Originally Posted by West Coast
I also must take umbrage with this. You're either driving the bus or you're a passenger. With comparatively small participation from other services, the needs of the primary user dictate. That said, at least to my rudimentary understanding from a few AD contacts is that the USMC has given ground.
Did you read my follow-up to GreenKnight121? Perhaps I phrased it poorly in the latter response (the one you & GreenKnight121 quoted & replied to).
[
Opinion = ON] Regardless, and this in no way is a slam agasint USMC at all, letting the Marines run an aircraft acquisition program is akin to letting USAF run an amphibious ship acquisition program. It simply isn't their specialty. Doesn't mean they can't do it, simply means it's highly likely there will be problems. [
Opinion = OFF]
Well, there are and have been problems & they're so well documented that the GAO has looked at transferring lead service duties to the USAF despite the disparity in delivered units to each. In the end, they left it to the USMC to sort out. [
Opinion = ON] No doubt due to politics.[
Opinion = OFF] The USMC carries a lot of clout (and rightfully so) on the hill.
As for the USMC "giving ground" - I'm sure that's how it could be characterized by folks wishing to incite inter-service rivalries, but not how anyone with a bit of understanding of the program would look at it. The intended implication of that volatile statement is that, 'USAF has demanded modifications to the plane & the USMC has acquiesed.' In reality what has happened is the USAF has said, "We want our SOF-specific software to do X, Y, & Z in addition to the baseline." and the USMC has said, "Wow, that's a great idea, let's just make that part of the baseline." This isn't limited to software either. For example, even the chin-mounted gun was never originally required/desired by USMC. Once AFSOC said we
had to have one, USMC said, 'you know, that's not a bad idea at all - maybe we should include it in the baseline.' And when that particular poblem gets solved, it will be retro-fitted & added as part of the baseline config.
To date, the overwhelming majority of USAF modifications/upgrades to CV-22 have been retro-fitted to V/MV-22 baseline by USMC as lead service, not because of inter-service demands, but because the mods make sense. This is why many believe DoD would be better off if USAF was lead service because many of the mods that were integrated into baseline after USAF "demands" fell into the "Gee, why didn't I think of that?" category.
Again, much of this falls into the designed DT&E/OT&E function of identifying discrepancies & their corrective actions - where USAF experience (good & bad) pays dividends.