Military Review

U.S. Navy tested CMV-22B transport convertiplane for range

56
U.S. Navy tested CMV-22B transport convertiplane for range

The U.S. Navy continues to test the CMV-22B transport convertiplane designed for the Navy based on the V-22 Ospre convertiplane. At the next stage, the CMV-22B made a long flight, Defense Aerospace reports.


According to the publication, the tiltrotor flew from Bell's aerodrome in Amarillo in Texas to the US Pataksent River base in Maryland, covering about 2,3 thousand kilometers. It is reported that the tests took place within 2 days, all in the air the tiltrotor spent six and a half hours. The tests are recognized as successful.

The first transport tiltrotor CMV-22B entered the U.S. fleet for testing in February 2020. In total, the U.S. Navy ordered 48 vehicles, the first production CMV-22B should go to the US 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tiltrotor was developed by order of the U.S. Navy based on the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor and is expected to replace the outdated C-2A Greyhound carrier-based transport planes. 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.
56 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Grandfather
    Grandfather April 18 2020 16: 57 New
    -2
    One of the reasons that prompted the US Navy to order the development of the CMV-22B was the fact that the engine from the F-2 fighter does not fit in the C-35A cargo compartment. The new tiltrotor freely transports the aircraft engines, and in the Chinook CH-47, do not push the engines from the F-35? there generally it is possible to carry 12t. what I don’t understand why such quirks with "envelopes" are difficult, expensive ... or why?
    1. Phantom 104
      Phantom 104 April 18 2020 17: 01 New
      +8
      So that he could supply the AUGs which are located at some distance from the bases, and that for this a separate plane would not be needed
    2. Doccor18
      Doccor18 April 18 2020 17: 38 New
      +9
      The combat radius of the Chinook helicopter is 935 km., Near the tiltrotor
      2,5 times more.
      1. Grandfather
        Grandfather April 18 2020 18: 05 New
        0
        Quote: Doccor18
        The combat radius of the Chinook helicopter is 935 km., Near the tiltrotor
        2,5 times more.

        I’m not sure if I’m going to change the engines of the F 35go, they will be under the deck of the Roosevelt ....
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 April 18 2020 18: 10 New
          +2
          It is difficult to say that aircraft equipment is being repaired on aircraft carriers, but whether the engines will be changed .. But the article says that for the transportation of aircraft engines. It is more reasonable to transport from a ground airfield to a ground airdrome at large military air forces. So they will still change on board ...
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat April 18 2020 18: 46 New
            0
            Quote: Doccor18
            It’s hard to say that aircraft equipment repair is carried out on aircraft carriers,

            1) That is exactly it (repair) has been produced for a long time (> 40 years or even more), for a long time there have been special transports for a catapult ..
            2) Transport osprey is done for another, in one article it was mentioned that it was made under the ability to transport ultra-light vehicles and artillery for MTR / ILC. Now they have problems there due to the fact that heavy helicopters limit the combat radius of UDC \ MTR \ KMP and do not allow the osprey to realize their advantage.
          2. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 April 18 2020 18: 49 New
            -1
            Quote: Doccor18
            but will they change engines

            will change, change and will change. This is not such a difficult operation, quite feasible on board an aircraft carrier.
        2. eklmn
          eklmn April 18 2020 19: 10 New
          0
          “I’m somehow not sure that the engines of the F 35go will be changed under the deck of the Roosevelt ....”
          Doubt about the height of the hangar? Lack of lift / mechanics?
          If you type USS Theodore Roosevelt on youtube, then there is a full video about the aircraft carrier. One of them:
          replenishment of stocks in an aircraft carrier on the go:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT7hHTYHr9g
        3. Avior
          Avior April 18 2020 19: 18 New
          +2
          In vain not sure
          Engines change, at least f-18
      2. venik
        venik April 18 2020 19: 29 New
        -1
        Quote: Doccor18
        The combat radius of the Chinook helicopter is 935 km., The tiltrotor has almost 2,5 times more.

        =========
        The tiltrotor, in comparison with a helicopter, generally has much better fuel efficiency! In horizontal flight mode, generally post the same as a turboprop!
    3. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 April 18 2020 18: 48 New
      -2
      Quote: Dead Day
      and in the "Chinook" CH-47, do not push the engines from the F-35?

      can. Only the speed and range of Chinook is noticeably lower.
      In addition, the marines need the tilt planes to base on UDC
    4. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 18 2020 18: 49 New
      0
      Quote: Dead Day
      and in the "Chinook" CH-47, do not push the engines from the F-35?

      Do not push.
      Because the US Navy has no Chinooks.
    5. figwam
      figwam April 18 2020 20: 49 New
      -1
      The new tiltrotor freely carries aircraft engines, which in the future will become the main fighter of the US Navy.

      An interesting detail pops up, all the same, the F-35 will be the main US fighter! Although here the pro-Western have repeatedly argued that this aircraft was not created to replace the US and NATO fighter fleet.
      1. Avior
        Avior April 18 2020 21: 41 New
        +3
        What is the sensation?
        It will be the main one, as planned.
        It is the main, and not the only one.
        hi
        1. figwam
          figwam April 18 2020 22: 27 New
          -1
          Quote: Avior
          It is the main, and not the only one.

          Now yes, after all, the release of the F-15s was started again, which were supposed to finish their service.
          1. Avior
            Avior April 18 2020 22: 42 New
            +1
            launched the release of F-15s that were supposed to finish their service.

            F-15 are different
            some should, some should not.
            I do not see a problem.
            they were not ordered instead of f-35, by f-35 and so the production was fully loaded for many years to come
            1. figwam
              figwam April 18 2020 22: 59 New
              -2
              Quote: Avior
              F-15 are different

              This aircraft was developed in the 60s, it’s just junk that was planned for decommissioning in the coming years.
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 April 19 2020 00: 33 New
                -3
                Quote: figvam
                This aircraft was developed in the 60s, it’s just a junk that was planned for decommissioning in the coming years

                modern versions of the Needle differ from the F-15A in the same way as the current Su-35 from the Su-27 of the 1982 model.
                Modernization - did not hear?
                1. figwam
                  figwam April 19 2020 10: 22 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Gregory_45

                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  modern versions of the Needle differ from the F-15A in the same way as the current Su-35 from the Su-27 of the 1982 model.
                  Modernization - did not hear?

                  The F-15 glider remained the same, it has not been changed for 60 years !!!, it’s the same thing that we would have resumed the production of the Mig-25, the Mig-31 had long been created to replace it, and the Mig-41 would replace it, not it is possible to constantly upgrade what is obsolete morally and physically. The Su-27, like the Su-35, was created according to the integrated aerodynamic scheme - have not you heard? It is such a scheme that gives super-maneuverability which Western planes do not currently have, and even the Su-57 comes to replace it.
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 April 19 2020 10: 49 New
                    -2
                    Quote: figvam
                    The F-15 glider remained the same, it has been unchanged for 60 years !!!

                    Firstly, new materials are being applied (which you probably have not heard of). As for the appearance and aerodynamic design, the Su-35 glider is almost entirely borrowed from the Su-27.

                    Quote: figvam
                    we would now resume the production of the Mig-25, to replace it the Mig-31 had long been created

                    MiG-25 and MiG-31 gliders are largely unified) An ignorant person will not even distinguish planes from each other))


                    Your airfare for a glider is very funny. Nowadays, it’s not the glider that matters (to this day, almost everything that has been squeezed out is satisfactory, the flight characteristics of the cars are satisfactory, and they almost do not differ from the 4th generation fighters), the aircraft’s electronic filling (its avionics), weapons, low visibility are much more important ( for a fighter), integration into information networks. And it is precisely on avionics that modern Needles and Su-35 are radically different from their first versions. Therefore, talking about a 60 or 40-year-old plane in the present tense is very illiterate)

                    Quote: figvam
                    it is not possible to constantly upgrade

                    You probably heard that the 5th generation fighters are being created?
                    1. figwam
                      figwam April 19 2020 11: 03 New
                      0
                      Quote: Gregory_45

                      MiG-25 and MiG-31 gliders are largely unified) An ignorant person will not even distinguish planes from each other))



                      You are an ignorant person, to talk about aircraft that you do not even distinguish, it is very strong, brave! On your two photos Mig-31. Please do not waste my time, study better the mathematical part.
                  2. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 April 19 2020 10: 57 New
                    -2
                    Quote: figvam
                    Su-35 ... yes, the Su-57 comes to replace it.

                    alas for all of us, but in Russia the Su-57 will not become the main fighter, it will not replace the Su-30/35, due to the extremely small population. Unlike Lightning
      2. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 April 19 2020 00: 41 New
        -2
        Quote: figvam
        F-35 will be the main fighter of the usa!

        pronouncing such phrases, it is necessary to clearly imagine that the US Air Force, ILC and Navy are three different kingdoms. Each with its own command, budget and weapons requirements. And if the Air Force and KMP Lightning are quite satisfied. then sailors - no. Firstly, the F-35 is single-engine (and when flying over the sea, a twin-engine aircraft is more reliable), and secondly, with the departure of Tomcat’s scene, the fleet lost the interceptor (which the F-35 is not able to replace). And given the appearance of new missiles in Russia, the need for an interceptor is quite serious.
        Summing up, we can say that the Navy is initiating its own program for creating a promising aircraft (in addition to the F-35, which will act as a fighter-bomber)
        1. figwam
          figwam April 19 2020 10: 25 New
          -1
          Quote: Gregory_45
          pronouncing such phrases

          ))) This article is written, first you need to at least read it before commenting.)))
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 April 19 2020 10: 35 New
            -2
            Quote: figvam
            first you need to at least read it before commenting

            and you don’t worry about me, I read the article and your comment. In which you absolutely do not distinguish between the concepts of "main" and "unique".
            1. figwam
              figwam April 19 2020 10: 41 New
              0
              Quote: Gregory_45
              In which you absolutely do not distinguish between the concepts of "main" and "unique".

              Do not think for me of what is not.
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 April 19 2020 10: 54 New
                -2
                Quote: figvam
                Do not think for me

                you yourself wrote everything:
                Quote: figvam
                All the same, the F-35 will be the main US fighter! Although here the pro-Western have repeatedly argued that this aircraft was not created to replace the US and NATO fighter fleet.

                Despite the fact that there is an F-35, no one is going to disarm the same Needles and Super Hornets, and the fleet is dreaming of its own promising aircraft
    6. Private-K
      Private-K April 19 2020 10: 39 New
      0
      Quote: Dead Day
      and in the "Chinook" CH-47, do not push the engines from the F-35?

      It's simple - the Chinooks are not in service with the US Navy.
      But the tasks assigned to the Greyhounds and now to the Osprey are. And these tasks are important and necessary (there is not only the delivery of engines, although this is a priority item on the specifics) and they need to be solved.
      But as for me, to make an expensive Osprey just a transport vehicle for the vehicle. "internal cargo turnover" - tse vzhe zanapto is expensive.
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 April 19 2020 11: 12 New
        -2
        Quote: Private-K
        It's simple - the Chinooks are not in service with the US Navy.

        and the wing planes are not in the arsenal of the Navy) They are just getting ready to receive them.
        And the reason is a much higher range and speed than Chinook.
        The Greyhounds were used as carrier-based multipurpose carriers, carrying cargo, passengers, and correspondence aboard an aircraft carrier and back.
  2. helmi8
    helmi8 April 18 2020 17: 01 New
    0
    U.S. Navy tested CMV-22B transport convertiplane for range

    ... breaking about 2,3 thousand kilometers. It is reported that the tests took place within 2 days, all in the air the tiltrotor spent six and a half hours

    So for what it was not clear what they were testing ... Or did he just fly from one airfield to another?
    1. Avior
      Avior April 18 2020 19: 19 New
      0
      Not written, empty or with download
      1. helmi8
        helmi8 April 18 2020 19: 35 New
        +1
        Quote: Avior
        Not written, empty or with download

        This is not even the point. If the range tests, then this is a non-stop flight, and not a two-day flight with 6,5 hours in flight ...
        1. Avior
          Avior April 18 2020 19: 57 New
          0
          Checked something else
          Or in different variations
          In reality, he may have a longer range with refueling, Superhornets on aircraft carriers can serve as tankers - refueling from additional tanks, but I'm not sure that it can have Osprey fuel, if they have different
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 April 19 2020 01: 10 New
            -2
            Quote: Avior
            I’m not sure that there may be Osprey fuel if they have different

            and the fuel is exactly different?
            I am sure that both General Electric F414-GE400 (Super Hornets), and Rolls-Royce T406 (Osprey), and Allison T56-A-15 (S-130, S-2 Hokkai) consume the same kerosene
            A tanker should be able to refuel all aircraft on board an aircraft carrier.
    2. figwam
      figwam April 18 2020 20: 54 New
      0
      Quote: helmi8
      So it’s not clear what they tested him on ..

      I didn’t understand the same thing, within two days the crew and the device with rest and refueling flew from point A to point B, which we did not understand, in this mode you can fly around the earth.
      1. helmi8
        helmi8 April 18 2020 21: 42 New
        +1
        I about the same ...
  3. Pandiurin
    Pandiurin April 18 2020 18: 10 New
    0
    Quote: Doccor18
    The combat radius of the Chinook helicopter is 935 km., Near the tiltrotor
    2,5 times more.

    The combat radius is to fly back and forth. If in one direction, what is needed during transportation will be approximately 2 times more.
    ~ 2000 km, depending on load.

    It can be assumed that for a long distance the tiltrotor will be in airplane mode almost all the time, which means the flight will take less time, 2.5 times, due to this and the fact that it is a tiltrotor, much less fuel is used up. Faster and cheaper.
  4. Avior
    Avior April 18 2020 19: 16 New
    +1
    6,5 hours flight
    During patrolling, the speed is lower, which means that even more can be in the air
    The direct road to AWAC instead of Hokai, if it confirms its reliability in operation, as a transport
    Americans do not like a wide range of equipment
    And C2 and Hokai are the same plane
    And then there is a direct road to all the UDC
  5. Avior
    Avior April 18 2020 19: 22 New
    0
    Checked Comfy Tanks
    With pendant he will continue to fly
    Range:
    combat radius - 690 km;
    the radius of action during the landing load is 722 km;
    practical range - 2627 km (without refueling);
    with vertical take-off - 2225 km;
    at takeoff with a short takeoff - 3340 km;
    1. Magog
      Magog April 18 2020 21: 37 New
      -1
      at takeoff with a short takeoff - 3340 km;
      It is with great difficulty that I imagine the "take-off with a short take-off run" of this apparatus. In case of failure of at least one of the engines - a "flying coffin", it is impossible to land it by plane or in any other way. Flight accident statistics - continuous "disasters" with the death of crew members and marines!
      1. Avior
        Avior April 18 2020 22: 03 New
        +3
        It is with great difficulty that I imagine the "take-off with a short take-off run" of this apparatus.

        something like that

        In case of failure of at least one of the engines - a "flying coffin", it is impossible to land it by plane or in any other way.

        quite possible. The motors are connected by a shaft, if one fails, both screws continue to rotate, this is enough for landing


        Flight accident statistics - continuous "disasters" with the death of crew members and marines!

        from the moment it was taken into service, 7 accidents for 400 units used in operation, a total flying time of more than 500000 hours, plus participation in hostilities.
        For a fundamentally new aircraft, the result is not bad.
        The US president is not afraid to fly on it, in any case

        hi
        1. Magog
          Magog April 18 2020 22: 49 New
          0
          Thank you, of course, for the selection of videos. What is shown as a "short take-off" can hardly be considered as such. Only the difference in the above table (with a vertical takeoff - 2225 km; with a short takeoff run - 3340 km) is too optimistic, isn't it? I tried to find the thrust of one engine of this unit to be convinced of the application for "confident landing on one engine" - alas. How to convert 4586 kW to the usual Tons of thrust? Accident statistics do not provide such confidence. if the engine failed, a disaster followed - take a closer look yourself.
          1. Pandiurin
            Pandiurin April 18 2020 23: 02 New
            0
            Kilowatts to Tons of thrust cannot be converted, this engine gives kilowatts, the second one on the fan is air flow. Only comparingly comparing with other similar devices.

            "Accident statistics do not give such confidence, because a catastrophe followed with engine failures ..."

            Flying at a very low altitude. The failure of the engine, if not managed to compensate for the increase in traction on the second engine, loss of height, i.e. going to the ground ...
            In theory, there should be automation for this case, but since there are such statistics, then this is not all right.
            1. Magog
              Magog April 18 2020 23: 11 New
              0
              In this situation (at low altitude), flight speed is of greater importance: after all, it is almost an airplane (with wings!) - then you can try to land on one engine in an airplane. In flight tests, were such tests conducted? There are doubts.
            2. Avior
              Avior April 18 2020 23: 43 New
              0
              there was a case of an Osprey landing due to engine problems in 2006 when flying from the United States to England, and landed in Iceland
          2. Avior
            Avior April 18 2020 23: 18 New
            0
            as you understand, I will not break off the Internet in search of a video suitable for you along the path length. smile
            I just showed how it can be in principle
            It will lower the screws even lower (it cannot fully horizontal) and will not give full throttle until it picks up speed, then it will add and take off gas.
            But even with a short take-off without moving from hovering to horizontal flight with high fuel consumption, there is no need to go over.
            I tried to find the thrust of one engine of this unit to be convinced of the application for "confident landing on one engine" - alas.

            all his sources write about this opportunity. That is, half the power will go to the screws. Well, when landing them to the full and do not use, this is when taking off to the maximum.
            and what surprises you at all?
            Helicopters on one engine completely land
            Last year there was a good Linnik cycle if you are interested
            https://topwar.ru/161821-konvertoplan-sv-22v-osprey-aviacii-sil-specialnyh-operacij-vvs-ssha.html
            1. Magog
              Magog April 18 2020 23: 27 New
              0
              Helicopters on one engine completely land
              On autorotation, it is enough for a hard landing. The apparatus under discussion is under-plane and under-helicopter. Almost all of the declared characteristics are surprising. A rare aircraft can compare with it in terms of accident rate. The President of the United States can fly even on a "stupa with a broom", but this does not prove the reliability of this tiltrotor. lol
              1. Avior
                Avior April 19 2020 00: 23 New
                0
                not on autorotation, but on one engine, these are two different things
                Different things
                A rare aircraft is comparable to it in accident rate.

                I doubt there were obviously more emergency
                you need to count by the number of cars and flying
                for such a large raid and such a number of serial operated ones, its accident rate is just low, I don’t know where you got the high accident rate, throw a link, it's interesting to see
                here are all its accidents - 4 before being adopted, 7 after, two of them during the fighting
                12 accidents in 26 years, the last in 2017, there were no more
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_V-22_Osprey
                1. Magog
                  Magog April 19 2020 00: 44 New
                  0
                  A helicopter in autorotation lands without any working engines at all, and even more so with one working. In this sense it is said. There is no certainty about an under-helicopter with one engine. The crash is given on Wikipedia, for example. Isn't it small with noticeably limited use? And in the same place: "November 9, 2017 - Secretary General of the Japanese Cabinet of Ministers Yoshihide Suga demanded that the United States ensure an adequate level of security for the Osprey tiltrotors used by the American Marine Corps against the backdrop of evidence that they have a high accident rate."
                  1. Topgun
                    Topgun April 19 2020 10: 15 New
                    0
                    autorotation again ...
                    in my memory only 1n case in a Soviet film about helicopters and about autorotation where she saved
                    and a lot of disasters where autorotation did not save ...
                    write too much about her
                2. Magog
                  Magog April 19 2020 01: 17 New
                  0
                  I will add. “Through the connecting shaft and the associated gear mechanism, in the event of a malfunction of one of the engines, the other is able to rotate both propellers. However, in this state, the V-22“ Osprey ”cannot hang. Failure of one of the two turboprop engines results in shutdown of both and emergency landingbecause the propellers cannot get upwind. "Ibid:" Considering the highest payload (9070 kg in the cargo hold and 6800 kg in the external sling), the V-22 Osprey is considered by Western military and technical specialists as an improvement of the series of helicopters previously used in a similar range of problems. However, their use is not advisable due to peak load values. The standard in this case is CH-53K ... Time Magazine in October 2007 condemned the V-22 Osprey as "unsafe, overpriced and totally inadequate" ... Airplane ( under-plane! ) after the failure of both engines (occurs very rarely), using autorotation should make a safe landing. This, however, is complicated by the fact that its screws have lower inertia ( ? ) and, therefore, a lower autorotation capability than conventional helicopter rotors. This makes crash landings from hovering below 500 m very dangerous. "
                3. Magog
                  Magog April 19 2020 01: 46 New
                  0
                  "The machine was so revolutionary that the designers had to face problems that they did not even know about. One of the main ones was the so-called" vortex ring "effect. This phenomenon was known before, in helicopters. It was observed in cars that entered landing with a low forward speed, but with a significant vertical. In this case, the rotor blades fell into the vortex flow, previously created by the main rotor. Lift force dropped sharply, which often ended in the fall of the machine. For Osprey, which cannot land aircraft ", this problem was especially acute. In addition, the tiltrotor lift can sharply decrease only for one of the engines, then it will simply overturn. After the disasters, the tiltrotor program was carefully analyzed. The Americans came to the conclusion that to create a new aircraft instead of "Osprey" will be even more expensive, so we decided to throw all our efforts into finalizing this machine ...Accidents and disasters did not stop haunting the tiltrotor, even after its substantial revision and acceptance into operation. Between 2010 and 2020, seven serious incidents occurred, resulting in eight deaths and dozens more injured. Accidents happened both in the United States and abroad. "You saw it without me - from the same articles with pictures and videos ...
  6. businessv
    businessv April 18 2020 23: 29 New
    0
    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.
    Great plan! If we apply it to us, having mastered and deploying our SU-57 into the troops, we just have to build a couple of aircraft carriers, a couple of dozens of convertiplanes, and a few other little things for a couple of tens of billions of dollars! Wow! soldier
    1. Magog
      Magog April 18 2020 23: 43 New
      -2
      Humor is not for average minds ... Nobody considers the "Su-57" in the deck version, tiltrotors for aircraft-carrying cruisers, too. Repeat easier - I will laugh with you ...
      1. businessv
        businessv April 20 2020 19: 50 New
        0
        Quote: Magog
        Humor is not for average minds ...

        Do not strain, this is superfluous! hi
  7. sanik2020
    sanik2020 April 19 2020 10: 31 New
    0
    According to their doctrines, firepower is without mobility, because everything is subject to maximum mobility of forces and means, both in the combat zone and at different depths.