UH-1Y achieves Initial Operational Capability (IOC) with little fanfare

[bluesig1]

I may be stepping out of my area of knowledge but to add to what Zissou said, can the 53's carry as much as the 47's at that altitutide.

The 47's do have manual folding blades for sustained shipboard operations http://www.specwarnet.net/vehicles/mh-47.htm

If I remember correctly most of task force sword in Afghanistan was based off of ships

 

[Clux4]

The MRAP is not the wave of the future, unless we plan to invade Iraq again, or, ideally, South Africa (the original target environment for tall v-hulled APC's). That or Mothers of America continue dictating our equipment purchasing.

I like to think IED's will stop after Iraq but who really knows. The whole world is watching us fight the IED war and truth be told, the bad fellas are going back to re-write their TTPs. Even for a conventional army, IED's will still be a great weapon.

Sounds like a guess to me. MRAPs are way outside the box as far as weight. Externally transporting vehicles is generally a dog-and-pony thing. The times it's legitimately necessary are few and far between. Internally transportable vehicles are another matter, and those are made to be light.

Me just thinking we should have vehicles we can sling-load or internally carry with our heavy lift. We may be re-writing our amphibious doctrine after this way dies down. Good thing, the C-130 is suppose to be able to carry the JLTV.

Hmmm, folding blades, glass cockpit, lots o' avionics goodies, heavy lift... Sounds like the CH-53K to me.

I would agree that the 53K is a highly suitable alternative to the 47, in the case of the Marine Corps, it is going to be the only alternative. But, this thing has not started operational testing. Sirkosky is boasting of mature technology. We all know how mature technology goes. What they draw on paper is not always the end result. By the way, it is suppose to have 11,700 pound increase in gross weight.

 

[skidkid]

I like to think IED's will stop after Iraq but who really knows. The whole world is watching us fight the IED war and truth be told, the bad fellas are going back to re-write their TTPs. Even for a conventional army, IED's will still be a great weapon.

Yes, they are called land mines and are nothing new.

Me just thinking we should have vehicles we can sling-load or internally carry with our heavy lift. We may be re-writing our amphibious doctrine after this way dies down. Good thing, the C-130 is suppose to be able to carry the JLTV.

Sometimes yes, somtimes no. Mobility and survivability are always at odds and compromises are made. As vehicles get beefier they lose mobility. Watching uparmored HUMVEEs chase Toyota trucks and lose is frustrating at best. Carrying tactical vehicles around with helicopters is not that useful in many situations.

 

[Zissou]

Didnt know that. Thanks HJ~

 

[Alpha_Echo_606]

I may be stepping out of my area of knowledge but to add to what Zissou said, can the 53's carry as much as the 47's at that altitutide.

The 47's do have manual folding blades for sustained shipboard operations http://www.specwarnet.net/vehicles/mh-47.htm

If I remember correctly most of task force sword in Afghanistan was based off of ships

Thanks for mentioning this! I also know they have droop stops since I've replaced some bad ones before.

 

[HeyJoe]

Didnt know that. Thanks HJ~

I was at MCCDC when two pilots returned with lessons learned so heard firsthand from a 53E pilot that they were cut out of Army's plans (perhaps to regain pride after Marines got so much credit for creating Camp Rhino virtually overnight by deploying two MEU (SOC)s from offshore amphibs) and no warning when things went south. At any rate, as I recall, there were 700nm away when they heard on 3 March that Army helos (including AH-64 assets) had be decimated and needed an assist. Five AH-1W and three CH-53E helicopters were then sent to Bagram immediately to backfill for an operation they thought was ill-advised in first place.

 

[FlyingBeagle]

Pssst - the W and the Z that he referred to are Cobras...

Doh, I'm an idiot

I wasn't paying attention and thought he was still talking about the UH-1Y vs the 60. Well, as I meant to say, what benefit does the Y have over a 60 in a high risk environment (other than rolling out with these so called W and Zs)

 

[Flash]

The MRAP is not the wave of the future, unless we plan to invade Iraq again, or, ideally, South Africa (the original target environment for tall v-hulled APC's). That or Mothers of America continue dictating our equipment purchasing.

I like to think IED's will stop after Iraq but who really knows. The whole world is watching us fight the IED war and truth be told, the bad fellas are going back to re-write their TTPs. Even for a conventional army, IED's will still be a great weapon.

And where do you think the Iraqi insurgents learned much of what they know about IED's? Think Lebanon. What works spreads around quickly, it has already spread on to Afghanistan. It would not be wise to think IED's are going away anytime soon.

As for the new Z/Y's, I still don't think parts commonality is worth the development costs that have been thrown at the program. Just because something is cheaper in the long run doesn't justify huge cost overruns in the original program.

 

[phrogdriver]

As for the new Z/Y's, I still don't think parts commonality is worth the development costs that have been thrown at the program. Just because something is cheaper in the long run doesn't justify huge cost overruns in the original program.

Too late now. They didn't know there were going to be overruns. If they did, they wouldn't be overruns, they'd be budgeted.

 

[mmx1]

And where do you think the Iraqi insurgents learned much of what they know about IED's? Think Lebanon. What works spreads around quickly, it has already spread on to Afghanistan. It would not be wise to think IED's are going away anytime soon.

I'm not talking about the notion of IED-resistant vehicles, just the current incarnation of the MRAP, which is tailored for Iraq and in particular, convoy ops. In particular, it's so heavy that its off-road reliability is poor. They weigh about as much as a Stryker but with a 4x4 or 6x6 wheelbase instead of 8x8, it'll sink into soft ground. I've also read some unenthusiastic responses to reported MRAP deployment to Afghanistan, with its less developed road network.

So certainly, force protection will remain important, but I'm not going to draw the conclusion heavier is the way of the future. Especially for an expeditionary force.

 

[Clux4]

So certainly, force protection will remain important, but I'm not going to draw the conclusion heavier is the way of the future. Especially for an expeditionary force.

Let me just come out and say this. Our days of Expeditionary Ops are going away for a while. There is nothing expeditionary about Afghanistan, sending MEU to Afghanistan is not expeditionary. Folks, remember that what we are doing in Afghanistan still falls within the spectrum MOOTW which is ultimately a part of our responsibility.We need to go there and clean house like we have done in Iraq. Only when that is done can we expect manuevers from the sea and the other things.

 

[pourts]

Let me just come out and say this. Our days of Expeditionary Ops are going away for a while. There is nothing expeditionary about Afghanistan, sending MEU to Afghanistan is not expeditionary. Folks, remember that what we are doing in Afghanistan still falls within the spectrum MOOTW which is ultimately a part of our responsibility.We need to go there and clean house like we have done in Iraq. Only when that is done can we expect manuevers from the sea and the other things.

Well, for one the whole "expeditionary force in readiness" thing is mandated by congress, not just a buzz word.

Two, skidkid already mentioned mobility vs. survivability. Mobility can be its own survivability, especially if the enemy doesn't know where you are, or how you are going to get somewhere, and vis-versa.

And three, (I am not sure if this is what you meant) but it would be shortsighted to make our vehicle plans based solely one just one contingency, even if that contingency is the current conflict.

 

[Herc_Dude]

Well, for one the whole "expeditionary force in readiness" thing is mandated by congress, not just a buzz word.

Two, skidkid already mentioned mobility vs. survivability. Mobility can be its own survivability, especially if the enemy doesn't know where you are, or how you are going to get somewhere, and vis-versa.

And three, (I am not sure if this is what you meant) but it would be shortsighted to make our vehicle plans based solely one just one contingency, even if that contingency is the current conflict.

Someone was paying attention at TBS ...

 

[Flash]

Too late now. They didn't know there were going to be overruns. If they did, they wouldn't be overruns, they'd be budgeted.

Too late? I am pretty certain that most people with any sense could have told you trying to modify 30 year old airframes would cost a lot more than the contractor estimate. Anyone who thought otherwise was drinking too much kool aid. A very poor excuse and a dodge for trying to fix a broken process.

It ain't too late for the EFV. Or Future Warrior. Or the CH-53K. Or the LCS. We are not going to be able to buy able to buy everything we want, it is about time we made some hard choices. Because if we don't make them they will be made for us, and all of those 'necessary' things that we need we ain't going to have n the end.

 

[Clux4]

Well, for one the whole "expeditionary force in readiness" thing is mandated by congress, not just a buzz word.

When we are fighting a long war and everyone is tapped out on MTT, PTT and normal deployement cycles, I am not sure we are quiet ready. I know it is a mandate but not just the focus right now. We are spread thin brother!!

And three, (I am not sure if this is what you meant) but it would be shortsighted to make our vehicle plans based solely one just one contingency, even if that contingency is the current conflict.

You know, I had the same notion as you for a while and I since changed and the reason is this. The enemy makes us reactive hence the upper armored humvee and the cougars. Whether we liked it or not, we had to put steel on our old humvees to fight IED's. So whether you want to consider this a contigency or the changing face of warfare is up to you. We can go ahead and make plans for the future and act as if this war will end in the next 5 years or really consider the possibility of an extended stay in the middle east (IRAN).
There will always be contractors available for upgrades. They will charge us whatever they feel like and we would not care because reducing the amount of American lives lost will be our top priority.

TBS is a GREAT test bed for new Marine Corps TTP/doctrine. You quickly realize every AI or Instructor has their own theory but that is beside the point.