Is the V-22 Osprey worth it?

http://www.g2mil.com/scandal.htm

I wonder if the Marines would be better off with building new and improved CH-46s(Or developing an entirely new medium-sized tandem rotor helo) and investing in the CH-53K program, from reading this site, adopting V-22 doesn't seem like a good idea.

 

In my personal opinion yes it's worth it.

The site you found quite simply isn't an unbiased site that is putting out simple logical fact's but quite literally searching for anything and everything that could be made to look in a negative view by them.

Some of the link's on the site to show just how 'crap' the V-22 is..

Israel cancels order for V-22, In that article it also point's out that a number of procurement project's had been cancelled and that funding had been shifted to other area's deemed more important, In no part of the article the question of the capability of the V-22 come into play.

Flying the V-22 (march 2012), The article is about a former pilot clearing a few thing's up and giving his overall view, Skipping to the end he point's out that the V-22 has not been in development for 25 years due to simple fact the program was constantly stopped and started again and again, He does say that the V-22 is more of a test bed for tilt rotor technology but that he has high hopes for the tech into the future, Not to mention he points out it had only been improving year by year.


There have been those that have been trying to scrap the V-22 since the very start, While not perfect it is an aircraft that can do what no other aircraft can do. Scrapping it out right with out a replacement of the same type would only be a step backwards.

 

100 knts faster and longer range gives you more capability and options....that's it...makes a long range mission more feasible....less time over hostile area....

 

Now that the V-22 has a few years of operational experience, including in combat zones, one obvious question would be what missions has it accomplished that could not have been accomplished by other types, either helos or STOL aircraft. Anyone have any info?

 

The fact that SOCOM got some is a point in its favor IMO. They don't buy much unless they think it's a good idea.

The extra range and speed allow for more than just longer missions. If they are on an amphibious assault ship it means that they can strike over a much wider area. Just in case I'm not being clear say you had two aircraft one with a range of 100 miles and one with a range of 200. If an amphibous ship was 100 miles off shore with the one aircraft only a single point would be subject to attack if the ship is 50 miles off shore then a bit under 175 miles of coast land is subject to attack. With the longer range ac it's almost 350 miles of coast subject to attack from 100 miles off shore and almost 390 miles.

There's also the question about how much it is worth to develope the technology. There are lots of potential uses in the civilian world as well as the military if this meets the required safety and cost levels.

Looking at http://www.g2mil.com/ I am not favorably impressed. Poking around his site a bit more looks like a very opionated individual with a chip on his shoulder. I can't see any attempt to look at both sides of any issue I looked at and the slant is pretty impressive on what he does present.

 

Range and speed is good, but what about carrying capacity, can the V-22 at least carry the same load as the CH-46, the craft it's replacing?

 

Both 24 troops. V-22 20,000lb cargo capacity internal or 15,000 external-CH46E 5,000lb cargo capacity. Speed 316 mph vs 166 mph-range 1,011 mi vs 633 mi.

 

Okay thanks Price, so how has the Osprey performed in Marine Corps service so far?

 

Remember the hunter killers of Terminator fame? See the new drones coming out? The technology is completely sound in military terms...its here to stay and be improved...whens the first unmanned version coming out?

 

Personally I'd love to see Australia get a few of them. Not only would it be of use to us over seas but even at home domestically, Large nation and not all places suitable to landing a fixed wing aircraft to help those in distress, A V-22 could make a big help.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/04/16/marines-test-missiles-on-v-22-osprey/25824603/

The USMC has actually test fired a precision guided munition from an Osprey, Target was 4.5 miles away and they had a goal of hitting it within 6 minutes, They did it in 4. Utilizing hand held tablet's by ground forces they greatly reduced the time it normally would have taken (up to half an hour or more when using paper maps and voice directions).

I'd imagine though there would still be a few more years of testing though early stages this look's to be a cheap and successful program. I'd imagine it should be ready by the time the tanker version is ready (2017) which with both will not only increase the capability of the air frame but also reduce the cost as they would gain benefit's from larger production.

 

Hmmm...can imagine them being useful in our bush fire season...and especially for our annual floods - could even relocate cattle! Bring in food/water...rescue a larger number of people from cyclone areas etc etc...

 

Looks like the Japanese may consider them useful:
news.usni.org/2015/05/05/u-s-notifies-congress-of-potential-3-billion-v-22-osprey-sale-to-japan
And this makes a case for their use in relief operations:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2015/0504/Nepal-earthquake-how-one-US-aircraft-could-make-a-big-difference-video
even if they do call the Ospreys helicopters.

 

It's not to say that improvements can't be made because they can but overall it is a successful platform with a good opportunity to evolve and perhaps even one day largely replace the helicopter.

 

3rd MEB and some Ospreys going to Nepal to help with disaster relief.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/05/02/us-troops-ospreys-helicopters-joining-nepal-quake-relief-efforts.html

 

The christian science monitor link I posted above discussed this as well although I don't recall it mentioning whose Ospreys they were. In fact I think the link said the US was sending 5 helicopters including 4 Ospreys! they did emphasise how useful they would be though

*** edit for ***
Your article is much better detailed. Interesting that the Marines had trained for earthquake response in Nepal. I hadn't seen the info about the special forces troops that were there when the earth quake occured either. Good to see the Marines making sure they get the credit they were due as well.

 

one report said it was USAF Ospreys while others say USMC.....I would think they are the USMC aircraft? my dad saw the report on the USAF, and didn't think they had them......but, I see the USAF has them for specops.... but I don't see them using specops aircraft for this

 

Here's an article with a list of aircraft and from a source that should be fairly trustworthy.
http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific-command-sending-500-troops-to-nepal-1.344476

 

thanks LWD, ..it looks like the news story was wrong when it said the Ospreys were USAF......they do seem to be wrong a lot on military hardware identification

 

Looks like the Marines are expanding their Ospreys at a time when the USMC as a whole is downsizing:
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/careers/2015/05/09/marine-corps-osprey-community-readies-for-expansion/26881537/

 

Edit function seamst ot be acting a bit wierd. Here's a link to some info on the AF Ospreys"
www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/05/11/air-force-ospreys-yakota-air-base-japan/27132205