Citation?

 

Not familiar with the source of your question, so I'd like to see an article.  But like everything else, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers!"

link

One, Philip Coyle needs to STFU.  If it were up to him, we'd be riding into battle on horseback.  After all, it's battle-tested and reliable...  The critics have been asking why the Osprey hasn't been in combat.  It goes to combat, then the critics say it's not a good enough war for them.

 

Two, I suspect the buy will end up being the same in the end.  The DOD long-term budgets are a complete fiction.  They've probably shuttled the V-22 money over to "sustain" another project with the plan of using a supplemental or other funding when crunch time comes.  Just a guess.

My own personal suspicion is that the change was a budgetary adjustment, not based on the performance.  The one performance knock on the Osprey, was a lower than expected availability rate.  This was probably more due to this being a new and unfamiliary technology and a conservative use of it, so as to avoid accidents or losses that might undercut the program.  This would not be unusual, especially give the high unit cost.

 

Still, I suspect that if the tech proves successful in operation, the military would be more likely to build a new version, using lessons learned, rather than upgrade the currect program.  It has been the history of the US military, when programs become too expensive, to reduce/cancel the program and come up with a cheaper alterntative.  Clearly they aren't going to cancel at this late date.

 

Of course, we probably won't see the new aircraft for another decade.

My suspicions are just the opposite.  The Osprey availability numbers are very close to legacy aircraft, and also have many fewer maintenance hours per flight hour, BTW.  They will only get better.

 

The program was designed from the outset as a "spiral-development" weapon, wherein improvements would incrementally be incorporated as they became available.  Switching technologies now wouldn't help anything, especially since the USMC's 46s and the USAF's 53's are falling apart at the seams, waiting another decade for a replacement that doesn't yet exist isn't an option.  Now, as far as the Army's JHL program, all bets are off. 

 

Considering that the USAF has actually accelerated its plans for combat deployment of the V-22, and the fact that the Marine Corps will have replaced all its medium-lift helos on the East Coast within 2 years, the DoD has definitely gone "all in."  Naval air is better off than Army and Air Force aviation in terms of long-term budgetary outlook, but it still has major issues, the JSF prime among them.  Speading out the buy over a longer period buys it time, much like getting a 6 or 7 year car loan instead of a 3 or a 5.  Even though it costs much more in the long run, it frees up money in the present.

 

Besides, having flown it, it blows the doors off its competitors.  'Nuff said.

hi phrog driver,

 

Its good to have someone who can legitimately comment on this bird on this board.  I was recently involved with a little exercise at Ft Bragg when 3 MV 22's came up and we did an arty air assault training ex.  Its nice to know that teh MV 22 can come in and get me and my boys out of the sh!t if the need arises, but i think you will agree the primary mission of teh MV22 in the Marine Corps service is not going to be the ship to shore lift of equipment assets.  Its going to be troop insertion/extraction, casevac, CSAR and supporting the various high speed low drag folks doing thier sneaky stuff.

Lifting EQUIPMENT is not its best use.  When carrying an external load, its top speed obviously is greatly decreased, defeating much of its reason-d-etre.  The 53 will continue to be the external-carrying helo of choice.  The 46 didn't do THAT much external work to start with, but with the V-22 theres even less reason to, especially since with its greater pax capacity viv-s-vis the 46, the 53s won't have to pick up the slack as much.  Besides, not many vehicles will fit inside it.  Of course, carrying supplies is a big part of any assault platform's role.

 

Lifting people is its main job.  I wouldn't necessarily think of it as a spec-ops oriented platform, except for the USAF, just because the Corps is still primarily a conventional force.  Ship-to-shore movement is still a big part of our lives.  I would have loved to have had them when we were flying into Afghanistan, so we wouldn't have had to stop in Pakistan, and wouldn't have to thread-the-needle in-between the mountains.

I wasn't intending to say that the buy wouldn't be completed.  I was only suggesting that it would not be expanded beyond its current level--which is far too few to replace the aircraft that need replacing.

While I agree that there is an immediate need for an expanded buy, with the congress we have, it ain't happening.  The program is just too expensive.  I was suggesting something along the lines of a Hornet/Super-Hornet program for the Osprey.  It would be a different aircraft, but heavily based on the older program in order to minimize development costs and time.

The program of record numbers are still 360 for USMC and 50 for the USAF as far as I know.  That's still way more than is required to replace the Marine Corps' 46Es and 53Ds and the USAF 53Js.  There's apparently a little life-cycle attrition built in.  The Ospreys reaching the fleet now are called "block Bs." In a few years, the V-22s rolling off the line will be "block Cs."  A block D is possible.  Incremental improvements are already being made in the aircraft itself.

 

There's not going to be a big brother to the V-22, at least not for a while, and at least not in the Marines.  The CH-53K will be the heavy-lift replacement.  The Army is soliciting proposals for high- and low- speed heavy-lift replacements.  We'll see how that goes, but Army aviation is so broke, I'd be surprised if they took a technically riskier option.

 "Army is soliciting proposals for high- and low- speed heavy-lift replacements.  We'll see how that goes, but Army aviation is so broke, I'd be surprised if they took a technically riskier option." - phrogdriver

 

phrogdriver,

 

Would you elaborate on that please?  I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious to know what about Army aviation is "so broke."

 

When I ETS'd 20 years ago, Army aviation was looking pretty good: the Aviation branch for officers was back, the Apache and Blackhawk were still new, TF160 had expanded to the 160th SOAR, and the CH47 had upgraded to the MH47 for special operations.

 

I know 20 years is plenty of time for things to go wrong, so I'm not arguing with your statement.  But as someone who has been out of the loop for a long time, I'd like to know what about Army aviation went wrong.

 

 

Consider the following list of Helicopters still in service in the US military with the year they were introduced or went into full production.  Remember, this is the bulk of the US helicopter fleet.

 

Attack Helicopters:

AH-1W Super Cobra (1971)

AH-64 Apache (1981)

 

Transport Helicopters:

CH-46 Sea Kight (1962)

CH-47 Chinook (1962)

CH-53 Sea/Super Stallion (1981)

UH-60 Black Hawk (1979)

UH-1 Huey (1959)

OH-58 (1969)

 

We haven't really introduced any new aircraft in the 20 years since your ETS (with the exception of the Osprey, which is so expensive that we can't afford to to buy enough to replace the aircraft they are supposed to replace, and the ARH-70, which will replace the OH-58).

 

Some of those choppers flying around Afghanistan are 40 years old.  Granted, they have been refurbish/upgraded, but there comes a point where you are just painting racing stripes on a Model T.  They were not designed to fly such a long time and most will not be replaced any time soon.

It's going to cost a lot of money to fix aviation.  There's no getting around it.

 

But as long as we're going to spend that money, the question is: how would it be best spent?

 

This isn't correct.

Sure, the first models of the AH-64 rolled off the assembly lines in '84 (instead of your '81, correct?), but it's still being built today AFAIK. I have no idea what part of the Apache fleet is 20 years old or more, but you're suggesting all Apache's are from '81. Wouldn't at least all the Longbow versions be max 10 years old?

 

In your logic, the US Army should ditch the M-4, solely because it's based on the M-16, which is half a century old design.

Just like all armies with G-36's should ditch those, as that's also based on an older rifle.

If I understand your post correctly, your problem is more with the age of the original design then with the choppers themselves.

 

I do agree partly with your remark about refurbished choppers; you can only keep refurbishing that long, after a certain point it becomes much more expensive to keep the older planes/choppers/whatever then to buy new ones.

The Australian F-111's are an example of that.

 

AFAIK (again) refurbishment or upgrading of old airframes usually means they're as good as new.

The new rebuilt Nimrod's the UK has are newly built planes for all purposes. 'painting racestripes on a T-Ford' is a bit of an understatement.