As the Navy’s carrier on-board delivery aircraft approaches the end of its service life, should the Navy update the Greyhound or replace it with the Osprey?
It is old, and it is ugly. However, Northrop Grumman’s C-2 Greyhound continues to complete its mission as the carrier on-board delivery (COD) aircraft for the U.S. Navy safely and successfully. Despite its age, there has been no other platform that is able to effectively provide logistical support onboard aircraft carriers. With technological advancements and changing 21st century Navy Fleet operations, the Greyhound’s age classifies the aircraft to be outdated. It has been an ongoing debate at the Pentagon on whether Bell-Boeing’s V-22 Osprey should assume the role of 21st-century COD platform, replacing the C-2 Greyhound—a decision with many pros and cons for each aircraft and trade-offs to consider. Northrop Grumman and Bell have both argued that their aircraft provides optimal cost effectiveness, maintainability, flexibility, and other important COD requirements of the Navy.
For nearly 50 years, the C-2 Greyhound has served as the Navy’s carrier strike group logistical-support aircraft.1 It has the ability to transport over 10,000 pounds (or 26 passengers) of cargo over 1,300 nautical miles of unrefueled range.2 The C-2 fleet consists of a total of 35 aircraft, with its youngest plane being 24 years old.3 The service life of the Greyhound is expected to end in 2020; however, the Navy has been pushing the service limits of the older models. With several years left in the aircraft’s absolute service life, the Navy is currently assessing its options for replacement.
The Contender
Bell-Boeing’s V-22 Osprey is considered the top contender to replace the Greyhound. Although there is currently no commissioned U.S. Navy variant, the service has purchased 48 Ospreys solely for its program of record.4 The majority of today’s Osprey fleet is operated by the Marine Corps, with several in the Air Force. The Marine Corps is working to persuade the Navy to purchase Ospreys. Under a five-year fixed-price contract, Pentagon purchasing czar Frank Kendall confirmed that the Department of Defense plans to purchase 98 more of the aircraft for the Marine Corps and seven for the Air Force.5 Kendall noted, “A Navy purchase would be expected to significantly lower the cost of remaining V-22s the Marine Corps and Air Force want.”6
Aside from potentially saving more than 10 percent of the total V-22 cost and thus facilitating the Marine Corps’ and Air Force’s purchase of the aircraft, Bell argues that the V-22 is a more compatible aircraft for today’s Navy and its future operations.7 The Osprey’s ability to take off and land like a helicopter and fly like a fixed wing aircraft provides greater flexibility than the C-2 Greyhound. A significant advantage of the V-22 over the Greyhound is that the Osprey has the ability to land on smaller deck ships than an aircraft carrier; therefore the aircraft does not require an arresting landing gear or a catapult for takeoff. This will alleviate the required time it takes for cargo to be transported from an aircraft carrier to smaller deck ships via H-60 helicopters. In addition to the COD mission requirements, the Ospreys could operate as a multirole aircraft, conducting search and rescue and antisubmarine warfare.8
The cargo lifting ability of the Osprey is much like the Greyhound as the V-22 is able to store 10,000 pounds of cargo internally.9 However, the Osprey also has the ability to lift 15,000 pounds from dual external hooks.10 The ability to transport weight comparable to the Greyhound and vertically lift 6,000 more pounds than the H-60 helicopter provides a greater advantage for the V-22 to become the Navy’s new COD aircraft.
The Osprey’s capabilities are more than what meets the eye. The Marine Corps MV-22 combat Osprey has a price tag of approximately $67 million, nearly $30 million more than the C-2 Greyhound.11 The cost of a Navy variant, HV-22 Osprey, will certainly be more expensive than the Marine Corps’ due to alterations that it must undergo to accommodate size restrictions aboard aircraft carriers. Bell modified the HV-22 to “utilize a special wing assembly system in which the entire unit rotates to sit over the running length of the fuselage.”12 In addition, two of its rotor blades on each engine nacelle will collapse via hinges.13 These modifications will allow for a more compact Osprey to be stored inside hangar bays but at a much greater cost.
The Greyhound … Still in the Running
Introducing the Osprey to the Navy may support the grand cost of the V-22 purchase across the Department of Defense, however, producing another variant may negate the predicted savings, as the unit cost of a Greyhound is $38.96 million and offers cost advantages over the Osprey.14 Northrop Grumman argues that since the Navy utilizes the E-2 Hawkeye early warning command-and-control aircraft, maintaining a Greyhound variant as the Navy’s COD platform will reduce the costs associated with the logistics and maintenance chains.15
The end of the C-2 Greyhound’s service life nears, but Northrop Grumman claims that upgrading the existing C-2s is a “fairly easy option.”16 Additionally, the Navy and Northrop Grumman underwent a program to upgrade the C-2’s twin sister, the E-2 Hawkeye, from a C to D configuration.17 From that program, Northrop Grumman proposed to “modernize the C-2 with the same new engines, digital avionics and empennage that are being used for the E-2D.”18 This would increase commonality between the two fleets of aircrafts, thus lowering operating and sustainment cost for both.19
Although, the C-2 Greyhound does not have the vertical take-off and landing capability of the Osprey, it does possess its own advantages, specifically in the altitudes at which it can operate and the size of its internal cargo bay. With a pressurized cabin, the Greyhound has a higher service ceiling and can fly above weather conditions that would otherwise prohibit flight.20 The weight lifting capability is an important factor, but the size of cargo capable of being carried must also be considered as an important COD parameter. The Greyhound’s internal cargo bay has a volume of 862 cubic feet, more than 210 cubic feet larger than the Osprey.21 Also, the distance the Greyhound can travel without refueling surpasses that of the Osprey:1,300 nautical miles compared to 390.22
The Osprey’s ability to lift heavy loads and provide multirole capability may seem very persuasive, making it the more competitive COD contender against an upgraded Greyhound, however, range requirements for the Navy’s operations in the 21st-century demand more than just flexibility. Dr. Daniel Gouré, vice president of the Lexington Institute, wrote, “The Navy will continue to rely on its CVN [nuclear-powered aircraft carrier] battle groups to provide its primary striking power against the land. However, because of the proliferation of anti-access systems such as the Chinese DF-21 antiship ballistic missile, the CVNs will have to stand farther off from hostile shores and employ maneuver to avoid being targeted.”23 The Greyhound has the ability to travel greater distances than the Osprey, allowing the carrier strike group to remain further offshore.
Most important, the argument comparing the Osprey and Greyhound is based on the current C-2 Greyhound configuration and doesn’t consider the potential upgrades Northrop Grumman promises. Advancing the C-2 with a newer variant will allow the aircraft to travel even farther and carry a heavier load. One challenge that the new COD would face is transporting the engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.24 The internal cargo bay for the Osprey would not accommodate the space; therefore, an upgraded C-2 fuselage could potentially be the only solution.
An Upgrade for the Next 50 Years
With both aircraft offering its own form of advantages over the other, it would be ideal for the Navy to employ both the Osprey and an upgraded C-2 as the Fleet logistical support aircraft. Currently, V-22s are undergoing suitability studies for operations to resupply carriers.25 The Osprey has already been underway with amphibious ships but has not served as a COD support platform.26
While the argument in favor of selecting the Osprey as the new service-supply aircraft due to its multirole flexibility and weight lifting capabilities may seem persuasive, when making an assessment based solely on selecting a carrier onboard-delivery aircraft the C-2 becomes the more reasonable platform. The compatibility of an upgraded C-2 with the E-2D will reduce a number of costs, such as maintenance and logistics. The production of an upgraded C-2 will eliminate the need for a multimillion-dollar purchase and modifications required for a Navy variant Osprey. As a logistical support aircraft, the C-2 already has the ability to travel greater distance, allowing carriers to remain further offshore. Its pressurized cabin allows the current Greyhound to complete the logistical support mission above weather conditions that normally prohibit flight. Lastly, an upgraded C-2 variant will provide greater logistical support for the new F-35 fleet by transporting its engine without disassembling the module.27 The Osprey has the ability to lift heavier cargo but lacks the storage space in which to transport it. The Greyhound is and has been trusted as the most reliable COD platform and has successfully, effectively, and safely served as the Navy’s COD aircraft for nearly half a century. An upgraded C-2 variant can continue to serve for another 50 years.
1. Bryce McDevitt, “C-2A Greyhound,” Northrop Grumman, www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/C2AGreyhound/Documents/Data_Sheet_C2A_Greyhound.pdf.
2. Ibid.
3. Daniel Gouré, “Greyhound Versus Osprey: The Choice Matters A Lot,” Lexington Institute, 19 April 2013, www.lexingtoninstitute.org/greyhound-versus-osprey-the-choice-matters-a-lot.
4. Andrew Tilghman, “Navy Eyes Ospreys as COD Replacements,” Navy Times, 20 September 2009, http://www.navytimes.com/article/20090920/NEWS/909200307/Navy-eyes-Ospreys-COD-replacements.
5. Richard Whittle, “Marines Push Quietly, But Hard, For Navy to Replace C-2s With V-22s,” Breaking Defense, 6 April 2012, http://breakingdefense.com/2012/04/marines-push-quietly-but-hard-for-navy-to-replace-c-2s-with-v/.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. “V-22 Osprey Technical Specs,” Boeing, www.boeing.com/boeing/rotorcraft/military/v22/v22spec.page?.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Staff Writer, “Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey Tiltrotor VTOL Transport,” Military Factor, 12 January 2014, www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail-page-2.asp?aircraft_id=15.
13. Ibid.
14. U.S. Navy, “C-2A Greyhound Logistics Aircraft,” www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=100&ct=1
15. “Bell Pushing V-22 as Possible Greyhound Replacement,” Vertical Magazine, 10 April 2013, www.verticalmag.com/news/article/Bell-pushing-V-22-as-possible-Greyhound-replacement#.Uy9_DKhdV8E.
16. Gouré.
17. Ibid.
18. Gouré.
19. Ibid.
20. McDevitt.
21. Ibid.
22. McDevitt; “V-22 Osprey Technical Specs,”Boeing.
23. Gouré.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid.