V-22 Chosen to be the new COD

[zippy]

You find that when selection time rolls around MV-22s are dead last on Marine Corps students dream sheets. I foresee it maybe doing slightly better than that for Navy students since, well COD life is the best thing ever...Perdiem and no readiness, and very little time on the boat.

I'm not sure you'll see many dudes clawing to get out of the C-2 in order to go V-22. Unless they're one of those guys who think they're going to have a better shot and command and Later on, be a CAG.

 

[Jublov]

Why are they last? Is it because they're flimsy? I wouldn't mind a V-22 in the USMC, but if I could I would like a C-2 in the Navy, because 1. Tailhooker 2. Prop and 3. It's a proven workhorse, old yes, but it still works. But anyways I shouldn't even be meddling with aircraft, I should be completing my degree.

 

[Brett327]

Why are they last? Is it because they're flimsy? I wouldn't mind a V-22 in the USMC, but if I could I would like a C-2 in the Navy, because 1. Tailhooker 2. Prop and 3. It's a proven workhorse, old yes, but it still works. But anyways I shouldn't even be meddling with aircraft, I should be completing my degree.

I thought you were going to STFU for a while. You can add impulse control to your growing list of things to work on. (smiles simulated)

 

[Malo83]

 

[sickboy]

Why are they last? Is it because they're flimsy? I wouldn't mind a V-22 in the USMC, but if I could I would like a C-2 in the Navy, because 1. Tailhooker 2. Prop and 3. It's a proven workhorse, old yes, but it still works. But anyways I shouldn't even be meddling with aircraft, I should be completing my degree.

All the studs I was in advanced with wanted Helos (and never wanted to leave) but were drafted into Tiltrotor. I think a lot of it came from the early mishap rate and the size of the NATOPS for that thing.

 

[zippy]

Why are they last? Is it because they're flimsy? I wouldn't mind a V-22 in the USMC, but if I could I would like a C-2 in the Navy, because 1. Tailhooker 2. Prop and 3. It's a proven workhorse, old yes, but it still works. But anyways I shouldn't even be meddling with aircraft, I should be completing my degree.

Because no self respecting Marine in primary likes the idea of going to a platform that their leadership is still too afraid to put into the action while every other community is... Even the Herks are touted as a kinetic platform with the Harvest Hawk thing... That and the think has a terrible reputation due to its early day mishaps.

 

[Pags]

Because no self respecting Marine in primary likes the idea of going to a platform that their leadership is still too afraid to put into the action while every other community is... Even the Herks are touted as a kinetic platform with the Harvest Hawk thing... That and the think has a terrible reputation due to its early day mishaps.

I'm surprised by this as all my peers wanted Phrogs. V-22s still fulfill that same mission of the core of the MEU's ACE.

And although the V-22 had a high mishap rate during test that mishap rate hasn't followed it in to the fleet over the past 10 yrs or so. The platform has some amazing capabilities that haven't been fully realized yet.

 

[Jublov]

Thanks for your genuine responses, will STFU now in a corner

 

[Col Angus]

Why are they last? Is it because they're flimsy? I wouldn't mind a V-22 in the USMC, but if I could I would like a C-2 in the Navy, because 1. Tailhooker 2. Prop and 3. It's a proven workhorse, old yes, but it still works. But anyways I shouldn't even be meddling with aircraft, I should be completing my degree.

Jesus tittyfucking christ

Because no self respecting Marine in primary likes the idea of going to a platform that their leadership is still too afraid to put into the action while every other community is... Even the Herks are touted as a kinetic platform with the Harvest Hawk thing... That and the think has a terrible reputation due to its early day mishaps.

Jesus tittyfucking christ.

 

[zippy]

Jesus tittyfucking christ.

Sounds like need to make the rounds at TBS and the VTs to show the young motivators how hardcore your community really is, because it has an image problem.

I've got a few friends who fly the MV-22 and love it. Every Marine with the exception of one that I met during my time as VT instructor planned on putting it last on their selection sheet. The usual response was they wanted a platform where they could support Marines on ground. Somewhere between TBS and the Marine IPs at the VTs, word got out that the Osprey isn't that platform.

 

[Col Angus]

meh. i'm not taking the bait tonight.

 

[RivrGuide]

Is there any releaseable numbers on unrefueled Osprey Range? Like from an actual Osprey guy? I feel like numbers throw haphazardly around in a hit piece article are suspect. Also, SOP ranges for shore-ship limits might come into play similar to helos....?

Regardless, I think the VRC guys will like their new ride more than they think. A lot of the growing pains mentioned here are being worked through by smart folks on Amphibs now. By the time they get it, you'll be talking about a mature platform 10 years into operational service.

800 NM one way

 

[RivrGuide]

Well, the HSC community already views themselves as a CSAR asset that can do starboard D, so that shouldn't be too far of a stretch.

Still doesn't shed any light on how they're gonna man and train the enlisted guys. Anybody know if the -22 has an overwater SAR capability? I know they have a hoist on the ramp, but nothing about their rotorwash.

Do you man it with AWS/Rs as a COD platform? That's an expensive loadmaster.

I'm not sure what you mean by the disestablishment of any HSC squadrons either. Last I heard, only -84 is going away right now and there's plenty of room for their AD people back in the fleet.

We're not a SAR platform, crewchiefs never really train on the hoist, definitely not qualified to.jump.in and get.somebody. Downwash is a problem, but could be addressed.if.they took something.out of the pack(like
shooting bullsh#t rockets or becoming a tanker). The closest we.get is discussing roles as a raftkicker if one aircraft in a section goes down beyond 60 range. We tried for a couple years to.get a.raft.that was approved to drop from the back, like most things at PMA though it died after a couple years of effort when our AMSO PCS'd

 

[RivrGuide]

800 NM one way

Something in the chute right not that is actually a pretty good idea is the MV-22B aft sponson installation. Long story short, there is room in the aircraft fuselage to install more fuel tanks without reducing the cabin capacity. Block A had them, I think they went away from them in block B/C due to aft CG issues, but it would buy an extra 370NM if they did a dual aft sponson installation.

So that brings you to just shy of 1200NM on a no wind day.

Internal (MAT) tanks would still be an option, they suck up 6 seats each and buy you about 200 miles apiece.

 

[ChuckMK23]

So how's the operational profile of the CV-22 different from it's MV-22 counterpart? Clearly the folks at Hurlburt figured out a way to do extremis personnel recovery. It's the same airframe and avionics...