What happens when you have a questionable, uber expensive program (F-35) that's killing off much needed gear like the Marine Personnel Carrier, Amphibious Combat Vehicle, the JLTV and others?
Other aviation programs destined for the Marine Air Wing come into question.
Programs like the CH-53K. Check out this chart from ELP Blog.
The following are program unit costs from various 2012 U.S. DOD Select Acquisition Reports (SAR) on military aircraft.I love the CH-53 series of helicopters. I think Sikorsky is a great company (I have an issue with them selling BlackHawks to China, but everyone is dancing to the Red Dragon beat), and I love their entire line of products.
These unit costs are the predicted average over the life of the program. These numbers are sometimes off compared to what you see DOD spend each year on air frames. Authorized budgets are the real money; SARs are predictions. The numbers below also assume that no air frames are cut and that costs do not rise for other reasons such as problems in development. Still an interesting snapshot:
CH-53K............$142M
E-2D...............$272M
P-8A...............$286M
V-22...............$119M
C-130J............$92M
KC-46A............$288M
F-18E/F...........$90M
F-35...............$135M; F-35 motor on separate SAR category; $26M
But 142 mil for a transport helicopter?
Makes me wonder if piggybacking off the Army's buy of the CH-47 wouldn't be such a bad idea.
NOTE: I continue to marvel at the arrogance of leadership. They acknowledge the fact that the Marine Corps has put into service the new AH-1Z, UH-1Y, MV-22B/C, and are breaking the bank with the F-35B. When asked why so many resources are headed to the wing instead of the ground side, they reply that the infantry has gotten a ton of new gear during the war on terror. Boots? 782 gear? A new rifle (that is conceptually silly..yeah talking about the M27)? A 120mm mortar that doctrine is still being written on? Compared to the new aircraft in the Marine Corps its a pittance. They should be called on their stupidity.
If they want to cout the new 782 gear we get, how about all those jhmcs helmets, lightnin pods, new gbu bombs, and such? Dont really see tthe comparison.
ReplyDeleteBtw alot of people myself included think the 120mm mortars should be a infantry regiment asset not a arty one. Give us some army 105 if you want something more expeditionary.
i've been wondering about the 120mm vs. 105mm light weight for a long time....i know that originally the 120mm was suppose to be dragon fire. automated, high, high, high rates of fire and pretty much revolutionary. but that damn V-22 requirement crept in and cost rose so they went with a french gun instead. but besides that part of it, i've always wondered why the 120 over the 105. the 105 is longer ranged, doesn't weigh much more and fits more into the traditional arty field than the 120 does. time to research i think.. great comment...you got me considering some things.
DeleteInteresting is the program unit cost of the CH-47 is in the mid $20M each. Love the 53s too.
ReplyDeletethe thing that kills me is that the CH-53K does everything the V-22 does but better. the only thing it lacks is the V-22's speed. it lifts more, can carry more internally, can penetrate hostile airspace (or so Sikorsky claims) and doesn't have the punishing downdraft or the limitations in the landing zone.
Deleteadd it all up and fewer v-22's and a MUCH more reasonable price on the '53 would have me saying awesome....go for it! as things stand though i don't see how we can have both.
53 will probably end up with higher mission capability rates and significant lower cost per flying hour compared to the Osprey.
DeleteThere is a need for heavy lift helos, and the 53s are the ticket. They new Ks are expensive, but then again they are a niche capability - and who knows how the Marines have tarted them up. It's too bad that C/MH-47s don't fit so well on amphibs, and the blades are a pain to fold, but they could fit on MLPs.
ReplyDeleteI may be wrong, but the ch-53K shows to be 99 ft long 27 ft tall and looks to be wider than a ch-47 while the ch47 is 99 ft long about 18 ft tall and 15 ft wide. I am sure Boeing can come up with an easier folding system and do everything else they need to to make it easier to take to sea for the 100 mil per unit cost difference. Heck I bet for that 1/4 the price difference they could upgrade the engine and transmission, but why the big thing for the ch-53k i found is that it will be able to fly 110 miles with a 27,000 lb under slung payload. given the already extra range of the ch-47 I bet it could come close as it sits.
DeleteIt has to do with landing gear config, refueling probes, and blade folding. Only certain LHA/D elevators can be used to move it into the hanger bays. It's not that it won't fit, it's just more complicated logistically.
DeleteOddly enough, the head of MARSOC right now is an old friend of mine from my MH-53J days, Mark "Droopy" Clark. He was an exchange pilot with the 20th SOS at Hurlburt Field when I met him, then he left to be the XO and later the CO of HMH-461 at New River. He was (and still is) a great pilot and outstanding officer, I wish they would listen to him when it comes to this aviation mess...
ReplyDeletei don't know if i trust anyone in MARSOC right now. the Marine Corps doesn't have the manpower to have that unit and their is an inside push to get aviation assets over to MARSOC. it doesn't make sense. the Marine Corps is too small, it will take too big a bite out of the conventional forces and most importantly it duplicates assets already assigned in great number.
DeleteThe way I understand it, the USMC gave up the CH-46 Sea Knights to get the MV-22 Ospreys as they have about the same lift capability (medium lift helicopter). I don't see how the slightly larger CH-47 Chinook would be all that different to operate off of ships than the CH-46, considering the 47 is a foot shorter than the CH-53E Super Sea Stallion.
ReplyDeleteits really a bad mixture of loyalty to the CH-53, wanting a service unique airplane, tradition and not wanting to follow the Army's lead.
Deletethe problem is simple though. money ain't there. they're going to cut the pentagon to the bone before they even think about going after social programs and it seems that the leaders, the led and the public just can't wrap their heads around it.
if the Marine Corps would simply declare that it bought all the MV-22's it needed and was going to buy UH-60's and CH-47's for the remainder of the lift requirement then the savings would be huge and other gear could be bought now. while there is a SLIM chance that we could squeak it through.
i think its going to get alot worse financially before it gets better.
oh and sorry to read about the falling out between you and a buddy. it sucks but it happens.
DeleteThanks for the concern, I appreciate it. It sucks for the USMC that institutional reasons keep spending limited dollars on high tech toys instead of working with the Army to maximize savings for lift assets. If the Apache was too expensive for the USMC I don't see how they can justify the CH-53K with a straight face.
ReplyDelete