Kelly,
I think your acquaintance is incorrect. It's tasking my memory back to the dim pages of ancient history, but I think the Osprey handle came about because of the real bird's ability to fly fast, hover, and dive. I don't think the Navy ever was seriously committed to replacing the S-3 Viking with tiltrotors, even back when Soviet nuke subs were a much more vital threat than they are today.

Where names of aircraft come from has always been clouded in mystery. Some say there's a room here in the Pentagon that holds an old guy who is the keeper (and designator) of names. I think it's probably a combination of manufacturers, warfighters, and service secretaries who make the final choices.
TC

Thanx for the reply TC. I really appreciate you taxing your memory for me! I think this topic will continue to be a bone of contention in my building for some time! Again, thanx!

Hugs,

Kelly

Jan,

Thanks for the effort. I work with a bunch of the Boeing Bubbas (weapons side of the house) and they did some research for me as well and came up with a lot of "I think...." as the answer. This is a quest for me now. If I ever get a definitive answer, rest assured I WILL post it!

Navy HV-22 mission

Kelly,

Found this out from Global Security, your friend may be right.

The United States Navy has a requirement for a specially configured V-22 variant known as the HV-22. These will be used for ship borne combat search and rescue and fleet logistics support. As of 1999, detailed requirements have not yet been established. The total requirement is for 48 aircraft (originally 50), with deliveries from FY10.

Other possible production versions include the SV-22 variant for the US Navy, used to provide mid- to long-range sea-based airborne antisubmarine warfare protection.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/hv-22.htm

Could have been thought to help the S-3 and P-3 once P-7 was cancelled in the early nineties. The S-3 (IMO)is the current do everything aircraft in the Navy, with Anti-Air Warfare, Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW), Amphibious Warfare, Counter-Targeting, Over-the-Horizon Targeting, Airborne Reconnaissance, and Command and Control, and also tasked by the Carrier Battle Group Commanders to provide surface surveillance and intelligence collection, electronic warfare, mine warfare, coordinated search and rescue, and fleet support missions, including air wing tanking. (Tasked missions copied from GS)

Current ASW aircraft P-3C Updates II and III, the S-3B, the SH-60B/F and the SH-2G.

Hope this helps.

Semper Fi,
Ryan

Thanks Ryan. My thoughts are that the Navy may have considered replacing the S-3 with the V-22 only AFTER seeing the ORD and systems specs introduced up by the USMC for 46 replacement. I don't doubt that. It just seems strange to me that the bird would remain unnamed until the S-3 community came on board.

MMA will be the follow on A/C for the P-3 (I currently work the P-3/AIP Platform) which is one of our aging aircraft as well. The P-3 currently has all the capabilities of the S-3 with maybe the exception of in flight refueling. Installs and upgrades are currently under way to armament systems on the P-3 and are going well. Becoming more versitle with ability to do real time mission planning, automatic target acquistion, anit-surface, etc. A lot of our current arms will be divested in the near future and plans are to replace with bigger and better. (SLAM-ER, JSOW~maybe even JDAM).

Rumor mill here:
The V-22 is only being purchased by the Marine corps and the Air Force. The V-22 for the Corps, and the CV-22 for the Air Force spec ops.

😮

That's true, Brian. The only programmed funding in the FYDP is Navy Dept. (USMC) and USAF/SOCOM for about 50 CV-22s. Interestingly, considerable interest has been shown lately by various state ANG Generals and by several foreign defense ministers. As long as the cost remains as high as it is, I doubt the blue-suit Navy will plan or program money to buy the HV-22, and it will remain a Power-Point aircraft. And the foreign and ANG interest won't really materialize until the MV-22 is operational in the FMF. JMHO.
S/F
TC

Leatherneck -- Funny you should mention about how names for aircraft get selected.

I'm currently putting a package together to get an official designation and popular name for a new Marine Corps helicopter and the order that sets the policy for doing that is DoD Directive 4120.15, "Designating and Naming Military Aerospace Vehicles"

You can find it at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/412015.htm

Be warned though -- the document DTIC has on line is out of date. The latest version, .15L, is dated 1998.

In short, programs seeking a designation and popular name for a new aircraft must submit a proposed designation (you have to go search and find out what's available for your series of aircraft. In the H-series, I think 68 is the next designator...we hope, anyway, and not the next one ...) Then you have to provide a description of the aircraft and pick three choices for a popular name. Then you submit the package through your service's designated POC for this and then it goes up to the Air Force (Dang Zoomies are in charge of naming all military aircraft) for final decision. So that gnome in the basement of the Pentagon you mentioned wears a blue suit.

And that's how it gets done.

Semper Fi,
John

John,
Dang! Just about the time I think I know everything, I discover I've forgotten half of it:D Thanks for the info...

So what are you guys going to call the CH-53X and VXX?

Semper Fi
TC

I've never understood why they call it the CH-53X. It seems CH-53F would be logical. And anyone know why the Corps plans to upgrade just 111 of 165 Echos? Scrapping several 53 squadrons would hurt.

I also read the Navy reprogrammed money in the FY05 budget to accelerate VXX comparison testing (the new presidental helo; either the S-92 or EH-101. So what's the rush? Maybe this is really a look at V-22 alternatives, which cost about a quarter the price of the V-22 and can lift more payload. Aviation Week reported last week that software problems have delayed V-22 testing yet again.

Stan,
The short answer to "Why the rush?" on VXX is simple. The White House (Andrew Card) said get a new helo for the President to ride in before he leaves office in 2008. (Now let's not drift off into presidential politics...:D ). So the Marine Corps saluted smartly and is working to make it happen. There will be essentially two versions of VXX: a "stripped" one to cover that presidential ride; and a more-equipped one for later.

The V-22 problem only surfaced last December: it involved the lateral control channel software, and the non-instrumented aircraft are restricted in what maneuvers they can perform. The fix is both software and hardware, and is being installed right now and will be tested in the next couple of months.

S/F
TC

Gents,

Excellent questions and points -- let me address them. (Maybe we should start another forum -- the Marine Corps DOES have other new R/W programs than my fair tilt-rotored hangar mate. Speaking of, Leatherneck, where's Ward? Why doesn't he come stick up for his own program?)

Anyway, I digress...

Stan, we call it the '53X as a short hand for saying we don't have a designator for it yet. Even though the Marine Corps requirements bubbas have signed off on the ORD and the funding is identified for it to be a new-build variant of the '53, the JROC has not yet approved it (at the OSD level). We are hoping to have that done and be able to announce the CH-53F new-build variant sometime in the Fall. Stay tuned. And that's if the Air Force (see my earlier post) will let us call it the F. They are telling us there's already been a CH-53F. We've had an A, D, E and G (German), but we can't think of an F (The Japanese JMSDF variant is a commercial version -- meaning they bought it directly from Sikorsky without going through the DOD). We want it to be an F.

Oh and currently the prgram calls for a total buy of 154 aircraft. I'm not sure where that 111 figure came from. We are going with a few less F's because more capability and far better maintainability will mean we'll have more that are mission ready. And, they'll be a little more capable than the '53E anyway. So we'll need less of them to support the Marine Corps' heavy lift requirements until they figure out what the Joint Heavy Lift Requirement is going to be.

If you like, I can tell you about what the F (or CH-53X as it is officially today) will be. To the pilots, it will be essentially a souped-up E model with a neato glass cockpit and a little more cajones. To the maintainers, though, she will be an answer to prayer -- a primary goal is to dramatically reduce our Maintenance Manhours per Flight Hour -- currently at more than 40 for the Echo. As you can tell, we're pretty proud of the '53X and what it will mean to our Marines on the Flightline and sweating it out at 2 am in the Garage. Col. Croisetiere's stated goal is to reacquaint mechs with their families, not to give pilots a hot new ride. If we fix the mech's major problem, we also fix several of the Marine Corps' problems.

Now, about VXX. You ask why the rush. With all respect due a brother Marine, I have a copy of the Card Memo in front of me now and I don't see anything about needing the helicopter in time for the current President to ride in. Actually, the truth of the matter is relatively simple to figure out without the infamous Card Memo. If you look at the VXX schedule, you'll see that we aren't scheduled for IOC until late 2008. I can't be more specific than that. But anyway, IF we're on schedule and IF the current president is re-elected, he's still not likely to ride in the VXX as a sitting president.

The real reason VXX has been accelerated by four years (original Program of Record was for IOC in 2012 due to life limits on the VH-3D airframe) is that certain technology is required to support the Presidential mission in this post 9-11 security environment that the VH-3D and VH-60N don't have the "room to grow" to incorporate easily. Yes, we could make it fit, but at considerable cost. And even at that, we would be dumping a fair amount of tax dollars into a couple of platforms we're about to retire anyway in a few more years. It makes far more fiscal sense instead to put that money into accelerating a replacement that will give us the same level of support we have now, plus better maintainability, 21st Century technology and room to incorporate future technology infusion. There comes a time when you have to retire ole Reliable and get Mom a new Minivan. Same for POTUS. The VH-3D has been one hell of a fine aircraft with about the best safety record going. She doesn't owe anyone anything. But it is now time for her to enjoy a well-deserved retirement.

We are not considering the V-22 for the VXX. We limited the competition to the US-101 and the S-92 because an independant Analysis of alternatives, a market survey and our own engineering analysis all agreed that those two platforms were the only platfroms available today that could meet the program requirements. Why doesn't V-22 meet program requirements? Well, the primary reason is that it is not air transportable by C-5 or C-17. But it's self-deployable, right? Ah, so it is. But worldwide and with all the spares and personel (and the black Suburbans -- don't forget them) required to support an overseas POTUS mission? No.

As for what we are going to call the VXX, the package I will be submitting asks for a designation of VH-68 and a popular name of "Chieftain" Cool, huh? Of course, I haven't checked with the Colonel yet and he gets final say... You know how that goes... We're really hoping H-68 is the next available number and not, say, the next one ... Wish me luck on that!!!

Next time, maybe I'll tell you about the H-1 and '46 programs -- lots going on there, as well! You guys should be super proud of the great job LtCol. Mitch Baughman and his team are doing keeping your old Phroggies not only alive, but flourishing -- a huge and undersung success story there!

Semper Fi,
John

On Track

Sure appreciate the up beat information from the horses mouth. Good to have things on track. Hope we keep hearing from you.
When we have the 40th aniversary of the frog, do we drivers that escorted the first 'A' models of HMM-265 in country at Marble get a little cotpit time in the most recent upgraded model of the CH-46? Be great for PR. Also, former CO's of Ch-46 squadrons, like Hmm-261 & 263 could even get some stick time.
Wayne

There are few things more fun than hijacking a good discussion ... 🙂

Wayne, LtCol Bauman is planning a 40th anniversary cake cutting of the 1st operational delivery of the H-46 in 1964 to MCAS New River July 16 (Tentative date). He's trying to get DCS AIR and some other VIPS down to make speeches, eat puppus and drink beer with contractor booths at the oclub. Maybe with some interest from this group, it could turn into something a little better than just a beer and puppus thing at the Club.

I have the POC info if you, or the Association, wants to contact me off line at 301-995-7410 or john.milliman@navy.mil

Semper Fi,
John

zero in on New River

New River is where I first gazed in awe at the CH-46A. Wouldn't feel right if the aniversary were held anyplace else.
I'm sure many of us entertained thoughts of killing two birds with one stone in Reno, but let's push for New River.
Wayne

Where did "Osprey" come from?

I'm reaching back here, so I could be wrong, but here's what I remember.
I was the V-22 T&E guy at Pax RIver from 85-88. It was during that time the name was "announced". LtGen Blot was the PM during that period of time. (He should really be the one to remember.) I seem to recall that we were talking about the name once upon a time. We had spent some time wondering what this machine would/should be called. As I recall, he said that when he was talking with SecNav (John Lehman at the time) about the name, Lehman reached in his desk drawer and pulled out a piece of paper and handed it to him without a word. On the paper was written the name "Osprey".
Like I say, I could be wrong, but that's my memory.