Home » Air » Osprey To Afghanistan: Conway

Osprey To Afghanistan: Conway

By Greg Grant Thursday, March 12th, 2009 7:20 am
Posted in Air, Naval, Policy, Uncategorized

The Marine Corps’ aging heavy-lift helicopters lack a “high-hot” capability, limiting where Marines can operate in Afghanistan’s mountainous terrain. To provide Marines fighting there with greater mobility, the service will deploy a squadron of V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft to Afghanistan, said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway. “By the end of the year, you’re going to see Ospreys in Afghanistan.”

The Osprey, which had a rather troubled development period, has proven itself in combat conditions in Iraq, where it has been operating with the Marines for the past year. “It has gone from a wounded duck to a poster child, in terms of what aircraft with that leap-ahead technology can do,” Conway said, and the Osprey will greatly expand the range of missions the Marines can conduct and territory where they can operate in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has almost no road network and helicopter, soon the Osprey, is really the only way to get around faster than a marching pace.

One Osprey squadron is still in Iraq, but will be returning in a couple of months. The next Osprey squadron to deploy will be going aboard ships with a Marine Expeditionary Unit, Conway said, to test the aircraft’s ability to handle salt and sea and give crews shipboard operating experience. The Osprey was developed to lift Marines from ships offshore and rapidly carry them deep into contested territory. The squadron that follows in the deployment line up will then go to Afghanistan.

Marine units have been sent to southern Afghanistan largely because they lack a helicopter that can lift troops or cargo in what are called “high-hot” flying conditions. “We couldn’t handle the north, we couldn’t do what the Army is doing today up in RC East because of the dramatic terrain that’s up there. Our (CH) –46 has seen age and elevation and temperatures catch up with it,” Conway said, speaking at a defense industry conference in Washington on Wednesday. During the hot summer months in Afghanistan the CH-46 could only carry 5 or 6 fully loaded Marines.

The Marines must lighten up and get back to their expeditionary roots, he said. The past five years spent in Iraq as America’s second land army forced the Marines to buy heavily armored MRAP vehicles that do not fit the service’s expeditionary mission. Even personal body armor has gotten too heavy, he said, so the Marines are developing a “family of protective equipment” that will be scalable, according to the threat environment.

Conway gave a rather lukewarm endorsement to the troubled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program, intended to provide the Marines with a replacement for their Amtrack amphibious personnel carrier. The EFV is rumored to be on a list of possible program cancellations under consideration by the Obama administration. Conway said he hoped the program would not be cancelled. “We make our best case and then it’s out of our hands.”

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

	Clark Eton March 12th, 2009 at 2:45 pm Someone please tell the CMC that the V-22 carries less vertically at high-hot conditions that the ancient CH-46E. (check NATOPS) The V-22 will be limited to airplane ops from airbases, like in Iraq, while helos fly helo missions. With only a 7.62mm gun on the ramp, the V-22 will stay far from any combat, as it did in Iraq. The old CH-53Es are the best choice since they have three .50 cals, can carry three times more payload, even though they are smaller than the V-22.
	Maj Eric Dent March 13th, 2009 at 9:46 am Clark — really? I think you are misinformed about the comparison between CH-46Es and MV-22Bs. There is a significant difference between these two aircraft, especially (as an example) in the Afghanistan scenario. No doubt the CH-53Es are the best heavy lift helicopter we have, but they are not smaller than an MV-22. Regards, Maj Eric Dent, HQMC Public Affairs
	yasotay March 14th, 2009 at 5:57 pm LOL, I remember all of the ugly arguments about the “Boeing Body Bag” (a.k.a. CH-47A)in the early 60’s. I think only the aircraft nomenclature and location of the conflict have changed.
	El Coqui March 19th, 2009 at 6:48 am Yasotay: All early models are full of bugs, before they proved themselves. What was the jokes about the early Harrier crashes? The Osprey will do well, as its crews had a vested interests in coming home safe.
	Bart Kesselring March 19th, 2009 at 10:27 am Tourist trips coming to Afghanistan. We flew around aimlessly in Irag in V-22s avoiding enemy contact, which was fine with me. The orders were to keep the Osprey otherwise known as the Albatross off the front page. Even at that we ere terrified every time we landed as we were forced to stay inside as the brown out created by the props because (you have to be powered all the way to the ground) was really a sand storm. At that point you are extremely vulnerable to an infrared seeking RPG. It is difficult to tell where the Marines end and Boeing begins. It is the plan of every officer involved to get a 6 figure job with Boeing when they retire, to qualify you have to play ball. Mean while us grunts get joy rides.
	Geoff Gonzalez March 19th, 2009 at 7:45 pm As a former AO on the beloved CH-53E for just over 4yrs., I am rather insulted when I continuously see CH-46, H-60 and V-22, for any of the branches of the US services, stated as “Heavy-Lifters”. The US Army deployes only one commonly used Heavy and that is the CH-47. As for the US Marine Corps, it is and I hope always will be, versions of the CH-53.