E-2 Hawkeye/C-2 Greyhound

[Flash]

We only bought the T-45 because the Brits were going to buy Seawolf class submarines. We took delivery first, and then they backed out of the deal.

Eh? That sounds more urban legend than fact. The UK is pretty interested in keeping as much of it's shipbuilding industry around as we are and buying US subs ain't the way to keep their shipyards open and their designers still drafting. Not only that but their subs are pretty good to begin with, they have a long history of making them.

On top of all that the T-45 was one of the few viable options to get a new carrier training plane at the time and even now, fantasies of building a TF-18 trainer were just that.

 

[Uncle Fester]

I'd never heard that, either. Hugely expensive nuke sub program doesn't seem like much of a trade for a license to build trainers, anyway. It kind of sounds to me like the Skybolt-Trident fiasco got somehow molded into the T-45 story.

 

[SynixMan]

You wouldn't even really need to do that. Send the Navy studs down to New River for the FRS. It makes sense to keep -40 in Norfolk, since that's a log hub, but there's no reason to keep -120 the VRC FRS if there's no airframe/mx commonality and no need to get ready for CQ. The RAG is already huge and overloaded managing pilots, FOs and ACs for the Cs, Ds and CODs...adding a whole new airframe with totally different mx requirements (and one with no hook and that hovers, no less) would be a unnecessary mess.

I have no doubt you know far better than I the -120 side of the house. It always seemed like a monstrous squadron with all the FO training plus pilot stuff. That being said, sending everyone to New River might be a tough sell. I'd imagine a sim or two in Norfolk for them and one on the west coast would be smart in the long term. Making VRC-50 or something as a small FRS?

Hell, they're reestablishing HM-12. Maybe consolidation isn't the end all be all.

 

[Uncle Fester]

I have no doubt you know far better than I the -120 side of the house. It always seemed like a monstrous squadron with all the FO training plus pilot stuff. That being said, sending everyone to New River might be a tough sell. I'd imagine a sim or two in Norfolk for them and one on the west coast would be smart in the long term. Making VRC-50 or something as a small FRS?

Hell, they're reestablishing HM-12. Maybe consolidation isn't the end all be all.

I think you'd have to send Navy guys to -204, at least for a while. Building up sims and schoolhouses takes years. Unless Big Navy commits to CODsprey well in advance of a transition and builds up the infrastructure first, which would be unlike Big Navy.

Reestablishing HM-12 as a RAG? I thought the Navy couldn't wait to get rid of their -53s?

 

[Calculon]

Maybe the Marine side can elaborate on how their transition went, but would anyone know how a CODsprey would be aligned by the Navy - under the rotary community side of things or under the E-2/C-2 side?

 

[Uncle Fester]

Maybe the Marine side can elaborate on how their transition went, but would anyone know how a CODsprey would be aligned by the Navy - under the rotary community side of things or under the E-2/C-2 side?

Depends on the decision makers at the time. I think most likely it'd stay under the current construct - none of the decision makers involved would come from the RW side. My guess is a separated FRS, still under ACCLOGWING. Not because that makes sense, but because that's how it's been done.

 

[LFDtoUSMC]

Not because that makes sense, but because that's how it's been done.

Which is exactly why it makes sense. I seem to remember a saying that goes, "The more things change, the more they.....something something something."

 

[Uncle Fester]

Insomuch as CODs have an 'advocacy group' at all, it's ACCLOGWING. Moving CODsprey-equipped VRCs to the RW side would require pulling the HSC wing commodores into the discussion and voluntarily giving them two squadrons, a bunch of people, and brand-new, high-viz airplanes. Oh, and the HSC commodores would have to agree to handle the transition AND absorb a whole bunch of pilots they don't know AND take on a third T/M/S in their house (and they've been trying to get rid of the -53s for years now).

Could it be done? Sure. Does it make sense? Probably; in terms of mission, and training/currency requirements, they'd have a lot more in common with the helo bubbas than the Hawkeye guys. What does the E-2 commodore know about deck/dirt hit currency or sling lift training? But it would be a pain in the ass and politically undesirable, and no mob of Navy O-6s ever built is ever going to sign up for that if they don't have to. And you have to go all the way up to CNAF to find a common boss of CACCLW, HSCWL and HSCWP.

My impression from my Marine Plopter buddies is that they view the -22 as a helo that can go fast, not a cargo plane that can hover, mainly because it took over the medium-lift mission from the Phrog and most of the guys came from there. A CODsprey would be almost exclusively VRC guys and they'd bring that mindset through the transition.

If that's the way VRC goes, I think there'd be merit in growing the community in order to expand the mission. One of the big advantages of a CODsprey over a regular fixed-wing is it could lift from the beach directly to the big- and medium-deck gators as well as the Boat, right? Once ESG admirals fall in love with that capability they're going to want it as a regular thing and soon you get VRC Dets going on 'phib cruises. So if you can, expand the aircraft buy and bring in some helo bubbas for their expertise in that side of things. But then again, see my previous comment about 'not a bad idea, but pain in the ass and political hassle and anyway that's not how we do things'.

 

[wlawr005]

Not to mention the HSC bubbas would immediately slap a gun on it, let a SEAL jump out the back, and claim their real mission was CSAR...

 

[Beans]

Fester is hitting the nail on the head. I imagine the VRC folks aren't too hot on losing their admin in Reno every year, but the CODsprey makes sense on so many fronts. Bell has already talked about changes to give the -22 longer legs to fit the requirement. It's a mature design that's currently in production. Add some sims in Norfolk for the FRS and you're pretty much there.

As far as the JSF engines, the Marines are cracking that code already without the C-2. Most engines in cans come via USNS and VERTREP. I can imagine picking the F135 would be a beast (~4k ish?) The once in a blue moon need to COD an F135 engine out to the CVN in the middle of the Atlantic is not the common problem we're trying to solve. It's moving daily ass and trash from a place with 5 star hotels and per diem to the boat. And the plopter lets you have VRC support more than CVNs now (Gators/LPDs/places without runways).

It's different, it hovers, so it scares people.

The above probably plays a big role in why people working on this don't seem to be panicking. If (the F135's probability of breaking down in some unplanned way) * (the probability of a CV being w/o USNS support but being supportable by C-2s) is really low, then why worry about it?

I don't know much about the power required vs airspeed charts for a V-22, but could you expand its landing weight if you threw a hook on it and had it land at slow speed instead of in a hover? And, yes, I know you don't just "throw hooks on aircraft."

 

[wlawr005]

It's less of a weight issue and more of a fact that the engine won't fit in the cargo area.

 

[SynixMan]

Not to mention the HSC bubbas would immediately slap a gun on it, let a SEAL jump out the back, and claim their real mission was CSAR...

Well, apt, considering AFSOC uses it as a CSAR platform as well.

 

[wlawr005]

Yeah, they use -60s as well.. hasn't made much of a difference for the Navy.

 

[kmac]

Sorry for getting back into this conversation a little late, but here are some random thoughts:

*The mission of COD would remain the priority regardless of platform chosen. Since that mission is under ACCLOGWING, even if the Navy went with V-22s it will remain under the E2/C2 wing until it grows big enough to become something else (Tiltrotor Logistics Wing?). Uncle Fester asked the question of what the E2 commodore would know about deck/dirt currency or sling load ops. It's a fair question, but I think the bigger question is what does the E2 commodore know about det operations and carrier logistics from ashore? Well, that E2 commodore is currently a COD guy, so there you go.

*Your average VRC driver dreams of the C-3. On paper, it makes the most sense for the COD mission: carries the same amount of stuff as the C-2, only does it faster and farther. It also goes quite a bit higher, which is important for weather avoidance. The C-2B is "meh" because it's polishing the same turd. The V-22 is the bigger turd: it carries less stuff, slower, and not as far.

*Organization: multiple ways to skin that cat. With the increased number of aircraft (regardless of type), would you stick with a 2 aircraft det? 3 aircraft det? If you do the latter, that would likely be too many aircraft in the current 2 fleet squadron setup (just not enough hangar space). So would you have multiple squadrons? If so, might as well have your own wing. These are the questions that the Navy well eventually get around to.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Nobody in the Navy wants to give up missions/AC/people, and no one wants to absorb missions/AC/people they don't know. So I think it's safe to say VRC would stay under ACCLW no matter what -30/-40 were flying. My point was just, on paper, there's a reasonable argument to be made for placing them under HSCW, and it'll never, ever happen. Maybe spinning them off into a Carrier Log Wing if they got big enough, but then someone would ask why we have separate Carrier Logistics and Fleet Logistics Wings. And also that there's absolutely no good reason and plenty of bad ones to keep V-22 training under VAW-120 if that's the route they go. I could see them standing up a separate Plopter Rag (VRC-50?) under ACCLW.