Should new adminstration do away with MV-22 and EFV?

[Flash]

Everyone has an opinion..... whenever I read news about DOD budget cuts I wince. From this article, the Osprey and Virginia class recommendations are what really got me going. I don't think the author(s) really understand the missions of either one. Every time DOD spending goes up (yeah I know it has gone up a lot) somebody is always ready to ask why we can't so our jobs with "what we've had for the last 20+ years"......

Many people, my self included, still wonder about the worth of the V-22. For what it does at its total cost, I certainly don't think so.

And what would happen if no one asked these questions? I think some of our priorities and procurement is out of whack, I still don't understand why we are trying to bus the LCS or missile defense toys. We can't have everything we want, and sooner or later, probably much sooner, the services will have to make some hard choices. We just can't afford the spending binge we have been on much longer.

Also the line about not talking to Russia about Missile Defense the writer apparently was on assignment at the North Pole without internet or cell phone during the whole Georgia thing a couple months back.

The MDA system poses little threat to Russia, especially when their ICBM/SLBM force outnumbers the total number of 100-110 interceptors by many times over. Details people........

 

[phrogpilot73]

Many people, my self included, still wonder about the worth of the V-22. For what it does at its total cost, I certainly don't think so.

I've heard the arguments before, and I'm sure we'll hear them in the future - but at this point in the game (when there are 5 or more squadrons in New River) the point is kind of moot. Why? 1. The Marine Corps likes the flexibility a ramp provides for its medium lift assets - so no H-60. 2. Do you really think Sikorsky will just paint an S-92 grey and give it to us cheap? If you do, I've got a bridge to sell you.

So, if they canx the V-22 now - it'll be YEARS before they start replacing the Phrogs out west, and by years I mean that with the current schedule, they'll have the Phrogs replaced with V-22s long before they'll get IOC of an S-92. Yes, its expensive - but I'd be willing to bet that the cost to canx it now and find a new platform to replace the Phrog before the Phrog runs out of service life would be more.

This is clearly excessive, especially when we are engaged in small-scale operations that cannot be won with jets and cruise missiles. Well, they can, at the expense of annihilating the civilian population with the bad guys.

Stick with submarines, because you clearly are talking out of your ass. Last I checked, there are these things called "Precision Guided Munitions" that come off of jets, and that they've been using in small-scale operations for quite some time. So you're not exactly going to annihilate the civilian population - after all, I'm pretty sure we're not doing that now.

 

[Flash]

I've heard the arguments before, and I'm sure we'll hear them in the future - but at this point in the game (when there are 5 or more squadrons in New River) the point is kind of moot. Why? 1. The Marine Corps likes the flexibility a ramp provides for its medium lift assets - so no H-60. 2. Do you really think Sikorsky will just paint an S-92 grey and give it to us cheap? If you do, I've got a bridge to sell you.

So, if they canx the V-22 now - it'll be YEARS before they start replacing the Phrogs out west, and by years I mean that with the current schedule, they'll have the Phrogs replaced with V-22s long before they'll get IOC of an S-92. Yes, its expensive - but I'd be willing to bet that the cost to canx it now and find a new platform to replace the Phrog before the Phrog runs out of service life would be more.

Using the excuse that it is simply too expensive to cancel is really reaching for the bottom of the barrel, I was thinking more of its value in operations and not just the cost. Yes, it is a practical argument but the USMC painted itself into the corner and now only has the V-22 to get it out. The main question I was trying to ask was has it yet proven its worth in operations? Of course the USMC is going to say yes (without giving any details), but has there been a real evaluation of it by someone without a vested interest? It is still new but will it be like another Harrier, hardly ever using its unique capabilites in actual opeartions?

And cancelling it now will probably cost a lot, but that does not mean that it shouldn't be looked into. Buying H-92's or AW101's might be cheaper than buying the rest of the V-22's, even with cancellation costs taken into account. Will it happen? Not likely, for a lot of reasons, but I think it would do some good to shake things up a bit.

And just becasue it may cost too much to cancel doesn't mean we should look at its worth and value for what we paid for it. Simply saying that without looking at what went wrong with the program will lead to the same mistakes being made again and again, that whole history repeating itself thing. The USMC doesn't seem to have learned its lesson, just like the rest of the services, and is now facing similar issues with the EFV. Big DoD lost its patience with the Army a while ago and they have seen a few 'necessary' programs like the Crusader, the Comanche and the ARH cancelled. If you think Phrogs are worn out, OH-58D pilot about their birds. Soon enough the Marines might find themselves on the short end of the stick, old equipment or not.

This is where those hard choices are going to come into play. Some of those 'necessary' things that have had for years are not going to be around in a few years. Keep failing at procurement, like the LCS, V-22 and F-22, and people are going to cut the next thing that comes along, with no replacement in sight. Too bad, you fail. It will happen, we simply don't have the money to waste on all the fouled up procurement we have been enduring for the past 15 years.

 

[eddie]

Why is procurement broken? Why is it worse now, or isn't it?

 

[SkywardET]

Why is procurement broken? Why is it worse now, or isn't it?

I wouldn't know exactly why in great detail, but I would put money on it having to do with everything people from history have warned us about regarding a military-industrial complex. I would also put money on the post-9/11 era with a Republican in the White House. Who would say 'no' to the military's requests in that situation? Now, we have "change" so one of the things that's supposed to "change" is the military's budget.

 

[phrogpilot73]

The main question I was trying to ask was has it yet proven its worth in operations? Of course the USMC is going to say yes (without giving any details), but has there been a real evaluation of it by someone without a vested interest? It is still new but will it be like another Harrier, hardly ever using its unique capabilites in actual opeartions?

Of course the USMC is going to say it's the bees knees, but I haven't seen anything quantitative. I'd like to see comparison of bodies/cargo/ASRs completed on a given night - because my guess is with the speed it's probably doing as well as the Shitters can in OIF. 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...

Buying H-92's or AW101's might be cheaper than buying the rest of the V-22's, even with cancellation costs taken into account. Will it happen? Not likely, for a lot of reasons, but I think it would do some good to shake things up a bit.

I agree it would shake things up, but having an all Sikorsky (or any other manufacturer) is a bad thing. Why? I've seen how ridiculuous the contractors are when they know they've got the government over the barrel. Not saying that one contractor is better than another - but it's just ridiculous.

The USMC doesn't seem to have learned its lesson, just like the rest of the services, and is now facing similar issues with the EFV. Big DoD lost its patience with the Army a while ago and they have seen a few 'necessary' programs like the Crusader, the Comanche and the ARH cancelled.

The problems with all the programs you mentioned is the services inability to control requirements creep. A company bids a contract, then sees a ton of more requirements added. I see it happening with the 53K. 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."

If you think Phrogs are worn out, OH-58D pilot about their birds. Soon enough the Marines might find themselves on the short end of the stick, old equipment or not.

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.

 

[pourts]

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?

Obviously I am a pilot not a tracker, but it seems to me like if we had to cut something on the green side it should be the EFV. V-22 can get them there, and MRAP's or something else can protect and move them better once on the ground.

 

[mmx1]

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.

Absolutely good to go. It's tailored for Iraq, it'd be foolish to base a future vehicle of it.

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.

Actually, the speed over water was required to enable the launching ships to stay further offshore, outside the threat rings of anti-ship missiles. We won't exactly be maneuvering tracks over the open sea. The technological hangup (and consequent balooning of cost) on the EFV is the overwater speed, not over land.

I personally think we're blowing way too much money to retain the ability to storm the beaches, especially after STOM and OMFTS introduced the idea of bypassing the beach and flying right to the objective. I'd rather fly in a good IFV or APC than saddle Marines with driving a boat around on land as they do with the AAV.

 

[Mumbles]

^What T-34 IP wouldn't want a chance to get in a T-6??

 

[exhelodrvr]

I wouldn't know exactly why in great detail, but I would put money on it having to do with everything people from history have warned us about regarding a military-industrial complex. I would also put money on the post-9/11 era with a Republican in the White House. Who would say 'no' to the military's requests in that situation? Now, we have "change" so one of the things that's supposed to "change" is the military's budget.

Very short-term view. These are not "new" programs, so blaming this White House is inaccurate.

The biggest problem with the procurement system is too much political involvement. Whose district/state an "item" is produced in plays as big a role, and often a bigger role, than what the best "item" is for the military.

I think that the turf wars between the services have a significant negative impact, too.