USN Cluster F*ck Naming of COD Replacement -

[DanMa1156]

Wait, to be clear, the services can't have the same name of an aircraft? As in, if the V-22 variant that we purchased was the exact same copy as the USAF one, the Naval Aviator's logbooks would not reflect CV-22?

 

[Uncle Fester]

Wait, to be clear, the services can't have the same name of an aircraft? As in, if the V-22 variant that we purchased was the exact same copy as the USAF one, the Naval Aviator's logbooks would not reflect CV-22?

Well there's no reason they can't. It's just that each service usually has service-specific versions with slightly differing avionics and such. It sounds like the CODsprey will be substantially modified from the Marine version, and definitely different from all the Batman shit the AFSOC planes have. There's not really any reason you couldn't call it the CV-22C, though. Except I guess the AF has dibs on the CV series.

 

[DanMa1156]

Well there's no reason they can't. It's just that each service usually has service-specific versions with slightly differing avionics and such. It sounds like the CODsprey will be substantially modified from the Marine version, and definitely different from all the Batman shit the AFSOC planes have. There's not really any reason you couldn't call it the CV-22C, though. Except I guess the AF has dibs on the CV series.

Ah, ok - thanks for the explanation!

 

[ChuckMK23]

The only U in recent USN/USMC service in recent years is the UH-1 Huey.

We had UH-46's - the first Phrogs delivered to the Navy - about 25 in all if memory serves. I believe the difference was in teh hoist system and internal utility hydraulics plumbing - the remainder of the Navy H-46 fleet were were CH-46D's from the Marine Corps that did not get the conversion to the CH-46F.

The Navy H-46 fleet were :

Purpose built UH-46's for utility
CH-46's that were transferred to Navy inventory to staff up HC squadrons
HH-46's with Doppler radar, hover coupler, external winch and loud hailer.

All of these airframes were updated to "D model" in 1970's and 80's with T58-10 motors.

At the same time, the Marine Corps converted their CH-46 fleet to the CH-46F standard - which included avionics upgrades as well as other battlefield suitability equipment. (for example the ability to fly formation in IFR conditions)

 

[Flash]

Well there's no reason they can't. It's just that each service usually has service-specific versions with slightly differing avionics and such. It sounds like the CODsprey will be substantially modified from the Marine version, and definitely different from all the Batman shit the AFSOC planes have. There's not really any reason you couldn't call it the CV-22C, though. Except I guess the AF has dibs on the CV series.

Great examples would be the C-130, the H-1 and H-60 with similar versions in different services but with different version letters, they are even starting to run out of letters due to all the different versions that have been in service.

 

[Beans]

The Multi-mission designator (M for Navy/Marine Corps) is for one thing: money. Put a few other secondary missions on it, make some promises about how its ROC/POE will be written, and boom: multi-mission aircraft. If doing so makes one more senator feel better about the money, or puts one more gadget factory in a representative's district, you've got yourself an aircraft.

 

[IKE]

The Multi-mission designator (M for Navy/Marine Corps) is for one thing: money. Put a few other secondary missions on it, make some promises about how its ROC/POE will be written, and boom: multi-mission aircraft. If doing so makes one more senator feel better about the money, or puts one more gadget factory in a representative's district, you've got yourself an aircraft.

Yup. I don't know the exact date of the change, but from origination through at least 1999, the 60 programs were called:
- SH-60R Seahawk (LAMPS)
- CH-60S VERTREP Marinized Blackhawk

I get why the Sierra became MH with the addition of HS and other missions, but the Romeo could have stayed SH.

On a side note, I bet many HSC dudes would be pained to know that the OSI font is called "LAMPS" by Lockheed Martin.

 

[squorch2]

Meh. Common Cockpit has always been made for the ASW mission. Everything else is just jammed in there.

 

[Uncle Fester]

The Multi-mission designator (M for Navy/Marine Corps) is for one thing: money. Put a few other secondary missions on it, make some promises about how its ROC/POE will be written, and boom: multi-mission aircraft. If doing so makes one more senator feel better about the money, or puts one more gadget factory in a representative's district, you've got yourself an aircraft.

Yup.

Some of the silliest examples I've seen are the drones...MQ-4 (Triton), MQ-8 (Fire Scout)...it's not fucking multi-mission, it's reconnaissance. Period. What you use that ISR data for once you collect it isn't the point. But nobody wants to defend why we're buying this airplane that "only does one thing".

Similarly why the Navy avoids new-letter designations for aircraft changes, e.g., why there's 4 to 6 different (depending how you count it) versions of the E-2C. The Group 0 was vastly different in capability and equipment from the HE2K. It's easier to sell Congress on an 'upgrade to an existing model' than a 'new airplane'.

It defeats the entire purpose of a designation system if it doesn't tell you anything about it.

 

[Gatordev]

Yup. I don't know the exact date of the change, but from origination through at least 1999, the 60 programs were called:
- SH-60R Seahawk (LAMPS)
- CH-60S VERTREP Marinized Blackhawk

I get why the Sierra became MH with the addition of HS and other missions, but the Romeo could have stayed SH.

On a side note, I bet many HSC dudes would be pained to know that the OSI font is called "LAMPS" by Lockheed Martin.

Eh, given that half the Romeo's main mission is SUW on top of ASW, it seems like MH fits. If you couldn't strap any missiles or rockets on it, then I'd agree...keep it SH.

In 2003-2004, the community put out a request to the fleet for naming changes. Kind of funny in hindsight that a bunch of LAMPS dudes who didn't really know what the Romeo could do were being asked what it should be called. Of course that didn't stop us from giving our opinions.

So I'd guess it was around 2004 when it became "officially" MH.

 

[nittany03]

Similarly why the Navy avoids new-letter designations for aircraft changes, e.g., why there's 4 to 6 different (depending how you count it) versions of the E-2C. The Group 0 was vastly different in capability and equipment from the HE2K. It's easier to sell Congress on an 'upgrade to an existing model' than a 'new airplane'.

Or just new T/M/S period. Air wings don't have a squadron each of F/A-24As, F/A-24Bs, and EA-24Cs. Nor are they to be augmented by the F-25 . . .

 

[Pags]

There's also some efficient navigation of the acquisition process at work to get capability to the fleet faster without too much delay.

 

[SynixMan]

Yup. I don't know the exact date of the change, but from origination through at least 1999, the 60 programs were called:
- SH-60R Seahawk (LAMPS)
- CH-60S VERTREP Marinized Blackhawk

The Sikorsky manufacturing plates in the cockpit still say CH-60S for every one made. I picked up one of the last Block IIIBs from the factory, still there. I find it amusing more than anything else.

 

[Jim123]

In 2003-2004, the community put out a request to the fleet for naming changes.

Back then I kinda thought they should have named it the Jackhawk (jack of all trades...). I still think they should call it that.

 

[Renegade One]

^^^ This. Regardless of whatever T/M/S alphabet soup it is, the real heartburn will be what the "popular name" for the new COD will be. Surely it won't just retain "Osprey". Tracker/Tracer begat Trader; Hawkeye begat Greyhound, etc.