-
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
All things MV-22 Osprey
- Thread starter Dave Shutter
- Start date
Just found this on 2012 V-22 funding:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...ine=Marine Corps Continues To Support Ospreys
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...ine=Marine Corps Continues To Support Ospreys
Allies: Money. Foreign Military Sales are looking up, but most nations are unwilling to invest the additional money required for this niche capability (long range power projection ashore).
Army: To some extent, money, as well. While they have more dough than the Marine Corps, Army aviation is poor in the sense that they need a bajillion copies of whatever they get, hence the Comanche cancellation. It also doesn't fit nicely in their doctrinal set-up for Big Army, which sees helos as flying trucks. Size wise, they like swarms of smaller aircraft (60s) plus a few heavy-lift (47s). The V-22 doesn't fit quite as well into that plan. I've been told that for SpecOps, the fact that it couldn't carry their special Ranger wagon (don't know the name) internally, was a big factor in the original decision made long ago.
I debated on starting a new thread but I think this fits perfectly right here...
New River Osprey pilot charged with indecent exposure
time for a callsign review board for this guy...
S/F
New River Osprey pilot charged with indecent exposure
time for a callsign review board for this guy...
S/F
The Marines desperately need the A-29 (Super Tucano) or even the AT-6B. It could provide CAS in places like Afghanistan, be a natural in the FAC-A role, as well as escort Ospreys wherever they go. Plus, they're cheap. This is probably too logical & apparent ever to happen. I'm sure they'll put a couple of wings of F-35Bs into this role. At a time when the DOD is starrting to run out of $$, the USMC really seems to have an aversion to cheap aircraft (lately). Am not trying to stir the pot here, just stating a point of view.
If you have to ask...
"Desperately" need? Probably not. Nice to have? Definitely. It's a niche role. An F-35 can do CAS and ISR in a high or low threat environment; a light turboprop can only do low threat. Also, in terms of politics and budget wars, no general is going to offer to accept a $10M aircraft as a replacement for a$100M aircraft.
Really what you're saying is to bring back the VMO squadrons, which would supplant some of the Huey/Cobra mission, vice the F-35. That's not a bad thing; a turboprop would be better for land-based CAS than a helicopter. Marines are generally pretty set on everything being able to be sea-based now, though. And before people start breaking out old pictures of empty OV-10s launching from an LHA--yes, we know, now do it with a mission-weight plane at night.
Anyway, I think the best thing would be for us to lease two squadrons of turboprop CAS planes, one training, and one in theater. Take UH, AH, and strike guys, train them to fly the props, then deploy them as a B-billet assignment.
Once the OEF gig is over, maybe those guys could start doing foreign military training for some of these POS foreign air forces we're helping to set up.
LeMay deserves a lot of credit for a vaguely similar program, called that the Air Force ran in the 1960s. (One and the same SAC/"bomb them into the stone age" LeMay.) Keyword searches for "Jungle Jim" and "Farm Gate" turn up some pretty good history lessons.
1. Yes. But he's competing with other, similar guys wearing blue and green suits.
2. Just saying that it would displace helos, not the JSF.
3. We still entertain the idea that we're amphibious. Iraq is done, and Afghanistan will be in a couple years. Inshallah, the Corps should be getting back to the whole boat thing, and stop being a second land army.
4. If you only buy two squadrons of F-35Bs, the unit cost will be $500 million per or something ridiculous. Plus, natural attrition will eat them alive in a couple years, not to mention the infrastructure, training, and other support costs for maintaining multiple T/M/S.
The MEU concept, or something like it--i.e. expeditionary, from the sea, is what the Corps needs to get back to. It may not have done an amphibious landing, but the Corps has done several dozen contingency ops that no one else could've done, executing them over the beach will little or no external (non-Navy/Marine) support or bases. That's what will justify the continued existence of a healthy, though smaller, Marine Corps.
2. Just saying that it would displace helos, not the JSF.
3. We still entertain the idea that we're amphibious. Iraq is done, and Afghanistan will be in a couple years. Inshallah, the Corps should be getting back to the whole boat thing, and stop being a second land army.
4. If you only buy two squadrons of F-35Bs, the unit cost will be $500 million per or something ridiculous. Plus, natural attrition will eat them alive in a couple years, not to mention the infrastructure, training, and other support costs for maintaining multiple T/M/S.
The MEU concept, or something like it--i.e. expeditionary, from the sea, is what the Corps needs to get back to. It may not have done an amphibious landing, but the Corps has done several dozen contingency ops that no one else could've done, executing them over the beach will little or no external (non-Navy/Marine) support or bases. That's what will justify the continued existence of a healthy, though smaller, Marine Corps.
Canceling state of the art jets in favor of turboprops specifically suited for Afghanistan would be timed perfectly for leaving Afghanistan after 10+ years of flying jets there.
Sapper!
Excuse the BS...
This happens even with the older airframes. In the army the landowner's pets are the aviation assets to the dismay of Warrant Officers everywhere. Once there was a piece of route clearance equipment stuck in the Korengal. Said equipment could not be replaced easily and it would definitely hurt the ongoing ops not having it. Well the thing could be sling loaded but the BDE commander didn't want to risk the bird. In my mind it made him too risk avert but I guess I can see not doing the mission over the potential loss of a Chinook. If that is the case, why spend dollars training to do those types of sling load missions (pathfinder or air assault quals too?) at all then? Anyway that Husky is still sitting in the bottom of the valley out there.
I think the same phenomenon can still happen to some extent with older equipment, e.g. "They aren't making any more of X, so we'd better not break it."
I'm glad that's not the thought process out here! "We're going to crush these things in 6 months anyway, fly the shit outta 'em" (Paraphrasing the CO)
120320-N-XE109-746 ATLANTIC OCEAN (March 20, 2012) Aviation Boatswain's Mate (Handling) 3rd Class Christopher W. Landrum directs the movement of an MV-22 Osprey on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) during test operations. George H.W. Bush is in the Atlantic Ocean conducting carrier qualifications. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Brian Read Castillo/Released)
120320-N-XE109-463 ATLANTIC OCEAN (Feb. 5, 2012) Aviation Boatswain's Mate (Handling) 3rd Class Michael S. Alves signals an MV-22 Osprey to land on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) during test operations. George H.W. Bush is in the Atlantic Ocean conducting carrier qualifications. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Brian Read Castillo/Released)