We’re running an excellent piece on Military.com today from an embedded reporter who spent time with VMM-261 in Afghanistan. He writes on the air assault mission conducted with MV-22s the other day — Cobra’s Anger — and how it fits into the overall narrative of the program and its track record.
The Osprey squadron mainly has been moving troops and supplies between various bases. In Iraq, this duty led some critics to belittle it as no more than a fabulously expensive flying bus.
The squadron’s commander, Lt. Col. Anthony Bianca of Huntsville, Ala., 42, laughed at that, saying it made no sense to criticize the Osprey for taking on its designated role.
“Yes, we’re moving people and yes, we’re moving supplies, that’s what medium lift does,” he said.
In Afghanistan, though, where distances can be much greater than Iraq, the additional speed and range it offers will boost what the Marines and other units can do.
For one thing, it will allow them to react to information about the enemy much quicker.
The aircraft is so fast, in fact, that it can sometimes make two trips back and forth in the time it takes a helicopter to make one trip.
That capability came into play Friday in the Now Zad operation, as the aircraft made several trips to deliver troops, [Marine spokesman] Pelletier said.
The article also brings up the issue of the Remote Guardian gun system, claiming the underbelly weapon is being retrofitted at Leatherneck as we write. And the Corps has changed the rear-mounted M240 7.62 machine gun to a .50cal.
I also got a note from my good friend Winslow Wheeler, dive bombing my earlier post on the Osprey at war and arguing the bird really hasn’t been tested until it’s been in a hot LZ, so the Corps can’t really claim success with Cobra’s Anger.
Look, I understand where Winslow and his fellow Osprey critics are coming from with this argument, but I keep coming back to one main point: if the Corps was dropping Ospreys into hot LZs then someone f-ed up in the planning. It would be just plain stupid to do that, so it’s unfair to criticize the operations of the MV-22 based on that.
How does Winslow think the CH-47 — much less the AH-64 Apache — did during Operation Anaconda? And after that performance, who in their right mind would land in an LZ like that, much less plan for it?
We’ll keep you posted on this as more news comes out about the Ospreys in the Stan…
– Christian
{ 46 comments… read them below or add one }
I think there is some validity in the demand of critics to see how it fairs in the worst of circumstances. It boils down to ensuring the marines have what they need to survive that worst case scenario. They deserve that comparison, if for no other reason than to give them the information and tactical experience to help them better prepare when deploying from an Osprey.
However I think that understanding the gains and weighing them to the trade offs is important. The V22 makes trade offs on a unit level, for benefits that can impact the overall engagement more drastically.
sometimes even a M-1 Abrams can't survive a worst case scenario.Remember that the Osprey is a flying truck and not a tank.
I will agree with you that before we declare success, we need to see how it handles real combat. But I'll also agree with Christian, that only an idiot would go and seek out dangerous places to land just to prove he could do it.
It's like if we adopted new body armor. Do you really want the military to go out and put guys into bad situations because we need to see how well it works when they get shot?
Personally, I'm happy that the Osprey isn't crashing all the time. If it can keep a decent safety record, even if it doesn't see combat, I think we'll be able to claim at least a partial success.
When the heuy came out it was precisly a fly truck. Then after a couple of decades we got the apache.
Its called evolution. It takes place in technology as well as biology.
Let's see how well it stands up to an austere operating environment, and, in addition, how well it does assuaging the bean-counters. If it costs too much to operate, then we'll need to do some serious navel-gazing at just how much value-added quick delivery actually is. Is speed worth the $$? Sometimes yes, oftentimes no.
Wait is on to see what kind of operational rates are going to ger and how much maintanance intensive it will prove .Arrival no to soon as us forces min choper the black hawk doesn't seem to be up to the job handilng hot-High operations,with high accident rates .
Remember russians lost roughly round 300 helicopters in their 10year war against much better US supported foe ,US forces are now at some 200 choppers lost past 8 years of iraq and afghanistan against a foe with no manpads.
Most of those losses are non-combat related, mat.
Isn’t that 3000 helo’s to enemy fire? Do we have any idea at all how many where lost to non-combat related issues? For the Russians that is.
I am not 100% here but I think that something like 150+ of the loses in Helos where not combat/non flight related. (We have lost a few on the ground in ‘combat’)
sorry 3000 should be 300. Hit an extra 0 there.
cca 85% of those 300 russian loses were non combat related accidents the same goes for US losses ,but it all the same, people still get killed while participating in a war ,and accident rates increase due to both hot and high conditions and mountain terrain. Its just the funny thing when everyone was bashing russians in the press most losses were atributed to enemy action.But it seems they lost less Hinds to ground fire and Manpads than Us lost Apaches even tough Apache is more of a standoff gunship tossing 100+k $ Hellfires at lone insurgent,while Hind a real close in heavily armored gunship that does most work with 12.7 gatling and 57mm unguided rockets really close up.
I agree that Cobra's Anger establishes the Osprey's superiority with regard to its designated role, but you can't replace versatility with specialization. If the Osprey can get Marines there twice as fast, but leadership can't (or won't) use them for assaults, can we really justify a one-platform stance? Get that belly-gun on, and design the inevitable block upgrades with any assault deficiencies in mind.
I'm curious what you mean by "one-platform stance" The Osprey was designed to replace the CH-46 on a roughly one for one basis. The rest of the Corps' lift fleet remains untouched (UH-1, CH-53)
I agree with you. Didn;t the marines just a couple of months ago have to go into a hot LZ to reinforce post being attacked by Taliban? This will happen in a warzone, and having an aircraft that isn't up to the task seems a waste. Not to mention, this vehicle is supposed to replace helos that have been proven in hot LZ's (CH 53 anyone?)
I'm confused… I flew 46's and they were very quick into and out of the LZ; kinda important. Also, we had air cover by cobra's & fixed wing – if the they can't keep up with the Osprey and the Osprey arrives alone at the LZ, then takes its lumbering approach and landing (by computer) to off-load Marine; I don't see the "one-to-one" replacement for the 46. Boeing had the "360" composite and twice as fast as the 46 while keeping the agility of the 46 – not to mention it used CH-47 parts – cheap and fast. The Osprey is simply awesome technology and cool to watch but it lacks practical application and misses the tactical likenesses of the 46 and current aircraft it must co-exist with… It's a red herring that the "purifying fire" of combat will reveal.
I've flown both.
The Osprey doesn't take a "lumbering" approach, and it doesn't land "by computer," unless you're referring to a coupled hover approach, which is something the 46 couldn't do. I know some 46 nosewheels in Afghanistan that would've liked to have had that available.
The 360 did not go twice as fast as a 46, by any means, unless it somehow solved retreating blade stall.
The 46 is one of the LEAST manueverable rotorcraft out there. The Osprey is one of the most–check out the E-M diagrams if you don't believe me.
You are right on one thing…the V-22 is not a one-for-one replacement for the 46. A truck isn't a one-for-one replacement for a horse, either. 99% of the time I'd still rather have the truck, just like 99% of the time you're better off with the Osprey.
Just like Iraq, V-22s are not assigned missions from the wing or group. They have their own V-22 promo guy lurking about choosing missions for V-22s, to ensure they do nothing dangerous, or beyond their limits, which is only half they claim (payload/range). I'm glad to hear today's Marines are not idiots like those Marines in Vietnam who flew their helos in hot zones. Gosh, if only they had thought to use the proper "tactics." Meanwhile, the Corps FY2010 plan shows the Generals decided to replace the 40 CH-53Ds with new CH-53Ks, rather than V-22s. Wonder why?
There's no "promo guy." There's a V-22 guy amongst the many in the ATO planning cells, just like they have an assortment of jet guys and helo guys of other T/M/Ss. Just like they usually have a Prowler ECMO there somewhere to consult about the particulars of jamming, they've got a V-22 rep. Other helo guys don't know what the V-22 can do, so they need help. I'm curious as to what you THINK the V-22 has promised vice what it delivers, because it has done just fine.
We don't intentionally try to go into hot LZs anymore if we can help it. We also don't do opposed beach landings. Warfare has changed. Technology has changed. Politics have changed as well. You put aluminum or composite aircraft of any model in a close-range fight with an enemy and you WILL lose a lot of them. That's just reality. So unless your goal is to leave a lot of broken aircraft and dead Marines in an LZ, maybe you should use helicopters and rotorcraft for vertical ENVELOPMENT.
The Marine Corps only committed to the CH-53K in the last couple years. We are short of heavy lift, and the 53Ds were heavy lift in name only. Seems like the Corps is just finally fixing a long-neglected problem.
Ol' Winslow's still around? I thought he passed away a while back from a terminal case of naysaying.
Wonders never cease.
RE: " Generals decided to replace the 40 CH-53Ds with new CH-53Ks, rather than V-22s. Wonder why?"
Sheesh, don't know if I should laugh or cry ~Sigh~ .
Google up how the Corps categorizes it's verticle lift assets.
The CH-53D is classed as a medium-lift helo, and has always been listed to be replaced by the V-22 until recently. One problem in the Corps is that many senior enlisted think they know all and make an azz out of themselves, then refuse to apologize.
Sheesh, don't know if I should laugh or cry ~Sigh~
PART 2
2. From: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/policy/seapower/spne… we find:
CH-53K Heavy Lift Replacement (HLR) Description: "The CH-53K is the planned follow on to the Marine Corps CH-53E Heavy Lift Helicopter."
Soooo (again) … STILL using US Navy sources, the d) H-53K is the direct replacement for the H-53E, and even the name for the program that selected the H-53K was called….wait for it…..Heavy Lift Replacement (HLR) program.
Per ‘a’ though ‘d’ above, The K is NOT 'replacing' the D.
PART 3
The D is going to be retired, and the last units flying it are going to transition to other airframes. Those that transition to the K will be given heavy-lift missions and designations.
At least you helped me decide……
I am now ROFLM(retired AF SNCO)AO!
OK, I'll play……. [;-)
PART 1
1. From: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid…
"The CH-53D was ordered in the early 1960s to satisfy a Marine Corps requirement for a heavy lift helicopter. It has since been replaced in the heavy lift mission by the CH-53E Super Stallion. All Marine Corps CH-53D helicopters are currently assigned to Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay. The CH-53D, along with the CH-46E, is slated for replacement by the MV-22 Osprey."
Soooo. According to no less an authoritative source than the Dept. of the Navy itself, the 53D was a) bought as a heavy lift asset and b) transitioned to medium lift when the more capable 53E came on board, and it is still c) due to be replaced by the V-22 in the medium lift role.
:::yawn::: The P.R. machine for the gold-plated Osprey just marches along.
The negative outlook by a lot of you is sad. The V-22 is what it is. One thing it is not, is a Comanche. That program was cancelled, and a lot of force multiplier got sent to the grave. The trade offs that come after source selection force situations that sometimes compromise the initial goal. The V-22 gives any commander an amazing capability. It will take time a a few hard lessons to learn how to fight with its capabilities. We will never have a fighting force that goes to the battle with its M-1 GArand riding in a Willy's Jeep. I know that saddens a lot of you, but sit abck and admire the soldiers that pick up their MAtel M-4 and go get a ride on a V-22. They are the reason we are still able to win the battle. Not any piece of equipment. Once again, its the indian not the arrow. My first flight in a UH-1 resulted in a long day in the woods due to an engine failure. Many years later, engine failures were fairly uncommon due to improvements learned in the field. The same will happen with the V-22. Try to be part of the solution, not just a negative voice from the "has been" peanut gallery.
Has been here. Except, in 1991 had an article published in Armor magazine that used a V-22 in a scenario along with C-17s. It criticized then Sec of Defense Cheney's decision to restrain quantities of the latter to 120. It also used palletized loading systems in the scenario and lots of other forward thinking equipment. Wait, worked on FCS, too. Guess us fuddy-duddies just live in the past.
The reality at play here is the F-22 syndrome. The USAF could not afford an entire fighter force of Raptors when Lightning II would do quite nicely. The Army could not afford a fleet of Comanche when Apaches and Armed Scout helicopters were up to task. The Marines cannot afford 500 MV-22 when a mix of those aircraft and helicopters would provide more all around capability. Unless all services use reason in their procurement and accept compromises, there won't be sufficient money for all DoD programs.
I have a better idea….stop siding with America's enemies
You mean PR for ther Palin machine..MN
Every new weapons system gets panned in the beginning, then 30 years later the critics are gone. That's when the new critics say the old system is cheaper and better and we should keep it. Read "Six Frigates" about the beginning of the US Navy, and the objections to building ocean going frigates rather than coastal gunboats. Same old politics.
Great comment and recommendation Top,
The number of 'legendary' weapon systems that had birthing problems is as large as the number of ones that didn't.
I agree Six Frigates is a very readable yet informative account of the early Navy. As a companion to it, I highly recommend “The End of Barbary Terror” – equally readable and informative. One could use these books as a primer on America's early discovery of 1. the limits of isolationalism, and 2. the benefits of having a muscular foreign policy.
Great comment and recommendation Top,
The number of 'legendary' weapon systems that had birthing problems is as large as the number of ones that didn't.
I agree Six Frigates is a very readable yet informative account of the early Navy. As a companion to it, I highly recommend “The End of Barbary Terror” – equally readable and informative. One could use these books as a primer on America's early discovery of 1. the limits of isolationalism, and 2. the benefits of having a muscular foreign policy.
True but the same goes for the russian losses 90% are accidents.
It just shows the attrition and highligfhts cost of war as most people only hear about real combat loses never realising that overall loses are much higher ..As some magazines posted spectacular headline 'Indian AF lost 250 migs in 20 years' US lost 272 F-16 since it entered service,when you compare this accident rates then you see indian AF attrition is not that bad.For ar 3rd world AF that is constantly on the brink of war with Pakistan
I like Money.
I think a lot of people object to the osprey simply because its too cool and they have their heads stuck up their own arses. The osprey is an improvement over the standard heli. Get over it. The army should waste no time getting creative with this bird.
>Every new weapons system gets panned in the beginning, then 30 years later the critics are gone.
30 years from now the Osprey will still be 6 times more expensive than the alternative. The only difference will be a lot of dead marines.
Speed and range are not worth 4 times the cost of UH-60M that actually has greater payload in high/hot conditions and can fit in more LZs, while using far less cost per flight hour and far less fuel to transport. UH-60s have 1,000,000 combat hours in theater with 350 in both theaters. They have an 84% readiness rate. They burn 150 gallons per hour instead of 500. They cost $2700 per hour instead of $11,000. That the Marines could benefit from a mix of MV-22 and UH-60M is just common sense.
Now call me old fashioned but "arguing the bird really hasn’t been tested until it’s been in a hot LZ" does not sound like a good plan.
Landing in a HOT LZ means some one upstairs got their planning wrong. I really love it when I can step out into a nice busy helipad where I can get set to td my thing (sapper) not jink and dive and have to do my secondary roll (grunt).
Like I said earlier USMC not 'early adopters'(nad they don't do the latest fad). They got a graduated plan for this new bird, which is sensible, of using it for what we know it can do. Then stretch the envelope.
Not sure the bean counters are going to be able to decide. Think the Osprey not really in it prime element (the OTH amphib assault) but nobody is saying we want a '46 instead.
I think "Russ" has a point. The Osprey is expensive but proving it can handle itself well in the present mission.
However, it is a system that is designed to excel in the area of the envelope WELL PAST any helo.
The Marines may have maybe 5yrs left in A'stan in any large numbers before they get back to their "bread & butter", Rapid Reaction/Crisis Response, patrolling the world's Hot Spots.
When the 1st Plt of Marines fastrope onto a troubled Embassy in a matter of a "few" hours. Or the Distributed Companies the Marines are moving towards are spread over an entire Theater Command and are linked by a few hrs ride by the Osprey.
This aircraft will allow many things that were NEVER possible before.
Hey Christian–see if you can get some info on the Marines Limited Objective Exercise 4 (LOE 4) set for Kahuku Range in Hawaii this coming summer. Its supposed to be the culmination of many USMC Concepts fr/the last few yrs. DO, ECO, Sea Basing, Distributed Comms, etc.
You get about 250 kts with 24 Marines onboard an Osprey. But you could get 170-200 kts with 55 troops onboard a CH-47. The footprint on deck is very similar, the Chinook has better hot/high performance in a hover, and it's a very mature platform. Oh, yeah, it costs a hell of a lot less.
Ch 47 cant fold its rotor blades, is not all weather, and has trouble in the marine environment. The ch47 does many things very well, and will not be replaced in the near future, by anything. Comparing it to the v 22 though, is like comparing apples to oranges.
A division of V22s inserts a company of heavily armed men into a loose, cultivated field in the middle of the night, low light, in Southern Afghanistan. ITG is provided by detached fixed wing escorts. The only friendly forces in the area are locked and loaded in the Osprey’s crash-resistant seats, their hearts pounding with anxiety as the pilot guides the 48,000 lb aircraft to the deck based on guidance from his hover page. The platoon sergant watches the crew chief lower the ramp, swing the .50 cal aside, and signal them to debark. Fight’s on.
Sound like fiction? It has happened already, several times out here.
All you naysayers need to find something better to do; your argument is done.
What has that “promo guy” gotten us into? I thought we were just doing milk runs!
…SUDDENLY enemy fire opens up from the distant ridge line – heavy machine guns which were brought up to the ridge while the Osprey made its 15 min approach and decent. Fixed wing aircraft hold at altitude waiting for any call only to be helpless – it's night… A single Osprey ALONE does what? – nobody near enough to support. As long as the Osprey flies and lands in un-opposed LZ's – great, but that's not what Ospreys were made for – then again. Wasn't the complaint always that the grunts were always too far away and had to hoof-it to the enemy? I have no doubt the tactics will fit the machine but it's a poor fit to the Marine Corps fundamental mission! Come on General Hannifen, get it right!
What 15 minute approach is that? The ones you've read about in g2.mil or the propaganda rags? A hover display letdown is perhaps a touch slower than a regular helo's, but then again I've been on a 46E raid where an aircraft broke its nosewheel off in zone. That DEFINITELY wasn't helping with speed.
What does it being night have anything to do with fixed wing effectiveness? Perhaps you've heard of LITENING pods?
Assault aircraft rarely fly alone, certainly not in a tactical scenario.
What part of the Corps "fundamental mission" does it not fit? "Seizure of advanced naval bases…development of amphibious doctrine…such other duties as the President may direct?" You probably meant some mission you cooked up in your head. In any case, if you meant does it support our warfighting doctrine, i.e. manuever warfare as exemplified by ship-to-objective-manuever, vertical envelopment, operational-manuever-from-the-sea, etc, it most definitely does.
You conjure up whatever BS you want to. Actually you have to, because reality looks pretty good for the V-22.
From Boeing's own posted data on the CH-47G (newest version) and the MV-22;
CH-47G; Range 340 NM @ SL, Speed 170 KT @ SL
MV-22; Range 430 NM @ SL, Speed 250 KT @ SL
Note that both values are at Sea Level, at 25,000 FT the V-22 speed increases to approx 300 KT. Range also increases. However both range and speed drop with altitude on the CH-47G. The Chinook will also not fit below deck
Have fun,
CTR
http://www.boeing.com/ids/military_aircraft/index…
Actually with the new software (JASS), the MV-22 can bust 300 knots true airspeed as low as 10k’. And we can get there from sea level in about two minutes.
“Fifteen minute landing?” If by “landing” you mean the time it takes to get from a point 60 miles out to the landing zone, I’d say you’re about right. I’d also say you know absolutely nothing about expeditionary warfare, assault support, offensive air support, or a little province called Helmand.
Everyone here gets a little dumber when they read your comments. Now go choke yourself.