On the operational side, I've heard HSC dudes argue that HSC should get the CMV-22, which I think is narrow-minded, and I believe has already been discussed here on AW.
Wow. Not sure who thinks this but they need a reality check.
On the operational side, I've heard HSC dudes argue that HSC should get the CMV-22, which I think is narrow-minded, and I believe has already been discussed here on AW.
Fact check:
1) A C-2/CMV-22 bubba in the RW syllabus at TPS doesn't steal a slot from an H-53/H-60 bubba. TPS can take up to ~24 RW people/year, including Army, AF, CG, foreign exchange, and civilian engineers. In recent years, HX-21 hasn't asked for/reserved many slots. USMC MV-22 test pilots have all done the RW syllabus.
2) The follow-on training is NOT the HTs. It's the USMC FRS. The first CMV-22 test pilot is already at HX. He was already a tester, so he went straight to the FRS; no HTs. @sevenhelmet could speak to this, but I think the FW syllabus is more Jet than Turboprop, so a CMV-22 tester probably gets more out of a RW syllabus with turboshaft performance and a few extra C-12 flights.
No rice bowl issues from the NAVAIR side.
On the operational side, I've heard HSC dudes argue that HSC should get the CMV-22, which I think is narrow-minded, and I believe has already been discussed here on AW.
Because they didn't/won't fly it in the fleet and don't/won't know the mission. While we have to be at least a little nerdy, NAVAIR wants testers immediately out of fleet tours so that we can have a "mission-relevant" mindset.No, I didn't think it did. But why shouldn't those knuckle-dragging rotorheads be eligible for the same CMV-22 TPS slot?
Different typewings. HM is part of HSCWL/P. VRC is not.... but you'd think there would be some cross-pollination encouraged a la 60s/53s.
Hint, the V-22 "collective" operates with the same sense as a fixed-wing throttle: forward = more power.I suppose I'll go take a look for some of those old mishaps.
A previous skipper of ours argued this while I visited him in his vault-office at CNAF. Something about using it as RV or RESCORT. Was surprised an O-6 didn't understand that:Wow. Not sure who thinks this but they need a reality check.
Hint, the V-22 "collective" operates with the same sense as a fixed-wing throttle: forward = more power.
What @IKE said. The ACCLW attitude was that they're buying CODs that can hover, that's all that's changed; it's still the at-sea logistics mission, that belongs to VRC, and VRC belongs to ACCLW.
I'll grant you the flight deck issues. I don't look forward to figuring out how to get that thing in the COD parking spot without blowing someone overboard or wreaking havoc on spots 3-6. However, I maintain the V-22 is NOT a fancy helo. In forward flight it is a twin-engine turboprop (albeit with exotic, big-ass props). Nothing about it is helicoptery with the nacelles at zero: the prop speed slows and control is effected with elevator, ailerons, and rudder.This was the problem on the boat Det we did when they were testing them. The boat wanted it to be "a COD that hovers" so bad they couldn't see straight. In reality, and As it relates to writing an airplan, is more of an 'H53 that goes faster in S&L flight'. You ain't landing that thing, folding the wings, and taxiing it out if the way to land more jets.
It still seems odd to me that they're not trying to infuse some helo experience into that community with this transition. There's something to be said for someone who has a 700-1000+ hours flying things that HOVER being put in something that is really just a fancy helo. RW aerodynamics and recognizing things like VRS, Pr > Pa and blade stall (if RBS even applies to ospreys) aren't exactly things that 50 hours in the HTs can breed into you "overnight". I guess what I'm trying to say is that, looking back on it, I now know how stupid and naïve I was about 1000 hours ago and I still talk to Army Warrants who seem to think they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground until somewhere around the 3000 hour mark.
Agree on the V22 spending more time in airplane mode, unless there is mission creep (but that buys a PAA plus up and a ton training $).
Agreed - but that doesn't stop a CSG from asking the 'what if's'. Combine that with USN Semper Gumby attitude and you have the genesis of mission creep.FIFY.
Thing is, VRC doesn't really want to expand its mission. They're more than busy enough hauling ass and trash to the Boat and back, and given that the CODsprey buy plan is essentially one-for-one C-2 replacement, it's very unlikely that there will be extra time, money, people, and airplanes for anything else. There's zero appetite in ACCLW to take on anything more but the log mission.
Agreed - but that doesn't stop a CSG from asking the 'what if's'. Combine that with USN Semper Gumby attitude and you have the genesis of mission creep.