Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Army Interest In V-22?  
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16689 posts, RR: 51
Posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5485 times:

Why has the US Army not participated or shown interest in the V-22, from reports I remember reading during combat in Afghanistan many commanders said they needed an aircraft like the V-22 to be able to fly faster to reach troops in Combat and also to be able to operate in high terrain enviroments.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29690 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5483 times:

The army really has never been that interested in the medium sized helicopter. It has really been a Chinook-Huey/Chinook-Blackhawk mix with them.

About the true medium helicopter I can think of them flying would have been the old CH-34 Choctaw.

Now that being said, I can vary easily see some V-22's ending up with 160 SOAR after the Marines and Air Force work out the bugs.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4445 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5475 times:

I agree, I think the V-22 could end up with the 160th SOAR. That being said, the Army is a very big Chinook supporter. Currently the G and F models are roling of the line for them. The Chinook might be have a better future than the V-22 because supposedly it leads in the USAF CSAR-X competition also!


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5407 times:

Because the V-22 is a pet-project of the Marines and the Army has little room in it's inventory for a platform with zero self-defense capabilities. The USMC bought the same turd-sandwhich they were trying to sell to Congress - the V-22 is a gimmick at best and it should go down in history right behind the premature cancelation of the F-14 as one of the worst military procurements ever. What a waste - the Marines could have had an entire fleet of replacement medium lift helos such as the US-101 or S-92 two times over for the money they have already wasted into developing the V-22 - and now they have to begin paying for the over-priced and under-performing platforms from this point on; highly appalling.

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16689 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5384 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 3):
has little room in it's inventory for a platform with zero self-defense capabilities

The new V-22s have a ramp gun along with a rescue winch (sp?).

I would think the V-22s would be perfect for the 101st, 82nd, 10th Mountain, and the Stryker Brigades. It would add to their mobility and rapid deployment, move a bunch of troops and equipment at fixed wing aircraft speeds into and out of helo LZ's.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5381 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 3):
The USMC bought the same turd-sandwhich they were trying to sell to Congress - the V-22 is a gimmick at best and it should go down in history right behind the premature cancelation of the F-14 as one of the worst military procurements ever. What a waste

AirRyan, don't hold back. Tell us what you really think.

The real unbiased story is pretty simple. Thirty years ago the JVX program (which became the V-22) was a truely a joint service program: Army, Airforce, Navy and Marines. However when it the USSR began to fall apart, the writing was on the wall for all to see. Major Defence cut backs were comming soon.

The Army had to make a choice, it could not afford to support both the Comanche and the Osprey. So They pulled their support for the Joint Service Program and proceed to put all their backing with their own Comanche.

The loss of Army funding was a major blow to the V-22 program. And just like what happened to the F-14 years before, the drying up of development funding caused imature technologies to be rushed. The result was similar for both programs loss of life crashes.

By the way. The Army has recently been inquiring Bell and Boeing about the V-22.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5371 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 4):
The new V-22s have a ramp gun along with a rescue winch (sp?).

I'm sure that is what they put the ramp for there! Initially there was suppossed to be a turret a la RAH-66 Commanche installed but the funding for it soon gave way just to keep the program alive being that it was already on life support.

Quoting CTR (Reply 5):
By the way. The Army has recently been inquiring Bell and Boeing about the V-22.

And waht a joke it is that the smallest branch with the smallest budget foots the bill for the 20+ year R&D program but the USAF and USA come sniffing' their noses once it's cleared full rate production.  talktothehand 

Quoting CTR (Reply 5):
The real unbiased story is pretty simple. Thirty years ago the JVX program (which became the V-22) was a truely a joint service program: Army, Airforce, Navy and Marines. However when it the USSR began to fall apart, the writing was on the wall for all to see. Major Defence cut backs were comming soon.

Don't forget about the part that the technology just simply wasn't there yet - the V-22 may eventually just work but the point is it was rushed at least one generation early to make any financially viable sense.

I hate to say it but from the opinion of a former Marine who used to work on H-46's I think a lot of Marines gave their lives unnescessarily because the Corps dragged their feet in replacing the H-46 so they could wait for the Osprey to get it's head out of it's posterior and be ready to show up for the big dance. For the sake of future Marines lives all I can say is that I hope when it starts flying into potentially hostile environments is that it works and they find a way to utilize it's talents while still being able to adapt into the rest of the world (like having to wait for AH-1Z Cobra Gunships who are still confined by the conventional rotary-winged envelope.)


User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5360 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 6):
And waht a joke it is that the smallest branch with the smallest budget foots the bill for the 20+ year R&D program but the USAF and USA come sniffing' their noses once it's cleared full rate production.

The Army has a record for betting on the wrong horse. Then betting on some one elses horse when it proves to be a winner.

The Army invested heavily in the in the Lockheed Cherokee, their first dedicated attack helicopter. When technical problems became to great, they chose to buy the Bell Cobra. Which was developed by Bell using their own money.

When the Hughes Recon Little bird became to expensive to produce, the Army bought the Bell Jet Ranger and called it the Kiowa.

When the Comanche became to expensive to put into production, the Army chose the Bell 407 to replace it. The joke making the rounds is that it will be called the Sue. Who were known for stealing horses from the Comanche.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5352 times:

Quoting CTR (Reply 7):
When the Comanche became to expensive to put into production, the Army chose the Bell 407 to replace it. The joke making the rounds is that it will be called the Sue. Who were known for stealing horses from the Comanche.

That'd be classic - with all these Native American Indian tribes getting the NCAA to change the names of many athetlic program's sponsors it's ironic how the US Army continues to get away with the names on their aviation platforms. I'm not saying they need to change them but I hate double-standards in our society and if I were a Native American Indian I probably would prefer that the US Army just found other names all together.

The US Army bowing out of the RAH-66 Commanche was a joke - if they would have stopped altering the damned mission parameters of the platform the bird would have been just fine if not great, but that's the problem in this modern day in age, too many people counting beans combined with too many politicians who don't know how to do their job!


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4445 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5345 times:

Well, I am a white male Protestant. Any of the services can name a weapon system Protestant if they like  Wink One question I have though was who originally developed the Chinook and Blackhawk? I am not trying to start a fight because the other information is correct, I'm just trying to find out if the Army was first on board.

A better option for my Jarhead friends (AF BABY!!) would be buying more CH-53Xs. Now, there is proven platform etc that is a warrior. BTW Marines are part of the Navy, not their own branch  Wink



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5342 times:

Ok, I've got some time this morning... so I'll bite on this one:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 4):
I would think the V-22s would be perfect for the 101st, 82nd, 10th Mountain, and the Stryker Brigades. It would add to their mobility and rapid deployment, move a bunch of troops and equipment at fixed wing aircraft speeds into and out of helo LZ's.

How so? First, the 10th has no need for it. They're scout focused mission would not be suited by the -22. When speaking in regards to the 101st and 82nd, we don't need it either. Our current mix of -60s and-47s suit us just well. When it comes to troop transport, the -47 can carry more. When it comes to sling loading, the -47 can haul more. We don't need the speed factor. Sure it would be nice... but the vast majority of our missions are within the "local area." It's not like we operate hundreds of miles behind the front lines anymore. Our range, is not great, but again - we're in the local area with multiple refuel sites. And we certainly don't need the high altitude cruising. While I will admit that fighting in 'Stan is a whole different beast of war... it's honestly a niche war. Considering that European forces will be assuming a larger role, and there are few places on Earth that are similar to conditions found in the 'Stan... it would dumb to simply buy an airframe that would help us out there.

Quoting CTR (Reply 5):

By the way. The Army has recently been inquiring Bell and Boeing about the V-22.

With the new Mike model -60s, the new Foxtrot model -47s, the Block III (or are we on Block IV now?) Longbows, the new AHR, the ongoing run-off for the LUH and the replacement of the Shirpas... I doubt the Army will be taking on the -22 in the near future. Perhaps a few airframes for the already mentioned 160th... but nothing substantial.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8):
The US Army bowing out of the RAH-66 Commanche was a joke - if they would have stopped altering the damned mission parameters of the platform the bird would have been just fine if not great, but that's the problem in this modern day in age, too many people counting beans combined with too many politicians who don't know how to do their job!

We've beaten this one to death in prior threads... but the Army just simply did not need the Commanche. It was a great platform that any one of us would have jumped at the chance to fly. But from a practical point of view... it just wasn't needed anymore. For example, the stealth feature doesn't protect you while orbiting Baghdad, during the middle of the day and a $100 RPG makes contact with you. That's an costly loss. I'd rather refurbish our fleet, bring us all up into the 21st century technology and safety wise... than have a 100 hotrod helos flying around without a mission.

Sadly, we don't have the number of boots that we did a decade ago. We need to do more with far less. And both the -22 and the RAH66 just don't fit in with the smaller, more mobile, more independent, more multi-roled aviation force.

-UH60


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29690 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5334 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 10):
but the Army just simply did not need the Commanche

Well the did and still do, in it's orginal intended role as a OH-58D replacement. Then they started hanging Stingers and hellfires on these aircraft and it worked, so they thought they should add them to the Comanche.

Those OH-58's definately seem to be taking the majority of hits in Iraq......How they replaced the OH-6 is beyond me.....the latter seems to have a more successful war record.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJohnM From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5243 times:

I gotta bite also.

At least the Army had the balls to admit the Comanche was too expensive and not needed. In my opinion the Army has developed most of the finest rotary wing aircraft in the western world. The Huey and of course my beloved Blackhawk come to mind, which I've crewed both. The money is MUCH better spent on things we can really use. Improved ASE, better updates to our current fleet, etc.

As a UH-60 CE in OIF III, I saw that excessive rotor wash and large airframe size was sometimes a real handicap. The UH-60/ CH-47 team does a fantastic job covering most of the jobs in the utility/ cargo/ assault world. I hope my son doesn't fly in someplace like Iraq in the future in an aircraft that has zero side and frontal weapon systems. Let alone the brownout issues with the rotor wash. Yes the -47 puts out some serious rotor wash, but is manageable. I can guarantee that the bad guys aren't stupid, and the one day V-22s show up, and can't provide a defensive threat, that weakness will be exploited. I made eye contact with many locals in Iraq on short final to a FOB, and they saw me watching with my M-240H. This alone will deter most, except for the guy willing to die for the cause.

The Army isn't perfect, but at least they didn't blow millions just to save face. They cut their losses.

Now my OH-58 thread hijack: True they don't carry a lot of bullets and rockets, but there is something to be said for an aircraft that is out flying doing it's job, not in the hanger being worked on. The -58s were out there ALL the time, and they do a kick ass job. I wouldn't want to fly in a single engine heavy bird in combat, but those hard core -58 guys can't get enough. Their tactics reflect the loss rate for that airframe. They are the guys who show up when somebody gets hit, or a Blackhawk calls in something "not right" out in the AO, or make trouble if none can be found. I just saw a -58 battalion logged more hours than any other battalion since the Vietnam war. I expect the Bell 407 will have the highest MC rate in the US military rotary wing world. The -58 is the exact opposite of the Osprey, and that's why they are so great. Simple is good. The V-22 would be a big hit on the airshow circuit, I'll stick to the Swiss army knife, plan Jane UH-60 for the war kind of stuff. The S-92 would be on order for the USMC if I was in charge of the world.

Regards, John


User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5235 times:

John,

I enjoyed reading your well worded response. You maintain what I design. So I respect your opinion highly.

The Army Little Bird is the equivalent of a City Police SWAT team Van. Little daily use but lots of press.

The OH-58 is the City Police Squad Car. On the street 24/7, getting beat to hell, but keeps on ticking. No glamour, but it gets the job done.

Give the V-22 a chance to prove itself. The C-17 was considerd to be an albatross by the press before the first Gulf War.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5233 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 10):
We've beaten this one to death in prior threads... but the Army just simply did not need the Commanche. It was a great platform that any one of us would have jumped at the chance to fly. But from a practical point of view... it just wasn't needed anymore. For example, the stealth feature doesn't protect you while orbiting Baghdad, during the middle of the day and a $100 RPG makes contact with you. That's an costly loss. I'd rather refurbish our fleet, bring us all up into the 21st century technology and safety wise... than have a 100 hotrod helos flying around without a mission.

But that makes it sound like the Army did a smart thing by cancelling the Commanche program whilt totally ignoring the fact that it was utterly inept in it's entire point on up until that time. The Commanche quite simply was an aircraft never needed and never worth the money it took away from other Army programs (I would have loved to have seen that money spent on the Abrams!)

Quoting CTR (Reply 13):
Give the V-22 a chance to prove itself. The C-17 was considerd to be an albatross by the press before the first Gulf War.

The C-17 is still a relative failure as far as I'm considered because of it's McDD-esque lack of sufficient range - if it were not for the fleet of aerial tankers in the USAF the C-17's would be about as useful as t!ts on a bull.


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4445 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5230 times:

I can't agree on the C-17 assessment. While the aircraft is short on range, it provides capabilities that the C-5 doesn't. While the C-141 was a great aircraft, but it was old. If we can accept that FRED won't always "fire up", I'm sure we can accept that Barney is a little short in the legs.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineJohnM From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5228 times:

CTR, are you involved with H-60 type design work? I saw the comment about working on what you design. If so many thanks, I'm biased of course, but I'm now (after OIF) a huge UH-60 fan. Sikorsky made a fine machine there.

John


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16689 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5215 times:

The V-22 might not be suited for OIF, but it could be a valuable platform in future conflicts.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5163 times:

Quoting JohnM (Reply 16):
CTR, are you involved with H-60 type design work? I saw the comment about working on what you design. If so many thanks, I'm biased of course, but I'm now (after OIF) a huge UH-60 fan. Sikorsky made a fine machine there.

John

Sorry John. I also have a lot of respect for Igor's birds. As a migrant aerospace worker I have been involved with everything from AV-8Bs to C-17s. Recently however I have been involved with the Kiowa and the ARH.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineZKNSJ From New Zealand, joined Jan 2006, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4994 times:

Quoting CTR (Reply 7):
When the Comanche became to expensive to put into production, the Army chose the Bell 407 to replace it. The joke making the rounds is that it will be called the Sue. Who were known for stealing horses from the Comanche.

do you mean the sioux?, wasnt that the name off the bell-47


User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4991 times:

Quoting ZKNSJ (Reply 20):
do you mean the sioux?, wasnt that the name off the bell-47

Yes, I did mean to type Sioux. It would be fitting to name the ARH after the its 50 year old ancestor.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29690 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4981 times:

Quoting ZKNSJ (Reply 19):
do you mean the sioux? wasnt that the name of the bell-47

Wasn't the nam observer versions also called the "Ravens?"



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSonic67 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4918 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 14):
The C-17 is still a relative failure as far as I'm considered because of it's McDD-esque lack of sufficient range - if it were not for the fleet of aerial tankers in the USAF the C-17's would be about as useful as t!ts on a bull.

What would you consider an accomplishment?

The C17 can carry a payload of 160,000 pounds and fly 2,400 nautical miles.
With the extended range fuel tanks modification the C17 can fly an extra five hour which would double the flying time.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4912 times:

Quoting CX747 (Reply 15):
If we can accept that FRED won't always "fire up", I'm sure we can accept that Barney is a little short in the legs.

C-5M's will remedy the platform the way it was intended to be from it's onset.

Quoting Sonic67 (Reply 22):
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 14):
The C-17 is still a relative failure as far as I'm considered because of it's McDD-esque lack of sufficient range - if it were not for the fleet of aerial tankers in the USAF the C-17's would be about as useful as t!ts on a bull.

What would you consider an accomplishment?

The C17 can carry a payload of 160,000 pounds and fly 2,400 nautical miles.
With the extended range fuel tanks modification the C17 can fly an extra five hour which would double the flying time.

For starters, the C-17's ability to go places that the C-5 cannot has been greatly exaggerated:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/gao/gao94225.htm

Like I say - the C-5M will remedy many if not all of the ailments that have hindered what has otherwise been a stout platform for the USAF and I'd rather buy more of them than I would C-17's anyday.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days ago) and read 4871 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 23):
For starters, the C-17's ability to go places that the C-5 cannot has been greatly exaggerated:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...5.htm

That is a pretty old article (from 1994). Is it still true?



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
25 LongbowPilot : Damn you UH, these are my threads to shine, but I agree with you. The current conflicts were handled using the conventional aircraft that are already
26 Sonic67 : Comparing the C5 to the C17 is comparing apples and oranges it was never meant as a replacement to the C5. As you stated the C17 is very capable and
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic US Army Interest In V-22?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Ex-US Army UH-1H Helicopters In Lebanese Air Force posted Sat Mar 4 2006 03:08:56 by BA
Fixed Wing Aircraft In The US Army? posted Mon Nov 21 2005 04:10:40 by Lastordu
US Army Mil-8s In Service In Afghan posted Wed May 1 2002 17:09:46 by Heavymetal
US Carriers Due In The UK? posted Wed Oct 25 2006 14:05:13 by GBOAG
US Army Exclude C130J From JCA posted Thu Aug 31 2006 14:02:00 by Bennett123
Usaf Merge With US Army? posted Sun Apr 9 2006 21:37:08 by SCEagle
Going US Army To Usaf posted Wed Mar 15 2006 13:18:02 by SCEagle
US Army Future Cargo Aircraft (FCA) posted Thu Feb 23 2006 03:49:57 by STT757
US Army Rotary Training posted Tue Jan 17 2006 00:27:35 by StealthZ
US Helicopter Down In Iraq posted Sun Jan 8 2006 14:35:13 by Sean377

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format