V-22

[dan/california]

The difference between the V22 and the Commanche is that ther is already a very mature and effective technology out there to do what the Commanche was intended to do. It is called a drone, and as near as I can determine the U.S. is buying them as fast as they can be built. Therefore there is no NEED for the Commanche.

The V22 may or may not be the perfect solution to the operational requirement it was built to fill, but there is nothing else I am aware of that can fill the role as well. I don't have access to enough of the engineering data to say if its intial problems have been fixed or not. But if it works it will be useful.

The fact that anything under 5000 feet and five hundred knots seems to way to vulneable to even basic modern infantry weapons is somethinng the Military has not thought all the way thru yet. The U.S. is going to keep taking unnessacary casulties until they do.

[Imperial Grunt]

The Osprey is replaceing the old CH-46 to be the USMC's new Imperial battlefrog. It is not replacing the CH-53, which is primarily a heavy cargo helo and not a troop tranport.

The Osprey is expensive but it has a ton of operational abilities that a MEU or other Marine unit can exploit. And it is very modern.

The Marine Corps vertical assault doctrine is to not fly into hot LZs. Those are to be avoided. If it is suspected to be hot, then a firesupport plan is put in place to pound all suspected enemy positions. Plus the engress will be escorted by Cobras.

Also, helo ops are best done at night. And low-flying helos are hard to hit until they flare to land in the LZ. So unless the Marines are unlucky and pick the wrong LZ or the enemy guess the right one and avoids the prep fires, then helo inserts are usually a good bet overall.

Vehicles and other sling-loaded stuff would only go into secure LZ's.

[Peter Cairns]

It may be very modern but that doesn't make it good value for money or necessary.

The rule od thumb for development is that the last 10% of performance cost 33% of the budget. That means if a V-22 is a 10 out of 10 and costs £100m, then a 9 out of ten helicopter probably costs about $65m.

What is it that the V-22 does so much better that it can justify the expense. Of the three current contenders for the new CSAR mission the other two are conventional helicopters.

It's back to the Apache v ARH. The ARH performe smost of the tasks that are a current priority as well or better at a fraction of the cost, and the one it can't do, dedicated anti-armour, is a once in two decades mission.

The V-22 can get 20 marines to the beach quicker from further out, but when was the last time the US had to do that.

For me it's a good example of bad procurement , in that they have spent a huge amount of money replacing something with a more advanced and complicated system, without ever really asking, the basic question....

WHY?.

Sure it can do these things, but are they things we really need to do.

In terms of "Opportunity Cost", what have the marines on the ground in Iraq had to do without, so that they can have something that they will probably rarely if ever use in the future.

Peter.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

For me it's a good example of bad procurement , in that they have spent a huge amount of money replacing something with a more advanced and complicated system, without ever really asking, the basic question....

WHY?.

Peter.

Well hell Peter. Give the Joint Chiefs a ring and let them know.

[SD Smack]

Im with Peter on this one, but for different reasons.

The V-22 has killed more people during its design phase than any other helicopter out there. Its blades are too small for a helicopter and to big for a plane. Ill take a -53, -47, -60, etc. any day of the week.

But thats just me.

[Peter Cairns]

Abbott,

So we all just sit back and let the experts make the decisions because they know best.

In the UK SDR a few years back they laid out the criteria for replacing a weapon system, and it set it out clearly.

You don't just replace you question. Do we need to do this, do we need to do it this way, is there a better way to do it, can we do it more cheaply.

As with the Commanche, it turns out that you can achieve the same or better with a cheaper drone. There is a strong case that the USAF can meet any realistic threat to at least 2020, by upgradibg the F-15 instead of buying the F-22.

The UK government is currently talking about modernising and adapting to a changing dangerous world, with terrorists and failing states. It currently spends around 40% of the defence budget on procurement.

And the current big money tag items are.

272 Eurofighter, Two 45,000 ton aircraft carriers, 12 Type 45 destroyers to protect them, 4 new Astute SSN's, between 100 -140 JSF's.

Billions of pounds being spent on stuff that frankly is of little value in the war against terror. At the same time we went in to Iraq with problems and shortages, SA-80's still causing problems, poor radios, not enough body armour, all things that had been identified more or less at the time of the first Gulf war but not put right because we were spending money on Cold War Kit after the Cold War had eneded.

You may have faith in Politicians and Generals to make the right call, but me I like to come to my own decisions about these things.

Peter.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

The V-22 can get 20 marines to the beach quicker from further out, but when was the last time the US had to do that.

Peter.

Actually there are numerous times the Marines used helos to project power ashore quickly at a distance.

-The establishment of Camp Rhino in Afghanistan was initially done by a Marines flying in on CH-53s from ships. After the airstrip was secured, Marine C-130s then flew in LAVs and more Marines.

-There have been numerous embassy extractions or reinforcement, some performed with very little notice, by Marines and their helos operating from ships.

-The rescue of Capt O'Grady in Bosnia was executed by a MEU using helicopters from ships.

-Many humanitarian missions have been conducted by Marines using their helos from ships.

The V-22, along with the EFV, will definetley earn their pricetags when deployed with Marine units. Like many other aircraft programs, the V-22 does have a bad history and it went overbudget. Hopefully all the really bad bugs have been worked out. Even the M-1 Garand rifle was critized when it first was produced, and it was the best infantry rifle in WWII.

Time will tell, but I think the V-22 will work out just fine and it will definetly allow the MEUs to perform the mission with a longer reach, faster, and more efficiently.

If I had my way though, the Marine Corps would not just invest in the V-22 exclusively as its mediem assault lift aircraft, but went for a mixed fleet of V-22s and another helicopter. But it all comes down to money and operational capabilities.

[Moronic Max]

Can an Osprey capture enemy vehicles this way?

What, like in Total Annihilation, where you could win a battle by sending a fleet of transport aircraft to pick up the (irreplacable) Commander and then self destruct, resulting in either a crippled enemy or an instant win, depending on the victory conditions? Cool. Let's put that in CMSF

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Abbott,

let the experts make the decisions because they know best.

Peter.

Not to say that I don't find you an interesting fellow Peter. But, yes, I put more stock in the experts opinions then I put in your opinions on such matters.

Originally posted by LtCol West:

If I had my way though, the Marine Corps would not just invest in the V-22 exclusively as its mediem assault lift aircraft, but went for a mixed fleet of V-22s and another helicopter.

That makes sense.

[Peter Cairns]

LtCol West,

If you can do all these things with a combination of C-130's and Current helicopters why spend so much on the V-22. A new c-130 that can carry a Lav or over 80 men 2,500 miles costs about half of what a V-22 does.

And how many of those missions in Afghanistan or Bosnia could just as easily have been carried out by the US army, the last time I looked they had helicopters too.

Harsh though this might be for a marine to hear, If there was no US Marine Corp and the budget manpower and resources had been divided amongst the other three services, it probably wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to any conflict since Korea.

Peter.

[YankeeDog]

Hoo boy. I don't have to be a former Marine to know you're opening up a whole can of worms there, Peter.

IMHO, the money spent on the USMC over the last 50 years as give the US taxpayer much more bang-for-the buck than that spent on the other services on a dollar for dollar basis.

In theory, it's probably true that the the same money allocated to the Army, Navy, and Air Force could have garnered the same result, with the proper goals and knowledge. But I think it's incredibly naive to think there's a snowball's chance in hell this would have happened.

The Marines have always managed to get the job done. Often on a shoestring. In the process, they've often ended up teaching their larger and better-funded companions in uniform how to do it. IMHO, this alone justifies their existence.

Cheers,

YD

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

LtCol West,

If you can do all these things with a combination of C-130's and Current helicopters why spend so much on the V-22. A new c-130 that can carry a Lav or over 80 men 2,500 miles costs about half of what a V-22 does.

And how many of those missions in Afghanistan or Bosnia could just as easily have been carried out by the US army, the last time I looked they had helicopters too.

Harsh though this might be for a marine to hear, If there was no US Marine Corp and the budget manpower and resources had been divided amongst the other three services, it probably wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to any conflict since Korea.

Peter.

The US Army's helicopters are not made to operate from ships or tolerate constant exposure to salt air and water. They have operated Army special ops helos from carriers, but that is a special mission and it takes a carrier out of the fight. And it takes alot of training to operate from ships routinely.

If the Marine Corps had the V-22 for Afghanistan, the build up of combat power at Rhino would have been alot faster. The CH-53Es could then have transported more fuel, ammo, supplies, water, etc..which is their primary mission. C-130s do not replace the V-22 because they can only land in airstrips that have to be secured ahead of time. The C-130s are not assault aircraft.

O'Grady could have been rescued by Army or Airforce CSAR teams, but the ships were in the best position and the Marines could there the fastest. That is why they got the mission.

If there was no Marine Corps, then the US Army would have to create special amphibious troops for the missions the Marine Corps now fulfills. More importantly, the Marine Corps has an expeditionary heritage that has developed over the years, something that the US Army traditionaly does not have alot of experience at. It is not about one service being better than another. It is about the roles of the service and capabilities and mutual support.

I assume that the Royal Marines are still in existence because Britian needs an amphibious capability and doing away with them and simply replacing them with paras will not work.

The V-22 is expensive, like all US aircraft, the the Nation can afford it and it will give the Marines and the Nation a tremedous leap forward in crisis response time and reach. The aircraft will not make a huge impact in Iraq but it will in all of the future ops the Marine Corps traditionally conducts. Especially for launching forces from beyond the horizon to go and get somebody, be it a friend in need or a foe that needs to be delt with.

[Peter Cairns]

LtCol West,

Have you heard of the "School Run Ferrari"....

I guy goes to take his kid to school in his old beat up $2,000 Nissan and it won't start, So he goes next door to his neighbour and asks could he drop him off in his $200,000 Ferrari, Sure the guy says and takes the skill".

Moral

"You can take a kid to school in a $200,000 car, but it doesn't make sense to buy one when you can do it for $2,000.

The UK and US use SSN's to deploy special forces, and if you have $1 bn subs available by all means use them. But if you were looking for the most cost effective way to deploy SEALs you wouldn't buy a fleet of 60 $1bn subs.

You can "Navalise" an appropriate number of Helicopters and can have a residual Naval assault capability and rapid response, without te need for a force like the Marine Corp. The US could probably meet an realistic threat with about a half dozen carriers, it doesn't need the F-22, and like the Commanche, the V-22 is an expensive luxtury that faced with the real challenge in Iraq and Afghanistan the US would be better off scrapping.

If they focused more on what they need to do now and less on what they would like to do in the future they would be alot better equipped to meet the challenges they face.

Peter.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by LtCol West:

The C-130s are not assault aircraft.

Better not tell the Israelis that. Hint: Entebbe. Granted, that was a one-off and you are essentially correct, but it's worth remembering that given sufficient motivation and ingenuity, surprises can happen.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

If they focused more on what they need to do now and less on what they would like to do in the future they would be alot better equipped to meet the challenges they face.

Except that the future has a way of knocking on your door just as you were about to climb in the bath. Do you really think a future enemy is going to announce that they are going to start giving you a load of grief 15-20 years in advance so you will have time to prepare for it and then sit around waiting while you get ready? How gentlemanly.

Michael

[jeffsmith]

Dear Ugly Americans,

Beginning in the early 21st Century

I and my Future Followers

Will be doing all in our Power

to Attack & Bring Down your Culture

We will be using Unconventional Means

and "Shadow War" Tactics to accomplish our Goals

In the meantime

Thank you for your assistance battling the Soviets

OBL 1982

[Michael Emrys]

Okay, so once, once! That doesn't egzackerly make a friggin' trend, y'know!

Hmph!

Michael

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Moronic Max:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Can an Osprey capture enemy vehicles this way?

What, like in Total Annihilation, where you could win a battle by sending a fleet of transport aircraft to pick up the (irreplacable) Commander and then self destruct, resulting in either a crippled enemy or an instant win, depending on the victory conditions? Cool. Let's put that in CMSF </font>

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

LtCol West,

Have you heard of the "School Run Ferrari"....

I guy goes to take his kid to school in his old beat up $2,000 Nissan and it won't start, So he goes next door to his neighbour and asks could he drop him off in his $200,000 Ferrari, Sure the guy says and takes the skill".

Moral

"You can take a kid to school in a $200,000 car, but it doesn't make sense to buy one when you can do it for $2,000.

The UK and US use SSN's to deploy special forces, and if you have $1 bn subs available by all means use them. But if you were looking for the most cost effective way to deploy SEALs you wouldn't buy a fleet of 60 $1bn subs.

You can "Navalise" an appropriate number of Helicopters and can have a residual Naval assault capability and rapid response, without te need for a force like the Marine Corp. The US could probably meet an realistic threat with about a half dozen carriers, it doesn't need the F-22, and like the Commanche, the V-22 is an expensive luxtury that faced with the real challenge in Iraq and Afghanistan the US would be better off scrapping.

If they focused more on what they need to do now and less on what they would like to do in the future they would be alot better equipped to meet the challenges they face.

Peter.

Well I guess you got the UK's and US's nation defense budget and policy all figured out! You should submit your resume ASAP.

[Peter Cairns]

LtCol West,

Germany has no nukes, no large carriers or SSN's or heavy bomber force, nor an amphibious capability, and it seems to get by okay.

I think the US and UK are still locked in to a cold war mentality and suffering from huge bureaucratic inertia. they are like supertankers that take miles to stop let alone turn around.

Services tend to suffer from "finest hour syndrome", they tend to stick with what they know best or one the last war, So the UK spends $16bn on eurofighter because it wants a new "Spitfire" when it could have bought F-15E's for a fraction of the price and got all the capacity it needed by 2000, rather than not having full air to air and air to ground a decade from now.

Meanwhile a UK squadie in Iraq gets £13,500 ( about $22,000 US), a bus driver in Scotland can earn £21,000 ($35,000 US). The fact that I have different priorities to the MOD doesn't make them right, or me for that matter.

I am however, entitled to my opinion and though you are free to disagree with it, saying it's wrong because it is different is hardly scaling the dizzy height of intelectual arguements.

I don't think at a time of real challenges both in terms of conflict and resources we should be indulging ourselves in pouring money in to over budget underperforming weapons systems, particularly when they are for marginal roles where we have good existing coverage which can be enhanced at far lower cost.

And I especially dislike wasting money on big new Cold War systems whemn the Cold War is over.

The US Navy has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world put together.. Why,

Because that's what won the war in the Pacific and that was it's "Finest Hour", so they have developed iconic status and become sacred cows.

You never fight the nsame war twice, and you need three things to win it Money, Money and MORE MONEY. Even if you start with more money if you don't spend it wisely you can lose.

Peter.

[c3k]

Peter Cairns,

Your criticism of the V-22 is based on cost. Not an invalid basis for a criticism, but certainly not the only facet that needs to be examined.

What will the V-22 replace? Now, let's compare cost, range, sorties per day, time on station, time to arrive on station, maintenance man hours per flight hour, payload, availability rates, deck requirements (for shipboard ops), suitability for integration with other assets, etc.

I mention these facets because they are so obviously missing from your calculation. If I may be so bold as to draw an analogy, a Sherman would be more suitable for current combat ops than an Abrams. Just look at the cost. Both can kill terrorists.

Regards,

Ken

[WineCape]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andrew H.:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Abbott:

Can an Osprey capture enemy vehicles this way? </font>

[MikeyD]

"...they [uS & UK] are like supertankers that take miles to stop"

I don't know which way to turn on this subject. Part of me says if the next Pentagon budget were to be abruptly slashed by 2/3rds they'd come up with some remarkably clever ways to keep the wheels turning pretty darned quick. Another part of me is reminded how efficient a gutted/underfunded FEMA turned out to be last September. In both cases it all depends on the nature of the unknowable (or ignored) future crisis we're doing all this never-ending preparation for.

Back to the topic of the Osprey, that turned out to be a prophetic name when the prototype unexpectedly dove into the river in front of rolling cameras some years (decades now?) ago.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Abbott:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei:

[qb] I think Peter means that in combat zone it'd be shot down right away. Has no place in CMSF.

I think everyone (at least on this forum) knows it is a support aircraft, not a combat aircraft. </font>

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

LtCol West,

Germany has no nukes, no large carriers or SSN's or heavy bomber force, nor an amphibious capability, and it seems to get by okay.

I think the US and UK are still locked in to a cold war mentality and suffering from huge bureaucratic inertia. they are like supertankers that take miles to stop let alone turn around.

Services tend to suffer from "finest hour syndrome", they tend to stick with what they know best or one the last war, So the UK spends $16bn on eurofighter because it wants a new "Spitfire" when it could have bought F-15E's for a fraction of the price and got all the capacity it needed by 2000, rather than not having full air to air and air to ground a decade from now.

Meanwhile a UK squadie in Iraq gets £13,500 ( about $22,000 US), a bus driver in Scotland can earn £21,000 ($35,000 US). The fact that I have different priorities to the MOD doesn't make them right, or me for that matter.

I am however, entitled to my opinion and though you are free to disagree with it, saying it's wrong because it is different is hardly scaling the dizzy height of intelectual arguements.

I don't think at a time of real challenges both in terms of conflict and resources we should be indulging ourselves in pouring money in to over budget underperforming weapons systems, particularly when they are for marginal roles where we have good existing coverage which can be enhanced at far lower cost.

And I especially dislike wasting money on big new Cold War systems whemn the Cold War is over.

The US Navy has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world put together.. Why,

Because that's what won the war in the Pacific and that was it's "Finest Hour", so they have developed iconic status and become sacred cows.

You never fight the nsame war twice, and you need three things to win it Money, Money and MORE MONEY. Even if you start with more money if you don't spend it wisely you can lose.

Peter.

I do not see the meaning in comparing Germany to the United States, their geo-political-strategic situations are vastly different.

And the various Services do focus on thier "finest hour" for a reason, because that is what they do best. There are pros and cons, but when a unified commander needs a tool for a job, he wants the best tool for the job at hand, not a jack-of-all trades, master-of-nothing tool. It is not efficient and it can be expensive. But it makes for a good military and it allows for those intangibles such as espirit de corps, service traditions, etc... And those factors can be very important.

And the carrier battle groups have proven their worth during many crisis since WWII. The US still has them because they are out there, all of time, to respond somewhere. While US Airforce aircraft can also be sent in many cases, they do not have the loiter or turn-around time that a carrier offers. And there is no presence in a theater of operations with just airforce planes.

Its the same reason why the US military continues to bankroll both Marines and Airborne forces. They are both capable of forced entry operations and rapid responce. Both are elite formations with a tradition of winning, no matter what the odds. But they operate very differently and have offer different operational options to a theater commander. So as long as the US and UK can afford them, my bet is that they will keep them.

And while the Cold War is over and the War on Terrorism has just begun, as you have said, there is potential confict with China, there is always North Korea, and probably some other place that will require the US to project power and then fight a sustained war of some type. Before the Gulf War, people said that the US military will never need tanks anymore. Well, those M-1s have proven to be priceless in Iraq, both for OIF 1 and now.

So if China went for Taiwan, or if North Korea imploded, the Canadians attack, or whatever...those carrier battle groups, F-22s, Marines, paratroopers, etc...are very valuable, especially when compared with the option of having no option. When it comes down to it, the average American taxpayer wants the US to have a big stick that can be used when it is necessary. We argue whenever it is used, unless the Nation is physically attacked first. But they want a big stick that can whack anyone in the world.

It is not always efficient and of course there is waste. Democracy is inefficient in itself and the their military's are a reflection of that. No Service can just buy something it wants. There is a bureucratic process. Bids, contracts, etc...But, overall the system works out. As a Marine, I definetly wish Congress did not elect to put a squadron of F-22s in service and used that money to speed up the EFV or V-22 program, or fund more training ammo, new weapons and body armor, better armored HMMWVs, etc... But I understand that that single squadron of F-22s can have strategic impact in a crisis. Air superiority is critical in US warfighting doctrine. The F-22s virtually guarantee that, unless aliens invade.

And of course you are are entitled to your opinion and obviously we would never agree on some issues, so lets both just have a beer and be happy we live in places where we can argue over the internet about crap like this!