-based transport aircraft. First of all, the military intends to use such devices to deliver spare parts to aircraft carriers located at a great distance from the coast. The maximum load of the machine is about 9 tons, the optimal one is in the region of 2,5 tons (maximum flight range).

Bell and Boeing, which are leading the development of the new tiltrotor, do not much talk about their new car. To date, it is known that the tiltrotor received conformal fuel tanks of increased volume located on the sides of the fuselage in order to increase the flight range. According to available information, the CMV-22B transport tiltrotor is capable of transporting goods weighing up to 2,6 tons at a distance of up to 2,13 thousand kilometers.

One of the reasons that prompted the U.S. Navy to order the development of CMV-22B, was that in the cargo compartment S-2A does not fit the engine from the F-35 fighter. The new tiltrotor freely carries aircraft engines, which in the future will become the main fighter of the US Navy.

Currently, U.S. Navy aircraft carriers at sea use C-2A Greyhound transport aircraft to deliver fuel, spare parts and provisions. The transporter has a length of 17,3 meters, a wingspan of 24,6 meters and a height of 4,8 meters. The maximum take-off weight is 27,2 tons. It is designed to carry up to 26 passengers or cargo weighing up to 4,5 tons. C-2A is capable of flying at speeds of 465 kilometers per hour over a distance of 2,4 thousands of kilometers. The U.S. Navy X-NUMXA entered service in the 2 year.

Comments

[Nastia makarova]

do we need these?

[Cowbra]

Razit that in a zoo) There is no place to be based, but except for aircraft carriers - this is not necessary for the USA. On land, either turntables or planes perform all their tasks at times cheaper and more efficiently.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Cowbra

On land, either turntables or planes all their tasks are many times cheaper and more efficient

Tolley you did not consider the roofing felts you have problems with mathematics and analytics. Personally, I analyzed and counted, for example, take our Caucasus, put the combat radius of the helicopters, the cost of helicopters, reaction time (1 \ 2 \ 3h), the cost of air force bases with their supply, and miraculously you will find that even in the most ideal conditions (ideal for helicopters) they (helicopters) are still more expensive than konvertoplanov. And I do not take into account the cost of aircraft or the tactical or strategic capabilities of the aircraft.
Convertibles have problems and shortcomings, like any other type of technology, but one does not have to attribute the problems of Osprey to the problems of convertibles. And the problems of the ospreys should not be exaggerated because in their first decades, helicopters had even more problems due to the worse technological base.

[Cowbra]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

they (helicopters) are still more expensive than tiltrotors

What kind? Spherical convertiplanes in vacuum? Compared to whom? With Mi-2?

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

no need to attribute the problems of the Osprey to the problems of convertiplanes

And what other convertiplanes are there?

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

If you have problems with mathematics and analytics. Personally, I analyzed and counted

Well go ahead, let's get your calculations! Forward - where are they?
Spring has not yet begun, and some already exacerbate
Instead of a jolt to you - except the United States, no one has built a tiltrotor - they tried it, considered it expensive. And they sent this venture nafig.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Cowbra

Well go ahead, let's get your calculations! Forward - where are they?

Well, look through my comments on VO was it, whether last, or the year before last. In general, you take a compass, a paper map and solve, the combat task sounds like this: "cover an area of ​​N square kilometers with air forces with a reaction time (time to complete a combat mission) of 1 hour", then iterate the task with a more accurate calculation of the aircraft cost, their supply bases, then iterate on more accurate inputs, and not from Wikipedia, then iterate taking into account the terrain, and at the end taking into account tactical and strategic capabilities ... So for example, in the first iteration (in the first approximation) you will have 4 k 1 by the number of vehicles (4 laps to 1), and further the gap will only increase.

[Cowbra]

Excuse me to bring it yourself ... Reiterate your stories about the cost of supply bases purely for a helicopter

[pmkemcity]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

they (helicopters) are still more expensive than tiltrotors.

Maybe it's all about the cost of fuel? Remove the excise tax, MET and fly to any end of the country even by helicopter, even by broomstick.

[figwam]

Quote: Nastia Makarova

do we need these?

They tested it and refined it for 30 years, spent a lot of money, killed dozens of people, our liberals would not have survived such a shame. All its advantage is the speed of 500 km / h.

[Avior]

And range
And the possibility of landing in a small area

[Usher]

Quote: Avior

And range
And the possibility of landing in a small area

Do you even understand what you are writing?
Do you understand the meaning of the words of the previous commentator?
Why crow too much? THE ONLY THING a significant advantage over helicopters of the same weight category, this SPEED. And then the range and vertical take-off? This is a helicopter and a tiltrotor, and it’s so clear that they can land on a small platform.
You still tell the advantage of the aircraft over the truck, it can also fly.

[voyaka uh]

"What does the range have to do with it" ////
-----
Despite the fact that this is the main advantage over helicopters. The range is many times more. Osprey made intercontinental flights (with refueling).

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: voyaka uh

"What does the range have to do with it" ////
-----
Despite the fact that this is the main advantage over helicopters. The range is many times more. Osprey made intercontinental flights (with refueling).

YOU ARE WRONG, the MAIN advantage is not the range, but "lower fuel consumption: per unit of flight time and per unit of transported cargo". so the helicopter can fly between the contents in the presence of fuel.
The main disadvantage of helicopters is that there during the flight part of the fuel is spent on braking, and the greater the flight speed, the greater the mass of the transported cargo and the lower the density of air, the greater percentage fuel is wasted, it is precisely this problem that tiltrotors solve.

[figwam]

Quote: Avior

And range

Range increases due to speed.

[businessv]

Quote: figvam

our liberals would not have survived such a shame.

A feeling, colleague, that our liberals will survive anything if only they were left at the trough!

[Grigory_45]

Quote: figvam

All its advantage is the speed of 500 km / h.

in relation to the helicopter - speed and range, in relation to the plane - the ability to be based on the same sites (ships) as helicopters (take off and land vertically) For UDC - an ideal tool. However, in the quality in which the Americans plan to use it, replacing the ancient transporters for delivering cargo to aircraft carriers, too.

[Thrall]

Quote: Nastia Makarova

do we need these?

We have. Sorry, there were ...

[lwxx]

And what does MI-12 have to do with a tiltrotor? MI-12 helicopter, albeit with an unusual arrangement of propulsors.

[Lamata]

it’s not at all a convertiplane, and in the series there weren’t even the flyers were afraid of it

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Thrall

We have. Sorry, there were ...

Mi-12 is not a tiltrotor. Helicopter cross section.

[pl675]

Quote: Nastia Makarova

do we need these?

as practice has shown, it is not even necessary for nothing.

[bessmertniy]

This is all exotic. Crazy waste of money.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: pl675

as practice has shown, it’s not even necessary for nothing

Do we have experience operating tiltrotors?

[pl675]

we do not have an aircraft carrier, this is for the beginning of the dialogue, and for its completion.

[Grigory_45]

then why pssazh

Quote: pl675

as practice has shown

??

[pl675]

Do you know the proverb “learn from the mistakes of others”?
as the comrades suggest above, the Americans have a sad experience operating these devices, with corpses and disasters.
very unstable object, moody and expensive.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: pl675

operating experience of these devices, with corpses and disasters

name at least one aircraft that would not have accidents and disasters? Which has not claimed a single life? You can recall the Tu-22, Su-24, as well as Tomcat and Strarfighter. It is necessary to evaluate in relative figures - the number of accidents for so many hours of flight. Do you have similar statistics? It could be compared with the above aircraft.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: pl675

Americans have a sad experience operating these devices

Do you think that over the past three decades they have not been able to bring it? Why do the Americans themselves do not refuse this type of machine? (now on trial light V-280)

[pl675]

Quote: Gregory_45

Quote: pl675

Americans have a sad experience operating these devices

Do you think that over the past three decades they have not been able to bring it? Why do the Americans themselves do not refuse this type of machine? (now on trial light V-280)

I believe that they could not, yes.
because they ALREADY have one, but you suggest we start development from scratch -
I am afraid to present only R&D figures.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: pl675

you suggest that we start development from scratch -
I am afraid to present only R&D figures.

from complicated and expensive there
1) development of composite blades
2) development of gearboxes
Everything else is taken from existing aircraft and technological methods, for example, instead of a specialized engine like the Osprey, 2 \ 4 \ 6 \ 8 engines from a helicopter are taken with placement in the center of the wing. There is a truth to its own specifics in the development of medium and heavy tiltrotopes, where balancing features are important.

[Crimean partisan 1974]

, there the balancing features are important ...... and not only, in this case, an Osprey-based envelope, that is, a gondola at the wingtips. Now calculate how the envelope will be safe if one of the engines starts just sneezing. you never know why. birds, dust, raised soil, a banal emergency situation with the engine is not even critical, and it will not be difficult to imagine what the envelope is, the task is complicated because it is a combat vehicle and it will need to be in the zone of shelling. where any AK type rifleman can just knock over a multi-million dollar car, horizontal flight is even more dangerous, one of the engine failures, even having plowed the blades of a bad power unit, will invariably have a flat corkscrew, it doesn’t roll with turntables, military turntables are equipped with 2 engines on one shaft that the pin could function in the event of the failure of one of the two

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Crimean partisan 1974

an envelope based on the Osprey, i.e. a gondola on the wingtips. Now calculate how the envelope will be safe if one of the engines starts just sneezing.

Thanks neighing, did you even see the osprey scheme? there take a closer look inside the wing there is a shaft for power transfer. Actually, due to its availability and mandatory nature, it makes no sense to put expensive special engines in gondolas and you can get by with helicopters ...
And take an interest in "miraculous rescues of helicopters after an engine failure", even if you cannot understand the cause-and-effect relationship, then at least stop spreading this myth (even if it is not quite a myth, but the facts are stubborn).

[Lamata]

Cool answer))))

[Invoce]

Quote: Nastia Makarova

do we need these?

What is there?
Price and how much is available?

[Igor Borisov_2]

Quote: Nastia Makarova

do we need these?

And for what? In the absence of aircraft carriers ....

[novel66]

if you start developing now - at the same time as the aircraft carrier they will appear (or at the same time will not appear )

[God save the king]

A machine that takes a lot, flies quickly and far at the same time can not only land a landing, but also pick it up, would be a good help in the Airborne Forces or MTRs, for example.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: God save the King

A machine that takes a lot, flies quickly and far at the same time can not only land a landing, but also pick it up, would be a good help in the Airborne Forces or MTRs, for example.

And also for the Ministry of Emergencies, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the FSB, border guards, and especially sailors. For example, a navy could save from 50% to 90% of the budget allocated to protect coastal waters through a tiltrotor of a certain design, and put the savings on the ocean fleet.

[Avior]

The next step just begs the replacement of Hokai on AWACS based on Osprey.
Of the most beloved requirements in the US Navy, the requirements for the unification of equipment, so that there are a minimum number of different types on board.
And this will be a direct path to turning UDC into an easy, but full-fledged, aircraft carrier

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Avior

replacement of Hokai on AWACS based on the Osprey.

Well, no, Osprey is not suitable for this purpose. The tiltrotor propellers are not optimized for horizontal flight or hovering. They are universal, and therefore compromise. For an AWACS aircraft, it is important to hang in the air as long as possible, winding circles at cruising speed. The plane is out of competition

[Avior]

Have you compared how long Osprey can patrol and how many Hokai?
The time is comparable, and additional tanks were put on it, as the article says
They have very close characteristics in terms of maximum mass, sadness, range, speed and so on.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Avior

Have you compared how long Osprey can patrol and how many Hokai?

deck version of the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye - 5 hours. How much can Osprey spend in the air without refueling?

[Avior]

Judging by the fact that their flight range is similar, it is similar.
They usually write about Hokai for 4 hours, about Osprey - there is no such information, since there are no patrol modifications yet

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Avior

Judging by the fact that their flight range is similar, it is similar.

is not a fact. Super Hornet has a comparable range (2,5 thousand km), but it can only be in the air for 2,5 hours. Flight time depends on the amount of fuel and gluttony of the engines, cruising speed. With all other things being equal, the plane here wins.

Quote: Avior

4 hours usually write about Hokai

about old Hokka - yes. No wonder I pointed out a specific type

[ProkletyiPirat]

1) Take the range and divide by the cruising speed there just 4-4,5 hours for both, but this is without taking into account additional fuel.
2) Osprey-AWACS can have a radar extendable down or towed

[Grigory_45]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

Osprey-DRLO may have a radar retractable down

he can only have one. Or flat AFAR like .СААБ 340

or E-7A Wedgetail

The "plate" as on Hockey will not allow the screws in the "helicopter" position

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Gregory_45

The "plate" as on Hockey will not allow the screws in the "helicopter" position

Nope, your statement is wrong because 1) the radar can be retractable 2) the radar can be segmented, so it can be from the bottom and top and back. In my opinion, it is best from the bottom + back.

[Avior]

According to the first draft and the plate was placed.
And then we switched to antennas with electronic scanning.
But really no one has ordered yet.

[Avior]

different versions were
V-22 AEW proposed to the British in 1990.

and this is the 1998 version

there were options with comfortable antennas on the sides below, as in the Israeli AWAC Conformal Airborne Early Warning and control, CAEW based on the Gulf Stream

[Avior]

the latter was offered by India,

with tactics

in Pakistan even got nervous
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/northrop-grumman-offered-e-2d-advance-hawkeye-to-indian-military.405915/page-2
there are other versions, I don’t know how real
but while there was no real customer, they didn’t do anything
Osprey needs some improvements to AWACS, for example, sealing for high altitudes, but in general it fits no worse than E-2 for this purpose

[God save the king]

While everything depends on money.
For Britain, the EV-22 turned out to be overwhelming in terms of finances, for the United States it was not very popular in the presence of "hokai" on aircraft carriers.

[Magog]

We are building a UDC at the Kerch shipyards. My question is related to this: for what operations of a military-political nature are these ships laid down? Respectively. "we need / do not need convertiplanes" to some extent depends on the clarity of the tasks of using these ships. The aircraft-carrying cruiser "Kuznetsov", like its predecessors (with verticals and helicopters), did not need tiltrotors - at least there were no such statements from our side.

[Sandor Clegane]

Quote: Magog

We are laying the construction of UDC

Quote: Magog

Respectively. "we need / do not need tiltroplanes" to some extent depends on clarity

there is no causal relationship between the UDC in Kerch and the convertiplane. News about The CMV-22B transport tiltrotor is designed by order of the U.S. Navy

[Magog]

A little higher (not mine) read the question: "Do we need these?" Here I am about the same. I understand that you can not catch this in my presentation.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Magog

We are building a UDC at the Kerch shipyards. My question is related to this: for what operations of a military-political nature are these ships laid down? Respectively. "we need / do not need convertiplanes" to some extent depends on the clarity of the tasks of using these ships

so the Ka-52 combat Katranas are also based on them. They are suitable only for supporting the landing - one of the UDC appointments is obvious. Turnkey planes and other helicopters can be used for landing and search and rescue operations.

[Magog]

Landing support where? In the military-political sense: TVD. Search and rescue operations - it is clear: UDC for the Ministry of Emergencies (cool!).

[Zoomlion]

And isn’t it easier and cheaper to load 50 pieces of additional engines for the f-35 and other parts on the aircraft carrier itself?

[Magog]

Yes, it looks like you spent a lot of money, 30 years of development - now you need to sell it to someone. The tasks of the device are clearly far-fetched and painfully "sucked from the finger".

[Grigory_45]

Quote: ZoomLion

And isn’t it easier and cheaper to load 50 pieces of additional engines for the f-35 and other parts on the aircraft carrier itself?

and is an aircraft carrier rubber? On it, in addition to ensuring the operation of the ship itself, fuel and ammunition for the wing - and not for one day of intense fighting. This is not a land airfield, every cubic meter counts on the ship. Naturally, there are some spare parts (including engines) on board, but what if there is a need to deliver more? And the transport Greyhounds themselves are very outdated and require replacement.

[Magog]

The AUG structure provides for the presence of a large number of ships, including support ships (tankers, dry cargo ships, floating repair facilities, ...) - take any spare parts to health. In addition, a developed network of military bases around the world gives a rare chance for the US Navy to dispense with the urgent supply of spare parts by conventional transport helicopters. Or when replacing an aircraft engine, the bill goes for minutes?

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Magog

The AUG structure provides for the presence of a large number of ships, including support ships (tankers, dry cargo ships, floating repair facilities, ...) - take any spare parts to health. In addition, a developed network of military bases around the world gives a rare chance for the US Navy to dispense with the urgent supply of spare parts by conventional transport helicopters

why then were the Greyhounds needed? But they still fly

[Magog]

Deliver fresh beer to the whole team! Now I will look at their tasks (this is the first thing that I always look at any kind of technique).

[Magog]

"Designed to deliver cargo to the deck of aircraft carriers at sea." (Wikipedia.) Well: At the nearest base (distance up to 2400 km / 2, that is, noticeably farther than CMV) we take cargo (conventionally, beer) and at the same speed as CMV-22B (about 500 km / h), we take it to the deck - everyone drinks! Cheap and cheerful. Oversized engines from the same place, but by helicopters. The engines must be delivered in advance to the bases closest to the proposed actions of the AUG on large air force transports in any quantity ... The question remains: "why does the goat need a button accordion?"

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Magog

The question remains: "why does the goat need a button accordion?"

according to your logic, then the Greyhounds were not needed - everything is so simple if you follow your scenario. You can get by with helicopters and Galaxy. Dumb Americans did not guess ..)

Osprey should replace the obsolete Greyhounds in the snag, taking on their tasks as a deck carrier. In addition, it can be based on UDC, which adds to the mix of flexibility and impact power.

[Magog]

"By your logic, then the Greyhounds were not needed - everything is so simple, if you follow your scenario." Where did you see my logic and scenario? Engines are an oversized cargo for "outdated in snag", but the need for their replacement is not every day.
"Osprey has to replace the old Greyhounds with snags." Why is the Osprey better than the outdated Greyhounds (as applied to aircraft carriers, after all, they are "forced into" there)? Only those who are able to sit on the deck of the UDC? So all the same helicopters are suitable for this.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Magog

Where did you see such my logic and scenario?

so, only helicopters can handle everything.

Quote: Magog

At the nearest base ... we take the cargo ..., we carry it to the deck ... Cheap and cheerful. Oversized engines from there, but by helicopters. Engines should be delivered in advance to the bases closest to the proposed AUG operations on large air force transport vehicles in any quantities

Transport deck in this scenario nafig not needed

Quote: Magog

Why "Osprey" is better than "snagged" Greyhounds

They are changing the transport plane (morally and physically obsolete) for convertiplanes. Not only because of the need to carry engines to Lightnings. Change the transporter for something fresher. And capable of being based on UDC - unification.

[Magog]

"Gregory", where "..." instructed, quoting me. Famously you use the context! Magician. Even to object is stupid of me!

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Magog

Famously you use context

what's so bad? Removed lines about beer. The meaning has changed? I just freed a comment from the husk, so that it was better perceived

[Magog]

"Together with water and a child" as they say. "Beer" is a conventional designation for small-sized cargoes for a deck transport AIRPLANE. For oversized cargo - F-35 engine - transport helicopter. That's all the "husk" associated with "beer" ... Next, I'll remind you about the "assistant professor"

[rocket757]

The car is certainly cool ... to each his own.

[Alex2]

The presence of one state and the absence of another of this product indicates the technological capabilities of these countries.

[Magog]

Well yes ! One country, for example, has coaxial helicopters (and their availability is justified!), While the other does not and is not expected. Or RD-180.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Magog

One country, for example, has coaxial helicopters (and their availability is justified!), While the other does not and is not expected

yeah, is it shot in Hollywood, or computer graphics?

[Magog]

They tried, found out: problems above the roof. Our Kamovites, too, brought to mind for a long time, but managed. Americans work so rarely - probably never. Then, when someone in the world has solved a particular technical problem, it is easier for followers. However, there are still no coaxial helicopters in either the United States or NATO (banned in Russia).

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Magog

Neither in the USA nor in NATO (banned in Russia) there are still no coaxial helicopters.

Yes, they do not favor co-alignment, preferring simpler helicopters of the classical scheme. But, as practice shows, if necessary, they can pile together an ally. As far as we know, the Raider is now in trials, and it seems to fly quite well

[Magog]

"God help" - finally, and their progress has been marked.

[Magog]

“The request from the Americans, for whom Sikorsky developed a helicopter based on a coaxial system with a pushing propeller, was very serious. It was assumed that the helicopter would be able to reach speeds of up to 407 km / h (according to some sources - up to 460) and will replace OH- helicopters. 58D Kiowa Warrior, which have been in service with the US ARMY since the Vietnam War, but the S-2015 Raider, which made its maiden flight back in 97, is still largely unfinished. And the last test flight ended in an accident - a helicopter collapsed at West Pairoco airfield in Florida, barely getting off the runway. Fortunately, none of the two crew members were injured. "

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Magog

when someone in the world has solved a particular technical problem, it’s easier for followers

well, that's only if the pioneers shared sacred knowledge. When Yakovlev was making the "flying carriage", the Americans already had their "bananas" flying. And the Yakovlevites seized with a longitudinal scheme, they had to go the same way as Pyasetsky. And - the helicopter did not go ...

[Magog]

Yakovlev succeeded, only t.s. the "tender" won Miles, as far as I remember. The Mil design bureau was chosen for the future as a purely helicopter design - they are all in their hands.