AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Wed May 06, 2009 9:10 pm

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.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/1361445.html

http://64.34.169.161/ifolio_files/file_gallery/Screenshot_Gallery/Development_Screenshots/chUSMC1.jpg



[Edited 2009-05-06 14:12:52]
 
sasd209
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:32 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Wed May 06, 2009 9:46 pm



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
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Wed May 06, 2009 9:51 pm



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
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Wed May 06, 2009 9:51 pm



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.
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
sasd209
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:32 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Wed May 06, 2009 9:57 pm



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
Posts: 462
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:21 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Wed May 06, 2009 10:18 pm



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...

Nope. I am NOT it's biggest fan.
Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Wed May 06, 2009 11:44 pm



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
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Thu May 07, 2009 2:39 am



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.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
studedave
Posts: 462
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:21 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Thu May 07, 2009 4:03 am



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 6):
Ok, compare that to the development of the conventional helicopter from toy to tool.

I'm talking about one program- all at tax payers' expense-- start to finish--- are you?

Convince me the V-22 is a good bird~ AND that we're gettin' our money's worth...

Then we can talk.


Still NOT a fan...

StudeDave  cool 
Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
 
keesje
Posts: 8592
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Thu May 07, 2009 9:12 am

I guess militairy commanders need raw lift with shrinking budgets.

Maybe an opporunity for Sikorsky..

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
dragon6172
Posts: 795
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:56 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Thu May 07, 2009 12:45 pm



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.
Phrogs Phorever
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Thu May 07, 2009 2:47 pm



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.
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Thu May 07, 2009 3:43 pm



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
Posts: 795
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:56 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Thu May 07, 2009 5:26 pm



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.
Phrogs Phorever
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Thu May 07, 2009 7:05 pm



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.
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
highlander0
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:29 pm

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Thu May 07, 2009 8:06 pm

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
Posts: 7648
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Fri May 08, 2009 5:13 am



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
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:32 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Fri May 08, 2009 8:04 am

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...

[Edited 2009-05-08 01:09:06]
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Tue May 12, 2009 5:33 pm



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
Posts: 795
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:56 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Tue May 12, 2009 9:14 pm



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.
Phrogs Phorever
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Wed May 13, 2009 7:43 am



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!"  Wink
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Wed May 13, 2009 3:11 pm



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
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Wed May 13, 2009 6:49 pm



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.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Thu May 14, 2009 12:11 am



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
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:42 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Thu May 14, 2009 5:34 am

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.

Goodbye V-22
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Thu May 14, 2009 5:57 am

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?
What the...?
 
wassupsf
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:42 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Thu May 14, 2009 5:58 am

None, even though it is an all weather aircraft, most of the time the military won't let it fly with fair weather pilots.
 
dragon6172
Posts: 795
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:56 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Thu May 14, 2009 1:46 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 23):
And so as a former Phrog driver

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.
Phrogs Phorever
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Thu May 14, 2009 5:53 pm



Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 27):
so now the V-22s only advantage is speed.

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.
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
wassupsf
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:42 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Thu May 14, 2009 6:13 pm

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
Posts: 795
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:56 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Thu May 14, 2009 6:56 pm



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.
Phrogs Phorever
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Fri May 15, 2009 12:34 am



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.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 23):
The article implies such...

Like i said before I think you are projecting your pesonel views onto the article.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Fri May 15, 2009 2:58 am



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.

But I thought that was apparent from the onset?
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Fri May 15, 2009 6:27 am

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.

How well does the V-22 handle high and hot?
What the...?
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Fri May 15, 2009 2:38 pm



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.
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
texl1649
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Fri May 15, 2009 5:51 pm

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.
 
L-188
Posts: 29874
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Mon May 18, 2009 4:09 am

Right idea, wrong aircraft.

What they need to kill is that lousy UH1Y and just order CH-60's.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Robin Powney



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.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
keesje
Posts: 8592
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Mon May 18, 2009 8:24 am



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 ?

BTW stumbled over a cool EH101 video.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-U7eqefVIc
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Mon May 18, 2009 3:37 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 36):
What they need to kill is that lousy UH1Y and just order CH-60's.



View Large View Medium

Photo © Robin Powney



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.

[Edited 2009-05-18 08:38:36]

[Edited 2009-05-18 08:55:09]
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
studedave
Posts: 462
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:21 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Mon May 18, 2009 6:40 pm



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.
Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Mon May 18, 2009 7:08 pm



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
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Mon May 18, 2009 8:44 pm



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.
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
L-188
Posts: 29874
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Tue May 19, 2009 5:18 am



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
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Tue May 19, 2009 4:20 pm



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.



http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w2/rdrebers/USCGV22fifty.jpg

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
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Tue May 19, 2009 4:59 pm



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):
I think it's too expensive

Can't argue with you there.

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.
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Wed May 20, 2009 2:32 am



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.

Have fun,

CTR
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
L-188
Posts: 29874
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Wed May 20, 2009 2:50 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 43):
From what I have heard it's not a great platform to winch off of on the aft ramp.

Why would you hoist off the rear ramp when you have a perfectly good front door available?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kevin Whitehead - Jetwash Images



Even the old HH3 had a ramp but still hoisted off the front door.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Willam W. Sierra

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
dragon6172
Posts: 795
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:56 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Wed May 20, 2009 12:25 pm



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.
Phrogs Phorever
 
highlander0
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:29 pm

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Wed May 20, 2009 7:44 pm

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
Posts: 29874
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos?

Thu May 21, 2009 3:24 am



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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests