Most of the facts in this article are wrong starting with the fact that Israel does not, and has never, operated the CH-53E.  The CH-53 is the three engine version and only operated by the US and Japan.  Israel does not have 38 but I believe 33 (4 were sold to Mexico).  The CH-53D can seat 55 and can carry 7 tons of cargo.  The MV-22 is $68+ million and carries 24 troops and 15,000lb of cargo vs the CH-53K which is $27+ million carries 37 or 55 troops and up to 27,000lb of cargo (35,000lb for shorter distances).  So speed and range advantages aside the MV-22 costs twice as much and carries half the troops and half the cargo.

 

The USMC is buying both the CH-53K and MV-22.  The MV-22 will replace the CH-46.  The MV-22 is not a replacement for the CH-53 heavy lift helicopter.  It is replacing the Pave Low's.  There are various reports floating around that Israel either wants a few MV-22's (one presumes for long range CSAR and special ops) or some CH-53K's.

 

There is no evidence presented that pilots prefer the MV-22 in Israel.   The CH-53 is tough and on one occasion survived repeated attacks by 6 Egyptian jets.  The MV-22 offers speed and range advantages but also specific operational issues.  Flying one over the other does not mean one flies economy.  Not only are most of the facts of this article incorrect but the premise is entirely flawed.

the CH-53K which is $27+ million

 

The CH-53K, which is still in the EMD phase, had a projected cost, in FY 2003, of $42 million+ each. Those who have worked in the industry know that projected costs are, at best, guesses that are rarely accurate and once the inevitable inflation kicks in the cost will greatly increase. A more realistic estimate is ~$60 million+ per. The Navy reported that cost issues were already manifesting themselves in the PDR issued in January of 2009 but at this stage it doesn't appear that they are in danger of approaching Nunn-McCurdy overruns, yet. Flight testing of the Kilo is projected to begin in 2011 with IOC being achieved in 2015. By the way, cost of a new build Echo in 1992 was ~$25 million. H-53 production ceased in 1999.

 

The CH-53 is the three engine version and only operated by the US and Japan. 

 

Japan operates 10 MH-53E/S-80Ms which are being replaced by the MCH-101. No foreign sales of the CH-53E/S-80E have taken place.

 

The MV-22 is not a replacement for the CH-53 heavy lift helicopter. 

 

The CH-53D is a medium lift asset being replaced, along with the CH-46E, by the MV-22. The Echo and Kilo Super Stallions are heavy lift assets. In addition, comparing payloads between a medium lift asset and a heavy lift asset is, for all intents and purposes, nothing but an apples and oranges comparison.

 

It is replacing the Pave Low's.

 

Dismissing the significant speed and range advantages; not to mention the reduced acoustic and IR signatures along with the smaller RCS, increased survivability and reduced MMH/FH  that the Osprey provides over the platforms it is replacing is indicative of your lack of experience in operating an ACE within a deployed MEU.

 

There are various reports floating around that Israel either wants a few MV-22's

 

There are also reports that Israel has abandoned the idea of obtaining the MV-22.

 

 

Frankly I see nothing you've written dispute a thing I said though you've made some effort to create some dispute. Did you author the original article?

 

You might wish to describe the CH-53D as a medium helicopter and E as heavy but the CH-53 (S-65 or S-80) has always been considered a heavy lift helicopter by everyone who operates them including the USMC which both created the term heavy helicopter squadron in the 1960's for it's CH-53's (S-65) and continues to use that term for the 3 sqdn's still flying the CH-53D.

 

The article centered around the notion that flying the CH-53 was economy vs the MV-22 in Israeli service. Thus the speed and range advantages are a tad less significant, as even the article pointed out, within the context of Israel operating the CH-53 or MV-22.  The Corp obviously operates both the heavy lift CH-53 and medium tiltrotor MV-22.  They are different types in different classes.

 

Moreover, your notion that that MV-22 has better survivability over the CH-53 is supposition.  We don't know that nor do we know the long term accident rate of the MV-22.  Israel does know however that the CH-53 is tough and has been attacked on one occasion by 6 Egyptian jets and flew damaged back to base.  The MV-22 demonstrates various vulnerabilities with it's engines on the wing tips instead of being partially masked to ground fire by the fuselage.  Do I want to fly in an MV-22 instead of an CH-46 yes I do; however, this does not mean if I am budgeting for heavy lift helicopters that I will purchase the MV-22.

 

The MV-22 is a great bird but it's both rather expensive and while it brings many positive attributes to the table it also brings specific operational challenges.  The heat issue on deck remains a long term problem that needs to be solved as well.

 

In any case I congratulate you on "operating an ACE within a deployed MEU" and wish you luck with your career beyond O-5.

 

 

The point is that your post is full of errors. You initiated the comments about this article, entitling your remarks "Error Riddled", when in fact your own remarks are error riddled. To paraphrase Don Quixote, facts are the enemy of the type of truth that people like you attempt to dissemminate.

 

 

I've disputed nearly everything you've written and by failing to admit that, you willingly expose your lack of both integrity and character which explains your poor grasp of the facts.

 

 

I corrected your mistakes and obviously touched a nerve in doing so.

 

The Corp(sic) obviously operates both the heavy lift CH-53 and medium tiltrotor MV-22. 

 

Hardly. The live fire testing on the Osprey; the most extensive conducted on any aircraft ever to achieve IOC in US military history, once again proves you wrong.

 

however, this does not mean if I am budgeting for heavy lift helicopters that I will purchase the MV-22.

Why would you purchase a medium lift asset, the MV-22, if you were budgeting for a heavy lift asset, the CH-53K?

 

Once the Kilo achieves IOC you be sure and return here and defend your bogus CH-53K which is $27+ million claim.