Osprey Heads to Afghanistan

[phrogpilot73]

Changing the mix of the medium lift is not the right answer. We got this aircraft with the presumption that we'd be able to move a substantial portion of the MAGTF long distances. Once you water that proposition down, the value of having a particular long range asset goes down drastically. If putting a company downrange by itself is a little light, then putting a platoon out deep is practically useless. Unless you're moving specops types, it's useless, and that's not our business.

Plus, adding another TMS to the mix complicates everything. We need fewer models on the deck, not more.

I was thinking more along the lines of how we currently flex by adding more Shitters or taking more Cobras, because of what we expect the mission to be. Kind of a "hey, we think we're headed to the stan - let's build the ACE around an HMH, and get dets from VMM, HMM, and HMLA" or "don't really see anything on the horizon, let's go with a VMM and get HMM, HMH, and HMLA dets." If we ended up going somewhere that Ospreys/Shitters can't go (I'm thinking if we did another NEO in Liberia, where Shitters aren't allowed to land at the embassy LZ - so after standing under you guys at Lejeune, I would expect you wouldn't be able to either) then you've either got to move everyone via surface to somewhere they can land (which may be a security nightmare) or the Huey/SAR det guys are going to be REAL busy...

Although I agree more T/M/S's may not be the answer - there's just a lot of gaps that I think Big Green never really thought of, and just dropped in the fleet's lap to figure out. Assuming that we would be doing an organic insert - WHY do we need to insert a billion miles away? Outside of Afghanistan and the NEO in Somalia, we really don't do that. More moving pieces, because now you have to figure timelines to get FARPs set up, move skids close enough, or just say fuck it - there's no need for RW CAS. And now that you're moving FARPs in place, you're pretty much unzipping your fly before the Company gets there.

 

[phrogdriver]

I think if you want to add light/med assault support to fill "gaps," lose the Cobra and get more utility/multi-role a/c.

The V-22 isn't a replacement for the CH-46. By the same token, trucks are not replacements for horses. Nevertheless, even though there are some things a horse can do that a truck can't, we still decided to go forward with the horse replacement program. Which is too bad, because I always wanted to wear riding breeches with my uniform like Patton.

 

[Birdog8585]

I think if you want to add light/med assault support to fill "gaps," lose the Cobra and get more utility/multi-role a/c.

This "fill-the-gap" issue was addressed in the August Gazette. The author basically outlined the attached escort technique utilized now with the current assault support mission and dovetailed that into the "gap" that you guys are talking about.

In short, he proposed the idea that in an Osprey squadron of 12 a/c, 4 be designated as "gun variants" (gun variant defined as a .50cal on the ramp and the 7.62mm/.50cal belly turret underneath). Further explaining that the standard maneuver element is typically a section in an assault mission, why not make it a 3 ship, one of which is a designated "gun variant" the other two as "slicks" (primary troop carriers). He continues to outline the MAWTS-1 TTP's that would need to be developed but you get the idea.

IMHO (green and naive as it may be), it seems like a feasible solution. My $.02 take on it is why not take the gun variant idea further? Why not a Mark 19 on the ramp and add what is already being proposed and tested for the "Harvest Hawk," the Griffin and Viper Strike?

No new aircraft needed, I assume the avionics suite would accept it if a DASC(A) has been proposed for the Osprey, and it would be relatively cheap.

 

[teabag53]

This "fill-the-gap" issue was addressed in the August Gazette. The author basically outlined the attached escort technique utilized now with the current assault support mission and dovetailed that into the "gap" that you guys are talking about.

In short, he proposed the idea that in an Osprey squadron of 12 a/c, 4 be designated as "gun variants" (gun variant defined as a .50cal on the ramp and the 7.62mm/.50cal belly turret underneath). Further explaining that the standard maneuver element is typically a section in an assault mission, why not make it a 3 ship, one of which is a designated "gun variant" the other two as "slicks" (primary troop carriers). He continues to outline the MAWTS-1 TTP's that would need to be developed but you get the idea.

IMHO (green and naive as it may be), it seems like a feasible solution. My $.02 take on it is why not take the gun variant idea further? Why not a Mark 19 on the ramp and add what is already being proposed and tested for the "Harvest Hawk," the Griffin and Viper Strike?

No new aircraft needed, I assume the avionics suite would accept it if a DASC(A) has been proposed for the Osprey, and it would be relatively cheap.

This may rank as the most retarded thing I've heard of in at least two months. Just because you can put guns on something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good platform to host them. The Osprey owes it survival to speed decreasing it's susceptability (to taking fire) and I find it hard to believe that anybody seriously thinks it would be a good idea to have it just 'hand out' in a regime where it is a big, slow, hot target...not to even delve into other potential issues.

This is a "F-, I've never seen a fire truck that needs to shave"-type shitty idea.

 

[Pags]

In short, he proposed the idea that in an Osprey squadron of 12 a/c, 4 be designated as "gun variants" (gun variant defined as a .50cal on the ramp and the 7.62mm/.50cal belly turret underneath).

Putting a few guns on a helo doesn't make a gunship.

And getting an avionics suite to accept a new feature is often much more akin to getting a 386 PC to talk to a Beta VCR than plugging an ipod into your mac.

 

[squeeze]

Seriously, a third of a squadron of Assault SUPPORT aircraft made into dedicated gunships? Did someone forget their mission? Terrible idea. And why the hell would we want a DASC(A) with the short legs of an Osprey (relatively speaking). The fact that we rarely utilize a DASC(A) notwithstanding, if it's to exist, it belongs in a Herc - just b/c the old box doesn't fit in the J doesn't mean they should start from the ground up and throw it in a less-capable platform.

Step back from the kool-aid or whatever it is they're handing out in the Osprey RAG.

 

[Feet Wet]

What's being ignored is what an absolutely remarkable C&C platform the MV-22 would be.....add a third radio and there you go...problem solved!! Loiter at 14K with solid comms and sippin gas....that being said, I'm sure the tiltrotor types are not on board with that!!....I mean really WTF wants that mission?:tongue2_1:tongue2_1

 

[slug]

So, since the GAO recommends the MV-22 complete missions in a "low-threat environment", and given the weapons currently on the Osprey, I am wondering how secure Osprey pilots feel in hot LZs, or in brown-out combat landing situations, compared to your previous airframe.

 

[Brett327]

So, since the GAO recommends the MV-22 complete missions in a "low-threat environment", and given the weapons currently on the Osprey, I am wondering how secure Osprey pilots feel in hot LZs, or in brown-out combat landing situations, compared to your previous airframe.

Since when does the GAO write our TTPs?

Brett

 

[slug]

Since when does the GAO write our TTPs?

Brett

I think that is more at the Operational level, simply quoting the original link.

I am just wondering, since everyone says they are capable, how you would feel landing in a hot LZ with no weapons on the front or sides of your a/c.

Considering that CH/MH-47s, which fly at close to 200 knots, have excellent power even at altitude and are armed with .50 cals/miniguns on 3/4 sides, are still vulnerable, personally I think MV-22s would be better suited to provide air lift support, not air assault.

 

[phrogdriver]

The article in the Gazette was not a very good idea. There are much better ways to skin that cat.

I don't think the people at GAO really understand the technical definitions of "low threat," "medium threat," and "high threat." Putting a shit-ton on machine guns in an LZ does not make it a high threat environment--it makes it a really stupid place to f-ing land! The definitions of these terms have to do with the variety of threats (AAA/missile, IR/radar) and the integration thereof.

The Osprey is more capable of defeating a low or medium threat environment than ANY existing rotorcraft, by virtue of its speed and choices of altitude. The only assault support aircraft, r/w or f/w that should even consider a high threat environment are special ops type, and those have specialized equipment to help do so. Anyone else had better hope they have HARMs, chaff curtains, and a whole lot of escorts, because helos and cargo planes don't stand a chance in "high threat" environments.

One, CH-47s do not fly close to 200 knots, unless you take the rounding concept to a ludicrous extreme. Two, did we go through the time tunnel from the Final Countdown and end up in Vietnam? The number of "hot LZs" is far less in today's warfare is far less than it's made out to be. You shouldn't intentionally go into one on insert, and on extract the good guys are around and most of your guns are shut down anyways. Anyone who really intends on getting into a slugfest while riding in an aluminum or composite pillbox is an idiot.

Does anyone remember the H-34, by the way? It could only shoot out one side and did just fine in Vietnam.

 

[phrogdriver]

So, since the GAO recommends the MV-22 complete missions in a "low-threat environment", and given the weapons currently on the Osprey, I am wondering how secure Osprey pilots feel in hot LZs, or in brown-out combat landing situations, compared to your previous airframe.

This Osprey is much better in a brown-out than the 46. Before it was beat the dust cloud to the deck and pray I wouldn't die.

In the V-22, I have electronic assistance to help me get down.

 

[slug]

You are correct, sir, the CH-47's VNE is around 200 mph (196) not knots, stupid English system. Electronic brown-out landing assistance... as Borat said, "very niiice!"

As for the "hot" LZ's, true they are less frequent than say in the Ia Drang Valley in 1965, but does the military plan on the best-case scenario? Last I heard, things weren't getting better in Afghanistan. It may be extreme case, but you may want to review the story of Razor 01. http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/history/aircraft/E_Models/92-00475/92-00475.html

That LZ was "cold" when the first a/c went in. Personally, any time I landed outside the FOB, I considered it "hot".

'Course, Dustoffs fly around with no weapons going into tight spots on a daily basis... and they are also shot at nearly every day.

I am just playing devil's advocate, and hope all crews stay safe on deployment; I just think there are more appropriate aircraft for combat insertion/exfil.

 

[phrogdriver]

You are correct, sir, the CH-47's VNE is around 200 mph (196) not knots, stupid English system. Electronic brown-out landing assistance... as Borat said, "very niiice!"

As for the "hot" LZ's, true they are less frequent than say in the Ia Drang Valley in 1965, but does the military plan on the best-case scenario? Last I heard, things weren't getting better in Afghanistan. It may be extreme case, but you may want to review the story of Razor 01. http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/history/aircraft/E_Models/92-00475/92-00475.html

That LZ was "cold" when the first a/c went in. Personally, any time I landed outside the FOB, I considered it "hot".

'Course, Dustoffs fly around with no weapons going into tight spots on a daily basis... and they are also shot at nearly every day.

I am just playing devil's advocate, and hope all crews stay safe on deployment; I just think there are more appropriate aircraft for combat insertion/exfil.

Vne? Vne is just how fast it can possibly go without breaking anything, i.e. how fast it can go in a dive, i.e. who cares? It cruises at less than 150.

Planning for the cornier case is retarded. If you planned for the corner case when you drove your car, you'd be going to the grocery store in an M1A1 tank. Gotta be ready for getting hit by that meteor shower...

Which is more survivable? An aircraft that can displace twice as fast from a WEZ (weapons engagement zone), or one that has two extra machine guns? I won't go over the whole Osprey debate here, but I keep wondering, which war do these critics think we're preparing for?

People keep wanking about these "hot LZs," which more guns may or may not have helped anyways. If you plan on fighting Vietnam again, then expect to take Vietnam casualties. We don't do that anymore, for good reason.

Me, I worry more about what platform has a better chance of avoiding or outmanuevering MANPADS and RPGs. I'll take my V-22.

 

[ArkhamAsylum]

I understand what you're saying about the machine guns, but it's still possible to mount 500-lb bombs on the wings, right?