All things MV-22 Osprey

[phrogdriver]

Would probably be a better investment to find some weapon system that doesn't have as high of an aircrew training/prof cost. JDAM and JSOWs for the Princesses!

Like what? An all new aircraft?

This concept provides a capability that neither fixed wing nor rotary wing aircraft can provide. No one else CAN do this.

Plug-and-play weapons and mission kits are the way everything is going to go throughout the services, on air, ground, and sea.

Besides, the C-130 guys didn't have any surplus of CAS knowledge when they started. They had individuals from other communities do a lot of the weapons system employment. While I think the V-22 has the capability to do more traditional CAS as well, in a Harvest Hawk-type employment, the training burden is minimal. It's the taking up of airframes that are already over-deployed that's the issue.

I'd blame it on national overcommitment, but that's well above my pay grade.

 

[Flash]

...This concept provides a capability that neither fixed wing nor rotary wing aircraft can provide. No one else CAN do this.

Eh? Seriously.

 

[phrogdriver]

Eh? Seriously.

There's something else that can take off from a small-deck ship or LZ, travel hundreds of miles and provide persistent fires?

 

[Flash]

There's something else that can take off from a small-deck ship or LZ, travel hundreds of miles and provide persistent fires?

A Harrier or F-35B, with some tanking of course.

This really seems to be another solution in search of a problem. If it were the SOCOM, the Royal Marines or the French I can see them utilizing this because of a lack of other attack/strike assets but when we already have those on hand almost everywhere we go (when is the last time we when somewhere we didn't have them?) it seems like a waste of money.

And again, the blatantly obvious issues of funding, training and currency.

I say this all as an 'outsider' to this, I wonder what the Marine VMA, VMFA and HMLA think of this?

 

[Uncle Fester]

Developing a capability does not necessarily equal intent to use that capability. Hell...at one point they put a FLIR and Sidewinders on the Hawkeye.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

A Harrier or F-35B, with some tanking of course.

This really seems to be another solution in search of a problem. If it were the SOCOM, the Royal Marines or the French I can see them utilizing this because of a lack of other attack/strike assets but when we already have those on hand almost everywhere we go (when is the last time we when somewhere we didn't have them?) it seems like a waste of money.

And again, the blatantly obvious issues of funding, training and currency.

I say this all as an 'outsider' to this, I wonder what the Marine VMA, VMFA and HMLA think of this?

The next person I meet who doesn't think this is a stupid idea will be the first. Up to now, there have only been a handful of harvest hawk equipped hercs. The crews that fly them get specialized training, and at first the people working the sensor and trigger were people with CAS experience. It was great for the very low threat environment in Afghanistan where we imposed a need to loiter watching one shithead on a moped for hours before maybe shooting one small precision weapon at him. Equipping the entire fleet is the answer to a question nobody asked.

The osprey makes even less sense. Osprey people I've talked to complain already that they don't have the airframes, time, or readiness to adequately train to their existing mission sets. Adding a sensor and some Griffins isn't "plug and play". It turns out that CAS is something you have to do to be good at. Having Ospreys with a refueling capability will be helpful. It also makes the offensive capability on Ospreys even more pointless.

 

[phrogdriver]

So the issue here is training time. So fix that. If having other communities operate the weapons and sensors is the right answer, then do that--there are going to be a lot of unemployed WSOs sitting around in the near future.

Also, that sensor package will be a money maker in normal ops, as well. Plus, V-22s have gotten the airborne C2 gig more and more--when I've done it, the Bn CO has always wanted a better look at the objective than the existing FLIR could give.

I think there's some parochialism going on here. We do a lot of low threat environments and will continue to do so. If the threat steps up to a true ANTTP medium-threat environment, then rotary CAS in general is questionable without fixed-wing SEAD. Even in that case, the Osprey is still going to be more survivable than helos, though the tactics would have to change considerably from the Hawk/AC-130 model.

I think this, just like the tanker thing, is an partially effort to show the versatility of the platform and thus get more aircraft.

 

[kmac]

I think this, just like the tanker thing, is an partially effort to show the versatility of the platform and thus get more aircraft.

I suppose that would be similar to saying for the Navy it can do long range SAR, land on small boys, tanking, etc. Yes the aircraft has the capability but there's no way it could do all of that while still doing the mission for which we are buying them: COD.

 

[Randy Daytona]

As there are 12 (?) V-22's in a squadron and an equivalent number of pilots, would it not make sense to have 1 or 2 crews trained up to shoot (perhaps the WTI's)? The airframe is capable of it - and can do things rotary can not. This would alleviate the expense and time to train the whole squadron - just a few designated specialists. As for training, how good are the simulators? Also, unless things have changed, TF-160 uses 60's as a weapons' platform, not Apaches. It does sound like a lot of people don't want competition for their rice bowls.

 

[Pags]

Like what? An all new aircraft?

You misunderstand me when I say "weapon system." What I meant was incorporate a different weapon on to the V-22 that requires less of a training burden then shooting laser guided APKWS. Something like a JDAM that has a lower operator training burden (or should).

the training burden is minimal. It's the taking up of airframes that are already over-deployed that's the issue.

So the issue here is training time.

Wait, is it minimal training or too much training?

Maybe the VMMs would have more time for training if they didn't have dog wagging T&R matrices. The training burden that the USMC put on itself seemed onerous in comparison to the USN training. I suspect that that was largely put in place to have a solid flight hour requirement to point to when budget time came as opposed to being based on what was actually required.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

You misunderstand me when I say "weapon system." What I meant was incorporate a different weapon on to the V-22 that requires less of a training burden then shooting laser guided APKWS. Something like a JDAM that has a lower operator training burden (or should).




Wait, is it minimal training or too much training?

Maybe the VMMs would have more time for training if they didn't have dog wagging T&R matrices. The training burden that the USMC put on itself seemed onerous in comparison to the USN training. I suspect that that was largely put in place to have a solid flight hour requirement to point to when budget time came as opposed to being based on what was actually required.

JDAM isn't a magic weapon that doesn't require training or less training than a forward firing weapon like APKWS. Any time someone mentions taking leaf eaters and giving them offensive weapons as a "plug and play" or with "minimal training", alarm bells should be ringing. H-60's are a perfectly capable platform, but there's a reason every Navy H-60 I worked with as a FAC was absolutely awful at CAS. It's not a hobby or something you practice at ITX before you deploy to turn a box green.

The osprey isn't a great platform to turn into a shooter, but it can be done. It can't be done to all of them and be proficient at shooting and assault support.

 

[Hotdogs]

I think there's some parochialism going on here. We do a lot of low threat environments and will continue to do so. If the threat steps up to a true ANTTP medium-threat environment, then rotary CAS in general is questionable without fixed-wing SEAD.

For the record T/R aircraft aren't going anywhere near that environment anyways if a true modern double digit SAM IADs exists, and if you're saying that you're capable of doing that - you're insane. Until a complete or partial rollback on an IADs is complete to an acceptable risk level, then we can let the slow movers into the game. Yes, I consider an Osprey a slow-mover. No MAGTF commander is going to let a company of Marines fly around in Ospreys with that type of threat.

I also have an issue with culture, if the Osprey community treats the OAS mission set like they do assault support, then there are going to be some major fuck ups before a change is established - something the attack communities have groomed themselves for decades. You may scoff at that idea, or call it parochial but dedicated platforms need that mentality. Going around looking for a fight with things that are actively trying to kill you requires a different mindset.

I also have doubts that a large Osprey can be as nimble as a Cobra or Harrier and provide the type of quick responsive fires that you would need for that mission set. Additionally, an APKWS or Griffin is not enough weapons yield for a true OAS platform. In reality to make that change you're going to need a 20mm or higher, mounts for JAGM/HF, 2.75/5in rockets, a targeting pod, integrated fire control systems/plumbing, and an assortment of GBUs. You can not slap all of that onto an Osprey and not make significant changes to the airframe. OAS needs dedicated platforms and I'm not sure what an APKWS or Griffin accomplishes that the KC-130 or Harrier already don't do aside from killing the occasional shitheads on motorcycles (which by the way we have plenty of UAS that can that do with significantly longer loiter time as well). The Osprey tanking idea is a good one and (speaking outside my realm) probably doesn't require as much currency/proficiency as CAS or DAS.

Ospreys should be focusing on what is going to kill them the most and that's from IP inbound, brown out situations, confined area landings, and high DA environments. I think the mishap rate for those situations warrants a better focus for assault support vice throwing in more missions that can (and are) filled by other platforms.

 

[phrogdriver]

JDAM isn't a magic weapon that doesn't require training or less training than a forward firing weapon like APKWS. Any time someone mentions taking leaf eaters and giving them offensive weapons as a "plug and play" or with "minimal training", alarm bells should be ringing. H-60's are a perfectly capable platform, but there's a reason every Navy H-60 I worked with as a FAC was absolutely awful at CAS. It's not a hobby or something you practice at ITX before you deploy to turn a box green.

The osprey isn't a great platform to turn into a shooter, but it can be done. It can't be done to all of them and be proficient at shooting and assault support.

"Leaf eaters?" GFY.

I wouldn't want all Ospreys to do strike, but if we got the parts and readiness under control, designating a certain subset of them for this capability adds a lot to the table that isn't currently there. Make one squadron on each coast a gun squadron and a community within a community. to provide dets as needed. If we redid USMC commitments so we weren't supporting both MEUs and SPMAGTFs, that'd be doable.

Adding a better FLIR, a designator, etc to the whole fleet helps the assault support mission, too.

The Huey has done both CAS and assault support for generations. This isn't unprecedented. Lets not act like this is black magic.

Besides, if the KC-130 can do this, so can we, at least as a platform for fires in permissive environments. I think it could do more if we chose to and invested in more aircraft, but if all we get is the ability to have mini Harvest Hawks for every MAGTF, that's a robust capability for little money, relatively speaking. I don't know why everyone's panties are in a bunch.

 

[Hotdogs]

The Huey has done both CAS and assault support for generations. This isn't unprecedented. Lets not act like this is black magic.

Except their T&R supports it. Additionally, there's a difference between a single landing to the X with an R&S team, SOF, or SS team versus an entire battalion or company with multiple waves. Huey assault is limited in scope compared to what a typical Osprey squadron does. I would estimate that only around 10-15% of Huey tasking is assault support vice CAS/FAC(A), C&C, some flavor of DAS, and/or Escort.

I'm really interested in what problem this solution is trying to solve.

 

[squorch2]