Some of the sharpest minds — and least partisan — on defense issues in Washington spoke during a conference with media and other military experts yesterday on where they believed the Army, Marine Corps and Special Operations forces should go in the coming years in terms of organization, equipment and strategy.
It was an incredibly interesting series of talks from the folks at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and brought up a number of key issues and recommendations that in some cases jibe with what those services/organizations are already doing and forged some new ground on how the key players in the GWOT should better shed the idea of “next war-itis.”
We’ll be rolling out their recommendations over the next couple days here and at DoD Buzz, but I wanted to throw this one out there at the outset to get the pot stirred a bit.
Both Dakota Wood and Robert Martinage — who spoke about the Marine Corps force posture and that of the Spec Ops community, respectively — called for a reduction of the MV-22 buy for the Marine Corps and a recognition that the Osprey couldn’t satisfy the Spec Ops aviation shortfall.
Like the Air Force’s F-22, the Osprey has become a bit of a raison d’etre for the Marine Corps, which staunchly supports the aircraft as a replacement for all of its CH-46 fleet. Wood argued that the cost was simply too much for the aircraft given other pressing, high-dollar Marine Corps programs coming in the future, reset, an expanded force and any number of contingencies the service will face. And, oh by the way, does anyone think the financial meltdown and the government’s bailouts will slow down in the next couple of years?
If the Air Force is going to have to rethink its F-22 buy, why shouldn’t the Marine Corps do the same thing with its MV-22 plans for similar reasons?
Recognizing the Osprey has its advantages in flying farther, faster and higher than anything in its class, Wood said the service needs to buy some MV-22s for missions that fit that kind of profile. But he added his voice to a growing chorus of experts who say it’s time to scale back the buy and look to a rotary wing replacement that cheaper and more available than the Osprey to do those short hop chores the MV-22 is simply too expensive to justify doing.
Martinage made an interesting point that as spec ops forces push further and further into FID and UW missions in hard to reach corners of the world, sourcing spare parts for the CV-22 when the thing goes TangoUniform will be a deal breaker. He argued that anywhere an Osprey can go, a fleet of C-27s, U-28s and long-range helos can go — with less risk of spare parts sources and overall O&M costs.
It’s the hard, cold reality of it, but these guys aren’t haters of the Osprey, they’re just trying to give the best recommended solutions to critical problems in a severely fiscally constrained environment. It’s good food for thought.
– Christian
{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }
Sounds like we need to listen to our guys. If thr BUFF can be in service for 80 years, I don’t see the problem with improving on platforms if it’s more cost effective and better-suited to the requirements
When you say “raison d’etre”, do you mean “cause celebre”?
The CH 46 HAS to go. Too many weight restrictions got it to be useful and too old. Not safe. V-22 is a great platform. I think the Coast Guard should have them as well. Perfect for their mission and might bring purchase price down.
You can’t cut back on the Osprey. It’s in the commercial.
Marketing 101. Once you advertise something, that is what you sell. Who cares if it’s cost effective to use?
It seems like it would end up being more cost effective if they were to standardize as much of the fleet as possible. If they mostly just had the Ospreys or something else it would be cheaper. Only having to buy parts for one system, and only training mechanics in one system.
No wembly, I meant “raison d’etre”…they’ve tied so much of their doctrine and future concepts to the V-22 that it almost justifies the USMC’s existence…same with the Air Force. They’ve constructed an argument and painted themselves into such a corner on the F-22 that their argument seems to be “without the F-22 you don’t have an Air Force.”
for it to be useful and it’s too old. (sorry about the bad typing and no offense to any CH-46
operators.
The Osprey is the REPLACEMENT for the CH-46, which can no longer do the mission as envisioned by the USMC. The MV-22 does everything 2X better than the platform it replaces, and is better suited for the current environment we face in combat ops.
The Raptor is an awesome 5th generation fighter that has no equal in the world. The problem is the Eagle it is to replace has a long string of wins on the record books.
We’re talking about replacing a platform that is no longer adequate for the mission, versus replacing something that already works very well.
We can complain about all the new 5th gen fighter threats on the horizon, but honestly should we be that worried about a future Russian fighter as reported in Pravda?
It seems to me we should plan for the future instead of trying to save a few pennies now. Lets say 10 years from now we encounter a situation where the marines need 100 mv-22s but all they have available is 100 ch-46s because they decided to cheap out now. Why not get the 100 mv-22s now and use them for tasks they are way over qualified for instead of begin stuck with useless equipment later? It would be nice if the military, just once, would be prepared in advance instaed of always playing catch up.
On the surface the problem with the Osprey seems to be that the technology being employed is still too new and not yet able to stand up to demands of battle conditions. The F22 on the other hand seems to be a highly competent fighter for the Cold War.
Regardless, it will take me a while to read all 3 reports by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, as well as the The Center for Defense Information’s “America’s Defense Meltdown”.
the problem is that there are only a VERY FEW situations where the V-22′s talents are required
most of the time the job could be done cheaper and more efficiently by a regular (but newer than CH-46) helicopter
1. cut-off new V-22s
2. maintain existing V-22s as a ‘silver bullet’ fleet
3. build a fleet of other ‘medium’ helicopters (US-101, H-92, etc) that will do the yeoman’s work and keep hours off the V-22s
C-27? U-28? Where are these when we want to train? Will they replace the MH-53s???????? NOPE! Will a CH-47 replace the 53? Maybe, now you need someone willing to fly it where and when we need them to. But it can not perform the same way. From wha I have heard in my community, the Osprey is actually a decent vehicle for airborne or air land operations. BUT that appears to not matter on the hill. Budget first….HOOAH(hooah, by the way is not a good thing)
The MV-22 is a reinforced failure. This airframe was conceived over 40 years ago as outlined in Mechanics Illustrated magazine. The Army’s CH-47 is by far a much better alternative than the MV-22. Sorty-per-sorty, you can stage over 1/3 more CH-47s in the same LZ as MV-22s.
Less risk of spare parts sources? Sure, U-28 or a C-27 could go farther, faster, higher, and carry more than an Osprey, but they also can’t land vertically, or hover. And trying to replace one squadron of Ospreys’ capability with and equivalent capability of helos and fixed wing aircraft seems financially unfeasable. More aircraft means more crews, maintenance and parts. Also, parts have to be made, maintained, and shipped regardless of what they go into; so why does the Osprey’s spare part differ from other airframe spare parts?
> The MV-22 is a reinforced failure. This
> airframe was conceived over 40 years ago
> as outlined in Mechanics Illustrated magazine.
Actually I have a copy of AW&ST from 1954 with a Bell advertisement for a tiltrotor. I once laid that ad and a similar Bell ad from a 2006 AW&ST side by side for a friend in the industry and they were almost impossible to tell apart if one did not know 1950s font styles!
Cranky
> Will they replace the MH-53s
YES
. . . with the CH-53K
Tax payer money has been wasted for years,if not decades,on the next rotor vehicle,only to have that helicopter canceled when it was time to actually start producing it. No foreign army needs to defeat us,we’re defeating ourselves with greed & graft in the “military industrial complex.” How a “cheap” COTS helicopter like the ARH could actually cost more than the more technologically complex RAH-66 Comanche is mind boggling. Also,the ARH was supposed to be more user friendly,but it still got canceled. After all of the money put into the V-22 program,now they want to cut it down to size. The “Research & Prototype” department is the biggest scam going & it is obviously run by a bunch of grifters & con artists.I guess that it is also the biggest “tit” for all the crooks to suck off of.
The newest H-47F is in production,costs half as much as a V-22, is 50% smaller so more can fit on ship, but can lift twice as much as a V-22. It also has greater range. There is a direct comparison on the net, do a search for G2mil
Or the Corps can just buy more CH-53Ks that are the same size, but lift five times more and have greater range. Also, the C-27J can lift twice as much as the V-22 and fly three times farther. It costs one-third as much and is the same size.
What happened to companies building a pice of equipment and proving that it works before the military buy the godammed thing. No we now have cost over runs and contracts that only favor the contractor and not the military. You should see some of the contracts that DFAS is paying for, and what the Government is get for the money.
It is an interesting comparison: C-27/U-28 vs. MV-22. Funny thing though, both the C-27 and U-28 (and C-47 for that matter) cannot land on any current United States Naval ship.
Marines are not Army. The 47 will not fit correctly on the hangar deck of a gator freighter. The only two aircraft that don’t fold up like a pretzel on these ships are the H-1s.
Buy the MV-22 and the F-22. Drop the JSF. Or give the USMC the choice and let them decide for themselves.
When talking about 1950′s concepts, bear in mind that the H-47 FIRST FLEW in the 1950′s (for what it’s worth).
Oh, and also bear in mind that the H-47 suffered from a reputation as a “killer” early on, and was in danger of cancellation.
Finally, some realism in this debate. Has it taken an economic catastrophe to bring us back to our senses? After 30 years, if the surplus technical shortfalls aren’t enough, the realization that capabilities offered by the osprey aren’t worth the costs, which have never been fully recognized, is long past due. Delusional osprey cheerleaders really missed their calling on Wall Street. A true sign of decline is when your warriors, and businessmen are no longer realists.
Bring back the Caribou,,,,did fine in Nam,,,,
How many of these “experts” have actually flown on the CV-22 or for that matter are familiar with how SOF aviation is employed.
Take it from someone who is familiar with the employment of SOF aviation (8+ years on the MH-53M) and the potential missions that are out there, on top of the fact that I am a crewmember on the CV-22 (4+ years)…the CV-22 is well suited for a wide range of SOF missions. One thing it is not though, a replacement for the MH-53M Pavelow nor is it the primary vertical lift SOF platform for USSOCOM
Ospreys are VTOL, C-27s are not.
Sounds like some retired Marine Air Wingers got some sweet jobs selling the MV-22 to the Corps when their are existing platforms the would fit the bill. Why doesn’t someone take a look and see if there aren’t a few formers generals running around “hawking” this extremely expensive piece of gear.
What the hell is wrong with you people?!? We need whatever can keep our troops SAFE! No matter the cost. What’s the price for people’s LIVES! Buy the damn V-22′s. We’re not letting another stupid project get blown away after it’s already started and we’ve spent millions upon millions already on it. They’re putting the belly MG’s on the osprey and tail MG’s. Get our troops over there on the newly modded V-22′s. I’ve flown on both V-22 and CH-47 and CH-53. The V-22 Osprey is the shit. It’s the best by far out of all three. Put those MG’s on ‘em and it’s already combat ready! Who cares about the cost when it’s gonna save lives. End of discussion.
For all those people comparing the (M)V-22 to an H-47 or 53s, there’s one problem with those arguments and that’s the Osprey is not designed as a heavy lift aircraft and is not intended to replace any aircraft in the heavy lift role. In case people have forgotten, the Osprey is designed as medium lift aircraft, meant to fulfill the medium lift role, and in that role replace only the CH-46.
My experience, just like 27cents a gallon gas is It’ll only cost more if we wait.
Oh, and balls too the walls, full tilt boogie, gets me off!
Sell the Aussies the 60 Raptors they need, that will help pay for a few more for us.
You are doing great!
A big salute to you!
My advice is; always let God be your shield.
Bravo!
The Osprey is proving itself in Afghanistan…just give it time for the reports to come out……Our fine Marines are making history while all these critics keep beating a dead horse.