Navy to Buy 99 Ospreys in $6.5 Billion Order

Navy to Buy 99 Ospreys in $6.5 Billion Order

The Navy has reached a $6.5 billion deal with a joint venture of Textron Inc.‘s Bell Helicopter unit and Boeing Co. for 99 V-22 Ospreys that likely cements the long-term future of the tilt-rotor aircraft as part of the military’s air inventory.

The five-year contract through 2017, with an option for 22 more Ospreys, was expected to be announced Wednesday, according to James O’Donnell, a spokesman for the V-22 Joint Program Office at Naval Air Systems Command, which negotiates contracts with the manufacturers.

O’Donnell said the order will include 92 MV-22 Ospreys for the Marine Corps and seven CV-22 versions for the Air Force, with advanced radars and extra fuel tanks for Special Forces operations. The five-year bulk order was expected to save $1 billion over buying the Ospreys individually, O’Donnell said.

“This shows the confidence that the Marine Corps and the Air Force have in the aircraft,” O’Donnell said.

Fort Worth, Texas-based Bell Helicopter, part of Providence, R.I.-based Textron Inc., teamed with Chicago-based Boeing to make the aircraft.

The military and the manufacturers say the Osprey’s performance in Iraq and Afghanistan, where it has logged more than 180,000 flight hours, proves its reliability. The aircraft takes off and lands like a helicopter, yet flies like a fixed-wing plane, giving it longer range and greater speed.

During development of the Osprey, more than 30 Marines and civilian contractors were killed in crashes. Some lawmakers and Defense Department officials sought unsuccessfully to cancel the program.

“Since 2007, V-22s have been continuously forward-deployed in a range of combat, humanitarian, and special operations roles,” O’Donnell said. “Additionally, V-22s are being deployed and assigned around the globe from East Asia to Europe in support of our Marine Corps and Air Force war fighters.”

In April, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced in Tel Aviv the first foreign purchase of the Osprey for the Israeli special forces. The number of Ospreys Israel would receive was not announced but it was believed to be at least five for $70 million apiece, which would likely come out of the more than $3 billion in military assistance the U.S. gives Israel annually.

The first foreign sale of the Osprey culminated a long courtship of Israel by the Marine Corps and the Bell-Boeing joint venture. Going back to early 2011, Israeli air force pilots were brought to the Marine air base in New River, N.C., to train on simulators and take test flights at the controls of the aircraft, according to Marine Capt. Richard Ulsh, a Marine spokesman.

“No other (foreign) militaries have done that” or been afforded the opportunity, Ulsh said.

The Marines and Bell-Boeing have said that several other countries have shown interest in the Ospreys. The countries have not been named, but Middle East news reports have said that the United Arab Emirates has been haggling for more than a year with Bell over a purchase price, which now comes to about $70 million apiece.

Other countries that have had extended briefings on the Osprey include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Italy, Brazil, Colombia, Singapore and Australia.

“We believe foreign interest is a direct result of the aircraft’s sustained superior performance in a myriad of highly visible missions and taskings,” O’Donnell said.

Tags: , , ,

Join the Conversation

USMC gets 92. The USAF gets the rest. So how is this a Navy buy?

Marines are still squids…just with guns.

Uhhhh Tiger? The USMC is part of the NAVY.….thats why…

Good buy!

n April, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced in Tel Aviv the first foreign purchase of the Osprey for the Israeli special forces.
Translation: The US Taxpayer funds are being used to give Osprey’s away to Israel, free of charge. Hence — this is not a bona-fide foreign purchase.

If that were really the case, why didnt they buy 100 of them, instead of 6?

Because the U.S. didn’t even buy 100 of them…can we think about the U.S. first for once?

June is Boeing BIG month!

Why would the Navy buy the Ospreys for the AF? Heck why would the Navy buy it for the USMC for that matter? they have different acquisition bugets for capital purchase.

depends on your definition of ‘part’. They fall under the Dept of Navy but the USMC is a separate branch altogether… and to confuse you even more the USCS is not even part of the Navy at all. They fall under DHS now.



we’re missing something here

where’s all of the jealous Army dudes?

A former Gunny I used to work with would claim that he was retired from the Men’s department of the US Navy.

It still baffles me that the Super Hornet is cheaper than the Osprey.

The Navy and USMC work together,each has it’s own command structure ‚but work hand in hand by providing transport and any other support they needed so that they could do the job they were trained to do,even though I was an aircraft mechanic in the Navy,I’ll always made sure that got to know Marines​.To me it doesn’t matter what uniform any of us wore,we worked for the same people,the people of America!

Its just PR attempting to pretend that it isn’t the same old corrupt losers buying the Osprey.

The article mentions that no other country has been afforded the opportunity to train on and fly the Osprey. This is untrue. I know of at least two members of the British Royal Navy who were/are on exchange to the USMC to train on and fly the Osprey, including combat missions in Iraq.

(1) Department of the Navy has two military services: Navy and Marine Corps. Coast Guard is also a military service. OSD officially calls them “military components”.
(2) NAVAIR manages the contract. Navy and Air Force put money down on the same contract from their own aviation procurement budgets.
(3) It’s “Navy” money because Marine Corps aviation is included in Navy aviation budget (“blue-in-support-of-green”).
(4) Marine Corps has a separate procurement account for other stuff, like missiles, weapons, communications, vehicles, tents, etc. USMC ammunition in included in “joint account” with Navy.

Giving away Ospreys is accurate assessment of what’s at work here. But it’s really an American defense industry welfare program.

I see two overriding themes at work in these responses apart from a couple of honest attempts. One is ignorance and the other is antagonism. There isn’t much difference between the two except for motivation.

But wait, last year the US wanted to drop over 200K servicemen from active duty. So this is why? The admirals and general where saying the Pacific would be unsafe against attack.

Who’s going to fly these?

Approximately 100 aircraft for $6.5B is about $65M a piece. Sorry, but I don’t consider $65M a ‘good buy’ for an aircraft whose primary mission is to move troops and cargo from point A to point B. O.K., great, the movement occured twice as fast as it would have if a regular helicopter had been used instead. But did the mail really need to be delivered that fast? Was it worth the extra billions of dollars? Special Ops really has a need for a few of these aircraft, but the Marines total program purchase of hundreds of these aircraft is just wasteful spending. Cheaper alternatives were available for the bulk of this mission requirement. Less capable yes, but at what point is enough, enough.

Dude — How would you like to be in a helicopter built before your daddy was born. News for you — aircraft age. Parts break, wear with use, crack, and guess what — When something major fails because of age the 20–30 troops on board DIE. BOttom line the age of the vertol (vertical take-off/landing) aircraft support the USMC mission are old (20+ years) while the fighter jet jocks have newer aircraft which don’t take the demanding forces of a helo. So back to my question — Would you like to risk your life in a helo that is 20–50 years old (the h-46 was built in the 1960s and is being REPLACED by the ospreys)? Your choice it’s your life.… If you can’t answer — don’t bother —- I have 1,000+ hrs in H-46s and stopped flying them in 1979 yet I still see the USMC flying them today.

Love it.….. CDR — retired sends

dont get it twisted! sailors and us marines are nothing alike

The super Hornet only carries one person — the Osprey carries 20 people… Could it be the “value of life”?

Thank you — good statement. While on active duty MCAS Tustin had the best school for my Navy mechanics… nuff said. I sent my people there to get training.…. CDR retired sends

In answer to your question — The people who are currently flying aircraft that are older than them (20+ yrs old) will transition to the Osprey. You know parts to keep those old aircraft flying are getting scarce and more expensive. It is better to fly an aircraft where parts are readily available. BTW the government sinks 2–3 million into training each pilot — I really don’t think those are the ones they would let go. OF course I might be wrong as our Congress doesn’t seem to be too bright now a days.

That’s a terrible comparison, especially considering the MV-22’s current safety rate.

The Super Hornet is a carrier-base tactical multi-role strike fighter. The MV-22 doesn’t even have weapons available right now.

“Dude — How would you like to be in a helicopter built before your daddy was born.”

This same tired rhetorical strawman comes up constantly from Osprey boosters: why, if Our Brave Boys weren’t flying the V-22, they’d be stuck in ancient, obsolete, worn-out CH-46es.

It’s a false dichotomy. The procurement argument is not whether the nation’s needs are better served by new-build Ospreys versus museum piece Phrogs. The procurement argument is whether the nation’s needs are better served by new-build V-22s versus competing new-build conventional rotorcraft.

It’s reflective of how weak the arguments are for the V-22 that its boosters repeatedly opt not to advance the honest, accurate latter argument, and instead insist on having the dishonest, inaccurate former argument.

There’s a role for an ultra-expensive and very fast vertical lift airframe, to be sure. Pretty much in the areas of spec ops and dustoff. But in terms of dollars per ton-mile of hauling boots, bullets and beans from A to B, the sort of routine mobility work that comprises 95% of military helicopter use, the Osprey is just not competitive, and it never will be. Its fundamental dynamics work against it: a cramped fuselage and a heavily loaded rotor system do not (and can not) ever equate to a good logistics platform.

Consider the automotive analogy. You can certainly use a Lamborghini to haul bags of groceries home from the store. And if they don’t all fit, you can make multiple rapid trips back and forth. But if you are actually on a tight budget, there are more prosaic vehicles that will perform the same grocery-hauling job in fewer trips and do it far more cheaply, with much lower acquisition, repair and fuel bills.

Needless to say, the budget environment looking forward for the services is not a Lamborghini one. And buying such expensive items is going to mean painful shortfalls elsewhere. Including in payroll. Here’s a sobering thought in that line. Just in the last year, how many long-serving professionals have been abruptly and rudely turfed out of what they had thought and planned would be long-term Navy and Marine careers? (Answer: thousands of them.)

Why does the Air Force need the Osprey? And only 7? With that few they will incur unnecessary expenses that could be eliminated if they would just call in the Marines if they need one.

AF Special Ops uses them. They already own a number of them. Their plan is to have 50 by 2016.

they are taking some because they couldn’t stand the thought of the Army getting their hands on some

Ah count on PolicyWonk for a little anti-Semitism.

So is this how the Marines can boast the cheapest cost per individual. They don’t tell the whole story?

Example, all Marine medical costs are carried by the Navy. So Marine aviation is accounted for in the Navy budget?

The AF originally planned for about 50 by 2017 for AFSOC. Not sure they are going to get there. They have lost 2 in mishaps the last couple of years and I believe they had 26 a year ago but not sure how many they received in the past year. The CV-22 replaced the MH-53J pavelows that retired a few years ago. The AF has CV-22 at Hurlburt fld, Cannon, Kirtland and plans for some based in Europe, probably England.

The Marines are naval infantry and part of the U.S. Navy.

thanks to Dave and tmb2, now I know

Agree on your point that the Osprey is better than the old CH46 argument is weak but yours isn’t much better. You cite 95% of military helicopter use is logistics. Where did this number come from? According to DoD’s Annual Aviation Inventory and Funding PlanFY 2013–2042, USMC Attack helos comprise 30% of total helicopters. Why invest in three times the aircraft necessary if your stat is anywhere near correct? Where you looking at a humanitarian disaster relief operation?

The real differences the Osprey brings to the equation vs. the CH46 is twice the speed and range. This makes exponential differences on the battlefield. Just in range alone it takes an exponentially greater number of CH46’s to move 22 marines the same distance as one Osprey and even then doesn’t touch the speed of the Osprey.

To use your car analogy the Osprey is a Mustang police car vs. a Prius. Who do you want coming to your door in an emergency?

The Osprey has some issues. Which new aircraft hasn’t? On top of that the Osprey isn’t really a helicopter. So maybe an appropriate evaluation of it would acknowledge it’s a first of its kind. The very first helicopters were nowhere near as efficient or cheap as the small airplane that could do a similar mission, with a runway.

FWIW the Air Force doesn’t have the SOF insertion mission they used to have when they owned Pavelows. That is now a TF160 (Army) mission.

The Air Force still has a SAR requirement.

You said it Blackman,in 65–67 while taking MARINES to Nam I made alot of new FRIENDS wished I had of written their names down.…..47 years later can’t remember any of them…Just pray they made it back home.…

Sorry glockman

wrong , ch 47 s the daddy of heavy lift, an high altitude an speed for helo, in the u.s..the army has a differnt idea in mind, and can crry a tank..into battle

however the airforc has its special kids that will nneed same op tempo as marines goin in

Coast’s are in DOT not DOD.

Not during war.

No helicopter can lift a tank. Not even close.

Pretty hard to sling missiles under those wings, then try to time the firing so the props don’t chop them up in forward flight. Maybe if you only shoot while hovering. Become a target while you fire at one. Great strategy! Under the low-riding fuselage is out. What about the roof? The V-22 will probably remain primarily a vehicle of logistical support for its lifetime.

CH-53E could lift a M551, as could the Mi-26. A enlarged V-22 was designed with four rotors to carry 26 tons. And the CH-47 can carry the M1128 MGS, although not really a tank.

Exponential difference from twice the capability that’s quite a feat of math.

The reality is that the marines are going to have less capability. Because at six times the price the V22 is only twice as capable. They are already starting to complain that they will face a shortage of helicopters.

When you sacrifice 6 aircraft for one that is only twice as capable you end up with a lot more marines bleeding out having to wait for medivac. That is the reality.

The marines tell you it is worth all those dead marines just so they can ride their golden unicorns and feel proud and different, so who’s to argue.

NAVAIRSYSCOM buys for the USMC as well as Navy. Since the Marines are lead service for the Osprey, it buys for other services. Since NAVAIRSYSCOM buys for the Marines.…..

The marines is where bad ideas go to live on. Whether it’s putting your airbases up close to the front line so that you cant supply them and the enemy can slip in and wipe out half your air-force. Or packing as many men as possible into a lightly armored tin can and then letting the enemy mow them down for half an hour over 25 miles of open ocean. Or a lowest denominator plane helicopter hybrid that costs 6 times the price of either and combines all the limitations of both.

No matter how bad your idea defense contractors know that if every other service rejects them they can always find an open embrace for any dumb idea with the marines.

You’re a troll but at the risk that new people may make the mistake and listen.

The Osprey does provide exponential capability (not performance you nitwit) over the CH46. Speed? No comparison because 100 CH46s aren’t going to move as fast as an Osprey. Range? It takes over three CH46s with three times the crew with all but one carrying blivets of fuel to get 24 Marines the same range as one Osprey (in over twice the time). The reality is you wouldn’t do that. You would launch, set up and secure a FARP and from there launch another air assault to match the range of ONE Osprey. The planning, security, resources, multiple LZs and complexity is exponentially greater than a straight lift into an LZ (done it). The Osprey also has a 60% higher service ceiling (think flying over mountains). That’s exponentially greater capability.

Thanks for the opportunity to again demonstrate you don’t know what the heck you are talking about.

It probably has something to do with the life cycles for the parts and maintenance costs…and where are you trying to go with that ‘safety rate’ comment?

No — wrong on both counts

Naval Infantry is a term where sailors are trained to conduct infantry operations — Marines are inducted and trained separately from the Navy.

Marines are a separate service from the Navy

The Navy and the Marine Corps are under the Department of the Navy

between this contract and that other thread mention the Chinooks,
“Sequester? What sequester? We don’t know anything about any budget worries.
Running out of money? Who is?”

Wait, a Chinook can carry the Stryker MGS? When did this happen?

My understanding was that a Chinook can carry a Humvee internally, and that Sheridans would generally get moved around by C-130’s via LAPES, and if we wanted vehicles that could be carried in –53’s or Chinooks you could use Humvees or Wiesels.

For giggles, an old Skycrane carrying a Sheridan.

Conceivably a Chinook could carry one externally? Not sure of the internal dimensions of the –53 to make the call on whether or not it can carry a M551.

“Use this Simple Accounting Trick to look very Cost-Effective to Congress…”

It’s basically an aid program for the aerospace industry. Israel has to spend a percentage of it on American hardware. If I was a company guaranteed money for a product by the federal government, I wouldn’t complain.

You forgot the Sir

Cdr_Rogers, please try re-reading my post. Nowhere in there do I suggest that CH-46 shouldn’t be replaced. This should have been sufficiently clear with the following quote:

“Cheaper alternatives were available for the bulk of this mission requirement.”

In fact, the reason that it’s taking so long to replace those ancient CH-46s is because they’re being replaced with an overly expensive aircraft. In the face of limited budgets, the USMC can only buy limited amounts of MV-22s per year. The replacement of the entire CH-46 fleet could have been completed years and years ago if replaced with a good reliable medium-lift HELICOPTER, not this over-engineered tilt-rotor abomination.

I welcome differences of opinion in response to my posts, but at least make it relevant to the contents of my post.

Somehow always finding the money from somewhere…

CH46’s were/are not just used for routine transportation, they are the aircraft used by the USMC for heliborne assault. Yes, the existing CH46’s were old and decrepit and needed to be replaced but the Osprey is far far better than new CH46’s.

The money is “MIPR’d” over from the USAF budget to fund the AF aircraft as it is far cheaper for one service to man and operate the program office needed for the joint aircraft. As for why the Navy is buying it, it is because the program office is part of Naval Air Systems Command which is also home to the program offices for Marine F/A-18’s, EA-6B, AH/UH-1, CH-53, UAV’s, etc

That would be the Coast Guard, VMA.

When did a –47 lift a Stryker? It’s at least 3 tons heavier than the –47’s max weight limit. That four rotor tiltrotor only exists on a powerpoint slide.

Guess the Treasury just figures, “Hey, we still have ink and cotton paper, so we’ll just keep printing.”

I’m gonna guess that M551 in the photo is pretty stripped down, as I’ve never heard of a Ch-54 picking up 15 tons of anything.

And by carrying, I think we are talking about external loads, not internal, so vehicle dimensions really don’t matter.

” You cite 95% of military helicopter use is logistics. Where did this number come from?”

DOD’s own published accounting of how much it spends on its vertical lift fleet. Remember, troop movements, even combat ones, are considered logistic in their accounting model. If stuff moves from A to B by air, it’s logistic. I’ll hunt for that study.

“According to DoD’s Annual Aviation Inventory and Funding PlanFY 2013–2042, USMC Attack helos comprise 30% of total helicopters.”

My comment referenced amount of flight hours by use, not percentage of airframes in the fleet by use.

“The real differences the Osprey brings to the equation vs. the CH46 is twice the speed and range.”

Note again how an Osprey booster is attempting to make the debate into “modern Osprey versus ancient CH-46″, neatly underscoring my original point, thanks. That’s not the correct debate to be having. The correct debate is modern Osprey versus other modern rotorcraft.

Moreover, any equation which contemplates only speed and range is woefully analytically deficient. It is necessary to consider speed, range, cubic cargo capacity, cargo mass capacity, fuel consumption, acquisition cost, maintenance cost, dispatch availability, spares management, and a host of other variables.

“Just in range alone it takes an exponentially greater number of CH46’s to move 22 marines the same distance as one Osprey and even then doesn’t touch the speed of the Osprey.”

You refer here to one Osprey and “22 marines”. You refer below to one Osprey and “24 marines”.

The last time the GAO looked at data from the actual real-world Osprey operations in Afghanistan (I do have that study to hand, GAO-09-692T, knock yourself out) they reported that the typical max attainable loadout was only 20 marines, not “22” or “24”. Your operational assumptions must be adjusted downward to match operational realities.

BTW, that same study was hugely damning when it came to the Osprey’s real-world dispatch availability and spares management. And cost. It also pointed out, versus the services’ claims, that most Osprey flying in Afghanistan was restricted to “low threat” environments. I recommend everyone read it cover to cover. It’s a very useful antidote to uncritical Osprey proponent praise.

With regard to the USAF CV-22s, note that AFSOC have already managed to crash two of these very expensive birds. Total hull losses. Serious injuries in both cases, aircrew fatalities in one case. And both crashes were very, very instructive for people who actually pay attention to the details and read between the lines.

In the first crash, which was in Afghanistan, the board of inquiry, led by a highly reputed and technically proficient BGEN, ruled that Osprey technical failures and more specifically a loss of engine power were significantly likely to be to blame.

This is amply underscored by publicly available information about how badly and how fast the Ospreys have chewed up their engines operating in hot, high, dusty conditions. See, for example, the _Aviation Week_ article titled “With No Fish In Afghanistan, Osprey Eats Engines”. Detailing woefully short time on wing and awful reliability. Strongly contributed to by the unavoidable crud ingestion issues produced by the Osprey’s unique engine and rotor layout.

The USAF brass freaked out at any thought that the Osprey might have inherent technical faults, rejected the entire crash report without addressing its arguments, forced its author to retire early (he has never repudiated a single word of his analysis) and produced an alternative report blaming that old standby “pilot error”.

In the second crash, in an exercise at Hurlburt, the accident investigation board blamed a wake turbulence encounter and faulted the aircrew for having gotten too close to the preceding Osprey. Except the board also admitted that the collective manufacturer and interservice understanding of Osprey wake generation and wake interaction is basically no good, and that the pilots had flown according to what the manuals implied was reasonably safe separation. It turned out not to be safe.

The report’s unavoidable implication is that there are going to have to be further investigations into how closely physically possible it is to have Ospreys maneuvering around other Ospreys, and that training, tactics and procedures would all have to be rethought in that light.

Step back a second here. The program that evolved into Osprey, JVX, goes all the way back to _1981_. Sorry if this makes anyone feel old, but 1981 was a long, long, long time ago. Thirty-two years. There are probably current Osprey pilots who hadn’t even been born yet when the early contracts were let.

And yet they are STILL finding out unknown unknowns in actual service about the bird? After three decades of engineering work and astronomical development costs? Unknown unknowns that have tough implications and that imply harsh restrictions upon the actual attainable combat profiles the aircraft can fly? That is utterly amazing.

marines are a wholly owned subsidiary of the USN. the article is misleading cause the navy wouldnt have bought 7 for the airforce. its a DOD acquisition. the author is just clueless

So you can’t provide a reference, just “the military said”? I couldn’t find a breakdown of flight hours by mission. You also need to be checking your definition of logistics. Not all “stuff” moving from point A to B is logistics. Troops conducting an coming off an Osprey into combat are as much logistics as a Bradley disgorging Infantry or Marines hitting the beach. You may want to take advantage of some beancounter’s definition of logistics. I use the doctrinal one. Understand why you’d be ignorant of that nuance.

The comparison I made was between the CH46 and Osprey. You didn’t know that the Osprey was developed to replace the CH46 and has an almost identical cubic cargo capacity, cargo mass capacity, crew requirement? The Osprey is designed to carry a max of 24 troops. You’ll find it less in Iraq because of high/hot conditions cuts payload of all rotary and VTOL aircraft. I didn’t know you were ignorant of these matters. MY bad. I thought you knew a thing or two about aircraft.

Reference the report. It is a good read. There are some valid issues with the Osprey like there are with EVERY new airframe but you also make much of telling half the story. Acquisition of the Osprey has been cut in half impacting cost through no fault of the aircraft itself and Iraq was considered a low threat environment for ALL aircraft. Again, not a ding against the aircraft.

Next, you need to define Osprey booster. Is anyone that points out the positive aspects of a weapon system an automatic booster? Seems a bit simplistic and keeps you from addressing the specific points I raised. Attacking the individual vs. defending your highly partisan and one sided argument is very Alinsky of you.

well said :-)

Got me on the MGS, ended up with half the actual weight. (Converting from tons, for some reason multiplied by 1k and not 2k, my bad.) However, the M551 still only weighed in at 15 tons, and could be externally carried by the CH-53E and Mi-26. I’ll replace that by putting up the soviet PT-76 in it’s place, which is also heli-mobile.

So now exponential means “bigger” ? LOL

Here’s the great thing about the myth of osprey range advantage — covering more range with fewer aircraft aircraft because means the demand goes up polynomially but the capability scales linearly. So you end up with a shortage of vehicles which is exactly what the marines are now complaining about.

The marines chose the V22 simply because nobody else wanted it that’s the reality and they are far more interested in PR opportunities and differentiating themselves from the fighting services then actually getting the job done.

ex·po·nen·tial /ˌekspəˈnenCHəl/ Adjective 1. Of or expressed by a mathematical exponent. 2. (of an increase)

I think you’re more confused by the difference between performance and capability. I’ll let you look those up.

You don’t understand range and it’s impact on mission. According to your “logic” we need more B2’s than other airplanes because they fly farther. Brilliant.

The Osprey was selected because of its unique capabilities not because nobody wanted it. (Again, think of the B2.)

homeland security

All marine corps aviation is paid in blu dollars not green. This ensures that marine aviation cn be used in support of the fleet as well as o the ground

I remember that they tried to sell this aircraft to the Marines back in the 70’s…President Carter nixed the idea. I was very surprised to see it raise it’s ugly head again 25 years later!

If the Army is smart, they’d stay as far away as possible from the V-22! This thing is an operational flop! It can’t autorotate, easily gets into critical vortex ring state flight regimes, and is highly susceptible to uncontrolled roll conditions when encountering wake turbulence from other V22’s during critical approach maneuvers. The Army has a proven heavy lifter in the CH-47F. And it’s no slouch when it comes to speed, especially when high and hot. In Afghanistan AH-64s couldn’t keep up with our D models when operating at higher altitudes.

“In Afghanistan AH-64s couldn’t keep up with our D models when operating at higher altitudes”

And until someone bails out the transmission maker (Northstar Aerospace, mfr of RDS-21) for the Block III Apache, it won’t happen. Hilarious Boeing makes the army agree to take out the transmissions and re-use them during mass production and then send the bill to the army for their failure to keep their suppliers alive…

The caveat of helicopter external carry is the drag penalty. The Tarhe was intended to winch objects close to the hull, but I don’t think it was ever powerful enough to carry a combat-ready Sheridan. I found a picture, but pictures without context are meaningless.

There’s always the Wiesel…

It’s odd to buy a Marine troop transport, that outruns helo gunship support, and has no effective means of self defense, going into hot LZ’s.

Also, landing vertically in dry sand…, they’ve got to be IFR, for the final couple hundred feet. I’m a crazy old AV-8A pilot, who was thrilled to be selected for single seat Harrier transition back in ’74. So, I would clearly try anything…, but you’d never have gotten me into one of these things.

However, they’ll be perfect for NY business execs, and DC politicians, zipping from building to building (once some volume purchases bring that pesky price down).

‘Military Intelligence’ has always been an oxymoron.….Semper Fi

The real answer is that it’s a ‘joint’ buy designed to save each service money by reducing the per plane cost, that would be higher if they bought individually. The Navy procures and technically owns all the aircraft the Corps operates.

USMC falls under the Department of the Navy.…

re “USMC falls under the Department of the Navy.… ”

Only when they want to be.

look at all the expensive toys they have bleeding us in devlopment. A lot for a 177K force.! Perhaps we should can the other 3 services and let the USMC do it all. Their PR force is almost as good as their ability to do urban combat which is best ever seen on the planet.

The Air Force Special Operations Command has a need for the Osprey. That AF community is very small and specialized. The USMC operates from the sea off of ships. They are essentially a light infantry 911 force which needs a vertical take off and landing aircraft for normal combat operations.
As far as I know the US Army has no interest in the Osprey. That may be a “not invented here” prejudice on their part. I don’t know.

whats at the top of a marine’s check? department of the navy„ they are athe special forces of the navy.

Actually, doc, you’re clueless. The Marine Corps and the Navy are coequal services and both are part of the Department of the Navy, which is the civilian leadership of both services. The Osprey buy is through NAVAIRSYSCOM, so it is a “Navy” (Dept) buy. In the Marine Corps, we refer to blue dollars as money that comes from organizations like NAVAIRSYSCOM and green dollars as money that is specifically budgeted for Marine Corps purposes. This could be considered “blue dollars,” although it is from procurement accounts, not O&M accounts.


NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.