Why dont the Marines use CH-47s instead of the V-22?

Why dont the Marines use CH-47s instead of the V-22?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why would the USMC used the CH-47, when they previously used the original CH-46?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Used? When did they stop?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        2015, almost a decade ago

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You think they'd prefer half the range and half the speed?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The V-22 is a lot faster.

      What good is that range and speed when the Huey and Cobra cant keep up?
      And how often does a CH-47 fall out of the sky or break down if you look at it funny?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >And how often does a CH-47 fall out of the sky or break down if you look at it funny?
        It's not all that statistically likely for the V-22 either, it flies a LOT and sure it crashes occasionally, but if you look at fatalities per flight hour, it's pretty average.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It's not all that statistically likely for the V-22 either

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >fatalities per flight hour
          Sick of this fricking meme. It's like using GDP per capita to call Lichtenstein a global superpower or something

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But, anon, they are the superpower.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What else should we use? Total number of crashes? In that case the Russian Air force isnt doing too bad, since they barley fly their aircraft compared to western nations.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon are you unironically moronic or something, this is shit I'd expect a Black person with an IQ of 90 to figure out

            The word "rate" isn't a meme, lmfao

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Osprey: 3.61 per 100,000
          >Blackhawk: <1 per 100,000

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            3 is barely more than 1 dumbass

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You deserve everything you get.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              consider, that the numbers are minimized by fake statistics and ospreys are being generally used for footage, and not for any actual operations

              osprey is gun porn
              it's important propaganda piece for kids, that would have hardons thinking how cool they would look flying this to another zionist meatgrinder

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                AFSOC uses the frick out of their MV-22s

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This. I worked with the 352nd SOW a few years ago during a joint exerzice, I belive they had CV-22Bs, and they flew with almost all frames they had with them all day all night.

                t. eurogay

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They do. The Marines decided that they wanted to reclassify M (Special Operations) to mean "Marines" as a publicity stunt. As a result, the Special Operations variant goes by C (Cargo), so the Osprey and so far *only* the Osprey uses backwards designations.

                tl;dr blame the crayon-eaters.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Correct, he CV-22 designation that was meant for the regular V-22 the USMC was supposed to get would've conflicted with the CV ship naming convention for USN aircraft carriers so the AFSOC and USMC naming convention had to be flipped. The Marines sold the naming convention as "Marine Vertical" but in reality the USAF flies the MV-22 and the USMC flies the CV-22. It's why the Navy flies the CMV-22 for "cargo, multi-mission, vertical" and not the MCV-22 because CMV doesn't conflict with the CV designation. The book "The Dream Machine" by Richard Whittle about the V-22 program mentions this in one of the chapters when the Marines picked up the program from the Army after they abandoned it because it was too radical for them back in the 80's. Ironically though they eventually adopted the V-280 now that the tech has matured and the Marines took the brunt of early adoption.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Most US rotor and fighter jet aviation is designed for continuous operations at high cost and maintenance efficiency. Especially pave/black hawks and US 4th gen fighters etc. Euro copters and jets are not as well designed for such continuous operations. Perfect example is the venerable pavehawk/seahawk/blackhawk/jayhawk line vs NH90s.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ofc they do
                mostly for psyops or to cover up the fact another group of officers got hypersonic in their prostate

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                meds

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                no, thanks

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >russian filename
                >an entire russian pension worth of pixels
                they aren't sending their best

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Now post the rest of the helicopters we use, I'll wait.

            Like I said, it's average, I never claimed it was the safest thing in the air.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            looks like garandthumb in young

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              hence filename

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >but if you look at fatalities per flight hour, it's pretty average
          This. It's just that it holds a LOT of people compared to most other military airframes. Whenever one crashes, chances are it has a platoon of marines aboard, which makes it look like a complete deathtrap.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The main issue with the Osprey is its tilt rotor design, which is ironically the main appeal to it on paper. Almost all the crashes it has had in all countries it is used by are caused by pilots going into landing too fast or miscalculating something with the tilt rotor function in flight. There isn't anything that can currently reliably replace the tilt function of the Osprey short of a twin engine airplane on the amphib carriers however. A CH46 would be a good substitute however, at least in lift capability for space efficiency and nothing else. The Pave hawk/blackhawk family of choppers are also one of the most versatile, reliable, and cheapest options out there, quite literally the best overall, but would require more of them to meet a specific requirement and even then they would not be able to perform longer missions without multiple refuelings.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >its pointless to retire something for an upgrade

        Ahh, I see what you're here for now.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >ask question (with zero intention of listening to counterpoints)
        >make up new stupid scenarios where thing you like wins
        >still refuse to admit other anons are right

        did you also make the chinese grenade rifle thread?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >And how often does a CH-47 fall out of the sky or break down if you look at it funny?
        two CH-47 crashes killed more than every V-22 crash

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think they'd prefer not to die in firey crashes for the range n speed meme.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The V-22 is a lot faster.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    two on an elevator :3

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      SEXOOOOO

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      lewd

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What a prostitute

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Kinda pointless to phase out the Sea Knight to replace it with just a slightly bigger Sea Knight.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >its pointless to retire something for an upgrade

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The V-22 is a lot faster.

        Are they grounded again this week?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        CH-47 is not an upgrade.
        US Army paid for the development of the CH-46. US Army was big and slow, like always. USMC bought the CH-46. US Army finally made a decision to go bigger, so upscaled the CH-46 into a CH-47. It was a good choice by the US Army, but US Army rarely flies their helicopters off ships.

        [...]
        What good is that range and speed when the Huey and Cobra cant keep up?
        And how often does a CH-47 fall out of the sky or break down if you look at it funny?

        USMC has AV-8B and F-35B and F/A-18. The USMC also knows some people within the US Navy, which has CVNs with lots of aircraft.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Better question.

    Why don't Britain use V-22's to replace Chinook

    >Twice as fast
    >Twice as much range
    >Could be used for COD, AWACS, aerial refueling as well as take over transport, sling roles

    They could use a "Modular" internal system whereby they can rapidly place fuel bladders, seats, isr equipment/awacs crowsnest or hospital/evac shit inside. Or they could go all out and mount a radome on the top.

    Are they stupid?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Are they stupid?
      They are poor, and the CH-47 is operated by RAF, not the Fleet air arm, so naval applications isnt really relevant here.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        RAF and FAA have a "deal" which is why they got the F-35B rather than a mixed order of F-35A's and either B's or C's or whatever the frick they were on about.

        I think even now Britain wants greater cross-integration with helicopters. It's why they used Apache's from ships for ages (and still do).

        https://i.imgur.com/KP75XE0.png

        >Thread about USMC procurement and C-47 vs V-22
        >Some anon tries to change thread to British military procurement

        There's an odd smell in the room, wonder who that be!

        Are you upset that people are talking about military procurement on a military and weapons image board.
        Lmfao

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >RAF and FAA have a "deal"
          the regular Navy still hates the frick out of the FAA and to be fair the whole nation can't run two air forces so the deal is that the carrier air wings are crewed by a mix of RAF and FAA pilots

          >which is why they got the F-35B rather than a mixed order
          they have always wanted the B as a direct replacement of the Harrier
          the Navy never wanted the C
          the RAF is very tempted by the A because of just how fricking insane proper 5th gen stealth is, but that's a wholly separate decision

          the whole lashup hinges on TR-3 actually, which is fricking delayed, nobody wants to buy gimped airframes but the delay means numbers see an initial cut. nobody is saying this to avoid putting further pressure on Lockmart which already has had miles of unfair criticism (frick you and the horse your mum rode David Axe)

          also there is a question of additional F-35Bs for the carrier wing: the way it is shaping up, there will be 2 squadrons of 35Bs (roughly 48 aircraft) and 5 squadrons of Typhoon (~96 aircraft)
          IDEALLY the FAA wants another squadron of 35Bs and the RAF wants another squadron of 35(something), maybe the A-variant

          but there is the budget to consider, so now the two services have the following options
          >do nothing
          or
          >buy 1 squadron of 35Bs for the RAF
          which would deploy on carriers if needed, but the RAF hates this option because effectively they're paying for carrier aircraft they'll never use - carrier strike will ALWAYS be prioritised
          >buy 1 squadron of 35Bs for the RN and 1 squadron of 35As for the RAF
          which is operationally ideal, but there's no money for it and now 50% of British fighters are American and Typhoon is out in the cold
          >buy 1 squadron of 35Bs and wait for Tempest
          this means the RAF doesn't touch 5th gen until Tempest

          Yeah the USMC abuses the absolute frick out of all their airframes but literally do not have the money to support the number of airframes and flight hours they want out of their birds. It's why USMC pilots have the lowest flight hours out of all the branches and it's simply because they'll run their aircraft to the point they literally can't fly and then have to sit waiting for MX to do something. Mediocrity is just an accepted part of USMC aviation unfortunately.

          >Mediocrity is just an accepted part of USMC aviation
          from what I hear it seems they hate USMC air because of the infantry-centric "OOH RAH EVERY MUHREEN A RIFLEMAN" mentality

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >from what I hear it seems they hate USMC air because of the infantry-centric "OOH RAH EVERY MUHREEN A RIFLEMAN" mentality
            "Every Marine, a rifleman" is ingrained in everything they do. All Marines that accept a commission regardless of their MOS must attend The Basic School where they'll learn how to command infantry units on the ground, and even pilots have to learn even if they'll never actually be in command of infantry. Also, being a pilot is only like 30% of the job ironically. Pilots are officers and as such they'll be put in charge of shit like maintenance, logistics, etc. even if they've learned frick all about those """side""" jobs so they're never putting in the flight hours like the Navy and USAF.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Thread about USMC procurement and C-47 vs V-22
      >Some anon tries to change thread to British military procurement

      There's an odd smell in the room, wonder who that be!

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because sometimes american marines do actual fighting, and not only gun porn?

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    V-22 has like double the range

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Memes aside it would be best to compare both non-combat-related hull losses per flight hour and non-combat related fatalities per flight hour because 47s and 22s routinely carry far more people than a 60.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I mean the UH-60 didn't get the nickname "Crashhawk" and "Lawn Dart" for nothing either. Rotary wing aviation comes with a lot more risks than fixed wing that are considered an acceptable tradeoff for the ability to take off vertically without a runway. I work with a lot of retired Army WO Aviators and they'll all tell you that in the course of a rotary wing pilot's career there's going to be at least ONE hard landing and they all had a story to say about their time.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    USMC uses CH-53 for the heavy lift role, instead of CH-47. MV-22 is a replacement for the CH-46, with an emphasis on speed and range to make up for the fact that amphibious ships have to stay farther away from defended shorelines in the ASCM age.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    V-22 is just a Chinook flying sideways.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The USAF, USN, and Japanese versions of the V-22 seem to work just fine.

    The MV-22 has a critical flaw, which is that it is maintained by Marines. Many of their airframes are plagued by issues of poor maintenance and working them beyond their intended service life. Ffs they still have D model Stallions and C model Hornets. They pay more for a Huey than the Army pays for a Blackhawk.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah the USMC abuses the absolute frick out of all their airframes but literally do not have the money to support the number of airframes and flight hours they want out of their birds. It's why USMC pilots have the lowest flight hours out of all the branches and it's simply because they'll run their aircraft to the point they literally can't fly and then have to sit waiting for MX to do something. Mediocrity is just an accepted part of USMC aviation unfortunately.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They try to do everything, some of it they do well for sure, but you really can't cut corners on flight hours or maintenance for sure.

        I wonder if their planned airframe consolidation will make things noticeably better. If all they have are F35B, MV-22, and UH-1V frames to worry about maybe they will catch a break.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *