Or its competitor. If they'd fielded this, would Paddles have said "Roger Ball," or "got that Fokker in sight?"
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Or its competitor. If they'd fielded this, would Paddles have said "Roger Ball," or "got that Fokker in sight?"
Redux
Well-Known Member
Many year ago this was considered the epitome of excessive wealth, jealousy and overkill. Nowadays it would be just >meh< Shame, this bird is just a hulk someplace in Mexico!It's not too late! There are plenty of C-9's laying around.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6J4og0hLPXQ/SxIsnJTIALI/AAAAAAAAACk/i7r0dlX7R54/s1600/big_bunny.JPG
As a COD guy, this is one of my largest concerns - everyone (outside our community) seems very excited to push mission creep on us. COD is already a huge mission for two birds with little time for anything else - nevermind that the Osprey can't carry as much. I just don't see the say that we run cargo to the ship, drop off pony, gear up for a long range CSAR mission, come back, and continue LOG for the night...we straight up don't have the assets, pilots, and maintainers to do it all. Plus, Skipper will be pissed when his Amazon Prime is on the beach because someone needed rescuing.
I think it will be hard to expand the CMV-22's (bleh) mission, you would need the training and the gear for those and that would take funding which I don't think you will get.
If the Navy was serious about CSAR we would stand up a seperate squadron like we had in Vietnam, HC-7.
To be fair, there's not as much CSAR going on now as back then.
True, but it wouldn't hurt to be prepared.
I don't see it happening. Not enough capacity to do the mission - airframe or aircrew wise. Plus, NAE has enough heartache about HSC spending a lot of training dollars and repair cost dollars to allow another community to add to the heartache.
If I were a COD guy, I would be worried that the CSG was going to stretch my airframe and crews to the limit now that they can have pax runs in the middle of every 1+30 cycle due to a magical and unexplained explosion in the number LNOs who have meetings on the beach and DVs. After that, you can move cargo all night long because you spent your entire day moving pax.
It's going to be very interesting for VRC to adjust to a new concept of operations. Once the CVN gets the hang of doing these, I could totally see them turning you around inside a cycle ala a Helo with a fuel pump, offload, onload, launch back to the beach.
I'd imagine you won't need all the Catapult/AG guys on station, just an LSE and someone in the tower to launch you. Hope you like box lunches instead of Wardroom 1/2! I'll let someone who's done LHD ops chime in (Paging @Pags ).
I'd imagine you won't need all the Catapult/AG guys on station, just an LSE and someone in the tower to launch you. Hope you like box lunches instead of Wardroom 1/2! I'll let someone who's done LHD ops chime in (Paging @Pags ).
Is that pronounced the "Cum-Vee 22?"
Also wondering about how it'll impact the traditional "No CODs after sundown" paradigm. I don't know what night DLQ requirements are for Plopters, but it's gotta be less onerous than keeping a det night CQ'ed. Or is it?
It's almost as if the Navy and Marine Corps ought to do some kind of experiment to figure out the right answers to all of these CVN and det operations questions...
As for CMV-22B naming... I see it as coming down to simplicity. The airframe is a modified MV-22B, so although MCV-22 would have been "by the instruction" correct, it gets to be more confusing as to what it actually is. I'll call it a compromise between what is correct and what people would understand. As was mentioned up earlier as it relates to E2s, what exactly does Type/Model/Series really mean any more when there are so many additional variations into the mission and onboard equipment?
As for CMV-22B naming... I see it as coming down to simplicity. The airframe is a modified MV-22B, so although MCV-22 would have been "by the instruction" correct, it gets to be more confusing as to what it actually is. I'll call it a compromise between what is correct and what people would understand. As was mentioned up earlier as it relates to E2s, what exactly does Type/Model/Series really mean any more when there are so many additional variations into the mission and onboard equipment?
I'm not overtly familiar with the time requirements for CVN ops but v-22s can taxi on the boat. Flight deck personnel requirements shouldn't be anything beyond what's required for a single spot helo unless you want to taxi them somewhere and then you'll need more LSEs and maybe more blue shirts. I can't remember what our planning factor was for offloading, gassing, and on loading was but some of that is dependent on whether or not it's self loading cargo or not. I'd SWAG .6-1.0 to complete. The V-22s did have big tanks so bagging them out always took a long time. There's a lot of flexibility with the V-22 so I'm confident that a smart air department and air wing can figure it out. I'm sure there will be plenty of teeth gnashing because things will be different but such is life.
As I remember it's 5 night bounces in 15 days to be able to carry passengers. Could be little off, and retired guy does not lug his T&R Program Manual around any more to check.
I'm gonna say it since no one else will.. Who the fuck cares.. Call it whatever you want.. You ain't in the decision matrix! Life goes on.. Y'all are spinning your wheels over something out of your control.. Not you're problem
