Unidentified US MARINES AIRCRAFT

Can someone identify this MARINE AIRCRAFT? Whatever the hell it is, it looks damn good!

http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/v-22.jpg

[USMarine3521]

its a V-22 Osprey

[Vance]

What? I don't see a plane. There's nothing to see, move on....


:shiftyeyes:

[Ratamacue]

Yep, MV-22 Osprey. The two engine nacelles rotate to switch between airplane and helicopter mode. They've been testing it for a long time and no one knows really when the military is going to take them in. There have been alot of accidents and crashes, but no one can decide whether they're a fault of the design or of training. Most of the crashes have occured doing the switch from helicopter-to-airplane.

So they are still testing it for official use?

[USMarine3521]

So they are still testing it for official use?

yes

[venture160]

it should be called the flying tin can of death

[ogukuo72]

it should be called the flying tin can of death

Hmm? O yeah. And the Black Hawk is SOOOOO not a "tin can of death". ;)

[USMarine3521]

it should be called the flying tin can of death

when those Marines HALO out of it, then yes it is the flying tin can of death to the enemy. ;)

when those Marines HALO out of it, then yes it is the flying tin can of death to the enemy. ;)

Just imagine jumping out of that, what a rush, by the way Marine, what MOS are you signing up for? I'm going to sign up for Combat Arms, rifleman to be exact...

[USMarine3521]

when those Marines HALO out of it, then yes it is the flying tin can of death to the enemy. ;)

Just imagine jumping out of that, what a rush, by the way Marine, what MOS are you signing up for? I'm going to sign up for Combat Arms, rifleman to be exact...

i signed up to be a 0311 (rifleman)

[stateofequilibrium]

I think they probably invested so much money, time, effort and lives they'll be damned if they just toss it.

How much money does a Pvt in the USMC make?

[Ratamacue]

Same pay for any E-1 in the military.

[Fioraon]

they get paid with smokings

Same pay for any E-1 in the military.

Which is? :roll:

[USMarine3521]

Same pay for any E-1 in the military.

Which is? :roll:

http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourcesContent/0,13964,31092,00.html

I don't get it... :oops:

[Ratamacue]

A Private (E-1) that has been in the military for 4 months will earn $1150.80 per month, or $13,809.60 per year.

A Private (E-1) that has been in the military for 4 months will earn $1150.80 per month, or $13,809.60 per year.

Oh... not bad :)

Now everyone will no how much money I will make in the future... jeez.... ;)

[Ratamacue]

You planning on staying a Private your whole time in the military? ;)

No way! I want to eventually become an Officer once I work my way through all the Enlisted Ranks...

[AFACadet]

If you want to work though all the enlisted ranks, you're not going to have time to be an officer.

Is it better to go to college and join the Marines as a 2LT?

[AFACadet]

One is not BETTER than the other. It just depends on what you want to do in the military and what kind of person you are and what kind of personality you have.

[Ratamacue]

In order to be an officer in the US military, you must have a college degree. So you have two choices. First is to go to college with Navy ROTC taking the Marine Option, which gives you 4 years to get a degree and train with the Marines/Navy. The other option is to enlist first, then try to get into Navy ROTC later on while already enlisted, and spend 4 years with a ROTC unit to get your degree.

My 20-year old brother is doing Navy ROTC at the moment, and alot of the Marine Option guys are prior enlisted, now going to college to become officers.

[AFACadet]

You forgot about the Naval Academy as well...

[Ratamacue]

The Naval Academy breeds ****ty officers. USNA grads almost always consider themselves superior to everyone else and don't have respect for senior enlisted simply because their exposure is to officers and midshipmen, never enlisted men. My brother always makes fun of the NA guys that get all up in the face of Master Chiefs that don't salute them, then get torn a new asshole.

My brother always makes fun of the NA guys that get all up in the face of Master Chiefs that don't salute them, then get torn a new asshole.

Like in Men of Honor... :P

Have you seen it? Great movie... sorry getting off topic...

[FuturePara]

Since when did OCS include college, am I missing something here? My Grandfather served with the Navy during Korean-Vietnam, and was what they called a "Mustang". He came up through the enlisted ranks, left a LtCommander. He didn't have a day of college. I know things have changed, but I don't believe a college education is requiared. It's just the most commmon.
Are you really in any position to judge who breeds quality officers and who doesn't? Good and bad come from all aspects of life...

[AFACadet]

The Naval Academy breeds ****ty officers. USNA grads almost always consider themselves superior to everyone else and don't have respect for senior enlisted simply because their exposure is to officers and midshipmen, never enlisted men. My brother always makes fun of the NA guys that get all up in the face of Master Chiefs that don't salute them, then get torn a new asshole.

Well, I'm sorry you have such a limited view of the real world.



It's ALWAYS good to base an institution on a FEW poor examples.

Remember that kids,:

"stereotyping is the way to go!!!!"

[molsen]

[/quote]The Naval Academy breeds ****ty officers. USNA grads almost always consider themselves superior to everyone else and don't have respect for senior enlisted simply because their exposure is to officers and midshipmen, never enlisted men. My brother always makes fun of the NA guys that get all up in the face of Master Chiefs that don't salute them, then get torn a new asshole.[quote]


Since you're in Colorado like me, would you like to say that to my face? I AM a Marine, not some HS punk-wannabe, and I've known several outstanding Marines, some prior-enlisted, some new, officers who came from Annapolis. If you don't know what you're talking about, then shut the hell up!! If you have a problem with me, please feel free to contact me. I can back up my statements, can you?

[FallenAngel]

Since you're in Colorado like me, would you like to say that to my face? I AM a Marine, not some HS punk-wannabe, and I've known several outstanding Marines, some prior-enlisted, some new, officers who came from Annapolis. If you don't know what you're talking about, then shut the hell up!! If you have a problem with me, please feel free to contact me. I can back up my statements, can you?

The man is expressing an opion. He's entitled to it. Don't get all pissed off that he probably encountered some ****ty officers from the Naval Academy that gave him such a negative view of the place. The proper (read:mature) way to have replied would have been to say "Hey, I don't really agree with that. I've met some fine officers from the Naval Academy in my day. <give example perhaps>. I'm sorry you were not as fortunate as I to encounter a better graduate from the Naval Academy."

Man....how I wish for the good-ole-days when there were only a dozen active members on this board and they all kept their cool... :roll:

[Haiw]

ye but the problem is that ratamacue doesnt even have any way to support his 'opinion' cus hes still 2 years away from service...so he's talking complete unsupported bs here and flaming officers that he has no right to flame..

[AFACadet]

heh, this is great.


Some people can make some pretty worthless statements based on their view of two or three officers back in the day, and when someone tries to give the whole picture in the same kind of tone as the other poster, THEY are the one dumped on.

:roll:


I've worked with or been under some pretty worthless enlisted members, but that does not make me say all members of the enlisted force are worthless (I've been under or worked with a good amount of outstanding ones as well).

The same goes for the officers. I've worked with or been under some worthless Academy, ROTC, and prior enlisted OTS officers as well, but that does not mean that I should say every Academy, ROTC, and OTS are worthless.

I could go on and on with stories I've personaly seen or heard about people from the enlisted ranks, Academy grads, ROTC, or OTS officers, but I don't want this to start as a mud throwing match. It won't really do all that much good.

It comes down to the individual person (and NOT where they came from). You are going to find worthless people in every branch from every training source at every rank. On the other hand, you can also find outstanding people at every rank, every branch, from every training source.

[tenda]

..........it's tested but this project have a lot of problem........... :(

[Merik]

Since when did OCS include college, am I missing something here? My Grandfather served with the Navy during Korean-Vietnam, and was what they called a "Mustang". He came up through the enlisted ranks, left a LtCommander. He didn't have a day of college. I know things have changed, but I don't believe a college education is requiared. It's just the most commmon.
Are you really in any position to judge who breeds quality officers and who doesn't? Good and bad come from all aspects of life...

Im not saying this is what happened with your grandfather but he may have had a battle-field commission. Just a thought.

[MarineSniper8541]

I spent more than a decade in the Marine Corps. I can honestly say that probably 2 out of 5 Academy bred officers that I had as leaders or had dealings with were just as good as any other officer. The other 3 out of those 5...the majority...were over confident, under trained in regards to reality in dealing with enlisted men, and overly egotistical.

Academy graduates were always the hardest for me to deal with when there was a difference in opinion on how to conduct an operation at the planning level. They rarely wanted to listen to the opinion of the NCO's who had more experience than they did.

Keep in mind that this is usually just new lieutenants. Once we had ahold of them for about 2 years, we were usually able to teach them how things really worked and they were exposed to the real world long enough to observe and learn on their own. You have to realize that an academy cadet spends 4 years in an isolated institution. During all of those 4 years, the cadet sits and "daydreams?" of his future command and formulates his own ideas of how he will lead based solely on what is being hammered into him at the academy. He lives in an atmosphere of strict tradition and protocol and though he receives a good education, he leaves the institution lacking in the practical knowledge he needs in order to be a good field leader. They are taught "this is the way it is done, do not deviate"

New leiutenants from a regular college were more open to new ideas and willing to listen to experience.

New leiutenants that were Mustangs were always the best. They had seen the coin from the other side and knew how to think outside the box and from the enlisted person's view. Their value of the opinion of the NCO was always a driving factor in their decision making.

Give me a handfull of leiutenants where one has to be the leader of the rest and I will put the Mustang in charge every time.

Here is a fact:

During the WWI, WWII era, most senior General officers were former academy graduates. That made sense as there were not as many officers with 4 year educations and those that did have 4 year educations were not always from high quality institutions. Many did not have college educations at all.

Today, less than 5% of senior General officers are academy alumni.

[Royal]

Today, less than 5% of senior General officers are academy alumni.

Interesting if that's true - can you point me to wherever you got those stats?

As a holder of a Corps Commission (Mustang), who's been involved in Officer training it supports a pet theory of mine ;)

[Magua]

When I was at Marine OCS the instructors always reminded us how "nasty" USNA graduates were because they were the only officers not go through OCS. And instead of going to OCS, they went to some 4 week "Leatherneck" indoc program. So you can see why there may be a little bit of animosity from non academy graduates. Also, my buddies at TBS claimed that many academy LTs were always below standard when it came to PT and other little things. Still, I have met many Academy Marines that were as good as (if not better than) their ROTC/OCS/MECEP counterparts. Like MarineSniper said after a couple of years in the fleet there's not much difference

[Seoulstriker]

welcome, magua! :hug:

didn't they stop testing of the Osprey so that they could re-work the software/hardware bridge?

[Ratamacue]

AFA, molsen, sorry to upset you guys, but I'm just passing on my brother's and uncles' experiences on to here. Two of my uncles were enlisted in the Army and had bad experiences with West Point grads, and my brother has told me some funny stories as well. Maybe I shouldn't have said "The Academy breeds ****ty officers," but rather "more ****ty officers come from the Academy than ROTC."

I'll leave it at that since I don't want a huge argument. I'll take back anything I said that offended you. Cool?

[AFACadet]

FuturePara,

Now becoming an officer REQUIRES a college degree of some kind. I don't know when that changed, but its been that way for a while.

MarineSniper8541,

Just wondering, when were you in the Marines? If it was a few years ago, A LOT has changed since then. Your discription of graduates is very accurate for many people. That was a big complaint from the military, so things have been changing over the past decade.

Now, at least here, we hear from everyone, E-5s, O-3s, O-7s, "on your first day, find your first shirt or chief, latch on to him and learn everything you can."

If people don't follow that, its a personal problem, and not a problem with the institution.

My dad was an enlisted Marine. I get his stories too.

You're also right, things even out after the first couple of years. From an enlisted standpoint, I guess that means--as a whole--graduates can relate to them better.

From on officer standpoint--as a whole--it means that non-grads get up to an academy grad level.


But yet again, it really gets down to an individual level.


But I do find it interesting you know exactly what and how they teach things at the Academy.


They are taught "this is the way it is done, do not deviate"

I have NEVER been told this once--EVER.


You also do know that 5-10% of each class of cadets is prior enlisted as well? In my squadron and class year alone 2 out of 20 were prior enlisted (one AF and one Army).


Today, less than 5% of senior General officers are academy alumni.

Just around 50% actually

Magua,

Its interesting how the Marine OCS instructors didn't like that grads went though 4 weeks when OCS is only a few weeks longer. Remember, an Academy lasts 4 years, and each summer is taken up by training programs.

All about a dozen cadets go though Bulldog every year. Those going into the Marines are required to go through that program if they want a chance of going to the Marines.

In addition, the PT requirements at an Academy are well above those of the operational military.

[Durandal]

Somebody brought up the term "mustang" as a way to go from enlisted to officer.

You will also notice that that same person who did so served in two wars/conflicts. This is not all THAT common during conflicts and even rarer during peace time.

Academy
OCS
ROTC (and given their need to duty officers over reserve, this is a MUCH better option than it was when I did it back in '89 whne they were actually asking non-scholarship options to check out with otu reimbursement...times really do change).

Note: If you want Marine ROTC, I know The Ohio State University had a large enough ROTC progran to rate a small Marine specific group. I was Army. We were one of the few schools that had, literally, all four groups: Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines. I am not too sure if it is till that large or not.

[MarineSniper8541]

AFAC Cadet,



Just wondering, when were you in the Marines? If it was a few years ago, A LOT has changed since then.

I got out in 2001 so no, my experience is not antiquated.


You're also right, things even out after the first couple of years. From an enlisted standpoint, I guess that means--as a whole--graduates can relate to them better. From on officer standpoint--as a whole--it means that non-grads get up to an academy grad level.

No, it means that it takes a couple of years to beat the hard-headedness out of Ring Knockers and to get them to accept that they don't know everything and that they are now dealing with people who were there doing the job while they were still popping zits in the bathroom mirror the night of Prom.


But I do find it interesting you know exactly what and how they teach things at the Academy.

Quote:
They are taught "this is the way it is done, do not deviate"

I have NEVER been told this once--EVER."

Yes, I do know how it is at the academies. Are you trying to say that you are not taught doctrine and that it should always be observed? I know for a fact that you are taught that because I have seen it and also been told by more than just a few Ring Knockers.


You also do know that 5-10% of each class of cadets is prior enlisted as well?

Yep, and those guys are the minority of grads that make good officers right out of the chute.


Quote:
Today, less than 5% of senior General officers are academy alumni.

Just around 50% actually

Don't prove your ignorance please. Go to any of the 4 branches main web sites. Read the General Officer biographical information. You will not find very many that are academy alumni.


Its interesting how the Marine OCS instructors didn't like that grads went though 4 weeks when OCS is only a few weeks longer. Remember, an Academy lasts 4 years, and each summer is taken up by training programs.

Only a few weeks longer? Well, yea you are one of those guys who wears baby blue. I don't know about the Air Farce but Marine OCS is 13 weeks long, thats not just a few weeks longer than 4. And the training programs that are taken up each summer are no where near as intense as OCS. We used to get detached to be cadre for some of those training evolutions. Trust me, they are nothing more than a field trip compared to real training.


In addition, the PT requirements at an Academy are well above those of the operational military.

I believe that statement. I believe it coming from you because the Air Farce HAS LITTLE TO NO PT REQUIREMENT. I have seen the PT programs for Annapolis and West Point. They are good. But there is no way that the PT program from an academy, especially the Air Force can compare to that of an operational combat arms unit such as a Marine Infantry unit.
Ever hear of a MACRES Hump?

[AFACadet]

I've already been dragged down to a level I didn't want to go to, so I'm just going to give a couple more points and spend my time better elsewhere.



Just around 50% actually



Don't prove your ignorance please. Go to any of the 4 branches main web sites. Read the General Officer biographical information. You will not find very many that are academy alumni.

I don't have to look around the websites to get my information. They tell us the stats about every year, using hard data (eg, this is the amount of Generals. This is the amount that came from OTS, this is the Amount that came from ROTC and this is the amount that came from USAFA). Every single year, that number is well above 50% when USAFA only makes about 20-30% of AF officers.


I'm not going to say anything else because I realized we are talking at each other and not with each other.

There are obviously differences of opinion. This stems from our differences in experience (both level of experience, and actual experiences in life), the huge differences between the different services, the differences between the academies, and the differences between how the other services see the officer and enlisted gap. I know that the Navy has the largest officer and enlisted gap of all the services. The animosity between each is the greatest. Remember, my dad was enlisted in the Marines and Navy. I've known a number of other enlisted people in the Navy as well, and I stayed at Coronado for a couple of weeks (to be honest, the differences between the officer and civilian facilities surprised me when I was used to the AF way). I've heard all about it.

That plays a huge role feeling plays a huge role in a discussion like this.

Anyway, my whole point for even entering into this was the comment "The Naval Academy produces ****ty officers."

That is one of the most myopic and obtuse comments I have seen in a long time. That a Fallacy called Hasty Generalization and a Nonsequitur.

This thread has gotten way off topic (a large due to me), so I ask that everyone who is so inclined put in their final comments and we can get back to talking about the V-22.

[...]

Actually Marine OCS is 10 or 12 weeks depending on if you are PLC or OCC.

[USMarine3521]

do academy grads have to go to the 21 week "The Basic School" ? (USMC)

[...]

Yes

[Tane Angle]

Be either an officer or an enlistedman, but sooner or later a college education will be pretty necessary. E-5's and higher pretty much need college educations.

As for officers varying depending on where they came from, when I first entered the Army, I was taught that I would be viewed skeptically at first because I was new and an officer, but that that barrier would go away very quickly, if I showed myself to be worthy of respect and acceptance. That's a key thing: some people-in the military and in civilian life-particularly some officers though, are under the impression that a job automatically gets one respect. That's not true; one must earn respect, must prove oneself. Having said that, most enlistedmen will give an officer the benefit of the doubt and be understanding of the officer's inexperience for the officer's first few weeks.

Academy people do sometimes get more of that stigma then ROTC people, but most officers are good at what they do. The stigma is certainly not necessarily deserved.

Also, I agree with what the ‘learn from the old salts part.’ I had some top notch SNCOs, most of whom were fresh from Vietnam. I hadn't been there, and felt somewhat guilty about it, but they understood that I had been too young. They were dang smart folks, and smart enough to realize that I couldn't be a good officer unless they taught me to be one. They solidified with me, and taught me a tremendous amount. I knew some other officers who went in thinking they knew everything on account of their rank. Their SNCOs usually didn't welcome them the same way. Some say promotion boards have a lot of clout, but the SNCO's are the ones who really seem to often. Granted, I still consider myself fortunate to have had the pleasure, the privilege, and the honor of knowing, much less working with such fine people.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[gaboki]

I don't get it... :oops:


ahh now i know why your goin into the marines :P
jking p-)

[Durandal]

Academy people do sometimes get more of that stigma then ROTC people, but most officers are good at what they do. The stigma is certainly not necessarily deserved.

Ironically, this was reversed a decade ago. Academy and Active viewed ROTC folk as the scurge of the earth...no better than National Guard.

Interesting how times change.

I live in a family of officers. I was ROTC (Army 1990), my father was OCS (Navy 1969) right out of college, my uncle was West Point (1955), my grandfather was OSS (Italy & Sicily 1942/43), then three more West Point grads from 1800's.

Only a couple enlisted men and they were in the Revolutionary War.

I am not too sure what the current animosity towards academy grads comes from since hsitorically, some of the greatest leaders are grads. Sure there are a goodly number of horrible officers...or at least poor comnbat leaders that graduate, but the same is true for any branch's method of getting officers. At the same time there are quite a number of exceptional officers that never saw the walls of ANY academy. Joshua Chamberlain sticks out in my mind as probably one of the most exceptional. The academies, West Point in particular, was the brain child of George Washington, though it was not till two presidents later that they were started (like 1805 I think) with a class of 150. By the end of the War of 1812 the number was up to about 250 and began teaching sciences in addition to military theory.

The Marine Corps Sea Stallion is the counter part of the Army's Black Hawk Down correct?

[Tane Angle]

Regarding the helicopters, it sort of is. I'm not sure if it's a perfect 1:1 usage match, though. The Marines also use the Sea Knight (looks like a Marine version of the Chinook) for many roles that the Blackhawk might fill otherwise. Also, some Marine units-the FAST Company in Liberia recently comes to mind-use AFSOC helos, just as the Army does sometimes. Hope this helps.

Durandal, I'm not sure why the skepticism exists for certain groups, and certainly most of it is undeserved when it goes against the whole group. Usually it stems from meeting one or two officers who know that their officers just a little bit too much. We're there for the benefit of the men; not them for our benefit, as I'm sure you well know.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Ratamacue]

There are 3 helicopters the Marines use for transport.

UH-1N Huey - same size/capacity as the Black Hawk, mostly used for SOF units like Recon and the like.
CH-46E Sea Knight - medium assault helicopter. They're pretty damn old (40+ years). They look like Chinooks (tandem rotor) but are much smaller, carrying around 26 troops I believe. This is the most commonly used Marine helo. I'm pretty sure that the Army doesn't have a helo comparable in class to the Sea Knight.
CH-53E Sea Stallion - this is a heavy chopper like the Chinook, except it has one rotor. Holds around 55 troops as far as I know.

[James]

There are 3 helicopters the Marines use for transport.

UH-1N Huey - same size/capacity as the Black Hawk, mostly used for SOF units like Recon and the like.
CH-46E Sea Knight - medium assault helicopter. They're pretty damn old (40+ years). They look like Chinooks (tandem rotor) but are much smaller, carrying around 26 troops I believe. This is the most commonly used Marine helo. I'm pretty sure that the Army doesn't have a helo comparable in class to the Sea Knight.
CH-53E Sea Stallion - this is a heavy chopper like the Chinook, except it has one rotor. Holds around 55 troops as far as I know.

Almost correct - in reality, you wouldn't want more than about 14 passengers in a Sea Knight or about 25 in a Sea Stallion. The old ladies don't always like the strain ;) .

[Ratamacue]

Well, they were designed to hold that many respectively. Wouldn't know much about the strain they can take though.

Well I want to stay in the Marines as long as I can, once I get out I would probably considering going into law enforcement or even SWAT.