Senate Bill Shorts Gear for Troops

[solypsist]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060420/ap_on_go_co/iraq_spending_add_ons

"A Senate measure to fund the war in Iraq would chop money for troops' night vision equipment and new battle vehicles but add $230 million for a tilt-rotor aircraft that has already cost $18 billion and is still facing safety questions. The Osprey, manufactured by Bell Helicopter, a subsidiary of Textron Inc., has been in development since the 1980s and has cost the government $18 billion so far. It has suffered numerous setbacks over the years, including two crashes in 2000 that killed 23 people."

looks like once again the corporate military-industrial lobbyists have a victory over common sense use of tax dollars.

[Dooz]

looks like once again the corporate military-industrial lobbyists have a victory over common sense use of tax dollars.

Well of course. This is afterall, a corporate-run country.

[rory_20_uk]

Call it the Dodo damn it. At least that way they might eventually get the idea that it should be extinct!

Genius to the company building it - effectively getting senators to buy votes in their home states.

~:smoking:

[Alexanderofmacedon]

But, but...we need night vision!:no:

[KafirChobee]

There is a new book out, was lauded on the "Jon Stewart" show, that now calls the MIC - the "Military Industrial Congressional Complex" because it is as much Congress that drives some of these programs as it is the military.
An example the author gave for the compliance between them (congress and the pentagon) was on the B-1 bomber, a total loser. The B-1 was touted as the saviour of the Airforce, by the USAF; it was the first program Carter trashed, first one Reagan re-instated, first one Clinton dragged his feet on, and the first one Bush pushed for a full steam ahead build (or re-design, or make safe, etc). The plane itself is "pretty", but it has been grounded more than it has been allowed to actually fly. Then why are we still dealing with this thing that can't even compare to the B-52? Well, seems that parts for the B-1 are produced in nearly every State in the Union, and something like +70% of the House districts. So, it is a legitimized pork project that makes everyone happy, and all the congressmen (women) can point out that they are bringing jobs to their districts (States).

As for the Osprey, it made sense in the 80's - and the Brits have one (that works), but when, where, why, or how we would ever use such a weapon is beyond me. To support ground troops it would have to be stationary (not a good idea) and one report said a BB gun (I'm sure they exaggerated) could damage it. Regardless, since there don't seem to be any Harry Trumans' running around congress trying to assure compliance between our military's actual needs and the design/development/manufacture of its weaponry it maybe time to establish a citizens board - like a "Grand Jury" (Harry, btw, put 100's of thousands of miles on his car in WWII investigating the manufacures of weapons. He found a plane thats' wings were 2 feet to short - yet, the manufacturer and military waere going to do it anyway ... 'til Harry stepped in and promised to expose them if they didn't fix it. He also found the Navy was buying torpedoes that didn't explode, and a number of other things).

The way things are done today, and have been since we became a war nation in 1947 are entrenched now in the design / contractual / and maunfacturing processes. It is way to late to change anything about it. Remember the "Sgt. York" artillary piece - they had 50 of them planned for manufacture, even though it didn't work. Until the military came to their senses, because of an investigative report. :wall:

[Tribesman]

As for the Osprey, it made sense in the 80's - and the Brits have one (that works), but when, where, why, or how we would ever use such a weapon is beyond me.
The brits have a tilt wing multi role transport aircraft ?
When , where and why would be when you would use a transport/assault helicopter but want to do it faster and quieter .

[Divinus Arma]

Instead of bashing the program, why don't you ask a MARINE, since this is for us.

So, what is more dangerous to troops: Not as many pairs of new NVGs, or an aging fleets of Sea Knights and Super Stallions from the Vietnam War?

The Osprey, having faced very real challenges with the technology, is the best replacement for the Corps' fleet of rotary wing aircraft. It flys faster, farther, and carries more than any VTOL Rotor type aircraft available today. It will allow us to project our forces deep into the territory of enemies via seabasing without the need for refueling or regional alliances. The capabilities of your Marine Corps will be greatly magnified, and lives will be saved as a consequence.

Soly, your initial post was ignorant of the facts at hand. You are comparing apples to oranges. The fact is that we need the OJ right now, and we only have enough cash for one fruit.

[Spetulhu]

The Osprey, having faced very real challenges with the technology, is the best replacement for the Corps' fleet of rotary wing aircraft. It flys faster, farther, and carries more than any VTOL Rotor type aircraft available today. It will allow us to project our forces deep into the territory of enemies via seabasing without the need for refueling or regional alliances. The capabilities of your Marine Corps will be greatly magnified, and lives will be saved as a consequence.

"Carries more, flies faster and farther" is just salesmen speech. Carrying capacity is 24 men or 20,000 lbs. (Or 15,000 lbs externally.) Range for a full amphibious assault is 184 km according to Boeing that builds the thing. Sure, it's got a lot of range when empty, but that won't help the Marines that want to reach the combat zone. A Special Ops squad will get better range, of course.

Unfortunately for the poor Marines that will be riding in it the Osprey has troubles. The propulsion system is complex and vulnerable to damage, thanks to the tilt-rotor system that's supposed to make it stand out. If one engine stops there's a cross-coupling that will transfer power from the other side so both props keep running. That's a whole lot of vulnerable parts right there! If it fails the thing comes down like a brick. And this craft is going to be the first one to arrive in a hostile zone, taking fire from everyone and their inlaws.

[Divinus Arma]

"Carries more, flies faster and farther" is just salesmen speech.

This is just a dismissal for dismissal's sake and nothing more.



Read up. Here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1993/WGK.htm). Good article comparing to potential replacements for the aging CH-53. The author makes some solid arguments against the MV-22, but none of his arguments fit Your or Soly's flacid complaints.

Nobody should doubt the need to spend money on a new medium lift replacement for the Marine Corps. Be it the Osprey or something else, we desperately need the gear.

Medium Lift Replacement (MLR)
CSC 1993
SUBJECT AREA - Aviation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Medium Lift Replacement (MLR)
AUTHOR: Major G. Kevin Wilcutt, United States Marine Corps
THESIS: Unofficially, the MV-22 "Osprey" has been identified as
the MLR, but other aviation platforms are available that are not
only suitable replacements at reduced costs but enhance the
commanders' warfighting capability.
BACKGROUND: The CH-46, because of its age, has numerous
maintenance difficulties, a limited combat range, various
aeronautical restrictions, critical supply shortages and lack of
armament which directly impacts on its combat effectiveness. A
well-rounded attack version of a cargo/passenger helicopter is in
production today and would be a better choice than the MV-22.
That helicopter is the CH-53E. It has proven advantages in
passenger capacity, external and internal lift capacity, and with
the addition of armament and armor, could provide the Marine
Corps with the ideal platform for assault helicopter support.
RECOMMENDATION: The Marine Corps should procure the CH-53E as
the medium lift replacement. Additionally, both armament and
armor should be placed on the helicopter to enhance the combat
capabilities it would provide the ground commander.
OUTLINE
Thesis: Unofficially, the MV-22 "Osprey" has been identified
as the medium lift replacement (MLR) aircraft, but other aviation
platforms are available that are not only suitable replacements
at reduced costs but enhance the commanders' warfighting
capability.
I. History of the CH-46E
A. Navy and Marine Corps use
B. Service life and maintenance problems
II. Combat inadequacies of the CH-46E
A. Combat range
B. Limited fuel problems
C. Cargo-carrying capability
III. MLR available platforms
A. MLR requirements
B. Joint requirements
IV. MV-22 vs CH-53E
A. Shipboard operations
1. Marine Expeditionary Unit composition
2. Troop-carrying capability
3. Cargo-carrying capability
B. Survivability
C. Armament requirement and capability
D. Combat range
V. Conclusion
Maj G. K. Wilcutt #8
The Medium Lift Replacement
The CH-46 "Sea Knight" helicopter has been an integral
assault component of Marine and Naval aviation since 1964.
Unfortunately, the CH-46, because of its age, has several
problems. It has numerous maintenance difficulties, a limited
combat range, various aeronautical restrictions and critical
supply shortages which directly impact on its combat
effectiveness. It is past time for the CH-46 to be retired from
the Marine Corps and Naval inventory and replaced with a new
"medium lift aircraft (MLR)." Lessons learned from "Operation
Restore Hope" in Somalia validated this requirement through the
following statement, ".. .HQMC [Headquarters Marine Corps] cite
experiences in Restore Hope as additional justification [sic] for
immediate procurement of the medium lift replacement." (3:5)
Unofficially, the MV-22 "Osprey" has been identified as the MLR.
but other aviation platforms are available that are not only
suitable replacements at reduced costs but enhance the
commanders' warfighting capability. The Marine Corps needs to
seriously review what aviation platform will best support the
Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) and the Combatant Commander.
The Navy has utilized the CH-46 extensively for combat
resupply and vertical replenishment (VERTREP). It has been the
Marine Corps' medium lift assault aircraft for almost 30 years.
2According to the Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures
Standardization (NATOPS) Manual:
"The CH-46 helicopter's primary mission is the rapid
dispersal of combat troops, support equipment, and supplies
from amphibious assault landing ships and established
airfields to advanced bases in underdeveloped areas having
limited maintenance and logistical support under all weather
conditions in day or night." (10:1-1-1)
Its missions additionally include search and rescue (SAR) and
medical evacuation (MEDEVAC).
The CH-46 was originally designed with a service life of
10,000 flight hours. Unfortunately, many of the CH-46
helicopters in the Navy and Marine Corps inventory are either
approaching or have exceeded this limit. Within the past five
years, several accidents in the CH-46 community have been
attributed to dynamic component failures, such as transmissions,
rotor heads and rotor blades. These accidents have burdened the
community with numerous maintenance inspections and aeronautical
limitations, including both airspeed and angle-of-bank
restrictions. (4:16) All of these inspections and limitations
are focused on the dynamic component parts of the helicopter.
Currently inspections are required every 10 flight hours,
every 25 flight hours, and every 100 flight hours. The 100 hour
inspection is a phase maintenance overhaul, which is a detailed
inspection that checks almost every dynamic component of the
helicopter. To put this in perspective, the helicopter presently
goes through, 12 maintenance inspections prior to its phase
maintenance overhaul. These inspections are not just "quick-
looks," they involve a detailed non-destructive inspection (NDI)
analysis, which is both time consuming and cumbersome. If these
rules were followed in combat, it would severely limit the rapid
dispersal of both combat troops and equipment ashore, obviously
diminishing a commander's combat effectiveness.
Regardless of what aircraft replaces the CH-46, a Service
Life Extension Program (SLEP) will be needed to extend the life
of the helicopter beyond 10,000 flight hours until a replacement
can be found. Today's acquisition process takes a minimum of
five years to get the new aircraft in the "fleet." Past and
present Commandants of the Marine Corps have stated in their
annual address to Congress that the "medium lift replacement" is
the highest priority of the "Corps." (7:10) This priority has
been restated every year by their Deputies, Chief of Staff,
Aviation. (12:37) Unfortunately because of budget cuts and
strategic considerations, the V-22, which was the proposed MLR
for the CH-46, was not considered a priority by either the
Department of Defense or Congress. Because of the expectations
of the V-22, the maintenance repairs needed for the CH-46 were
not considered urgent and ultimately delayed the SLEP program.
In addition to maintenance problems, the CH-46 also has
limited combat capabilities. With an effective combat range of
only 50-60 nautical miles, its ability to rapidly disperse combat
troops is questionable. Effective combat range is the ability to
disperse troops and remain in the designated drop-area for an
emergency evacuation followed by a safe return to the ship or
land base for reloading and refueling. The recently published
Navy and Marine Corps concept of the Naval Expeditionary Force
(NEF), refers to amphibious assaults taking place 20-35 nautical
miles from the shore. This range diminishes the effectiveness of
the CH-46E in any future amphibious warfare scenario. A
statement in lessons learned from "Operation Restore Hope" should
be noted, "This shortfall in radius [combat range] resulted in
split maintenance, weakened aviation command and control, and
increased logistics requirements (refueling, etc.)." (3:6) This
combat range of 50-60 nautical miles additionally places the
Marines and forward operating bases, whether at sea or on land,
in danger when one considers the effective range of modern
artillery.
Lieutenant General Stackpole, Joint Task Force Commander
during Operation Sea Angel, made reference to the combat
capabilities of the CH-46 helicopter:
"The CH-46 is tired, it doesn't have the range we really
need; and I can tell you that having just returned six
months ago from commanding all the Marines in the Western
Pacific, that with improved medium lift, we could have saved
thousands of more lives, and responded much more quickly in
bringing relief aid to Bangladesh...." (1:5)
Although modifications have been made to increase fuel capacity
and thereby increase range, it is negated by the limited cargo
weight the CH-46 can carry because of the additional fuel.
Therefore, even with fully loaded fuel tanks giving it the extra
range, in most scenarios, the CH-46E would not be able to carry
the 18 passengers advertised to the ground combat element.
The most recent operation the CH-46E was involved in,
"Operation Restore Hope," clearly indicated the significant
problems this helicopter has in doing not only a humanitarian
mission but a combat mission also. In lessons learned, the
following is quoted:
"During Restore Hope, Marine Forces conducted operations at
significantlly greater distances than were easily
supportable by our current medium lift helicopter, the
CH-46E. The closest of these sites to another one was 52
miles and the most distant was 220 .... Not surprisingly
then...the 19H-46E was a significant operational
limitation. (3:6)
Another problem with the CH-46 is the availability of spare
parts for maintenance. (11:7) As mentioned earlier, an aircraft
is normally purchased with a predetermined service-life. This
computation is the predominant factor in determining how many
spare parts the particular type-model aircraft will need. The
CH-46, by outliving its service-life, has severely diminished the
availability of spare parts for its dynamic components. Because
the MLR was already programmed to be in service, additional spare
part acquisition was stopped and cannot be started again quickly.
It takes time to find businesses qualified and willing to
manufacture these military peculiar parts.
Fortunately, there are many aircraft platforms available on
the market today to replace the CH-46, but one has to first look
at what that replacement aircraft will be required to do. Joint
military operations in the future will require the MLR to support
both the Marine Corps and the Joint Task Force Commander. The
days of unique service operations are gone forever. Furthermore,
this joint effort will go beyond conventional and unconventional
warfare. Today's military must be prepared to respond to a
variety of missions such as, humanitarian relief, peacemaking,
and peacekeeping. (9:14) So the MLR must be capable of being a
viable weapon system in any of these scenarios.
Additionally, the Navy and Marine Corps have advertised
themselves as an "enabling force from the sea" in recently
published doctrine. (8:27) This expeditionary force will project
combat power ashore from the littoral areas of the world. In
other words, this projection of expeditionary combat power is
both "over-the-horizon (OTH)" amphibious operations and
amphibious operations closer to the shore or in Naval terms,
"brown-water operations." In operations closer to the shore, the
rapid dispersal of combat power becomes even more important
because the element of operational surprise is lost when compared
with OTH operations.
The Operational Requirement document for the MLR listed the
below criteria as the minimum acceptable for the replacement of
the CH-46E. (13)
Radius of Action 200NM
Passengers 24
External Load Capability 10,000lbs
Cruise Speed 180kts
Endurance 3hrs
Aerial Refueling Capable Yes
External Tanks Yes
Number Required 507
The three best aviation platforms available today to replace the
CH-46 are the MV-22, the CH-60, and the CH-53E because of their
availability to be immediately manufactured. All three have
advantages and disadvantages associated with each and need to be
examined. When looking at the MLR, one has to look at what will
best support the combatant commander with shipboard capability,
weapons capability, lift ability, and the projection of combat
power ashore. The criteria above eliminates the CH-60 because of
its limited lift ability, limited passenger ability, and limited
cargo space. Therefore, the following paragraphs will examine
the advantages and disadvantages of the MV-22 and CH-53E.
These comparisons should first address "shipboard
operations," the trademark of Naval and Marine Corps aviation.
As Secretary Cheney said, "The unique value of Marine forces lies
in their ability to project substantial combat power ashore from
the sea." (2:76) When looking at this area, many different
subjects need to be examined in detail. Some of the most
important are the numbers of aircraft capable of operating on an
amphibious ship, the ability to project combat power ashore, and
the lift capacity of the aircraft, both internal and external.
The other area which needs to be addressed when considering
amphibious operations is the limited aviation assets the
Commander of the Amphibious Task Force (CATF) has to accomplish
his mission because of the natural friction between the CATF and
the Commander of the Carrier Battle Group.
Presently with the CH-46E, there are normally two aviation
combinations of Marine Expeditionary Units aboard amphibious
ships. The first mix is constructed of helicopters and the
second incorporates a detachment of AV-8B "Harriers." The
helicopter mix is normally comprised of 12 CH-46Es, 4 CH-53Es, 4
UH-1Ns, and 4 AH-1Ws for fire support and helicopter escort. The
second mix is normally comprised of the same helicopter assets
but with an additional 6 AV-8Bs added which gives the CATF a
small element of fixed-wing support to protect his amphibious
shipping and the landing force ashore. The footprint of the CH-
53E and the MV-22 are similar. Therefore, there would not be a
significant difference in the numbers of either onboard the
ships. What would change is the amount of combat power the CATF
would be able to put ashore with each type aircraft.
The MV-22 is advertised to carry 24 combat loaded troops
whereas the CH-53E is capable of carrying 55 combat loaded troops
with center-line seats installed. If a commander has 12 CH-53Es
to plan his operation, he can carry 660 Marines to the battle on
the first wave of the amphibious assault. With 12 MV-22s, he can
only carry 264 Marines to the fight. In other words, the first
wave of CH-53Es would transport almost two companies of Marines
to the fight providing a considerable amount of combat power.
The second wave would get the entire battalion of the Marine
Expeditionary Unit ashore. Future waves could be utilized to get
the combat service support equipment and essential command and
control equipment ashore. These capabilities of the CH-53E
provide the' commander with a tremendous advantage over his
adversaries and does exactly what the CATF wants to do--get
combat power ashore as rapidly as possible.
After the initial helicopter assault waves of transporting
troops ashore, the CH-53E has a huge cargo-carrying advantage
over the MV-22, both internally and externally. The CH-53E can
carry 32,000 pounds of external cargo and approximately 25,000
pounds of internal cargo. Its internal cargo capacity is
approximate because it is determined from the maximum gross
weight of the helicopter which is 69,750 pounds. If it carries
less fuel, it can carry more internal cargo. The MV-22 has
significantly less internal and external lift capabilities than
the CH-53E. Additionally, the MV-22's internal cargo capacity is
very similar to the CH-46E which is already too small for the
job. It would provide no future lift benefits for the combatant
commander. The lift disadvantages of the MV-22 would continue to
hamper the ability of the combat service support element (CSSE)
commander to get critical supplies ashore, the aviation element
commander (ACE) to get his command and control assets ashore, and
the ground combat commander (GCE) to get the required fire
support command and control assets ashore in order to transfer
command from the ship to the shore.
Survivability tests have proven that the MV-22 is more
survivable on the battlefield than the CH-53E. This means that
the CH-53E has more small-arm vulnerable areas on the helicopter
than the MV-22. With additional armor on the CH-53E, the results
of this test could be significantly different. The CH-53E
presently has no engine armor on the helicopter. It has the
capability for armor to be added and can certainly withstand the
weight it would impose, but the best way to make an aircraft more
survivable on the battlefield is to add both armor and armament.
In a letter to the editor about the "Gulf War," the following was
said, "We were face with the potential of using CH-53Es to pick
up the load. .. their landing characteristics render them and the
troops they carry vulnerable while landing. They will certainly
require additional armament and armor." (6:17)
Neither the MV-22 nor the CH-53E have any armament
installation planned. Initial studies were done years ago to
determine the feasibility of armament on helicopters and proved
satisfactory. It is truly amazing that no one would dare put an
unarmed Marine on the battlefield, but the Marine Corps is
willing to launch unarmed helicopters loaded with Marines
everyday to the battlefield. The recent use of unarmed
helicopters was highlighted in Somalia, "Another example of
degraded support occurred when the CH-46 could not escort food
convoys on their route. . . leaving the convoys with decreased
security." (3:6)
With modern technology, today's battlefield has become much
larger. This means the military needs to become much smarter in
weapons procurement. Budgets are shrinking and money is scarce,
so it past time for a helicopter to become multi-roled. It is
time to arm assault-support helicopters to be able to assist the
landing force commander in fire support. Joseph C. Harsch of the
Christian Science Monitor recently emphasized in an editorial the
need for helicopter gunships for the foot-soldier. (5:75) The
1986 Omnibus Agreement between the Marine Corps and the Air Force
deals strictly with fixed-wing aircraft. With armament on the
CH-53E, the Marine Corps would not have to deal with the Joint
Forces Aviation Combatant Commander (JFACC) when it needed fire
support for the landing force. This attack version of the
helicopter would still have basically the same cargo and
personnel lift capabilities as the original CH-53E because of the
tremendous lift capacity of the helicopter. Therefore, with the
CH-53E armed, the commander would virtually have a gunship
capable of carrying 55 Marines to the objective area and remain
on-station for close-in-fire-support (CIFS). This need for armed
helicopters for CIFS was stressed by LtGen. Wills in a recent
interview. (12:34)
This armed helicopter could be used in many ways by the
commander of the force that is coming "from-the-sea." It could
be used in preassault, supporting, subsidiary, and the assault
phases of the amphibious operation. It could prepare the landing
zone or beach with fire prior to landing, defend itself against
fixed-wing or helicopter adversaries, and become more survivable
on the battlefield. The capabilities and flexibility the CATF
would have on the battlefield with a multi-roled A/CH-53E
(attack/cargo helicopter) would be a considerable advantage. As
stated earlier, helicopters are most vulnerable just prior to
landing. In Vietnam, the North Vietnamese would wait for the
helicopters to land and discharge troops prior to opening fire.
On more than one occasion, the North Vietnamese mistakingly
opened fire on AH-1 "Cobras." To their surprise, the Cobras
fired back. The North Vietnamese rarely fired on a Cobra in the
landing zone again throughout the conflict. Armament on
helicopters is to our advantage and would eliminate the
disadvantage helicopters now have on short final to landing. The
ideal platform for armament is the CH-53E because it can
withstand the extra weight the armament would add and still carry
out its other missions.
Another consideration of the MLR is combat range. The MV-22
is advertised to be able to go 2,100 nautical miles without
requiring an aerial refueling operation. This capability
requires the aircraft to have internal fuel tanks which
completely negates any internal cargo capability. Therefore, the
MV-22 would be able to get to the battlefield, but the Marine
Corps would still depend on "strategic lift" from the Air Force
to get the ground combat force in the theater. The CH-53E cannot
get to the faraway battlefields without Air Force support either,
but the helicopter is C-5 compatible whereas the MV-22 is not.
The MV-22 will not have an option; it will have to fly to the
fight no matter how far away it may be or how bad the weather may
be. This takes away a capability to get to the fight the Marine
Corps can ill afford.
The last comparison which needs to be made between the CH-
53E and the MV-22 is cost. In this time of scarce defense
resources, all military services will have to spend defense
dollars only on needed items. Presently, the MV-22 is programmed
to cost 29.4 million dollars each with a 600 plus buy. Of course
this price will go up in future years because of inflation. The
CH-53E has more than twice the lift and passenger carrying
capacity than the MV-22. Therefore, the services would need to
buy far fewer aircraft to replace the CH-46E and could save
scarce dollars. With armament on the CH-53E, the Marine Corps
could also replace the aging Cobra helicopter. The logistic
money saved with only one type-model helicopter in the inventory
would be tremendous and could eventually bring the cost of the
CH-53E down even further.
No one questions the need for the MLR. The CH-46E is tired
and can no longer fulfill the missions needed on a modern
battlefield. The comparison between the CH-53E and MV-22 clearly
indicates that an A/CH-53E is more advantageous to the Marine
Corps and the combatant commander. Whatever choice is made,
without armament; the MLR will not be complete. It will just be
another unarmed, airborne taxi hauling cargo and personnel to the
battlefield. The CH-53E is the ideal platform for armament and
logistics. It should be the choice for MLR!
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. "America's Flexible Force Option." Interview. Amphibious
Warfare Review Winter/Spring 92: 5.
2. Cheney, Dick. Annual Report To the President and Congress
January 1993: 76.
3. Curry, Major Dave. "Operation Restore Hope. Marine Corps
Lessons Learned System (MCCLS): 5-8.
4. Fitzpatrick, Lt. Mike. "Combat Support Platform for the
21st Century." Rotor Review November 92: 16.
5. Gibson, Maj. Mark J. "The AH-1W SuperCobra: Semper Volens,
Semper Potens." Marine Corps Gazette December92: 75.
6. Lehenbauer, Capt. Dale L. "Improving Our CH-53Es." Marine
Corps Gazette November 91: 17.
7. "Mandate for the 90's." Interview. Amphibious Warfare
Review Summer 91: 10.
8. Concepts and Issues. Manual published by Headquarters, U.
S. Marine Corps 1992: 27.
9. Mundy, Gen. Carl E. "Naval Expeditionary Forces: Stepping
Lightly." Marine Corps Gazette February 93: 14.
10. Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization
Manual. CH-46E SR&M Manual August 89: 1-1-1.
11. O'Bannon, Capt. Kenneth L. "HC--The Future?" Rotor Review
November 92: 5.
12. O'Brien, F. Michael. "An interview with LtGen. Duane A.
Wills." Marine Corps Gazette December 92: 34-37.
13. Swisher, Maj. Robert. Briefing slides from the Warfighting
Center, Quantico, Va.

[Crazed Rabbit]

But DA, you just ruined a perfect slanted presentation by the AP with your lousy facts and reality!

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

But DA, you just ruined a perfect slanted presentation by the AP with your lousy facts and reality!

Yeah , facts like ....Read up. Here. Good article comparing to potential replacements for the aging CH-53.
an article comparing the potential replacement of the CH-46 ????? so thats not much of a real factual comparrisson is it , and it does seem to recomend that the CH-53 is chosen as the replacement rather than the Osprey .
But hey don't let that stop facts and reality .~;)

but none of his arguments fit Your or Soly's flacid complaints.
??????
Soly complains about cost and efficiency , so does the article you post .
Spetulhu complains about load and range , so does the article you post .

[Divinus Arma]

But DA, you just ruined a perfect slanted presentation by the AP with your lousy facts and reality!

Yeah , facts like ....Read up. Here. Good article comparing to potential replacements for the aging CH-53.
an article comparing the potential replacement of the CH-46 ????? so thats not much of a real factual comparrisson is it , and it does seem to recomend that the CH-53 is chosen as the replacement rather than the Osprey .
But hey don't let that stop facts and reality .~;)

but none of his arguments fit Your or Soly's flacid complaints.
??????
Soly complains about cost and efficiency , so does the article you post .
Spetulhu complains about load and range , so does the article you post .

This is just typical Tribesman anger just for the sake of anger. Obviously I made a typo. I guess that makes all of my arguments invalid, huh? God forbid.

As for the rest of your nonsense, Soly compares the MV 22 to ground equipment. They cannot be compared. We need to replace our medium lift capability. I don't care if it's the MV 22 or something else. Spelthu's point s don't even fit into Marine Capabilities; he isn't even making a valid analysis of the topic! Sure, it's got a lot of range when empty, but that won't help the Marines that want to reach the combat zone. A Special Ops squad will get better range, of course. This doesn't even belong in the argument. It it far more capable than our existing aging fleet. The full combat load is nearly double that of our current capability. Further, Spec ops has little to do with sea basing and amphibious manuever warfare. It's merely an extra capability added to the commander's total range, rather than the core of the whole.

Tribesman, you sure love to bait with nonsensical distortions of facts. Why are you so angry?

[rory_20_uk]

OK... The concept is over 20 YEARS OLD!

It still doesn't work! It's been built for the time that is the life expectancy for some kit! It's a white elephant, a paper tiger, a cathedral in the desert!

I could draw a picture of something and say it's better than your existing fleet, faster further etc etc, and in 20 years it'd not emerge either. The commanders havn't got it, there is no timescale to get it. And all the time the chances of getting something else are not there as this farce is sucking up the money.

There comes a time to GIVE UP! Something else could have been designed for this cash - a hovercraft, a helicopter or a plane. Improve on one of these concepts. $18 BILLION will get you a long way.

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

This is just typical Tribesman anger just for the sake of anger. Obviously I made a typo.
And obviously Rabbit didn't read your link ....you just ruined a perfect slanted presentation by the AP with your lousy facts and reality!
:laugh4:

Oh so sorry , it was just a typo then . So many years ago they thought that a system that was having problems , was unable to do the job as well and was much more expensive was the worse choice of the two options for replacement . Now today they think that a system that is having problems , is unable to do the job and is more expensive is what exactly ?

Talking of nonsense Div ....The full combat load is nearly double that of our current capability....is that another typo ? it must by as the load is half of the current one :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Soly compares the MV 22 to ground equipment. They cannot be compared. We need to replace our medium lift capability.
An interesting comparison don't you think , since there is little point in having the Osprey to put people on the ground if you are dening the people on the ground the equipment they need , the best example from that article is blocking the funding for the ground vehicles that are designed to be used with the Osprey . How exactly does that increase capability ?

Or more to the topic , this bill is for funding the war , so exactly when where and how are ospreys being used in Iraq ?
edit to add..OK... The concept is over 20 YEARS OLD!
...the current project is that old , the concept is much much older , it has been tried many times by many countries and militarily at least it has always ben an expensive failure .

edit to also add , Soly mentions the accidents , one cause of this has been pilot error , there are problems with rotor vortex effects . Basically a rapid descent means that the engines do not provide any lift at all .
Since in a hostile environment , like a war , a rapid descent is pretty important when it involves getting troops/equipment safely on the ground .
If the V-22 cannot do this then how does it increase capability at all

[solypsist]

The only reality he missed was that the Osprey doesn't work, and hasn't worked for over 20 years.

That being said it's monstrous stupidity to short change the infantry anything. The cost expediture is negligable and the payback is much greater per dollar. The infantry should be one of the most well funded areas of any military, expecially one fighting a largely urban "war" against guerilla style forces.


But DA, you just ruined a perfect slanted presentation by the AP with your lousy facts and reality!

Crazed Rabbit

[BigTex]

There is a new book out, was lauded on the "Jon Stewart" show, that now calls the MIC - the "Military Industrial Congressional Complex" because it is as much Congress that drives some of these programs as it is the military.
An example the author gave for the compliance between them (congress and the pentagon) was on the B-1 bomber, a total loser. The B-1 was touted as the saviour of the Airforce, by the USAF; it was the first program Carter trashed, first one Reagan re-instated, first one Clinton dragged his feet on, and the first one Bush pushed for a full steam ahead build (or re-design, or make safe, etc). The plane itself is "pretty", but it has been grounded more than it has been allowed to actually fly. Then why are we still dealing with this thing that can't even compare to the B-52? Well, seems that parts for the B-1 are produced in nearly every State in the Union, and something like +70% of the House districts. So, it is a legitimized pork project that makes everyone happy, and all the congressmen (women) can point out that they are bringing jobs to their districts (States).

As for the Osprey, it made sense in the 80's - and the Brits have one (that works), but when, where, why, or how we would ever use such a weapon is beyond me. To support ground troops it would have to be stationary (not a good idea) and one report said a BB gun (I'm sure they exaggerated) could damage it. Regardless, since there don't seem to be any Harry Trumans' running around congress trying to assure compliance between our military's actual needs and the design/development/manufacture of its weaponry it maybe time to establish a citizens board - like a "Grand Jury" (Harry, btw, put 100's of thousands of miles on his car in WWII investigating the manufacures of weapons. He found a plane thats' wings were 2 feet to short - yet, the manufacturer and military waere going to do it anyway ... 'til Harry stepped in and promised to expose them if they didn't fix it. He also found the Navy was buying torpedoes that didn't explode, and a number of other things).

The way things are done today, and have been since we became a war nation in 1947 are entrenched now in the design / contractual / and maunfacturing processes. It is way to late to change anything about it. Remember the "Sgt. York" artillary piece - they had 50 of them planned for manufacture, even though it didn't work. Until the military came to their senses, because of an investigative report. :wall:

The B-1 bomber is insane in its costs 2.4 billion dollars per plane. One B-1 costs more then a nimitz class airfract carrier. The B-52 can carry more, longer and fly higher then most aa, sure it isnt stealth, but thats were the F-22, F-117, JSF come in. There's major problems with how the US military is spending money on. There's more problems with how the congress is taking money away also. Last year the congress nearly scrapped the crusader projoect, calling the mobile artilary old and unusable in war nowadays. I believe the germans and their Panther artilery would disagree, but hey gotta love congressmen, they know everything. As for establishing a citizens board, we have that its called congress, and their part of the problem. I think we should get rid of congress completely from the militar and let the military build what it needs with the funds congress gives. Without all the budget control they have already.

As for the Osprey, it doesnt work well it unreliable, why in the world didn't they just invest in building another better helicopter to replace the other helicopter. It would have cost less and been out already. Bush nor Cheney want it and yet congress funds it. Either congress over reacts to a problem or they don't react to a problem at all :wall: when will we get a congress that actually solves problems they didn't create?

[Divinus Arma]

The osprey, fully loaded, has double the range of the vietnam era Sea Knight. The combat range of the Sea Knight, fully loaded, is 50-60 nautical miles.

My only argument is that we need to replace our aging fleet. I think that osprey can do the job fine because of its range, lift limits, and ability to fly itself from the U.S. to the combat theatre (self deployment). Yes, it has had problems, but it is well on its way.

I understand the author's point of view on failing to arm these flying buses, but he fails to acknowledge that every unarmed bird is supported by various rotory wing and fixed wing aircraft, each with more than enough firepower to soften up a landing site prior to the Osprey mkaing its landing.

[Husar]

Hmm, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/h-53.htm
says about the CH-53:

Seats for 55 passengers or litters for 24 patients
and

Designed to carry 32,000 pounds of cargo at cruise speed to a range of no less than 50 nautical miles
At destination, the helicopter can discharge its cargo, equipment, or troops and return no less than 50 nautical miles—arriving with at least 20 minutes of fuel in reserve.

about the V-22 Osprey http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/v-22.htm
says:

200nm Pre-Assault Raid with 18 troops
200nm Land Assault with 24 troops
50 nm (x2) Amphibious Assault

So it looks like the Osprey can carry less over roughly the same distance at a higher speed.
The argument about it´s vulnerability is nonsense because a helicopter is also pretty vulnerable, you just gotta know where to hit it.
It also appears to me that the military usually purchases something, makes a midlife-update and then gets something new, so if the CH-53 is old, it needs replacement. If there is no other option than the Osprey, the replacement should be the Osprey, if it already cost 18.000.000.000$, I also aouldn´t just throw that money away and end the project, like they did with the Comanche, in that case, the money is completely lost, if you go on, you might at least get anything for the money...

Concerning the B-52 and B-1 comparison, looky here my sparetime generals, the B1-carries more than the B-52 and travels way faster...

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/jdam.gif

And comparing the B-1 to the F-22, F-117, JSF has got to be a joke, right?
FAS also mentions a price of "$200-plus million per aircraft" which says plus, but isn´t really close to 2 billion.

Edit: I just saw that the cost for the B-2 (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-2.htm) says "Approximately $2.1 billion".

[Divinus Arma]

The CH-53E stallion is a heavy lift bird. It has a different mission than the medium lift sea knight CH-46.

The medium lift is designed to get to the fight faster, though carrying less

[BigTex]

Your data's off on the B-52. The current B-52 (its been upgraded many many times) allows for a weapon bomb load of 70,000+ (i believe the figures are off, they were recently upgraded and can carry more then the b-2). The B1-B carries 75,000 internally, 59,000 externally, but since it is usually used as a supersonic heavy bomber its doubtful they carry the external bomb load often. B-2 carries 78,000 internally. There's a huge cost difference, and the b-52 is by far cheaper. The problem is the B-2 costs 2.5 billion each, and there are only 20 of them. There are hundreds of B-52's. Also your chart is screwy, JDAM is a system not a bomb, JDAM can be equiped to any gravity bomb. So you may want to include in that chart the wieght of the bomb the JDAM is atached to.


And comparing the B-1 to the F-22, F-117, JSF has got to be a joke, right?
FAS also mentions a price of "$200-plus million per aircraft" which says plus, but isn´t really close to 2 billion

The F-22's payload is enormous if it caries the bombs externally. Its also 1/10th of the price, and flys far far faster. The JSF is even cheaper and has a pretty large payload. The B-2 can carry far more but loosing one is like loosing a nimitz carrier. Except instead of screaming there goes Lincoln, its there goes Wisonsin.

[rory_20_uk]

Why do the marines require the ability to strike 200 miles inland? By this point I thought that it should be the Army, as the beach can surely be said to be taken.

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

The CH-53E stallion is a heavy lift bird. It has a different mission than the medium lift sea knight CH-46.

But the CH-53D is a medium lift , that is also being replaced by the V-22 , and the D does carry more than the V-22 .
But still no comment on the actual topic , why is this being funded by money intended for different (more urgent ?) current needs .

Why do the marines require the ability to strike 200 miles inland?
Rory would you like to think about that a little ? Like as , when do you park an LPH on the actual beach :idea2:

edit to add , Divinus since you mention the E as a different mission ,what about the J ? That is being replaced by the 22 and no way does the Osprey have a higher capacity at all .

[Ronin]

But, but...we need night vision!:no:

soldiers can get shot at just as well without nightvision...

[DemonArchangel]

[WAR NERD]

Look, the V-22 is replacing the CH-53D, not the heavy lift CH-53E (with its third engine)

It would do well replacing the CH-46 Sea Knight, which can carry 25 troops a maximum of 184 miles and at a maximum of 165 mph.

The V-22 can carry the the same amount of troops around 400 miles on a combat load at around 250 mph. The V-22 can make trips twice as frequently as the CH-46.

Even though the CH-53D carries more than the V-22, you can easily scrap them for the CH-53E, which takes up around the same amount of space and has the same dynamics, but carries a much larger load. It's easier on logistics to have just the V-22 and CH-53E instead of the CH-46, CH-53D and CH-53E, not to mention the fact that the V-22 is simply better in every aspect than the CH-46. So let the American govt. do its job and spend the money on the Osprey. It's uninformed people (like certain members of the .org) that get useful projects cancelled because development costs too much in the short term.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/osprey/specs.html

And as for you Big Tex, the B-52 might be cheap, and it might just carry a bigger payload than the B-1B, but it shows up like a christmas tree light on radar. Even though you could buy 5-6 B-52s for one B-1 or 20 for one B-2, they're all going to get shot down, taking their expensive to train crews with it, and causing PR issues with the home front, not to mention that fact that experienced crews can't just be sacrificed like that.

[/WAR NERD]

[Tribesman]

Look, the V-22 is replacing the CH-53D, not the heavy lift CH-53E (with its third engine)

What about it replacing the 53J then demon ?

not to mention the fact that the V-22 is simply better in every aspect than the CH-46.
Apart from the aspect of cost , current availability , a few basic problems with avionics and safety . Yes it is better than a helicopter designer 50 years ago .

So let the American govt. do its job and spend the money on the Osprey.
Errr .....if it was doing its job then the funding wouldn't be tagged onto this particular spending bill would it . That is the core issue in case you missed it .

It's uninformed people (like certain members of the .org) that get useful projects cancelled because development costs too much in the short term.

You mean people like Cheney ?....Vice President Cheney, as secretary of defense in the first Bush administration, tried to kill the V-22, to no avail.

Useful projects ? Short term ?
You do know how long the US has been working on tilt-wing aircraft , and you do know how much this current short-term project has gone on for and how much it has cost ? Or maybe you don't .

edit to addOr so the liberals would have you believe. It seems these days that even preparing for the eventuality of a real war is taboo.
Ummmmmm....have you actually read this thread GC ?

[mercian billman]

Why do the marines require the ability to strike 200 miles inland? By this point I thought that it should be the Army, as the beach can surely be said to be taken.

~:smoking:

Amphibous Assault isn't just about seizing the beach. It's about establishing a foothold on foreign soil and allowing more troops to land on it and expand upon it. Just like the Marines did in Afghanistan, and we didn't even need a beach.

[Major Robert Dump]

The Osprey has killed more people in accidents than Audi cars. I don't know why we weren't paying Audi to make us a super lifter, at least they would have lots of trunk space and maybe speakers in the doors.

[Samurai Waki]

If and when the MV22 becomes applicable to military uses and has been through mass production, the project will probably be scrapped anyways for anti gravitational technologies that can do the job better and more efficiently. Seems far fetched, but that was one of the biggest reasons why the Comanche was scrapped, other than costs, military analysts predicted it would have a good 5-10 year run before we could build something better and cheaper. The only really succesful military venture to see it's completion after 20 years of research has been the F-22 which is already being produced and the US has at least one Combat Ready Squadron. The JSF might also see to its completion, but the MV22 is too little to late imo.

[Tribesman]

Of course i've read the thread, Tribesman. Spare me you're pointless one-liners.
So could you explain this pointless one liner in relation to this topic and the posts made herein ?
Or so the liberals would have you believe. It seems these days that even preparing for the eventuality of a real war is taboo.

[DemonArchangel]

Tribesman:

I know exactly what the Osprey costs, has cost and I have a pretty good idea about how much it costs. I think that it's worth the money given the capabilities of the Osprey.

And the CH-53J doesn't exist, you're thinking about the MH-53J Pave Low, which is a night infiltrator that has less range than the Osprey, which reduces its capabilities in terms of Special Forces insertion.

It's ok if we purchase less nightvision for troops, because we currently don't need as many nightvision units on the ground due to reduced troop numbers. What the military does need is something that has the range to insert troops deep into enemy territory, do it quickly and then stow it aboard an LHD for use. The Osprey can do all that, so it will be purchased, no matter someone like you says.

Edited for language by Ser Clegane

[rory_20_uk]

The day a slow plane that turns into a slow helicopter changes the way America fights is the day the world ends.

In a "high intensity" war it'd be shot out of the sky so fast they'd never replace the losses. It's only marginal use is in low intensity wars.

You may be ahead, in tech, but as can be seen my events in Iraq, afghansitan etc etc tech helps, but doesn't win wars by itself.

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

Well, you are from Ireland. I guess it stands to reason you wouldn't understand a US problem.

Yeah I am really confused and cannot understand , since when did Cheney become a liberal ?
But people bitch about the cost. Then they try and say we'll never need those weapons again, that we'll only ever fight "low-intensity" wars like Iraq.
Well excuse my ignorance , but isn't this funding about the current low intensity Iraq war ?
Also didn't the pentagon decide that low intensity is what they have to gear up for now , as they realised that their old 4;2;1;1 plans were crap .

I know exactly what the Osprey costs, has cost and I have a pretty good idea about how much it costs. I think that it's worth the money given the capabilities of the Osprey.

well DA perhaps you should have had a job in government or the defense contractors , as they seriously screwed up on costs didn't they .
And you still avoid the topic .... does this funding allocation belong in this bill ?
But since you don't want to address that , then....And the CH-53J doesn't exist, you're thinking about the MH-53J Pave Low, which is a night infiltrator that has less range than the Osprey, which reduces its capabilities in terms of Special Forces insertion.

You do notice that I omited the prefix entirely ? Perhaps not :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So capability then . A night infiltrator with more range , but less troop and cargo capacity , less room for for electronic gadgetry , less firepower , less adaptability , less potential for armour upgrade , no vehicle capability(this bill stops the vehicles for the Osprey) , oh and finally less of them , so for a few extra miles you now have a lot less than half of the existing capacity .
Or you will have when the things are finally built , delivered , taken into service and all the crews trained , the latter should be fun as the top test pilots are finding it a bit of a handfull to adapt to .

[Husar]

Much like the Abrams, the Raptor, the F-35, etc. etc.
I agree on the Raptor, nice plane, but the F-35 still has some years to become operational and the Abrams is a pretty old tank, which, AFAIK is not as good as the newest Leopard, Leclerc and the likes.

[Divinus Arma]

According to MRD, the Osprey ios also capable of feeding the entire world with a shart.

[Husar]

According to MRD, the Osprey ios also capable of feeding the entire world with a shart.
MRD for president!:2thumbsup: :laugh4:

[solypsist]

you're getting pretty far our ahead yourself. the osprey doesn't doesnt "give us an edge" or anything else. all the osprey does right now is crash and kill people, and cost a lot of money that could be better spent, at this time, on worn out equipment for ground soldiers. it hasn't done anything beyond that.

this is an opinion based on facts (http://election.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/04/05/national/main284115.shtml), not on "well one day we could..." there are more economical methods of developing tech than this sort of system.





The Osprey is a tool that advances our level of technology. It gives us an edge over the rest of the world. Much like the Abrams, the Raptor, the F-35, etc. etc.

But people bitch about the cost. Then they try and say we'll never need those weapons again, that we'll only ever fight "low-intensity" wars like Iraq. It has become taboo to prepare for the eventuality of a real war with a great power, and so there is undue hampering and criticism of military projects.

Say what you will about the corporations who make weapons, but I say "thanks" to 'em, for keeping our military top-notch in terms of technology, and way ahead of the rest of the world for the last decade or two.

[yesdachi]

You may be ahead, in tech, but as can be seen my events in Iraq, afghansitan etc etc tech helps, but doesn't win wars by itself.
We are not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan, but the terrorists operating in those countries. The US, in large part to our superior tech and training are arguably the best there is at conventional war. However we, just like many others thru history, suck at occupation situations.

IMO our high tech level is one of the reasons we have been as successful against an unfamiliar enemy. Even the little lite tech things that we forget about (night goggles, GPS, MRE’s, and medical treatments available in the field) make a huge difference in causality rates.

[doc_bean]

But people bitch about the cost. Then they try and say we'll never need those weapons again, that we'll only ever fight "low-intensity" wars like Iraq. It has become taboo to prepare for the eventuality of a real war with a great power, and so there is undue hampering and criticism of military projects.

Say what you will about the corporations who make weapons, but I say "thanks" to 'em, for keeping our military top-notch in terms of technology, and way ahead of the rest of the world for the last decade or two.

The problem is that the military-industrial complex is pretty much a public company. Now, you like private companies and the efficiency they have compared to the public sector don't you ? This is what's lacking in the US right now. They should be threated like private companies, that don't get payed if they don't deliver. Right now they're mostly a way of redistributing the wealth, while EU governments have tons of people working directly for the state, the US government just gives the military companies a lot of money so they can create jobs for Americans.

Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it ain't what they claim you're paying for now is it ?