I was going over the Marine Corps aviation budget and the question must be asked. Is one MV-22 worth 4.5 MH-60R/S? via AOL
“In 2010 we have had a 28 percent increase in readiness; at the same time we’ve had a 19 percent decrease in maintenance costs, as measured by cost per flight hour,” an obviously pleased program manager replied when I asked him for the latest numbers. “I’m unaware of any other program that has demonstrated an increase in readiness while lowering flight hour costs.”Sorry but I'm not entirely convinced that the speed that the V-22 brings is worth 4.5 MH-60s.
This news come fresh on the heels of the V-22 program landing an impressive commitment from the Pentagon for a $6.5 billion, five-year mulityear contract for 99 Ospreys. The average unit price for the V-22s ordered across that deal is $70 million, he told reporters here during a briefing at the Boeing chalet. While that isn’t, strictly speaking news (the redoubtable Rick Whittle reported that for us in February), he buried the information and we want to make sure you know.)
Not for Marine Corps mission sets. There is no justification for the Marine Corps to have an all V-22 fleet of aircraft.
None.
NOT ONE.
The Marine Corps is talking about a financial trainwreck affecting procurement. That's bullshit and Sweetman (listen up buddy cause I won't ever admit this again) was right. We could have afforded the EFV, the MPC and or the ACV if we weren't paying (now 70 mill but at the time) 100 mill a piece for the V-22.
This is borderline criminal and the Corps is out of balance because of it.
One thing to keep in mind is that there is only so much space for assets on an LHD.
ReplyDeleteA more accurate question would be "Is 2x MV-22s worth 3x MH-60R/S"?
The bigger issue is that the MVs are not armed.
no. i don't think that's right. i believe it would be (at least on ship a 1v2.5 situation) more like you carry 15 MV-22's versus carrying 30 plus MH-60's. additionally the MH-60s can all be armed. more heavily armed than the UH-1 almost approaching that of the AH-1Z. last but not least you can spread more MH-60s across the 3 ship ARG than you can V-22's so the number probably increases again if you keep 10 or more on the deck of the San Antonio class.
DeleteYou can fit almost three folded H-60s in the same deck spot as 1 folded V-22. Unfortunately the spot factor for a V-22 is complex because of the need to unfold it to do engine maintenance.
DeleteI found this article over the weekend discussing the need to add a medium lift helo to the ACE.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a517801.pdf
99 V-22s = 99 Super Hornets plus 99 Patria AMV(Havoc)....
ReplyDeleteOn a side note Solomon i dont understand much about amphibious warfare ,so i would like your take on these videos...are they accurate?
http://youtu.be/vMk0A-6ix84
Take a look at these MV-22s on an LHD.
ReplyDeleteYou are NOT packing 3 MH-60s in the same spot.
Besides, you are missing the main issue, they are for completely different missions.
The MH-60 is for recon and attack (cant's carry much internal due to sonobouy and avionics) and the MV-22 is for high-speed transport.
Ok, 2.5.
Deletehttp://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a422103.pdf
Page 11 - Table 7.
The MH-60S is essentially a UH-60L with folding rotors and SH-60 undercarriage. So it can carry 12 troops and 2 gunners, just like the UH-60. And it has a 9000lb rated hook, just like the UH-60.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mh_60s/
The MH-60R is the one that carries sonobuoys.
I think that the helos are much better for troop transport. I would say that fixed wing would be best for attack but what make me question this for the V-22's (and other tilt-rotor concepts) case is the extreme outboard position of the engines. Even in a light general aviation twin engine plane there can be significant pitching and yawing forces if an engine goes out and their engines are located relatively inboard. The outboard position of the V-22s power-plants would increase the length of the arm of these forces acting on the plane and cause an even worse situation than normal in the event of an engine loss. I read that there's a sort of "power sharing" setup with the engines so that neither would go completely out and thus avoid the above situation. Such a set up at least seems like it would be complex and heavy, further reducing the V-22s performance compared to other aircraft. I would say military aircraft in general and attack aircraft in particular should keep their systems as tough and simple as possible. Long story short, I think the V-22 is really cool but it seems like for general air assault Blackhawks would be better. Not to mention the cost.
ReplyDeleteNot even 2.5… or even 2
ReplyDeleteYou’re falling into the trap of just using the number instead of how the airframe is used on the deck.
In your PDF, take a look at the pic at the bottom of page 11. Notice that there are 9 MV-22s there. There is no way that you will get 23 MH-60s into the same area for several reasons:
1. The MV-22 maximizes its assigned Spot Factor (SF) by being a rectangle with little wasted space.
2. The MV-22 can save SF by hanging some of its tail off the side of the deck. The folded MH-60 cannot do that.
3. The MH-60 is bulbous in the front and skinny in the back thereby wasting SF space.
Here is an easy exercise you can do to demonstrate that just going by the number is useless. Copy Figure#9 on page 12 a few times and cut out the MV-22 and MH-60 outlines. Then try to put 2.5, 2 or whatever combo of MH-60s you want to against the MV-22s. This will give you a realistic view of how it will all fit together.
Calculating the spot factor takes into account more than just parking aircraft in that one location on deck. It also includes parking them in the hangar and other areas, and allows for space around the aircraft for maintenance. And like I said, it varies, especially with the V-22, since engine maintenance can only be performed with the wings and rotors extended.
DeleteBut just for rough comparison:
MH-60S folded dimensions: 12.5m x 3.3m = 41.25m2
MV-22 folded dimensions: 19.2m x 5.61m = 107.7m2
107.7 / 41.25 = 2.6
If you look here,
http://www.quantico.usmc.mil/seabasing/resources/reports/CNA%20Seabasing%20Models%20-%20Summary%20Paper%20(Mar2008)%20D0018026%20A1.pdf
On page 12, you'll see that the spot factor for an MV-22 is 1.75 on deck, but 2.92 in the hangar, and 5.0 in the MV-22 maintenance position (where an MH-60S is 1.0). So some combination of those three numbers account for the true impact of an MV-22's deck space on an amphibious ship.
There is very limited space below decks, so the on-deck numbers are the most relevant.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that it has twice the cargo, what's the issue.
Besides, they are for DIFFERENT missions....
--------------- Flag on the Play ---------------
ReplyDeletePer the FY2014 USN Budget, the FY2014 MV-22's Gross Weapons System Cost (WSC) is $83.5 mil and the MH-60S is $25.3. that is 3.3x not the 4.5x that AOL reported.
Considering that the MH-60S's price reflects its MYB status and the MV-22's price does not reflect the newly announced MYB contract, the MV-22's price will go down to $70mil (or only 2.8x the cost of a MYB MH-60S).
Jesus wept,Of course you can't fit 3 MH-60s into the same area it takes to house an MV-22, but is doesn't matter. It's a money issue, not a space issue. The point is that for a third of the cost of the MV22 program, you could buy enough MH-60's for use as transports and use the savings for updating Marine armor.
ReplyDeleteYou may be able to buy enough MH-60s to do the job, but you would not have enough space on an LHD to park them.
ReplyDeleteThat is the main issue.
Remember that the MV-22 is a replacement for the CH-46, not the SeaHawk.
While you may be able to "eventually" transport enough with the MH-60S to equal the MV-22's cargo & transport capability, you will NEVER be able to do it as fast or as far as the MV-22. You will also not be able to carry large loads internal, large slung loads, etc.
In the end the MV-22 only costs 1.4X a MH-60S on a pound-for-pound or troop-for-troop basis. For that you get range, speed, larger cargos, etc.
It might be worth taking a look at the big picture and how the USN/USMC came up with the requirements for the MV-22 and EFV. The real problem might simply be Over the Horizon is unrealistic and/or too expensive. If the operational requirement was more realistic then the CH-46 could have been replaced by a helicopter and the MV-22 reserved for special missions and/or SOCOM.
ReplyDeleteThe MV-22 costs about double what a helicopter with a similar load (NH-90, AW-101, S-92, etc) costs. This isn't surprising given the MV-22 weighs twice as much. The Corp might be forgiven for wanting to invest a lot in it's medium helo replacement given it's been flying them for over 40 years and the T58 engine design is about 60 years old.
Marine Aviation seems to have forgotten it's a support or enabling arm of service. Thus we get an all F-35 tactical aviation force that seems a world beating air force of world class strike fighters. Seems a perfect force to engage a world class enemy but maybe the entire Marine tactical aviation force didn't have to copy the mission requirements of the USN and USAF and perhaps someone might have put forth the notion that since what Marines most often do is fight and operate in what used to be called the Third World that just maybe every last fight plane didn't have to be a world class strike fighter and that perhaps some cost effective attack aircraft might be exactly what is both required, would best accomplish the mission, and what would actually fit the budget. The F-35 is the world's top strike fighter but it's not exactly a cost effective bomb truck and the Corps not realizing it needed one is in fact the problem. That's just my opinion.
no you're right on all accounts.
Deletethe over the horizon requirement was too tough for an armored vehicle to meet. design studies should have shown us that but we wanted it too much.
the price alone should have killed the MV-22 but we wanted over the horizon when the S-92 would have filled in wonderfully.
how did we once have a force comprised of A-4's and OV-10's along with Cobras and Hueys that worked and now we're getting a plane designed to strike strategic targets beyond the battlefield?
It costs more than two new CH-47Fs. A navalized CH-47M would still be far less expensive, but could do both the MV-22 AND CH-53 roles, especially if some of these development dollars went for some modest upgrades (which would benefit the Army, Marines and SOCOM).
DeleteImagine an MH-60S, AH-1Z and CH-47M ACE. Just two engines types to maintain.
Significant commonality with Navy, Army, USAF and SOCOM. Reduced costs across the board. More money for other things like the MPC and ACV. Improved flexibility from the combination of smaller and larger helicopters (vs all huge). The MH-60Ss could support MIW and ASuW as well, and even self-escort.
Move the existing M/CV-22s into theater-wide pools for SOCOM and special missions, as Lane says.