Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Marines Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Is the Fish Rotting from the Head
oregon_x_marine    6/14/2004 4:50:15 PM
Read this interesting article at Naval Open Source Intelligence( web page. The author is very direct in his denunciation of the top USMC brass and accuses them of playing acquisition and political games rather than keeping their service in fighting condition. The direct link to the article is: I don't know anything about these matter but do think that one needs a Ph.D. to know that the MV-22 is a joke. What does everyone think??
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
oregon_x_marine    RE: excuse my poor grammer   6/14/2004 4:52:42 PM
......... I don't know anything about these matters but also believe that one does not need to be a rocket scientist to know that the MV-22 is a joke.
Quote    Reply

interrested 2    RE: excuse my poor grammer   6/14/2004 5:00:41 PM
I think nobody here things otherwise. Cut the V22 and get the Eh101. Which has much more growth potential, is cheaper both in purchase and in maintenance, more damage resistant, better armed and it has a smaller footprint. To top it all off: It's ready to go, the USMC could have a CH46 replacement next year (or two) rolling of the production lines. (maybe Bell to keep them alive)
Quote    Reply

USN-MID    RE: excuse my poor grammer   7/5/2004 2:02:39 PM
Whether or not the V-22 is an awful design, which is debatable, helicopters are dead for primary assault in the Marine Corps. We've hit a limit for their top speed/range. Damage resistance is unlikely. The V-22 is highly redudant in vital systems. The V-22 is also heavily armored.
Quote    Reply

doggtag    heavily armored V-22s   7/5/2004 2:09:25 PM
...Supposedly, AH-64s are "heavily armored", but they still got shot up pretty well during OIF. Not flaming you, USN-MID, but can you give me more info on V-22 protection?.
Quote    Reply

USN-MID    RE:heavily armored V-22s   7/5/2004 3:33:31 PM
The V-22 really is controversial so you have to be careful where you get your info. That said, doggtag, this is probably one of those things you'd really want to look into, probably the fishiest a/c procurement program in history. Note the Corps pretty much relies on Bell for all its helo needs. Anyway, I remember the most impressive V-22 statistic is its redundancy in hydraulics, and the ability to fly with only one engine in the VTOL mode. It's problems apparently stem not from its performance as an aircraft(armor, speed, range), but as an ASSAULT transport. It can't defend itself from heavy AAA so it needs Cobra escorts, which limits its speed/range for the Cobras to keep up. It's fine for getting from point A to point B quickly, but when it needs to settle down quick, that's where the accidents have happened(whether or not it's been fixed is not yet determined). Then there's the cost. I think 2 H-60s and 1 H-53 would cost the same as a V-22 in procurement. 2 H-60s provide slightly more troop capacity, and are also versatile gunships when reconfigured. 1 H-53 gives you pretty much the same amount of lifting weight. Sure the range/speed is lessened, but they can get Cobra escort without slowing themselves down. It seems to me that the V-22 is a huge gamble. If it doesn't deliver everything it promises, it WILL break Marine aviation. It's a plane that HAS to work. Honestly, I wondered why they didn't consider a H-60 and H-53 based fleet instead, which seems more "Corps" than the V-22. I believe this is the first time the Corps has ever attempted to pioneer the R and D for a new aircraft.
Quote    Reply

USN-MID    RE:heavily armored V-22s   7/5/2004 3:44:18 PM This is a good site with links presenting the problems of the V-22. Notice armor is not an issue(i know it's kind of like the tiger repellent system but...). However, of more concern than armor is its descent rate combined with size giving the enemy more time to shoot at a larger target. Another thing brought up is the autorotation ability of the V-22, or the lack thereof. However, -46 and -53 pilots have told me that in a combat loaded 46/53, if you need to autorotate, you may as well kiss your ass goodbye. All the other concerns are well outlined in that source for your research. It's cost, business/testing/accident investigation practices and aerodynamic qualities as an assault craft are really worth a long look.
Quote    Reply

ambush    RE:Is the Fish Rotting from the Head   7/5/2004 4:33:53 PM
Could not get he link to work, but yes the V-22 is a Black eye for the Corps. A far more cost efficient, and just as capable in most respects, replacement for the CH-46 would be a Pave Low version of the CH-53
Quote    Reply

ambush    RE:Is the Fish Rotting from the Head   7/5/2004 4:34:36 PM
oooops make that a PAVE LOW version on the CH-53E
Quote    Reply

ambush    RE:Is the Fish Rotting from the Head   7/5/2004 4:35:05 PM
It may be time to bring General Al Gray back.
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:heavily armored V-22s   7/6/2004 12:21:33 AM
I wonder if the engineering tech we'll have 10-15 years from now would build us a better V-22 family? Obviously the carrier chopper/gunship escort concept still works, and adding in the V-22 now creates gaps in the system, as USN-MID mentioned. Borrowing from all of our previous rotorcraft R&D, would we be further off in enhancing current generation helicopters with effectice upgrades (avionics, flight controls, materials, Piaseki-type enhancements?), then going for an entirely new air-mobility concept 15-20 years from now? Considering we have accepted a momentary "gap" in our total air dominance from the last F-15 upgrades to the time we will have effective numbers of F-22s, would we be further to develop a later-tech tilt-rotor type and a comparable-performing escort? (such as a gunship tiltrotor, or perhaps see if "Whispercraft" platforms could actually be effective? Or would we be perfectly satisfied with Marine F-35s (STOVL/VTOL) performing escort for the V-22s?.
Quote    Reply
1 2