All things MV-22 Osprey

[Flash]

How would you do it?

One solution would be to stand up V-22 squadrons or squadron temporarily then transition them to VRC-30/40 when the VRC's sundown the C-2, VRM-31 and -41 transition to 30/40. They could even 'share' the squadron for the transition period with different detachments, that has been done before. Or create the RAG and have operational dets spin off from that, eventually becoming the squadrons.

Having the RAG carry on the heritage of VRC-50 as Fester already suggested would be pretty cool. I am pretty sure there was a relatively recent change, within the last ~5-10 years, that allows squadrons in the Navy to be come 're-established' and officially assume a squadron's history, before when a squadron was disestablished it was gone forever. I think @nittany03 might have the details on that.

I think it would be a nice nod to history to keep the squadrons' heritage and history, one of those intangibles of military service that gives folks a little more pride in what they are a part of and what they do .

 

[Uncle Fester]

@Flash The change you’re talking about is that now squadrons are “deactivated” vice “disestablished”. So when you want to bring VFA-X back, you’re just reactivating the squadron instead of standing up a new squadron that happens to also be called VFA-X with the same patch and all.

Challenge with doing that with the COD squadrons is it sounds like there will be a prolonged overlap while the CODspreys get to IOC. VRC has to keep hauling the pony in the meantime. Maybe they could do that “inherit the heritage and traditions” thing once the C-2 sundown is complete, a la -103 taking over the Jolly Roger stuff when -84 decommed.

 

[Flash]

@Flash The change you’re talking about is that now squadrons are “deactivated” vice “disestablished”. So when you want to bring VFA-X back, you’re just reactivating the squadron instead of standing up a new squadron that happens to also be called VFA-X with the same patch and all.

Roger, when we 'disestablished' my squadron we did not 'decommission' or 'deactivate' it and that was made explicit.

Challenge with doing that with the COD squadrons is it sounds like there will be a prolonged overlap while the CODspreys get to IOC. VRC has to keep hauling the pony in the meantime. Maybe they could do that “inherit the heritage and traditions” thing once the C-2 sundown is complete, a la -103 taking over the Jolly Roger stuff when -84 decommed.

There have been plenty of instances of that happening though, from VQ-1 and 2 flying EP-3's and EA-3's to VAQ-129 flying Prowlers and Growlers among others. Of course the 'easiest' or laziest solution would just have temporary squadrons for the 22's then transition them when the C-2's go away.

 

[Uncle Fester]

There have been plenty of instances of that happening though, from VQ-1 and 2 flying EP-3's and EA-3's to VAQ-129 flying Prowlers and Growlers among others.

Were those squadrons operationally deploying while transitioning? (not rhetorical, I really don’t know)

I imagine since you can’t take a whole VRC out of the deployment cycle, standing up another squadron “in parallel” in order to transition would be the only way to do it.

 

[Flash]

Were those squadrons operationally deploying while transitioning? (not rhetorical, I really don’t know)

For the VQ's, yes. There were also several EA-1 and K/E/A-3 squadrons that did it in back in Vietnam. Operate the dets autonomously much like Det 5 operates in Atsugi now, but that would also mean two less CO slots for a few years though so...

 

[kmac]

I don't think I'm understanding fully. In the previous scenarios, it sounds like the VQ/VAQ squadrons were simply transitioning aircraft. In the current situation, there will be two new squadrons in parallel with VRC-30 and VRC-40. There are enough differences in MILCON requirements, personnel, and materiel support that having new squadrons make more sense than transitioning the current ones. Shoot, there will even be a new wing since ACCLOGWING will eventually be out of the LOG business. For your idea Flash, are you suggesting that VRM-30 should be established, only to be disestablished in a few years when VRC-30 is completely out of the COD business? Or am I misunderstanding?

Also, the RAG spinoff idea won't work because the first operational dets will be formed out of VMMT-204 (assuming current projected IOC). There won't be a CMV-22B RAG yet.

 

[Flash]

I don't think I'm understanding fully. In the previous scenarios, it sounds like the VQ/VAQ squadrons were simply transitioning aircraft. In the current situation, there will be two new squadrons in parallel with VRC-30 and VRC-40. There are enough differences in MILCON requirements, personnel, and materiel support that having new squadrons make more sense than transitioning the current ones.

No, VQ-1/2 operated 2 or 3 very different types of aircraft for over several decades and not just transitioning between types (EC-121, EP-3 and EA-3 among others). Other squadrons have done it for years without issue either, among them VXE-6 (LC-130 & H-1), VAQ-33/34 (EA-7L, EA-6A, EK/EA-3B, F/A-18 and even P-3's at various times) and VC-8 (TA-4 and H-3). In particular VQ-1/2 operated via Dets much like the VRC's currently do but with ship and land-based aircraft of different types.

Shoot, there will even be a new wing since ACCLOGWING will eventually be out of the LOG business. For your idea Flash, are you suggesting that VRM-30 should be established, only to be disestablished in a few years when VRC-30 is completely out of the COD business? Or am I misunderstanding?

That would be one option, merely to keep the 'flag flying' for the old squadrons for history and heritage sake. Pretty simple really, just an admin switch at the end of the transition.

Just ideas, take them for what they are worth, to keep a little bit of the history and heritage of the COD's going forward.

 

[kmac]

No, VQ-1/2 operated 2 or 3 very different types of aircraft for over several decades and not just transitioning between types (EC-121, EP-3 and EA-3 among others). Other squadrons have done it for years without issue either, among them VXE-6 (LC-130 & H-1), VAQ-33/34 (EA-7L, EA-6A, EK/EA-3B, F/A-18 and even P-3's at various times) and VC-8 (TA-4 and H-3). In particular VQ-1/2 operated via Dets much like the VRC's currently do but with ship and land-based aircraft of different types.

The irony of the whole thing is that having both C-2A and CMV-22B aircraft in the same squadron would put the "C" back in VRC. Since VRC-30 got rid of flying C-12s, it hasn't been a composite squadron.

Perhaps the easiest way of maintaining the tradition is to simply change the heritage command's lineage scheme. Instead of treating the VRMs as wholly new establishments, treat them as they are... children of the VRC community.

 

[Uncle Fester]

...Shoot, there will even be a new wing since ACCLOGWING will eventually be out of the LOG business.

Is that for-sure? When the Osprey announcement was made, the commodore was pretty adamant that it'd stay within ACCLW. Albeit that was two commodores ago.

Just to test my understanding, the plan is to:
- Stand up a couple of operational dets from VMMT-204
- Those dets will then form the cadre for VRM-30/40
- VRM and VRC will operate in parallel until 2024-ish
- VRM-50 (or whatever...the FRS) stands up somewhere in the CY20-24 timeframe.
- Once all three VRMs are fully RFT, VRC will sundown
Is that about right?

 

[jmcquate]

...........on a side note, four of them just flew over my house in a "finger 4". Probably did a missing man over Arlington.

Edit: Yup, for Dennis M. Storm, Capt, USMC.

 

[Flash]

I saw this note from Delta about V-22 time:

Effective immediately, Delta will allow pilots of aircraft in the Powered Lift category (e.g. the V22 Osprey, AV8B Harrier, and F35B) to count 90% of your Powered Lift flight time toward our requirement of 1,000 hours fixed wing turbine time.

 

[kmac]

Is that for-sure? When the Osprey announcement was made, the commodore was pretty adamant that it'd stay within ACCLW. Albeit that was two commodores ago.

Just to test my understanding, the plan is to:
- Stand up a couple of operational dets from VMMT-204
- Those dets will then form the cadre for VRM-30/40
- VRM and VRC will operate in parallel until 2024-ish
- VRM-50 (or whatever...the FRS) stands up somewhere in the CY20-24 timeframe.
- Once all three VRMs are fully RFT, VRC will sundown
Is that about right?

The V-22 FIT is with ACCLOGWING... there will be a new Tiltrotor wing in the future. I’ll have to go back and look at the decision brief that Air Boss made early last year.

A few years ago, Dwoo was adamant about keeping it with ACCLOGWING and for good reason... this community has the SMEs on COD. From what I recall, another option at the time was to split it / give it to helicopter guys. It’s funny to hear the amount of bad gouge that’s out there regarding helicopter guys’ opportunities in the new community. As it is, C-2 guys are/will fill the vast majority of transition-required V-22 COD billets.

You’re correct as far as I can tell on the rest of what you’ve written. The MAP has more details for how much VRM and VRC will work in parallel.

 

[BleedGreen]

The V-22 FIT is with ACCLOGWING... there will be a new Tiltrotor wing in the future. I’ll have to go back and look at the decision brief that Air Boss made early last year.

A few years ago, Dwoo was adamant about keeping it with ACCLOGWING and for good reason... this community has the SMEs on COD. From what I recall, another option at the time was to split it / give it to helicopter guys. It’s funny to hear the amount of bad gouge that’s out there regarding helicopter guys’ opportunities in the new community. As it is, C-2 guys are/will fill the vast majority of transition-required V-22 COD billets.

You’re correct as far as I can tell on the rest of what you’ve written. The MAP has more details for how much VRM and VRC will work in parallel.

V-22 COD is now listed on the NOM sheet for first tour helo types.
Any guess as to how many helo bubbas they're looking to transition?

 

[ChuckMK23]

Will the COD V-22 always recover on the CV vertically or is there planning to increase GW by doing run on landings down the angle?

 

[Jim123]

Will the COD V-22 always recover on the CV vertically or is there planning to increase GW by doing run on landings down the angle?

That'll be something for the community weenies to debate endlessly.

One thing I do know: if they do shipboard run on landings then parking brakes will be forgotten and tires sacrificed.