One question that should be asked but never was (probably because of the euphoria surrounding UBL's killing) is why didn't the Special Operations Command deem the V-22 the airplane of choice when it came to conducting its most famous raid?
It choose the MH-47G to transport reinforcements and heavily modified UH-60's to conduct the actual assault. The only time the V-22 showed up was to transport the body of UBL out to a carrier.
When push came to shove, SOCOM relied on variations of tried and true machines. Additionally Israel needs a CH-53 replacement. While waiting for the V-280, the Israeli's could acquire CH-53K's which will boast the ability to insert troops into defended airspace as part of its package out the box.
The V-22 is a great plane if you're talking expeditionary warfare. If you're talking insertion of Special Ops personnel into tight landing places deep inside enemy territory, I think it might be wise to wait on the next generation of tilt rotors. Israel should wait for the V-280.
The V-280 is going to be made by Bell not Boeing. Boeing is working with Sikorsky for the JMR.
ReplyDeleteI view this as payback for us funding the iron dome.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to what Eleportnative77 mentioned, there are a few other things that need to be corrected.
ReplyDeleteV-22 is not a first generation Tilt-Rotor, it is 2nd. 1st was XV-3 & XV-15.
V-280 is not V-22's replacement. It is a smaller aircraft. it is competing to be the replacement for the UH-60 and maybe the AH-64.
The reason the V-22 wasn't used on the UBL mission is that the Army in ganeral and the 160th SOAR in particular doesn't have any. The spec ops guys in question aren't familiar with the a/c and extra training would be required. Further, V-22s are still comparatively rare. V-22s seen working with DEVGRU would have called attention to the fact that something special was up.
CH-53K will be a heavy lift helicopter to replace the CH-53E heavy lift variant in USMC service. Israel doesn't have any CH-53Es. They have a variant similar to USAF's HH-53C, which in turn is based the CH-53A & D. The replacement for the -53A/D in USMC is...the V-22.
its the first generation of operational tilt rotors.
Deletei stated that the V-280 is a UH-60 sized airplane.
we're talking SOCOM here on a high stakes mission. they chose the planes they did and not the CV-22. don't be so arrogant to believe that mission planners did not know the capabilities of every troop transport in our inventory.
CH-53K is a replacement for the CH-53E just as the CH-53E was the replacement for the CH-53D. the fact that the Marine Corps chose to replace some squadrons with CH-53D has more to do with the D's revised designation once the E arrived. the D was reclassed as a medium helicopter even though its anything but.
Not trying to get you upset...
ReplyDeleteYou referred to the V-22 as a first gen a/c. I used the 3rd generation term (which comes from Bell-Boeing) regarding Tilt-Rotors in general. If you were actually talking about Operational Tilt-rotors, you and I have no disagreement.
I do have a little heartburn with you saying I'm arrogant. Of course SOCOM knew the capabilities of all potential aircraft. My point was that the 160th (in fact the entire Army) had no V-22s, and clearly they wanted them to fly the mission. Even if they "borrowed" some from USMC or USAF, the crews would still have to be trained in thee a/c and the operators would have had to be brought up to speed on specops using that aircraft. Everyone was already familiar with using H-6s, H-47s and H-60s, so why go to all the trouble of setting up for a new aircraft for just this mission, especially when nothing else in the force could keep up with it? Now, if the Army got themselves some V-22s...
The consideration was security. To my mind, because of the comparative rarity of the V-22, especially operating with these folks, the workups and rehearsals would have called attention to something "special" going on and may have drawn unwarranted attention. Although I am a big Tllt-Rotor fan, IMO they made the right choice.
I happen to agree with you that the V-280 would be, except for load carrying capability, a better a/c for the Israeli mission. Thing is it's at least 7 years away, IF JMR and FVL get funded and IF V-280 is the one selected (both of which I hope happen). The V-22 is here now. Better a bird in the hand...
Regarding H-53, the E was developed primarily for its load carrying capability, when the Marines found that the joint HLH program would produce an aircraft (HH-62) that couldn't routinely be operated from ships. It doesn't carry any more troops than the D, it doesn't fly any farther and ,depending on whose figures you use, isn't much faster. BUT, it sure can lift a LOT more, and that's what it was bought for. The D soldiered on alongside it for many years (in fact, in the 2000s a few were brought back from AMARG), but due to delays with the V-22 (another story), the Es took over more of the troop transport mission as the Ds just plain wore out. AS more Ospreys come on line they will be taking over the troop transport role form the H-46s and now-retired Ds, but the Es will stay because they lift sooo much.
The K is in fact the replacement for the E as once again the Marines said the joint program (JHL) would founder, and it did, and so they would need a newer heavy lift vehicle.
I suspect that our differences are more semantic than substance.