CMV-22B Osprey Rollout

[kmac]

No one asked me, but I think the biggest hurdle will be justifying the expensive land footprint they have vs keeping them primarily on the CVN/LPD/some USNS. Out and in to Bahrain off the boat with a predawn takeoff if no pax, similar to how helos operate, vs coming off the shore. There’s a legitimate concern about deck space, but handlers will always complain.

That’s not a hurdle at all since the justification already exists with C-2s. It grows even bigger when dealing with V-22s.

On the other hand, what justification for the COD mission can you provide for keeping them away from your pax/cargo or from a better maintenance capability? You would be trading the limited space on the ship from other units (both racks and maintenance shops), would be severely limiting the ability to perform scheduled (including phase) and unscheduled maintenance, and adding time/distance into the equation for bring stuff to the ship. Remember, it’s the stuff going to the ship that matters the most.

So what is supposed to be the operational value added?

 

[wink]

I highly doubt they have the airframe life left to do that.

Based on who's assessment? Have you seen what has flown as fire fighting tankers over the years? There are still some S-2 Tracker/Firecats out there. P-2s still flying, ancient C-130s, etc.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Article in The Drive came out about this the other day.

US Navy Expects Its Carrier Onboard Delivery Ospreys to be Fully Operational By 2024

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ivery-ospreys-to-be-fully-operational-by-2024

 

[Pags]

Based on who's assessment? Have you seen what has flown as fire fighting tankers over the years? There are still some S-2 Tracker/Firecats out there. P-2s still flying, ancient C-130s, etc.

Yes and I’ve seen the videos of C-130s wings folding up on them due to fatigue issues. C-2s aren’t getting a SLEP or something like that because they’re all used up. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them all cut up to prevent future liability issues.

 

[Brett327]

There are still some S-2 Tracker/Firecats out there. P-2s still flying, ancient C-130s, etc.

There sure are.

 

[SynixMan]

That’s not a hurdle at all since the justification already exists with C-2s. It grows even bigger when dealing with V-22s.

I'll admit ignorance to the difficulty or loading cargo, but I don't think it's so much rocket surgery you need overnight to do it. The land footprint (space, housing, per diem, etc) costs in the millions/year to sustain vs the boat that's already there and "free". Marines already do all the V-22 maintenance on the LHD/LPD/LSD, and the rest of the air wing does it on the CVN. Why can't you be based off the ship? What's stopping a 0230 brief for a 0430 launch to hit the beach, pickup the gear/people, and return by mid-day? We did this for helo DV runs to the beach somewhat regularly. Or cascading deck hits between successive cycles?

Night currency for C-2 crews was previously a big issue with that, but that's easier now that you can go play at a single spot ship and confer big deck nights, just like Helos. Also now that you're not tailhooking, the entire air dept doesn't need to be spun up for your launch/recovery. An HCO (yaaaay extra duty for your non-flying days!) in the tower and a catch crew on the deck is all that's needed now. There's a lot of operational assumptions that might be upended in the near future.

Don't get me wrong, I think the initial transition years will be largely business as usual, but it wouldn't surprise me if the good idea fairy comes once the C-2s are all sitting in Davis Mothan.

 

[Griz882]

I highly doubt they have the airframe life left to do that.

I can believe that. I am amazed they use old P-3’s for the mission...but they do.

 

[Griz882]

There sure are.

You want to press “like”for the fascinating video, but you don’t dare. I remember that mess.

 

[Griz882]

Based on who's assessment? Have you seen what has flown as fire fighting tankers over the years? There are still some S-2 Tracker/Firecats out there. P-2s still flying, ancient C-130s, etc.

Here is a picture of a “new” up-engined and reworked S-2 that is expected to be in operation soon.

 

[hscs]

I'll admit ignorance to the difficulty or loading cargo, but I don't think it's so much rocket surgery you need overnight to do it. The land footprint (space, housing, per diem, etc) costs in the millions/year to sustain vs the boat that's already there and "free". Marines already do all the V-22 maintenance on the LHD/LPD/LSD, and the rest of the air wing does it on the CVN. Why can't you be based off the ship? What's stopping a 0230 brief for a 0430 launch to hit the beach, pickup the gear/people, and return by mid-day? We did this for helo DV runs to the beach somewhat regularly. Or cascading deck hits between successive cycles?

Night currency for C-2 crews was previously a big issue with that, but that's easier now that you can go play at a single spot ship and confer big deck nights, just like Helos. Also now that you're not tailhooking, the entire air dept doesn't need to be spun up for your launch/recovery. An HCO (yaaaay extra duty for your non-flying days!) in the tower and a catch crew on the deck is all that's needed now. There's a lot of operational assumptions that might be upended in the near future.

Don't get me wrong, I think the initial transition years will be largely business as usual, but it wouldn't surprise me if the good idea fairy comes once the C-2s are all sitting in Davis Mothan.

An excellent observation. I really think that the -22 will change how we do logistics to/from the CVN and its escorts, as we are no longer dependent upon the cat / AG. There will be a lot of growing pains trying to optimize the pros and cons of a -22's capabilities. As for staying ashore - flight deck space / spread spots would be the only reason that it might be beneficial to have a detachment land based.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

There sure are.

Are you speculating that the age of that aircraft caused the mishap?

 

[Brett327]

I’m highlighting some of the ways these older military aircraft are being used.

 

[ChuckMK23]

An excellent observation. I really think that the -22 will change how we do logistics to/from the CVN and its escorts, as we are no longer dependent upon the cat / AG. There will be a lot of growing pains trying to optimize the pros and cons of a -22's capabilities. As for staying ashore - flight deck space / spread spots would be the only reason that it might be beneficial to have a detachment land based.

This reminds me of the rational to stand up HC-4 with CH-53E's to service Sixth Fleet CVBG and ARG's. Awesome concept and planning at first. When the concept become operational, the use of the 53E's became constrained due to operational funding and mission qualifications. An example being air refueling - toted as a way to provide extended operations. Air refueling quals quickly lapsed for all but the most senior O-4's - and ultimately the squadron ceased to advertise these capabilities (USMC and AF C-130s were never available). HC-4 later fell into a culture of disrepair with FMC rates under 20%.

My point being - taking a wonderful combat asset and running it as a combat support platfrom comes with it a lot of the fixed cost to maintain the capabilities. Big Navy tends to look for ways to cut corners / costs and combat support functions are often the first to be told "make do with less".

 

[Austin-Powers]

Since the C-2 is being phased out, will this increase or decrease carrier operations tempo out in the water?

 

[Recovering LSO]

As for staying ashore - flight deck space / spread spots would be the only reason that it might be beneficial to have a detachment land based.

And that is no small consideration... Though I have little empathy for handlers on today's carriers, the fact of the matter is real estate is a premium. The "oh, just stick over there overnight" idea works so-so until you consider all of the other things going on upstairs overnight - to include having deck set for alerts.