United States Marine Corps

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
This doesn’t seem to have been reported in USNI News, which seems a bit surprisin.
I'm pretty sure it was reported on over a year ago when the USMC released the Commandant's guidance on the whole 2030 plan. This recent article is just an op-ed, and not actually reporting on any new information
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
Is

Is it likely that these assets will simply be taken over by the U.S.N ,as the ships the U.S.M.C operate from are U.S.N ships?, cant see the U.S.N giving up designated carriers like the Wasp amphib. class no matter how small, an earlier article discussing this reorientation did not get the publicity now present
The Marine Corps’ Shifting Focus: What to Know | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)
USS Wasp: The Amphibious Assault Ship That Is Nearly An Aircraft Carrier? - 19FortyFive
The USN does not operate any of the systems mentioned. The MV-22s the USN are starting to field are I believe modified to extend their range to support the carrier supply mission, so the USMC's versions are not currently able to meet those requirements. The only CH-53s operated by the USN are the Sea Dragon mine warfare versions. While it would seem as a "no brainer" to snatch up some -53Ks to replace the older than dirt archaic maintenance whore Sea Dragons the -53K has not been certified to conduct those operations.
IMO the most logical future for all these divested assets would be retention in the bone yards potential replacements/part sources for future operational losses.

WRT the F-35Bs, have USN aviators been trained on these jets? Marines have both F-35Bs and some F-35Cs. Surely divesting of "Cs" by the USMC would have been a less stupid option.
It's likely that a few USN pilots have been trained to fly "B" models, in a test pilot capacity or possibly cross service posting, but nowhere near operational fielding numbers.
And the USMC has a requirement to field fighter squadrons for USN carrier wing duties. Thus the "C" models.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
The USN does not operate any of the systems mentioned. The MV-22s the USN are starting to field are I believe modified to extend their range to support the carrier supply mission, so the USMC's versions are not currently able to meet those requirements. The only CH-53s operated by the USN are the Sea Dragon mine warfare versions. While it would seem as a "no brainer" to snatch up some -53Ks to replace the older than dirt archaic maintenance whore Sea Dragons the -53K has not been certified to conduct those operations.
IMO the most logical future for all these divested assets would be retention in the bone yards potential replacements/part sources for future operational losses.


It's likely that a few USN pilots have been trained to fly "B" models, in a test pilot capacity or possibly cross service posting, but nowhere near operational fielding numbers.
And the USMC has a requirement to field fighter squadrons for USN carrier wing duties. Thus the "C" models.
Navy Approves CH-53K Heavy-Lift Helicopter for Full-Rate Production - USNI News
In the case of the CH-53K at least, the numbers of aircraft divested are coming out of planned orders, not existing aircraft, possibly the same for the F-35B. The USMC will not have 48 CH-53Ks much before 2025. The divestment of any existing aircraft would be of the oldest aircraft in the fleet, so you are looking at 20yo UH-1Y, AH-1Z and MV-22s.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Today, the Navy has 31 amphibious ships, what the Marine Corps considers the bare minimum it needs, but the Pentagon plans to shrink the fleet below that number in fiscal 2024.

A fleet with less than 31 amphibious transportships will make it even more harder for the USMC to operate during natural disasters and sudden emergency mass-evacuations abroad.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
|"The accident occurred when the right engine clutch, which connects the engine to the proprotor, disengaged and rapidly re-engaged, an occurrence called a hard clutch engagement. The strain from the HCE caused a shaft to shear in the tiltrotor's Single Engine and Interconnect Drive System (Single Engine/ICDS), which connects the two engines together such that one engine can power both proprotors. The Single Engine/ICDS failure resulted in a loss of thrust from the right proprotor, which sent the MV-22 into an unrecoverable turning descent, according to the accident report."|
Quite a severe weak point of the MV-22. Maybe one of the reasons Japan doesn't order more MV-22s besides the first 5.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
|"The accident occurred when the right engine clutch, which connects the engine to the proprotor, disengaged and rapidly re-engaged, an occurrence called a hard clutch engagement. The strain from the HCE caused a shaft to shear in the tiltrotor's Single Engine and Interconnect Drive System (Single Engine/ICDS), which connects the two engines together such that one engine can power both proprotors. The Single Engine/ICDS failure resulted in a loss of thrust from the right proprotor, which sent the MV-22 into an unrecoverable turning descent, according to the accident report."|
Quite a severe weak point of the MV-22. Maybe one of the reasons Japan doesn't order more MV-22s besides the first 5.
I wonder how the V-280 addresses the hard clutch issue? Its rotor/engine setup is different as the engine does not rotate.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
Non-paywalled reporting of USMC crash and some ATC audio
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Three marines did not survived, 5 are taken to the hospital. The accident occured while the MV-22 was participating in "Predators Run 2023" which is a joint military exercise involving 2500 personnel from Australia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Timor-Lorosae and the US.

The MV-22 is more advanced and has a higher price tag, but i have the feeling it is not as reliable, safe and combat proven as the CH-47.
 
Last edited:

MARKMILES77

Active Member
The MV-22 is more advanced and has a higher price tag, but i have the feeling it is not as reliable, safe and combat proven as the CH-47.
13 complete hull losses out of around 400 ever built. Most of those resulted in fatalities.
Not to mention many other non hull loss accidents.
That is, 1 in every 30 V-22s built has been involved in a major accident, SO FAR.
That seems ridiculously high to me.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
13 complete hull losses out of around 400 ever built. Most of those resulted in fatalities.
Not to mention many other non hull loss accidents.
That is, 1 in every 30 V-22s built has been involved in a major accident, SO FAR.
That seems ridiculously high to me.
It will be interesting to see if the next generation tilt rotor (V-280) can significantly improve the accident ratio.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
Both articles have been updated with more recent information

Non-paywalled reporting of USMC crash and some ATC audio
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
Announced a few days ago, the USN has contracted for 35 CH-35K aircraft. I believe this is the first contracting of full-rate production (FRP) airframes. Deliveries expected to begin in 2026.
From this order the USMC will receive 27 helicopters. 12 from Lot 7, 15 from Lot 8.
This contract also provides for the Foreign Military Sale (FMS) of 8 aircraft to the Israeli Air Force.


Back in April it was reported the US and Israel executed a joint USN & FMS contract for 169 T408 engines (129 / 40) with General Electric.

I keep waiting for some thread of interest in the USN to replace their aging fleet of MH-53E Sea Dragons with a -53K variant. It does not appear to be coming. The JMSDF has already replaced their versions of the Sea Dragon with AW101 airframes. I really don't think an entirely new orphan aircraft fleet is an option for the USN.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Announced a few days ago, the USN has contracted for 35 CH-35K aircraft. I believe this is the first contracting of full-rate production (FRP) airframes. Deliveries expected to begin in 2026.
From this order the USMC will receive 27 helicopters. 12 from Lot 7, 15 from Lot 8.
This contract also provides for the Foreign Military Sale (FMS) of 8 aircraft to the Israeli Air Force.


Back in April it was reported the US and Israel executed a joint USN & FMS contract for 169 T408 engines (129 / 40) with General Electric.

I keep waiting for some thread of interest in the USN to replace their aging fleet of MH-53E Sea Dragons with a -53K variant. It does not appear to be coming. The JMSDF has already replaced their versions of the Sea Dragon with AW101 airframes. I really don't think an entirely new orphan aircraft fleet is an option for the USN.
Perhaps LM should consider offering the CH-148 Cyclone assuming 53k cost is an issue and the extra lift the 53K offers isn’t required.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
Perhaps LM should consider offering the CH-148 Cyclone assuming 53k cost is an issue and the extra lift the 53K offers isn’t required.
With HMX-1 set to operate the VH-92 as the replacement "Marine 1" I did think that would alleviate the "orphan fleet" status a bit. But, the USN has already determined that the 2-engine MH-60 had insufficient power to utilize the "light weight" mine sled developed as part of the LCS' mine warfare package. I suspect a S-92 variant would have a similar shortcoming.
I suspect in the end the USN is going to rely on USVs for long range countermine operations, and tap the USN CMV-22 and USMC CH-53K fleet for their heavy lift needs.
And don't go thinking about the USN's CMV-22s doing countermine. The MV-22s are significantly inefficient when hovering or slower "blades up" flight
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
13 complete hull losses out of around 400 ever built. Most of those resulted in fatalities.
Not to mention many other non hull loss accidents.
That is, 1 in every 30 V-22s built has been involved in a major accident, SO FAR.
That seems ridiculously high to me.
A lower mishap rate per 100,000 flight hours than the Harrier, Super Hornet, F-35B, or CH-53E Super Stallion is pretty good. Most of the fatalities occurred during testing as well. Don't forget, for most of those an accident will kill one or two, but as the V-22 is a transport, death tolls are likely to be higher.

The V-22 is a fascinating example of PR / image consistently trumping fact. I'd argue that it's actually better than it seems, noting how complex it is compared to most of those platforms.

It's also a platform that I, as an aero eng, know is safe but still ponder getting on
 
Top