-
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
Osprey?
- Thread starter thatgnarlyguy
- Start date
we had one do a touch and go at my Airport (KSBP) a few weeks ago. It was painted olive drab. About a week later, we had an E-2 come by and do a touch and go also. First time any of those have been in my neck of the woods since I have been here. Both very cool.
Osprey transition
2012 is the plan for all 3 MAWs to have turned in their venerable CH-46E models (does not include reserves) according to the Marine AVPLAN: http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/AVN/Marine_Aviation/Documents/AVPLAN%20April%202005.pdf
The Marine "AVPLAN" is the resource document signed out by the Deputy Commandant for Aviation (DC Air) as of 2005 and on required reading list for Marine aviators. It lays out the dates for transition for each specific squadron as of best info available in early 2005. Of course, even it makes note that schedule is subject to change. Every year, as budget goes to congress there is possibility procurement profiles may be altered thereby affecting planned transition. Latest adjustments are being absorbed by having fewer MV-22s per squadron initially (9 vs 12) rather than slowing transition.
AnnieQ said:
2012 is the plan for all 3 MAWs to have turned in their venerable CH-46E models (does not include reserves) according to the Marine AVPLAN: http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/AVN/Marine_Aviation/Documents/AVPLAN%20April%202005.pdf
The Marine "AVPLAN" is the resource document signed out by the Deputy Commandant for Aviation (DC Air) as of 2005 and on required reading list for Marine aviators. It lays out the dates for transition for each specific squadron as of best info available in early 2005. Of course, even it makes note that schedule is subject to change. Every year, as budget goes to congress there is possibility procurement profiles may be altered thereby affecting planned transition. Latest adjustments are being absorbed by having fewer MV-22s per squadron initially (9 vs 12) rather than slowing transition.
I come to this late ....
And oh, boy .... I'm probably gonna' step on some USMC toes here --- and that's not the intent --- but in the interest of full disclosure --- Bell Textron in the HEB (Hurst-Euless-Bedford) area of DFW was "working" on the Osprey (or whatever it was called then ... ) in the early '80's when I was living/working/flying there. That's well over 20 years for R&D and the bird is STILL not deployed with FMF .... ??? WTF, over ??? Is that a record in military R&D and procurement; am I just crazy, or what ??? VMM-263 (is that the squadron ?) is not suppose to stand-up with their new mounts for another couple of month, unless that has changed.
The program has been plagued with crashes and scandals. Some careers have been "lost" over this ...
I know that at some point in time --- maybe about the time that the Harrier was brought into the MAG's (??) --- the Marines decided that they were "tired" of getting USN aviation cast-offs. But what is this recent "fetish" the USMC has had -- for a generation (?) -- with acquiring their "own" cutting-edge, avant-garde aviation assets ??? Harriers? Ospreys? How about just upgrading/modernizing the USMC helo community and getting (or keeping) conventional, front line fixed-wing close-air ??? Is it USMC pride ??? Too much $$$$ invested ??? Too many senior officers have too much of "themselves" in the MV-22 ???
What's it all about, Alfie ... ???
The Harrier was suppose to be a "hip-pocket" jump-jet deployed with the grunts close to the front in the dirt, in the jungle, in the "sand". It never happened as originally envisioned. I think the -22 is a flawed design. I have read a lot about it --- I have no first hand knowledge of the bird --- and I would not want to fly it in combat. Unless, perhaps, I just wanted to say .... "I did it" .... like myself and the Concorde.
I think it will be a "grape" in combat. Against a determined enemy, lots of Marines are going to die in the MV-22. It should not be that way. Fragile, expensive, and I believe a death trap in the reality of a "hot" LZ. And if it can't go "hot" ... what good is it?
Help me to understand the USMC determination to get this .... aircraft.
Other than $$$$, politics, pride, and careers, of course.
And oh, boy .... I'm probably gonna' step on some USMC toes here --- and that's not the intent --- but in the interest of full disclosure --- Bell Textron in the HEB (Hurst-Euless-Bedford) area of DFW was "working" on the Osprey (or whatever it was called then ... ) in the early '80's when I was living/working/flying there. That's well over 20 years for R&D and the bird is STILL not deployed with FMF .... ??? WTF, over ??? Is that a record in military R&D and procurement; am I just crazy, or what ??? VMM-263 (is that the squadron ?) is not suppose to stand-up with their new mounts for another couple of month, unless that has changed.
The program has been plagued with crashes and scandals. Some careers have been "lost" over this ...
I know that at some point in time --- maybe about the time that the Harrier was brought into the MAG's (??) --- the Marines decided that they were "tired" of getting USN aviation cast-offs. But what is this recent "fetish" the USMC has had -- for a generation (?) -- with acquiring their "own" cutting-edge, avant-garde aviation assets ??? Harriers? Ospreys? How about just upgrading/modernizing the USMC helo community and getting (or keeping) conventional, front line fixed-wing close-air ??? Is it USMC pride ??? Too much $$$$ invested ??? Too many senior officers have too much of "themselves" in the MV-22 ???
What's it all about, Alfie ... ???
The Harrier was suppose to be a "hip-pocket" jump-jet deployed with the grunts close to the front in the dirt, in the jungle, in the "sand". It never happened as originally envisioned. I think the -22 is a flawed design. I have read a lot about it --- I have no first hand knowledge of the bird --- and I would not want to fly it in combat. Unless, perhaps, I just wanted to say .... "I did it" .... like myself and the Concorde.
I think it will be a "grape" in combat. Against a determined enemy, lots of Marines are going to die in the MV-22. It should not be that way. Fragile, expensive, and I believe a death trap in the reality of a "hot" LZ. And if it can't go "hot" ... what good is it?
Help me to understand the USMC determination to get this .... aircraft.
Other than $$$$, politics, pride, and careers, of course.
^ I love 'ya, Joe ... always good stuff .... but, in this case .... "huh" ??? 
I'ts probably just me ....
I'ts probably just me ....
A4sForever said:
.....A4sForever said:How about just upgrading/modernizing the USMC helo community and getting (or keeping) conventional, front line fixed-wing close-air ??? Is it USMC pride ??? Too much $$$$ invested ??? Too many senior officers have too much of "themselves" in the MV-22 ???
I think it will be a "grape" in combat. Against a determined enemy, lots of Marines are going to die in the MV-22. It should not be that way. Fragile, expensive, and I believe a death trap in the reality of a "hot" LZ. And if it can't go "hot" ... what good is it?
Help me to understand the USMC determination to get this .... aircraft.
Other than $$$$, politics, pride, and careers, of course.
A4sForever said:
I am not an apologist for the Marines or an editorial critic....I never intended to answer your questions that be best answered by either LTGENs McCorkle, Hough or Castellaw (successive DC Air). I was pointing out that your supposition that Harrier never happened as originally envisioned is in error. It did.
When you talk about 20 year development.....it WASN'T a classic program. All Marine aviation programs are paid for by DoN "blue" dollars so Marines in DC Air and Navy N78 staff work the same fiscal pie every year. For years there was no funding for V-22, yet Congress would throw one year of funding at it as a congressional plus-up (great Texas lobby). There are lots of plus-ups every year to buy extra aircraft and other special interest items, but usually not to start a program or carry it through initial non-recurring R&D. So, I don't agree you can slam V-22 for taking so long. It simply wasn't a classic program until recently. You can critique F-22 or Comanche or Crusader though.
As to its usefulness, the Marines are better than any service in defining requirements and integrating them into their CONOPS. V-22 would have made a huge difference in OEF where CH-46s were stretched to their limits trying to get ashore form their amphibs. V-22 has significant range and speed advantage over the venerable Phrogs. Ask someone who flies them, they are unqualified in their praise and enthusiasm...even the HMX-22 OT folks.
...and around we go again.
A4, we could resurrect a hundred old threads and internet debates.
I will say though, that I've flown the CH-46 in the real world. I've flown the V-22. I'd choose the V-22 every time.
A4, we could resurrect a hundred old threads and internet debates.
I will say though, that I've flown the CH-46 in the real world. I've flown the V-22. I'd choose the V-22 every time.