Marine Aviation has been on something of a spending spree lately. The AH-1Z, UH-1Y, F-35, MV-22....now you can add in the CH-53K.
While I only have a bit of heartburn over the F-35 and the MV-22, one thing has got me stumped about the CH-53K. Where did they get the 200 number from?
When the program was first started the number to be procured was 156. That was at a time of the 175,000 Marine Corps. Today we're headed back in that direction and many say 150,000 is the real number that no one wants to say publicly.
So if that's the case, why 200? Especially when we have fewer infantry battalions to support? I have no idea, but the DoD Inspector General says this....
What We FoundThe Marine Corps procurement quantity for CH-53K Heavy Lift Helicopters in the DoD FY 2013 President’s Budget was overstated by up to 44 aircraft. The Marine Corps could not support the need to procure a total of 200 aircraft because Headquarters Marine Corps Department of Aviation officials:22 billion dollars would buy a bunch of Marine Personnel Carriers and probably leave a bit left over to transition the entire USMC over to the HK416.
- did not follow the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System Instruction and obtain Joint Requirements Oversight Council approval for the increase;
- did not have requirement studies prepared to determine a procurement quantity in consideration of program affordability;
- incorrectly relied on a 2008 memorandum from the Deputy Commandant for Aviation directing the increase of the procurement quantity to 200 aircraft, without support;
- incorrectly used the 2010-2011 Force Structure Review’s war-gaming scenarios as justification for the quantity increase; and
As a result, the Marine Corps risks spending $22.2 billion in procurement and operating and support funding for 44 additional aircraft that have not been justified and may not be needed to support future Marine Corps mission requirements.
- did not justify or appropriately consider the impact of the Marine Corps personnel reductions effect on Heavy Lift quantity requirements.
What We RecommendWe recommend the Marine Corps Deputy Commandant for Aviation perform an analysis to determine the number of CH-53K aircraft needed, conduct an affordability assessment, and obtain Joint Requirements Oversight Council approval of the CH-53K quantity before the low-rate initial production decision planned in February 2016.Management Comments and Our ResponseThe Deputy Commandant for Aviation disagreed with the report recommendations to perform a requirements analysis and affordability assessment. He stated that existing analyses justify the 200 CH-53K procurement quantity and that the Joint Requirements Oversight Council approved the procurement quantity. Headquarters Marine Corps Department of Aviation did not justify potential increases in cost and quantity.After the Deputy provided comments to a draft of this report the Milestone Decision Authority approved the Marine Corps’ request to rebaseline the program. The re-baseline included procurement cost increases of 54 percent and extended the Milestone C decision from December 2012 to February 2016. We request the Deputy provide additional comments on the Recommendations by July 2, 2013.
Even if we don't recoup those funds and are left with fewer aircraft then at least we would live up to our reputation of being frugal.
As much as I like and think we NEED the Ch-53K, we need to justify the extra aircraft or revert back to the old plan of 156.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is the only aircraft large enough to carry the F135 engine in its shipping container internally.... C-2s and particularly the MV-22 cannot. Perhaps the Marine hierarchy does not want to expressly state this for the record.....
ReplyDeleteLike Charley, I was thinking for all those times they suddenly realize the Osprey isn't the best choice for a job. (rolls eyes)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sldinfo.com/re-shaping-ground-force-insertion-the-usmc-leverages-tilt-rotor-technology-to-continue-to-innovate/
ReplyDeleteSome stuff on the history of the CLTs.
Notice how they are going into a A2AD environment but without a red team equipped with A2AD weapons? How about they try and penetrate JROTC with the Army having Patriot Batteries and stinger missile man ready to go?
Could it also be that unlike the DOD IG, the Corps is looking at the attrition and losses over the 40 years lifespan and realized 156 will not make it. Unlike the H-60 when these are bought their will not be decades of future production so you can order more as you need them. I am not sure how much it cost, but at least 4 I know of were returned to service with a massive structural rebuild at Cherry Point.
ReplyDelete161532
161538
161539
161542
These are just the ones from the USAF Boneyard in AZ. Some others were at the navel boneyards and their inventory is not as traceable. These all entered the AMARC facility in the mid 1990's (95-96). The aircraft the hit the life limited structural parts in the mid 2000's went to CP directly. But these rebuilds are not cheap. Massive amount of man hours, custom made replacement structural parts. This cost a fortune, and was buried in "Supplements" to the DOD budget.
More often than not these bean counters look at the bottom line you need XX number squadron and XX squadrons so you need 156. In the 90's the Commandant wanted 40 (not sure the exect #) more AV-8B+'s then they got. But the OMB said they did not need them. The Commandant wanted to park all the AV-8's not upgraded as attrition aircraft. Think of where we would be today with an extra 40 Harrier airframes and the UK birds for parts.
not sure i agree with that. the USMC has about 200 Harriers and we bought 100 from the Brits. even with attrition being taken into account we should be pretty solid on numbers. additionally NAVAIR counted attrition rates into the formulation of the Harrier being good till 2030.
Deleteabout the CH-53K, we all forget that the Germans, Israelis, Japanese are all operators of the CH-53 and Germany and Israel have both stated that they're interested in the CH-53K. lastly the Marine Corps used the CH-53 hard in missions that were beyond the reach of the CH-46...some say that the CH-46 was considered too fragile for some of the high profile missions given to the Sea Stallion. i don't know, what i do know is that the USMC has yet to come up with a credible reason for increasing the number of CH-53s.