I'm getting a bit miffed by the spin being generated around the capabilities of the MV-22. War is Boring Blog wrote a piece on it that had my blood pumping yesterday and then we have the fuzzy news of its use in an evacuation in Libya. First check out this bit from WIB....
Contrary to the paper specifications McCain cites, no CH-46 I have ever flown in ever carried 14 troops over a distance of 160 miles. Marines planned for 12 combat-loaded troops, max—and often planned for just eight. Admittedly, the V-22 advertises 24 troops, but planners shoot for no more than 18 combat-loaded Marines.On a sidenote, I really need to nail down the stats on the V-22. I've read that max troop load is actually 12-16...not the 18 that the author states. Additionally the range quoted has me scratching my head. 233 miles? If thats true then Amos' mythical 200 miles off shore is as dead as disco. Even the MV-22 doesn't have the range to get their without refueling.
The V-22 might be limited to 233 miles on a single tank, but surprisingly McCain doesn’t mention that it can also refuel in flight. This effectively gives the Osprey indefinite range, provided tankers are available.
Oh yeah, and it does it all at incredible speed. The CH-46 cruised at 140 knots while the Osprey moves at 240 knots in airplane mode—and maxes out over 300 knots.
And that brings me to the video above.
The number of personnel being evacuated indicates to me that the force package being quoted to the media is not even close to being real. 80 US Marines and 150 embassy personnel? How many MV-22s would you need to be able to haul 230 people out of the desert if sugar turned to shit?
And that has me turning back to the main question.
Why are they trying so hard to spin us on the MV-22? The plane is being bought so is their pressure to cancel the remaining buys? Is the SPMAGTF under pressure to be disbanded (as I've called for)?
Something is going on behind closed doors because the lobbying for the plane is in overdrive.
Wikipedia says orders for the V-22 were reduced to about half of the previously planned rate in 2013. Might be they're getting halved again, as the aircraft is (like the F-35) very expensive for the few real advantages that it offers in return for all of its many weaknesses. And ya know, gotta pay for those F-35s somehow!
ReplyDeletePerhaps it is because the USMC don't have a modern amphib that can do this,
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABcIbHoJgJA
That piece made my head hurt.
ReplyDeleteIn the 2011 F-15E TRAP mission the Osprey's were accompanied by CH-53Es from the MEU as well. So using that example as a "Only an MV-22 could do this mission," is just wrong. The CH-53E did is just fine right beside it.
Comparing the MV-22B to the CH-46E like what Jack McCain did is a dumb argument. A much better argument is comparing the MV-22B and the MH-60S, or whatever the latest army version is. Or even a hypothetical militarized S-92 from Sikorsky.
I would have to dig through my pubs but the MV-22 does have the longest range and highest cruise speed when carrying troops internally of any vertical landing platform it could be compared to. The MV-22B can cruise around 210-220 knots and has an unrefueled radius of around 230 nm. Plus or minus based on a lot of factors. However a CH-53E has a cruise speed of 140 knots and right around a 200 nm radius and both of them are capable of mid air refueling. The latest of the H-60 series can cruise around 160 knots and I admit I do not know what it's radius is with a load of troops is and can be equipped with midair refueling.
Bottom line: The MV-22B has the highest cruise speed and combat radius when transporting troops internally of any tilt-rotor or helicopter in the US arsenal. It also has many drawbacks when carrying external loads when compared to traditional helicopters it's size, weight and cost.
The 2011 F-15E TRAP mission had an LHD off the coast, as I understand it this evacuation did not.
DeleteGiven the risk (and recent examples) of helicopter shoot downs, I doubt any helicopter, not matter how large, would ever deploy with more than a 13 man squad. They'll just deploy heavier.
ReplyDelete