AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4227 times:
Are some finally coming around to the realization that a mixed buy of say CH-71's and MV-22's is a better investment of taxpayer monies than throwing all your eggs in one tilt-rotor basket? Sure would help ease the pain for LM and the Owego plant with the cancellation of the VH-71.
Quote: But Gates let it be known recently he also plans to challenge the Marines to better justify some of their costly future weapons buying plans.
A number of defense analysts and insiders, including some former think tank officials who have received appointments in the new administration, have written studies suggesting the Marines need a mix of transport helicopters and V-22s. Modern helicopters could be bought for $20 million or less, compared to the roughly $80 million initial price tag of the V-22.
SASD209 From Denmark, joined Oct 2007, 263 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4199 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter): Are some finally coming around to the realization that a mixed buy of say CH-71's and MV-22's is a better investment of taxpayer monies than throwing all your eggs in one tilt-rotor basket?
The article made no mention at all of any "CH-71"....is that your idea or is there a source on that someplace to match the really big picture you also posted?
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 2, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4197 times:
Quoting SASD209 (Reply 1):
The article made no mention at all of any "CH-71"....is that your idea or is there a source on that someplace to match the really big picture you also posted?
Well what other traditional helos would they be talking about? UH-1Y's are too small and the CH-53K's will be too large, the Osprey is still medium lift in the Air Wing and since the Navy/Marines are already familiar with the H-71 via the HMX endeavors, wouldn't that be the logical choice to supplement the Marine medium helo requirement?
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3613 posts, RR: 30 Reply 3, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4199 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter): Are some finally coming around to the realization that a mixed buy of say CH-71's and MV-22's is a better investment of taxpayer monies than throwing all your eggs in one tilt-rotor basket?
Why is a mixed buy better than a single-type buy? Isn't the MV-22 a better platform all the way around than a rotary wing aircraft for the Marines' combat ops? With regards to cost, even the quote you provide says, "...$80 million initial price tag of the V-22." That hefty price tag is an initial investment. The unit cost will come down with additional purchases.
I'm not one of those who believes in buying something just because it is ultra-modern and the best available; however, the V-22 is just far and away beyond anything a helicopter could ever be or do. I think it is the one military program that historians will look back upon it as a true milestone in combat arms.
SASD209 From Denmark, joined Oct 2007, 263 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4192 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 2): Well what other traditional helos would they be talking about? UH-1Y's are too small and the CH-53K's will be too large, the Osprey is still medium lift in the Air Wing and since the Navy/Marines are already familiar with the H-71 via the HMX endeavors, wouldn't that be the logical choice to supplement the Marine medium helo requirement?
Oh, how about the AW139, or the S-92, or even the H-60, among others that I'm surely forgetting? If you have a choice, that's fine, but your original post is misleading along with the uncredited picture below the newspaper link.
StudeDave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 270 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4174 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 3): I'm not one of those who believes in buying something just because it is ultra-modern and the best available; however, the V-22 is just far and away beyond anything a helicopter could ever be or do. I think it is the one military program that historians will look back upon it as a true milestone in combat arms.
For as long as the V-22 has taken to finally get to a point where it's actually hauling Marines around, I'd bet it's already in the history books!!! It'll be in there for being one of the longest to develop, most money spent before it flew, and longet time to reach actual deployment...
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1895 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4128 times:
Quoting StudeDave (Reply 5): For as long as the V-22 has taken to finally get to a point where it's actually hauling Marines around, I'd bet it's already in the history books!!! It'll be in there for being one of the longest to develop, most money spent before it flew, and longet time to reach actual deployment...
Ok, compare that to the development of the conventional helicopter from toy to tool.
New ways of doing things usualy takes a while to refine and polish into a usable form.
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1579 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4071 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 6): New ways of doing things usualy takes a while to refine and polish into a usable form.
True enough. As the technology advances the challenges relative to applying it seem to grow ever larger. But then, nothing worth having comes cheap, monetarily or timewise.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3920 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 3): Isn't the MV-22 a better platform all the way around than a rotary wing aircraft for the Marines' combat ops?
I would not say all the way around. It is better at a lot of things than the forty year old helicopter it is replacing, but I am not sure how much of an achievement that is.
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3613 posts, RR: 30 Reply 11, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3896 times:
Quoting StudeDave (Reply 8): Convince me the V-22 is a good bird~ AND that we're gettin' our money's worth...
I don't think anyone would have a problem convincing you of the first part of your comment; however, only time will tell if the second part will ever come to fruition. And it never may.
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 10): I would not say all the way around. It is better at a lot of things than the forty year old helicopter it is replacing, but I am not sure how much of an achievement that is.
For combat ops, I don't think a helo can touch the V-22. Given a choice, I don't think there's a commander around that would opt to mount out on a helo if they had the option to mount on a V-22.
But I'm not advocating that the V-22 should replace all rotary wing aircraft. There are plenty of utility operations that a helo could perform just as well, and for a lot less cost.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 12, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3876 times:
Quoting StudeDave (Reply 8): Convince me the V-22 is a good bird~ AND that we're gettin' our money's worth...
It's a great platform when it works, but it's expensive and try as it may it will never justify the disproportionate amount of time and money spent to develop the aircraft.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 9): Maybe an opporunity for Sikorsky..
An opportunity to bid a lose, sure - as seen in CSAR-X the US101 derived H-71 would have little trouble beating out any other rotary-winged platform available on the market for a supplemental medium Marine lift.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 11): But I'm not advocating that the V-22 should replace all rotary wing aircraft. There are plenty of utility operations that a helo could perform just as well, and for a lot less cost.
That's how I always thought the V-22 should be wielded, as a supplement to a more traditional modern rotary-winged platform that can still do things the Osprey cannot, and do so for less initial as well as operating costs.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 3): Why is a mixed buy better than a single-type buy?
But you don't need V-22's all the time, save the big guns for when you really need them.
Quoting SASD209 (Reply 4): Oh, how about the AW139, or the S-92, or even the H-60, among others that I'm surely forgetting? If you have a choice, that's fine, but your original post is misleading along with the uncredited picture below the newspaper link.
Oh there might even be an actual RFP but if I were a betting man, I wouldn't put any chips on anything other than the H-71.
The H-71 is ideal for USMC medium lift and the Marines have already got their claws and teeth into it, it'd be all but improbable for they to buy an all new platform that wasn't the H-71.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3835 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 11): For combat ops, I don't think a helo can touch the V-22. Given a choice, I don't think there's a commander around that would opt to mount out on a helo if they had the option to mount on a V-22.
I suppose it depends on what your mission is. The only advantage the Osprey gives you is speed over long distances. The short distance from the IP, to landing, disembark, takeoff, and clear of the LZ, the difference in time would be negligible for a V-22, H-46, or H-60. Since that is the most important and dangerous time in helo combat ops, I would think that most commanders would prefer an aircraft that has a suitable defensive weapon.
Long range, over the horizon, time critical, then yes the Osprey is your best bet.
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3613 posts, RR: 30 Reply 14, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3811 times:
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 13): The only advantage the Osprey gives you is speed over long distances.
I believe it also offers advantages over a hot LZ in the form of faster insertions and extractions. It can fly in from a higher altitude, faster, and also accelerate far faster out of an LZ than a conventional rotary wing carrying the same payload. Its speed, even over short distances, is not something that can be easily discounted. A helo's slower speed, coupled with the relatively lower altitude, is also its weak spot over a battlefield - flying low and slow is never a good thing when you're being shot at. There's also the added advantage of the V-22 being self-deployable over long distances, which frees up valuable cargo-lift capabilities during a deployment.
Highlander0 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 129 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3790 times:
Good luck to the H-71 - based on a fantastic and capable platform.
I think it'd be a good platform for AFG, where the dust (as described to me) is like talcum powder. This is where the MV-22 is going to be operating. Type "MV-22 Iraq" into Google's image search; get a few pages in and look at the pictures!
It looks (as the photo loaded in front of myself and a pilot) horrific in sand conditions! The small propellers/rotors and a powerful exhaust pointing downwards will whip up a storm, surely?
On another note- when the Merlin gets to AFG, it'll be interesting to hear reports on how well BERP IV works in disappating/reducing brownout conditions.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 4811 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3700 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12): That's how I always thought the V-22 should be wielded, as a supplement to a more traditional modern rotary-winged platform that can still do things the Osprey cannot, and do so for less initial as well as operating costs.
Of course. But, one problem is they "need" many V-22 to offset the cost of research and development for that product.
But, it makes no sense to deprive ourselves of enough aircraft in the misguided notion that only the V-22 is good enough. The other products are plenty good enough to be very useful (I imagine), and we do know that they're cheap and reliable.
Military finance is so interesting because in a way, it's amazing our military is as good as it is, given that it's financially managed very poorly, or not at all, IMO.
SASD209 From Denmark, joined Oct 2007, 263 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (9 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 3666 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12): The H-71 is ideal for USMC medium lift and the Marines have already got their claws and teeth into it, it'd be all but improbable for they to buy an all new platform that wasn't the H-71.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the post that said the Marines were considering a RFP for a new medium-lift helicopter in this thread.....Other than your suppositions, personal observations and opinions, I see no substance to any of your posts, but only "defense analysts and insiders" who are unnamed and vague. I must be missing the point here, we're discussing an idea that does not officially exist...
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 18, posted (9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3336 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 16): Of course. But, one problem is they "need" many V-22 to offset the cost of research and development for that product.
Yeah, and we need more B-2 and F-22's as well for the same reason, but that just isn't happening anymore.
Quoting SASD209 (Reply 17): Other than your suppositions, personal observations and opinions, I see no substance to any of your posts, but only "defense analysts and insiders" who are unnamed and vague. I must be missing the point here, we're discussing an idea that does not officially exist
LTG Trautman specifically said that if the QDR suggests that the Marines buy less tilt-rotor and more rotary-winged medium lift aircraft, he and the Marine Air Wing are open and willing to study the issue.
Quote: The Pentagon is just beginning its Quadrennial Defense Review, a long-range study for determining future defense needs and strategies. Analysts have suggested this process will give Gates and like-minded Pentagon officials an opportunity to further reshape future plans for buying aircraft, ships and other weapons systems.
Trautman said the Marines “are very open-minded” and willing “to study that issue in the QDR if that subject comes up.”
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3295 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 18): LTG Trautman specifically said that if the QDR suggests that the Marines buy less tilt-rotor and more rotary-winged medium lift aircraft, he and the Marine Air Wing are open and willing to study the issue.
Flew with him several times when he was the CO of MAG 36 in Okinawa. Will be nice if they follow through and actually review whether a mix with helo's is a better option. I would imagine that the first deployments to Iraq have opened some eyes on true capabilities of the aircraft, and what gaps are being left open.
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3613 posts, RR: 30 Reply 20, posted (9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3238 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 18): LTG Trautman specifically said that if the QDR suggests that the Marines buy less tilt-rotor and more rotary-winged medium lift aircraft, he and the Marine Air Wing are open and willing to study the issue.
IMO, that's just a political statement intended to appease his bosses. After all, he can't really say, "F*** no, we want only V-22s!"
Curt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3208 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 2): Navy/Marines are already familiar with the H-71
They are familiar alright...familiar with the utter and complete failure the H-71 program has been for them.
That said...it could be a great trash hauler but aside from making your richer Ryan...WHY would the USMC want a smaller, less powerful version of the H-53E/K when it already has them?
LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3956 posts, RR: 26 Reply 22, posted (9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3178 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter): Are some finally coming around to the realization that a mixed buy of say CH-71's and MV-22's is a better investment of taxpayer monies than throwing all your eggs in one tilt-rotor basket? Sure would help ease the pain for LM and the Owego plant with the cancellation of the VH-71.
I think your projecting your own opinions onto the article. No where in it is there any mention of the USMC buying CH-71's. When you think about it why would they. The Marines are in the process of bringing the V-22 along with the AH-1Z and UH-1Y on line. Add to that the CH-53K I would question the Marines willingness to bring a fifth aircraft type to the mix.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 18): LTG Trautman specifically said that if the QDR suggests that the Marines buy less tilt-rotor and more rotary-winged medium lift aircraft, he and the Marine Air Wing are open and willing to study the issue.
There is no mention in the article about the USMC possibly buying more rotary-winged medium lift aircraft. In fact the word medium is not even in the article.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 23, posted (9 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3107 times:
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 19): I would imagine that the first deployments to Iraq have opened some eyes on true capabilities of the aircraft, and what gaps are being left open.
The aircraft costs a lot more to operate than what has always been envisioned; the engines for example are not lasting as long as they had planned.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 20): IMO, that's just a political statement intended to appease his bosses. After all, he can't really say, "F*** no, we want only V-22s!" Wink
I agree, but again, if Obama's minions say find me a less expensive alternative because the V-22's are more expensive to purchase and operate, the Marines are going to have to do the due diligence.
Quoting Curt22 (Reply 21): WHY would the USMC want a smaller, less powerful version of the H-53E/K when it already has them?
Because their are ops and situations where a heavy lift, and in the CH-53K's case, a heavy-plus lift helo can't perform and or operate.
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 22): The Marines are in the process of bringing the V-22 along with the AH-1Z and UH-1Y on line. Add to that the CH-53K I would question the Marines willingness to bring a fifth aircraft type to the mix.
But the 5th aircraft type in this case can be argued is the V-22; a traditional medium-lift rotary-winged platform such as the H-71 would simply be replacing the H-46 and the V-22 would be like the F-22 in the USAF, procured in small numbers and used for it's speed attributes when necessary.
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 22): There is no mention in the article about the USMC possibly buying more rotary-winged medium lift aircraft.
The article implies such...
Quote:
But Gates let it be known recently he also plans to challenge the Marines to better justify some of their costly future weapons buying plans.
A number of defense analysts and insiders, including some former think tank officials who have received appointments in the new administration, have written studies suggesting the Marines need a mix of transport helicopters and V-22s. Modern helicopters could be bought for $20 million or less, compared to the roughly $80 million initial price tag of the V-22.
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 19): Flew with him several times when he was the CO of MAG 36 in Okinawa.
And so as a former Phrog driver I'm sure he understands that while the V-22 has some awesome qualities it may not be entirely prudent to invest the bulk of the Marine Air Wing in tilt-rotor technology, at least not in this current generation of aircraft when the Corps is otherwise simultaneously pursuing other rotary-winged platforms in the H-1 upgrades and CH-53K. The tilt-rotor concept is a lot more efficient when the entire Air Wing is operating tilt-rotors and maybe the Corps will get there someday in our lifetime, just not anywhere in the next twenty-five plus years or so.
Wassupsf From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 19 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3043 times:
All right I want my two cents thrown in. I am not a former Marine, but I am a former soldier and helicopter guy. I have worked on very modern ( G450-550 ) aircraft and currently I am back in Iraq working on Chinooks again. I have been on, looked all over, and talked to Osprey guys. It has nothing on a dual main rotor helicopter other than pure speed. The aircraft has almost no cargo capacity other than troops, it is all composite ( which is nice in the civilian world but in Iraq or Afghanistan getting repair materials is not as easy.), and right now is being backed up by conventional helicopters. It was a neat idea. But, it cost to much and took to long and to many lives to get it going. The Air Force has chosen the newest HH-47 to be its next payload search and rescue helicopter. It can lift more, its fast, and its proven.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 1805 posts, RR: 2 Reply 25, posted (9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3036 times:
The US was willing to eat the 7 billion it put into the comanche...and that was one nifty chopper, as far as I could tell. I doubt the V-22 is completely safe from the axe.
With Chinooks, blackhawks, apaches, cobras and whatever other helos are in action, is the V-22 even necessary? Except for speed, what other advantages does it have?
Actually he was a Huey pilot by trade, but as MAG CO you get to fly everything in your command. Funny story. 262 was sending some Phroggys to the Philippines for an exercise. A phrog can make it there by itself with an internal fuel tank, and meeting a C-130 at this tiny island to refuel. Well one of the phrogs has a maintenance issue and has to turn back. Trautman was flying copilot on the 130 and has them fly a loose form with the phrog on the way back to Oki. Imagine that, C-130 having to circle over the phrog all the way back.
Now, a V-22 should be able to make that trip either non-stop or with an in air refuel. Advantage them, and it is one of the advantages I think that aircraft has. Long distance over the horizon operations. And, H-53s already do that trip with an in air refuel, so now the V-22s only advantage is speed.
Wassupsf From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 19 posts, RR: 0 Reply 29, posted (9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3108 times:
I talked to a couple of sheetmetal Marines today and they told me that the one true advantage of the Osprey is that it won't corrode like the heli's will. That is what makes it so wonderful supposedly. I still don't think that it has been a wise choice and I believe that in the future they will return back to helicopters.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 30, posted (9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3082 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 28): That's still a huge advantage. Speed has always been a rotary wing's Achilles heel. And speed has usually been the most effective tool in battle.
I would consider lift the achilles heel of helo's. In Iraq in the heat of the summer it was a weight issue. In Afghanistan at the high altitudes it is a weight issue. On the ship going from ground effect to out of ground effect was a weight issue. How fast a helo was, was rarely a factor. Hueys and Cobras, yes speed is an issue. We typically had to slow down so they could keep up.
LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3956 posts, RR: 26 Reply 31, posted (9 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3020 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 23): But the 5th aircraft type in this case can be argued is the V-22; a traditional medium-lift rotary-winged platform such as the H-71 would simply be replacing the H-46 and the V-22 would be like the F-22 in the USAF, procured in small numbers and used for it's speed attributes when necessary.
That's a hard argument to make since the H-71 is not in the inventory and the V-22 is. And when would the V-22 be "necessary"? Right now it's flying missions for the USMC in units that used to have the CH-46. Buying them in smaller numbers would just raise the unit cost.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 32, posted (9 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3005 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 28): That's still a huge advantage. Speed has always been a rotary wing's Achilles heel. And speed has usually been the most effective tool in battle.
The V-22 is the epitome of the Marine slogan "hurry up and wait" - the V-22 can out-run it's rotary-winged brethren, but what good is that unless they are flying by themselves?
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 31):
Like i said before I think you are projecting your pesonel views onto the article.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 1805 posts, RR: 2 Reply 33, posted (9 months 1 day ago) and read 2971 times:
How does the Chinook compare to the V-22? I saw a report that currently, most of the heavy lifting in high and hot Afghanistan is being done by the Chinook. It seems it's the only helo over there that can handle a decent load at high density altitudes.
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3613 posts, RR: 30 Reply 34, posted (9 months 16 hours ago) and read 2936 times:
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 30): I would consider lift the achilles heel of helo's. In Iraq in the heat of the summer it was a weight issue. In Afghanistan at the high altitudes it is a weight issue. On the ship going from ground effect to out of ground effect was a weight issue. How fast a helo was, was rarely a factor. Hueys and Cobras, yes speed is an issue. We typically had to slow down so they could keep up.
There are always environmental operational issues with every aircraft. And I'm certainly not saying the V-22 is a panacea for combat ops. But if we're strictly talking about flying into or out of a battle area its relative speed and range - range also equals loiter time - will give it a decisive edge over a rotary wing. The underlying issue in this thread has been if the price is worth that advantage or if there should be a mix in the Marines' arsenal that would prove just as effective. I don't know the answer to that. I was just commenting that if I had to mount out to a FEBA I would take all the speed and range I could get my hands on.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 32): The V-22 is the epitome of the Marine slogan "hurry up and wait" - the V-22 can out-run it's rotary-winged brethren, but what good is that unless they are flying by themselves?
Simple. You just coordinate other elements of the attack as needed. There are plenty of examples of military hardware that aren't matched with regards to speed or range, yet they are all deployed such that they bear down on a target in a coordinated fashion.
TexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 228 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (9 months 13 hours ago) and read 2924 times:
Geeze, airyan, given that mentality, none of our military hardware today would need to have been purchased, unless it had a top speed equivalent to a horse pulling a wagon.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10190 posts, RR: 52 Reply 37, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2698 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 36): What they need to kill is that lousy UH1Y and just order CH-60's.
The Hawk entered service 30 yrs ago and been produced in large numbers. Many UH-60M's are also be produced to replace older Hawks. Why was it not selected in recent US competitions? How does it compare to NH-90 / AgustaWestland AW101 ? Space, range, 2 engines, price, politics ?
The Knighthawk is a much more capable aircraft, and the Navy CH is very common with the US Army UH-60.
A larger CH-60 buy with the CH-53 and V-22 augmenting would be an awsome mix.
What advantage would the Marines get by killing the UH-1Y and ordering MH-60's? That would mean a whole lot of money flushed down the tubes. It would also mean USMC HMLA units deploying with helicopters with no commonality. The UH-1Y and AH-1Z have arounf 85% parts commonality. The MH-60 has little in common with the AH-1Z. So there would be little advantage for a Marine unit deployed on an LHD since USN SH-60 or MH-60 units don't deploy on them. Nor would it be an advantage for a unit deployed in the field.
StudeDave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 270 posts, RR: 0 Reply 39, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2618 times:
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 38): So there would be little advantage for a Marine unit deployed on an LHD since USN SH-60 or MH-60 units don't deploy on them. Nor would it be an advantage for a unit deployed in the field.
Uhhhh- you might want to inform my many many friends who have indeed deployed on those boats that it never happened, and they were never there. I think they might disagree with you...
Just as I do as for the in field advantage. There are alot of H-60s in the World today. While they may be painted a different color-- they share alot of common parts. When you need something-- you'd be surprised where it might come from. On my last deployment we based a few of our birds on the beach in Iraq. We were able to get parts from the ARMY much faster then we could from our own ship. On one of my earlier deployments- we 'loaned' some stuff to our buddies from 'Down Under' when they couldn't get what they needed fast enough.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 40, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2606 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 34): Simple. You just coordinate other elements of the attack as needed. There are plenty of examples of military hardware that aren't matched with regards to speed or range, yet they are all deployed such that they bear down on a target in a coordinated fashion.
But if that was all there was to it the extra speed of the V-22 wouldn't really matter as you could just coordinate to compensate for it.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 34): There are always environmental operational issues with every aircraft. And I'm certainly not saying the V-22 is a panacea for combat ops. But if we're strictly talking about flying into or out of a battle area its relative speed and range - range also equals loiter time - will give it a decisive edge over a rotary wing. The underlying issue in this thread has been if the price is worth that advantage or if there should be a mix in the Marines' arsenal that would prove just as effective. I don't know the answer to that. I was just commenting that if I had to mount out to a FEBA I would take all the speed and range I could get my hands on.
If the V-22 were a better winch platform, it'd be a perfect SAR bird for the Navy and Coast Guard, as well as being a great aircraft for CSAR and other SPECOPS functions, but is it the platform of which you should comprise the bulk of your Marine Air Wing around? I think it's a great niche aircraft, but when everybody starts wearing the beret it loses it's "SPECOPS" mystique, if you follow my Army analogy.
Quoting L-188 (Reply 36): What they need to kill is that lousy UH1Y and just order CH-60's.
The USMC supposedly did a formal study on this exact issue back when Bell dropped the ball on the H-1 upgrade program and was threatened with program termination. I say supposedly because I'd like to see the numbers behind how the Corps justified the UH-1Y free-rider to the AH-1Z upgrade; they can tweak the UH-1Y all they want but the fact is that it will never be as capable or reliable as what the Corps could have had in the MH-60S, and for less money.
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 38): It would also mean USMC HMLA units deploying with helicopters with no commonality.
This has proven to be such a problem for the US Army and their AH-64 and OH-58's, hasn't it? This has always been a myth perpetuated by Bell and adopted by the Corps to get the program approved; with the Corps spending the bulk of their allowance on the V-22 for all these years they needed to maintain the facade of fiscal frugality if even just the perception of such, and this was the route they choose.
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 38): The UH-1Y and AH-1Z have arounf 85% parts commonality.
85% parts commonality with 150 AH-1Z airframes or better yet, how about the MH-60S and 100% commonality with the few hundred USN examples being procured, not to mention a vast majority of commonality with the rest of the Navy H-60's not to mention the US's entire DOD - they've made nearly 2,500+ of these aircraft. The Marines had a lot more cost synergies with an H-60 platform than they ever will with the H-1 platform.
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 38): The MH-60 has little in common with the AH-1Z.
So does an OH-68 to an AH-64 and again, how has that hurt either mission with the USA?
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 38): So there would be little advantage for a Marine unit deployed on an LHD since USN SH-60 or MH-60 units don't deploy on them. Nor would it be an advantage for a unit deployed in the field.
Yeah, like the rest of the parts don't come from Navy supply lines as well. The advantages would be a better platform all around for the Corps, and let's face it, attack helo pilots shouldn't be swapping platforms and missions every other flight in the first place, so the save the commonality argument, it's just a gimmick to sell Bell to the Corps.
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3613 posts, RR: 30 Reply 41, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2580 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 40): But if that was all there was to it the extra speed of the V-22 wouldn't really matter as you could just coordinate to compensate for it.
Not really. It's speed advantage goes to the benefit (read survivability) of the grunts that are flying into or out of a hot LZ and has nothing to do with coordinating with the deployment or attack speed of other hardware.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 40): If the V-22 were a better winch platform, it'd be a perfect SAR bird for the Navy and Coast Guard, as well as being a great aircraft for CSAR and other SPECOPS functions, but is it the platform of which you should comprise the bulk of your Marine Air Wing around?
In theory, the V-22 would be the ideal CSAR platform - speed and range are critical to extricating downed fliers or other combat personnel. But CSAR ops are part-and-parcel of any attack order, which is to say they are not far behind front line attack elements. And no CSAR op is complete without close air support overhead ensuring their safety. (And maybe that's why it hasn't been ordered specifically for CSAR ops since the current CSAR operational environment can be met with conventional rotary wing aircraft.) But that is not to say there won't be instances where a rescue will be required deep into unfriendly territory with little or no cover overhead. The question then becomes is it worth the price tag for those few instances? And if you think about it, the USAF plans to operate V-22's for their Special Ops, which can be expected to extricate downed fliers or in conjunction with securing LZ's deep inside unfriendly territory. I'm also surprised the USCG hasn't jumped on board with an order, but that may yet happen one day.
My personal opinion is that, because of the V-22's troubled and costly past, there is a sense that it's not up to the task. No one can view the bird on its merits alone without viewing it against its troubled past. But I think its story is yet to be written and we may eventually see it in substantial numbers beyond the orders that have been placed thus far. And if not the V-22 itself then certainly a successor tilt-rotor aircraft.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 28645 posts, RR: 70 Reply 42, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2548 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 41): because of the V-22's troubled and costly past, there is a sense that it's not up to the task. No one can view the bird on its merits alone without viewing it against its troubled past.
You know anytime somebody points out the V-22 history, I feel I have to point out that the B-17, B-29, F-14 and F-16 all had crashes during their development.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 41): In theory, the V-22 would be the ideal CSAR platform - speed and range are critical to extricating downed fliers or other combat personnel.
Over on the HH60 in Deadliest Catch thread I make mention of my absolute disgust that the USCG hasn't ordered the V-22. I know the USCG has had a history of being pretty conservative but people are dying because they aren't flying this aircraft.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 43, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2483 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 41): I'm also surprised the USCG hasn't jumped on board with an order, but that may yet happen one day.
From what I have heard it's not a great platform to winch off of on the aft ramp. That and I think it's too expensive and slightly too large for USCG ship board use, but then again the old H-3's we're no small aircraft, either. I think they prefer the BA609 instead for these reasons.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 41): My personal opinion is that, because of the V-22's troubled and costly past, there is a sense that it's not up to the task.
While not completely disappointing in Iraq while operating out of pristine airfield conditions, it's not like the deployment has proven the V-22, either. Personally, I like the V-22 and have logged a couple hours in the level-D sim and know full well how valuable it's speed can be, but from a former maintainers perspective I also think that the V-22 might be better wielded in smaller and more specific numbers than en masse as is currently planned.
Quoting L-188 (Reply 42): You know anytime somebody points out the V-22 history, I feel I have to point out that the B-17, B-29, F-14 and F-16 all had crashes during their development.
Except the big difference was that the V-22 was trying to pioneer an all new flight envelope in tilt-rotor technology.
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3613 posts, RR: 30 Reply 44, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2478 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 43): From what I have heard it's not a great platform to winch off of on the aft ramp.
Not that I doubt what you're saying, but I would be interested in learning why it wouldn't be a good platform for winching off of.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 43): and slightly too large for USCG ship board use,
Notwithstanding the fact that it wouldn't be the largest vertical lift aircraft in use, most CG ops are not ship launched anyway.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 43): I think they prefer the BA609 instead
It might be better from a cost standpoint since they could obviously field several for the price of one V-22 (assuming the price for the BA609 comes in at the expected ~$15 million). But if the V-22 is not good for winching ops, how would the BA609 be different since its configuration would be the same?
Nevertheless, I think tilt-rotor, regardless of the aircraft type, is ideal for the USCG. So I hope they will embrace the technology eventually.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 43): it's not like the deployment has proven the V-22, either.
Well, it's on its way to Afghanistan, so I guess we'll see it in a more versatile and challenging environment. We'll have to revisit this issue in another year to see if it's been up to snuff.
CTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 292 posts, RR: 0 Reply 45, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2428 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 43): Except the big difference was that the V-22 was trying to pioneer an all new flight envelope in tilt-rotor technology.
This statement reflects a common misconception. With the exception of one VRS accident caused by the pilot violating the recommended flight envelope, all V-22 accidents have been completely unrelated to unique tiltrotor technologies. The V-22 pioneered advanced composites, 5,000 PSI hydraulics and Fly-by-Wire technologies 20 years ago. These were the immature technologies that caused most of the V-22 problems. These technologies are now mature and incorporated into commercial aircraft like the AB3880 and Boeing 787.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2379 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 46): Why would you hoist off the rear ramp when you have a perfectly good front door available?
Where the hell are you going to mount the hoist for crew door winching? You forget that in airplane mode the blades are 6 inches from that door. Hardly enough room to keep an external hoist mounted. I suppose you could come up with some system that stowed it inside the already cramped cabin. More unneccessary complexity.
Highlander0 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 129 posts, RR: 0 Reply 48, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2298 times:
One MASSIVE problem with the V-22 is the downwash.
Small diameter blades/props+jet efflux when the turboprop engines point vertical= quite a problem.
Now- I think the V-22 is an awesome bit of kit. But it can't do everything. Talking to a UK Chinook pilot today, who has had a fair few hours in helicopters of various types, and we came to talk about the Blackhawk and he said he'd happily swap the Chinook for the Blackhawk.
The Huey and Chinook fly similar he said- like they were carved out of stone!
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 28645 posts, RR: 70 Reply 49, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2242 times:
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 47): Where the hell are you going to mount the hoist for crew door winching?
If they can figure out how to get a hoist on the HH-65, they can get one on a V-22...Wasn't the USAF developing a combat rescue version of this aircraft, I am sure that problem is being worked on.
Besides, why wouldn't you be hanging out the front door in forward flight anyway...isn't it interlocked?
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 50, posted (8 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2152 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 49): If they can figure out how to get a hoist on the HH-65, they can get one on a V-22.
I am not sure why you picked this comparison. There is all sorts of room on an H-65 to mount the hoist, and there is no clearance issue with the blades. There is no where to mount an external hoist for the crew door on an Osprey.
You would have to mount the hoist inside the aircraft, and have some sort of boom that could be extended out and above the door when you went to helicopter mode and were ready to hoist. Another option is to use a series of pulleys to redirect the cargo winch cable to an extendable boom (guessing, I do not remember where the cargo winch is mounted in the cabin). We had this option in H-46s, but never used it because it was just as easy to run the cargo winch through a pulley and hoist from the hell hole or off the ramp.
Curt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0 Reply 52, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2047 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 49): If they can figure out how to get a hoist on the HH-65, they can get one on a V-22...Wasn't the USAF developing a combat rescue version of this aircraft, I am sure that problem is being worked on.
Besides, why wouldn't you be hanging out the front door in forward flight anyway...isn't it interlocked?
- No, USAF wasn't developing a "Rescue" version of V-22, BA was thinking of offering the V-22 for the (PRV) CSAR-X program, but decided not to bid this acft, mostly due to cost per unit.
- Yes, there is an interlock system that prevents opening the personnel door with the rotors in the "fixed wing" mode. Hoisting would be done in the VTOL mode where the door/step can be opened so no threat there.
- The downwash stories have been "blown" out of proportion (excuse the pun)...sure there is a ton of downwash, but the door mounted hoist was such a complete failure the downwash never got to become an issue.
- There was an attempt made to develop a door hoist system, but it was pitiful...BA and the vendor (Breeze) could not come up with an effective system with enough cable in the space and structural limitations of this location of the acft so the ramp configuration was examined and seems to be working fine...but yes...I think it's a very WEIRD perspective to be hoisting from.
Curt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0 Reply 53, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1813 times:
Quoting Wassupsf (Reply 24): The aircraft has almost no cargo capacity other than troops, it is all composite ( which is nice in the civilian world but in Iraq or Afghanistan getting repair materials is not as easy.),
The acft wasn't designed to be a 'cargo hauler' in the sense that Chinooks were and that's why it doesn't have a significant cargo capacity...There should be no problem getting spares or composite repair kits/tooling anywhere, because the Govt has to BUY and field this stuff for all units and all units carry their own spares/tools with them when they deploy.
That said, it's true that if you are the only Tilt-Rotor unit in town you can't go next door and borrow a cup of composite repair goop from an H-60 or H-47 unit!
Don't get me wrong...I love Big Windy, and think the USAF made a fine choice in selecting this for a CSAR platform but there is room in the world for Tilt Rotors too!
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 3191 posts, RR: 2 Reply 54, posted (8 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1495 times:
Quoting Curt22 (Reply 52): - Yes, there is an interlock system that prevents opening the personnel door with the rotors in the "fixed wing" mode. Hoisting would be done in the VTOL mode where the door/step can be opened so no threat there.
Which means one would be a dangling target when a quick escape is needed and couldn't take advantage of the fast, full forward rotor position.
Quoting Curt22 (Reply 52): - There was an attempt made to develop a door hoist system, but it was pitiful...BA and the vendor (Breeze) could not come up with an effective system with enough cable in the space and structural limitations of this location of the acft
CTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 292 posts, RR: 0 Reply 55, posted (8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1441 times:
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 54): Which means one would be a dangling target when a quick escape is needed and couldn't take advantage of the fast, full forward rotor position.
Is repelling from an aircraft flying at 275kts even possible? Maybe in a James Bond movie.
Even without the rotors tilted forward enough to block the side door a V-22 can fly at +100 kts. This is still probably faster than a sane person would wish to repel from an aircraft.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 56, posted (8 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1437 times:
Quoting CTR (Reply 55): Even without the rotors tilted forward enough to block the side door a V-22 can fly at +100 kts. This is still probably faster than a sane person would wish to repel from an aircraft.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 28645 posts, RR: 70 Reply 58, posted (8 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1354 times:
Quoting CTR (Reply 55): Is repelling from an aircraft flying at 275kts even possible? Maybe in a James Bond movie.
I don't know about going downhill, but they did it in both Airport 75 and Cliffhanger.
Going up to the airplane, do a search for Fulton Recover System. They did use that in Thunderball.
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 56): Quoting CTR (Reply 55):
Even without the rotors tilted forward enough to block the side door a V-22 can fly at +100 kts. This is still probably faster than a sane person would wish to repel from an aircraft.
We were limited to 60-80 knots when SPIE rigging.
That's the point, you aren't going to be winching with rotors in forward flight anyway, and the USCG doesn't take a lot of ground fire from the fishermen they are pulling out of the drink, so a quick departure doesn't mean that much.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 59, posted (8 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1309 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 58): That's the point, you aren't going to be winching with rotors in forward flight anyway, and the USCG doesn't take a lot of ground fire from the fishermen they are pulling out of the drink, so a quick departure doesn't mean that much.
I was replying to the question of whether 100 knots would be too much to be hanging from a rope/cable. I certainly would not have winched in forward flight, and we never trained for it.
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 57): Is it the same limit when winching up injured personnel back into the aircraft, and getting out of the extraction zone with hostile fire?
I was refering to the limits for SPIE. During hoisting through the crew door, the limit was somewhere in the area of 100 knots if you had the door locked open and the winch forward. That limit applies to the structure that the hoist is mounted to and the door is mounted too. It does not imply that you can actually operate the hoist at those speeds. Chances are pretty good you would not hoist at that speed, because you would have a difficult time getting the person in the plane. You could let the person hang from the cable until you cleared the area I suppose, but that is not something we trained for and would have to be a decision made on the fly.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Oct 2007, 263 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10190 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 129 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 1805 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 3191 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
