All things MV-22 Osprey

[Autorotate]

No one under the rank of major should ever have to see the unbelievable amount of extra (and unnecessary) planning that went into the Reed/ Hagel/ Obama CoDel visit. What a goat rope...

 

[Pags]

Sound proofing and fire don't mix well. Just ask some club owners in Rhode Island and the band Great White.

Aircraft cabin soundproofing is a little different.

 

[Flash]

I can think of a number of real world things that have happened in the past, that the V-22 could accomplish more efficiently or more safely. A good example would be the NEO from Somalia before we went in. An ACE from a MEU launched it's Shitters, who AR'd at least once on the way there, and brought a spare crew with them so they could swap out. They had to AR on the way back, and by then the ship was in range for a more reasonable movement of pax. The V-22 because of its speed could accomplish the same think without AR'ing, and also without a crew swap. I can think of a bunch more, real world stuff that would require the Shitters to refuel...

Does that make the V-22 necessary though? That is the crux of what I getting at, how does it make such a massive investment necessary? As you already pointed out the 53's were able to accomplish the mission. And I find it interesting that you point out the 53, why not replace them instead of H-46's? There are plenty of niche missions that the V-22 could do very well, CSAR and SpecOps come to mind, but was it necessary and worth it to make it the standard Marine troop carrying aircraft? I think the jury is still out on that, and it will be for a long time.

And what exactly happens when they have a hot LZ without escort? So much for getting there fast.......

PUH-LEASE!!! The minute an OH-58D driver can show me a Phrog that was built in the late seventies through late eighties, than he can complain to me about how "worn out" his aircraft is. The OH-58D was produced from 1966-1989. The Phrog was produced from 1962-1971. "They" tell me that it was produced until 1971, but I've never flown one that was built in the seventies.

And I am sure the KC-135, B-52 and some KC-130 guys are laughing at you right now for having such 'young' aircraft. I was thinking more of aircraft utilization rates and recent op tempo. From what I know the Army is burning up airframe life on the OH-58's and CH-47's like there is no tomorrow nowadays. And like I said before, the Marines made their own bed with the H-46 being in service so long.

It's a mess all around, and it's not just the government, or the contractors to blame. Somebody needs to pull their head out of their ass and say "These are the requirements - build it."

Agree!

 

[Flash]

The 53's were able to accomplish one hit in 16 hours. The Osprey could do the same mission in 4 hours. I guess we should just stick with F-4Us and PBYs. After all, they can do the same job as the jets we've got today - just slower. I don't think the jury is out - 5 squadrons and counting in New River. Deal with it.

Faster doesn't always mean better, and just because the Marines did one mission like that once doesn't make the Osprey worth it. I know there would be a range of things the V-22 could do but my point was that we are going to have to start making hard choices about what is necessary and what is nice to have. That is a large part of the point of the NYT opinion piece. If the same missions can be accomplished by the CH-53/AW101/S-92 for considerably less then why not consider it? Why be so wedded to the V-22? And if it is so great, why isn't anyone else other than AFSOC even cosindering buying it?

And I would argue the jury is still not out, at least on its effectiveness. Jsut because something is mostly bought and paid doesn't mean its worth should not be discussed.

Spoken like a man that's never planned or executed an assault support mission. Trust me, those TTPs have been developed, trained to and proven. And you're talking out of your ass.

And it was meant to be a bit of a joke, hence the wink. But I am curious how a V-22 is going to do some of its missions all alone, outranging and outrunning all the other aircraft off the LHA/LHA.

Actually, the V-22 was SUPPOSED to be online in 1991. So it's not like we planned on having the Phrogs as long as we have. I'd put utilization rates and op tempo of the Marine Corps against the Army any day. Last I checked - most of the aircraft zipping around Western Iraq have "Marines" painted on the side. Not to mention 10K hours are starting to be low-hour airframes...

And the Marines insisted on sticking with it, come hell or high water, that is the bed they made. And we are in a lot more places than western Iraq.

 

[Flash]

1. NEO in Somalia, 1991
2. NEO in Liberia, 2003
3. NEO in Lebanon, 2006

Yup, once. You're right. All of which tapped the crew day of the Shitter crews involved. If it makes the mission safer, why not consider it?

And yet they were still all accomplished well by the CH-53's and other ACE elements. I am not discounting that the V-22 can help, it can in many cases, but is it really worth the cost for that extra little bit? Especially when it costs 3 to 5 times more than contemporary helicopters (from what information I could find)? And in the larg numbers too? Why not the a smaller buy to give some of the capability without as much of the cost?

This actually reminds me a little of the history of the SST and the Concorde. Both could get the job done much faster but at a much greater expense. It was tried for almost 30 years in the Concorde's case but other than bringing some prestige and publicity, they brought little to the bigger picture. While I certainly don't think the V-22 is the white elephant that the Concorde turned out to be, I do think the comparison is valid to a certain degree. A great capability that cost an enormous amount and while used, is it really worth it?

Because no one other than SOC does the mission sets that a MEU does, regularly.

The Brits and French both have the forces and the missions that could easily utilize the V-22. Nationalism certainly plays a role but there are also plenty of SAR forces around the world that could use it too, but I have seen little to no interest. My guess would be the expense and the well-publicized development history.

It's called detached escort.

Which at the longer ranges of the V-22 the ACE would have to rely on non-organic support. So much for self-reliance.

No shit sherlock.

Just checking you knew there was a world outside the Marines.

 

[Flash]

KC-130 dets are organic to the MEU. Sooo, again - detached escort with Harriers is a real capability. Again, speak of what you know - not what you've read on the internet.

I was fully aware that the KC-130 is considered 'organic' but that is more of a paper designation than reality when I asked my earlier questions. But last time I checked they didn't fly off of LHA/LHD's and had to rely on a runway like USAF tankers. Calling it something doesn't make it so. Back to square one.

It has done its job, and done it well for 40+ years. Yet in the first 5 years, they had 44 - that's right FORTY-FOUR class A mishaps. It was seemingly the big expensive piece of shit that the Marine Corps stuck with - and look at it now.

The H-46 wasn't the revolutionary aircraft that the V-22 is, and the risk in today's budgetary enviroment is much greater.

So, I'm willing to give the Osprey the benefit of the doubt because I can see the capability it provides.

In reality, we have little choice.

 

[Flash]

How did you determine this reality?

The one where they needed friendly runways to support the MEU.

What makes them organic? There is no requirement ANYWHERE that organic means that it has to be co-located with you, operate from the same landing environment as you, etc... It means....

That without those friendly runways the KC-130's can't do jack or chit for the MEU. Definitions aside, it is a capability that has a very high probability of not being there when you need it in today's world, the realistic scenarios are endless. And that leaves the V-22 escort back where it started.

Actually, the comparison is a very valid one. The replacement to the H-34, the H-46 offered longer range, faster cruise speeds, more lifting capability, more troop seats, etc... But cost more and tended to break apart at the 410 station. Sound familiar?

Helicopter replacing a helicopter, nowhere near the same thing. And that almost sounds like a sales brochure for an AW101.......

The reason people question the Osprey is because it crashed (less than the 46 did when it was introduced) and the sensationalist media says we don't need it.

As hard as it is to believe I am not taking my cue from the media,I have heard more than a few Marines question the need for it too. Almost all the arguments I have put forth in this thread are the same I have heard from them. That includes experienced Marines of all stripes, it wasn't just bitter jet guys or Phrog guys clinging to the past.

 

[HeyJoe]

I was fully aware that the KC-130 is considered 'organic' but that is more of a paper designation than reality when I asked my earlier questions. But last time I checked they didn't fly off of LHA/LHD's and had to rely on a runway like USAF tankers. Calling it something doesn't make it so. Back to square one.

I beg to differ. Worked with a MEU (SOC) Commander in early 90s right after he turned over command. His MEU (SOC) had conducted simultaneous operations in widely dispersed African locales by using his Organic KC-130 as a persistent airborne command post. The KC-130s were under his operational control and enhanced his ability to conduct operations. It's not a stretch. Not everything has to originate from the ESG. As in case of Camp Rhino in OEF, the MEU (SOC)s are designed to come off the Amphibs and operate ashore so having attached KC-130s make perfect sense. Some augments from ashore were added to make it work effectively.

 

[Birdog8585]

man this is gettin good...just to let you guys know my laptop and I have relocated to my Barcalounger and the popcorn is in the microwave...ok now press play...

 

[Flash]

I beg to differ. Worked with a MEU (SOC) Commander in early 90s right after he turned over command. His MEU (SOC) had conducted simultaneous operations in widely dispersed African locales by using his Organic KC-130 as a persistent airborne command post. The KC-130s were under his operational control and enhanced his ability to conduct operations. It's not a stretch. Not everything has to originate from the ESG. As in case of Camp Rhino in OEF, the MEU (SOC)s are designed to come off the Amphibs and operate ashore so having attached KC-130s make perfect sense. Some augments from ashore were added to make it work effectively.

While the MEU CO retains control over the asset I am thinking mainly of it from a refueling scenario in a NEO scenario as was earlier pointed out. In many locations the MEU will have control of the KC-130's but not be able to utilize them, due to factors outside its control. This could be anything from paperwork snafus, weather to simply there not being a friendly airport. And while the Marines at Camp Rhino had KC-130 support, what if Pakistan had not played and there was not an airfield available? All ACE aircraft could have played, except the KC-130. That could easily happen in countless scenarios. It is a little ironic, but a reality, that the VSTOL-centric Marines still have to rely on CTOL asset like the KC-130.

I don't want to get bogged down in the terminology though. My point was that that one of the strengths of the V-22, its combat radius combined with its speed, can make the MEU reliant on support not resident on the ships of an ESG. And it is that such an scenario like the Mogadishu NEO that is so enthusiastically pointed out by V-22 proponents is also conversely one where KC-130 support is less likely. That would leave the 'detached escort' very detached. It is too easy, too lazy and too hopeful to assume that the KC-130's will be there.

 

[Flash]

So are you saying that there's not going to be a friendly runway within a 1000nm of the objective area or the ship? The range of the KC-130J with 45,000lbs of give is 1000nm. Seems to me that its pretty damn easy to get the Harriers to provide detached escort, especially since the un-refueled range of the Osprey is 200nm. Harriers can go 500+nm if they get a drink right after launching.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. There are plenty of scenarios where that could happen, all over the world.

I actually had three different Marines (a LtCol, a Maj, and a MSgt) tell me matter-of-factly that they didn't want a V-22, because it couldn't land in an LZ because its exhaust was so hot that it set fire to the LZ. "Really?? I'm headed out to the LZ right now to observe, want to come with me and see that you're wrong?"

I have heard much more reasoned arguments, from Marines and others.

I'm not saying its the most economical, but I wonder if it wasn't scrutinized so much, if engineers were allowed to be engineers without worrying about contract law, and if government contractors realized that taking a hit in your award fee is SUPPOSED to happen if you don't meet the schedule, than it wouldn't be so expensive...

You are probably right, but the fact is that the V-22 is still very expensive.

 

[mmx1]

Flash, understand your point about having to make tough choices. Gonna make a GROSS generalization here and say that the V-22 and the EFV are similar in terms of the new advantages they bring to the table: that "over the horizon" business. Besides speed in the water, how much better really is the EFV than an AAV?

Better armor, better groundspeed, better armament in a stabilized turret that allows firing on the move. It's a modern IFV, albeit with a ridiculous constraint of a humongous engine block in the center of the cabin due to buoyancy constraints that makes loading/unloading a pain in the ass.

The Marine Corps needs a much better IFV than the AAV (the MRAP is not an IFV), and as opined by Maj Kevin Norton in the Gazette in 2006, needs to catch up and develop a real mechanized doctrine. Whether we need this troop carrier to do 40 knots over water (esp when a LCAC already can) is questionable. We're paying a ton for an capability that's useless as soon as we hit the beach, and is only a liability afterwards in terms of compromising the IFV aspects of its design.

Actually, the comparison is a very valid one. The replacement to the H-34, the H-46 offered longer range, faster cruise speeds, more lifting capability, more troop seats, etc... But cost more and tended to break apart at the 410 station. Sound familiar?

Not only that, but helicopters were in their infancy and the associated risks in development much greater than they are now. Was a jump from a radial-powered helicopter to a turbine-powered one (in the 1950's, no less) not revolutionary as well?

 

[usmarinemike]

Better armor, better groundspeed, better armament in a stabilized turret that allows firing on the move. It's a modern IFV, albeit with a ridiculous constraint of a humongous engine block in the center of the cabin due to buoyancy constraints that makes loading/unloading a pain in the ass.

The Marine Corps needs a much better IFV than the AAV (the MRAP is not an IFV), whether we need it to do 40 knots (esp when a LCAC already can) is questionable.

1. After what the Commandant's been saying about our lift capability and the need to stay expeditionary, there's a good shot that most of our MRAPs will go away, or at least be stuffed in the back corner of the motorpool when we're not in a protracted 4th generation fight like Iraq.

2. The high speed is a capability that's apparently needed to stay inside the infamous OODA loop of the enemy. It's just a principle of maneuver warfare. I don't know if 40 knots is needed, but anything has to be better than the 8 knots that the AAV makes, and the LCAC cannot be taken onto a contested beach. It can only operate in a secure environment.

Not only that, but helicopters were in their infancy and the associated risks in development much greater than they are now. Was a jump from a radial-powered helicopter to a turbine-powered one not revolutionary in some respect?

I don't have a dog in the helo/osprey/cash discussion that's going on, but I'll cite the argument that innovations like the Osprey are what keeps our country relevent. Soon enough it will be used in commercial applications and some entrepreneur who fills a need with the technology that the osprey has been expensively perfecting is going to be a very rich person.

On the other side of the token, the Marine Corps survived the post-war cuts and reorganizations by proving that it was delivering a similar or better fighting man than anybody else for a cheaper price per individual. The Corps is getting away from that, and that could cause problems down the road. However, the answer is not to stop dreaming and innovating, it is to bend the contractors and the elephonkeyed up procurement system to our will. This cannot be lost on the people in charge of the process. It's just that bureaucracy is a big ship to try to steer.

 

[Flash]

You speak as if you've never done anything at all. Djibouti - Somalia: <700nm. Have you ever done a contingency operation? That's one of the first things you work on is host nation support. I would argue that for every scenario you can devise where it would fail, that another scenario would exist where it would succeed. I've done it. In reality. Even without host nation support, you can still have Harriers on the objective area. Short take off (aka the ship) + lessened ordnance load = 300+nm range, compared to 200nm range of Osprey. That gives them loiter time. Stop arguing that it can't be done with organic assets.

Not everything can be anticipated and not everything can be planned for. And if we come out one for one on the scenarios that means you have a 50% average, not so good. I have participated in planning for real-world contingencies, shocking I know for a Navy guy, and we got it done. But it took a little bit of luck in addition to all the hard work to pull it off. You can't always plan for every contingency and you can't always depend on that bit of luck sometimes necessary. Sometimes a host-nation just won't host you, or a typhoon gets in the way. I don't care how many WTI's and others you have planning, you can't turn around a typhoon or reason with a syphilic dictator.

And yes Virginia, there are some things in life that can't be done. Even by the Phrog, the V-22 and everything else the USMC has.

Glad to hear that. Out of curiosity, who are these Marines?

Joe, Gary and Nate are several that come to mind. Do you want their MOS's and home numbers too?

The cost per copy NOW is based on still trying to pay for the salaries of everyone then. How much would it have cost if.....

Depends on how you count the numbers. The per-unit cost is still very high, and that does not include the programs costs incurred on the front end.

 

[bunk22]

Flash, you sound like someone college kid trying to make his point that he is correct over all others because he knows more than everyone. DC tour giving you insight into matters that make you go hmmm? I have no dog in this fight, doesn't concern me. However, would it not make more sense to look at up and coming programs? It seems to me that since the V-22 program has run the majority of its course...meaning from concept to fleet acquisition, concentrating on programs that are young in design would be more appropriately considered for termination. You're going to find yea and nay's for every program. What makes one or the other correct? Gonna have to demonstrate with facts is my guess.