Presidents, and those aspiring to be presidents, routinely promise to reform the defense procurement process. And defense contractors, their lobbyists and the military services routinely ensure that never happens.
This year has been refreshingly different. President Obama and his defense secretary, Robert Gates, have made a compelling case for ending weapons programs that significantly exceed their budgets or use limited tax dollars to buy more capability than the nation needs. And Congress has agreed — somewhat. The $680 billion defense authorization bill signed into law by President Obama last week pares back or cancels billions of dollars in expensive weapons systems that are either anachronistic, redundant, poorly performing or exceed the military’s real requirements. Even with these reductions, the defense bill is one of the biggest in history, in part because of the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it sets an important base line for future cuts that need to be far more ambitious. The new law ends production of the C-17 transport plane (military planners say they have enough to meet current and future needs) and cancels the airborne l@ser (a favorite of missile defense dreamers) as well as the heart of the Army’s Future Combat System (an overly high-tech approach to war-fighting that was overbudget and ill suited to fighting today’s counterinsurgencies). The biggest political win was ending production of the Air Force’s F-22 stealth fighter jet after 187 aircraft. Several previous presidents, including President George W. Bush, tried and failed to end the program. The decision by Lockheed Martin and its partners to put plants and other facilities in dozens of states ensured that it had a lot of powerful friends on Capitol Hill. This time, strategic reality finally trumped high-priced lobbyists. The F-22 was designed for combat against the former Soviet Union and has not been used in Iraq or Afghanistan. The Air Force’s new high-performance F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a Lockheed Martin weapon that begins production in 2012, should be sufficient. Mr. Obama did not get everything he wanted. Congress defied a veto threat and insisted on authorizing $560 million for research and procurement of an alternate engine for the F-35 that the Pentagon says is unnecessary. Lawmakers authorized an extra $1.8 billion to buy 18 F-18 fighter jets — twice as many as the administration sought. President Obama and Mr. Gates are going to have to work hard to make sure that their hard-won victories stay won. The House and Senate are negotiating a defense spending bill that experts predict will include money for the C-17 transport plane. They should also continue to press lawmakers not to finance the alternate F-35 engine. And they are going to have to be even bolder next year: pressing Congress to halt production of the V-22 Osprey and the Virginia class submarine and make deeper trims in the still unproven missile defense program. The administration has also begun to make progress toward changing the defense procurement culture. Mr. Obama has wisely ended no-bid contracts and signed bipartisan legislation to improve how weapons are bought. It will take political courage and persistence to keep all those reforms going especially next year when many members of Congress are up for re-election.
Perhaps NYT does know what it's talking about after all !
New York Times Suddenly Defense Procurement Experts
After advocating massive influxes of taxpayer money into blackholes like stimulus, bailouts for failed corporations, and universal health care, the New York Times editorial board is suddenly on a big fiscal responsibility kick:
Presidents, and those aspiring to be presidents, routinely promise to reform the defense procurement process. And defense contractors, their lobbyists and the military services routinely ensure that never happens.
This year has been refreshingly different. President Obama and his defense secretary, Robert Gates, have made a compelling case for ending weapons programs that significantly exceed their budgets or use limited tax dollars to buy more capability than the nation needs.
Russia simulates nuclear attacks against a key NATO ally, China declares their intention to weaponize space, Iran holds massive rallies outside the US embassy threatening to annihilate the Great Satan, North Korea announces that they'll be constructing more nuclear bombs, while the Taliban continue to make strong gains in rural Afghanistan. "More capability than the nation needs" indeed. The fact is, the Times editorial board has little idea of how much defensive capability we need, as they've never been a credible or knowledgeable exponent of national security matters. In one breath they argue that cutting the F-22 was justified because the plane hasn't seen combat in Iraq or Afghanistan, in the next, they can barely contain their giddiness at the prospect of killing the V-22 Osprey, a valuable tilt-rotor aircraft that has been absolutely indispensable to quick-reaction Marine forces in both theaters of war. They say that military planners don't want more C-17 cargo jets, a mere month after Air Force officials laid out a very clear and convincing case for additional military airlift resources to support landlocked Afghanistan. They even go so far as to bring out the big guns, plucking lines directly from Obama's stump speeches in their support of killing "unproven" missile defense technologies. This isn't a serious editorial. It's a dogmatic reiteration of the President's damaging proposals to drastically cut the military. Taking strategic cues from the New York Times would be like General Petraeus giving the Old Grey Lady journalistic advice . . . with the caveat that Petraeus is actually good at his craft.
Posted on Friday, November 06, 2009 5:03:39 PM by Yo-Yo
The U.S. Marine Corps today released video of its V-22 Ospreys arriving in Afghanistan. Ten MV-22s flew from the USS Bataan and are now operating in southern Afghanistan.
The video is of MV-22Bs with the Marine Medium tiltrotor Squadron 263, 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit taking off in three waves from the flight deck of the Bataan. And here is video of the arrival and flight of the first Osprey to be use in Afghanistan.
I thought from posts on this thread that no one could stand near a V-22 in hover or fast rope from it. These videos make those posters look like fools!
Good to see that the Marines are willing to deploy the V22's to Afghanistan. It shows they have faith in the aircraft.
Of course, those videos show them taking off from a stable deck at low gross weights in fair weather conditions, and then performing relaxed STOL landings on tarmac.
Nice, precision formations during final approach, landing, and ground movements though. Way to go Marines.
I thought from posts on this thread that no one could stand near a V-22 in hover or fast rope from it. These videos make those posters look like fools!
I don't remember anyone saying that it was impossible to fast-rope from it, or impossible to stand near it - only that the undeniably increased downwash from the V-22 would make these things more difficult. And as we saw in that video, you can indeed fast-rope from an Osprey down to a nice flat, moderately dusty surface. Let us hope and pray that all such fast-rope operations take place in such predictably good areas.
But I guess the bigger question is why some people feel the need to have others look like fools? It's not about that. On another discussion forum, some anonymous poster (you know how I love them!) said that I had been laying low lately and not posting much because I'd gotten my "ass handed to me on PPRuNe." As if that actually happened (it didn't), and as if that was important to him. He seemed gladdened by the idea that I get a good beat-down because of my views or because I think I'm such a big friggin' expert on everything (I don't).
Strange. But it is what it is.
The V-22 proponents surely do seem to have a lot of personal investment in the aircraft. They absolutely take any criticism of it personally, and they often respond in kind, lashing out at those who aren't rabid fans. I've merely been critical (okay, highly critical) of the aircraft, and I've been called things publicly (and privately!) that you would not imagine. You'd think I was trying to stop aviation.
I watched the video of those Ospreys making their nice, slow approaches, and I thought to myself in my Billy Bob Thornton/Slingblade voice, "Those things sure make mighty fine targets, mm-hmm." And it made me wonder...
Much is made of the V-22's extra, humongous speed, and its ability to "swoop" or "zoom" into an area to insert or extract troops, faster than a helicopter!! And yep, the Osprey can surely get there more quickly.
At some point the V-22 is going to have to convert back to helicopter mode. This will happen at some predetermined distance from the LZ, on a carefully-planned approach profile. And so my question is: From thatpoint, if the Osprey and a CH-53 were side-by-side, which aircraft can get into the LZ faster? We all know that the V-22 can "get out of Dodge" really fast, and that could be a big advantage if someone is shooting at you. But who gets in quicker when someone is shooting at you? That's the important bit, yes? It's not like the V-22 is so stealthy that the bad guys aren't going to hear it coming until it's touching down or hovering while pooping soldiers out the back end (sorry, but that's what it looks like).
The helicopter pilot part of me knows that I could take *any* helicopter and get into an LZ damn quickly. But I'm no Osprey pilot, as has often been pointed out. So are they the same? Has anyone ever compared this? I am curious (Bob).
There are a lot of assumptions about the V-22 - conclusions to which we are expected to leap about how much "better" than a helicopter it is. I'm still not convinced.
And so my question is: From thatpoint, if the Osprey and a CH-53 were side-by-side, which aircraft can get into the LZ faster? We all know that the V-22 can "get out of Dodge" really fast, and that could be a big advantage if someone is shooting at you. But who gets in quicker when someone is shooting at you? That's the important bit, yes? It's not like the V-22 is so stealthy that the bad guys aren't going to hear it coming until it's touching down or hovering while pooping soldiers out the back end (sorry, but that's what it looks like).
Bob, There was a recent account on this thread of an observation that appears to answer your question given by Sasless:
Quote:
....an Osprey is doing night landings a bit closer than the 53D did.
Observations....
The 53D is a classic!
The 22 is fast, quiet approaching, but noiser than the 53D at a hover.
21stCentury, I guess that gets to the crux of my question: What happens *after* the V-22 gets back in helicopter mode? And where does that occur in the approach process? How soon before landing does the V-22 have to be reconfigured? And from that point on what is its airspeed and rate of descent? Can a '53 beat it in - guns a-blazing - from there? Or are they the same? As much as I admire and trust SASless's observations, in this case they're hardly scientific, and he wasn't in the LZ but out on a boat, no?
The fact that the V-22 is "quieter" as it approaches does not mean that it is completely silent or that it'll blend into the cacaphonous desert background noises or that it won't echo off the mountains. Even a caveman is going to be able to hear it coming at some point - maybe soon enough to pick up his AK-47 or RPG and go meet it?
I was at a Naval Air Station on the U.S. east coast some time ago when a CH-53 was doing autorotations. I stopped and watched because I could not believe what I was seeing. CH-53 autorotations! (No, not touchdowns.) I remember thinking, "That is one agile, manoeuvreable bastard for being as big as it is! I'll betcha you could ROLL that thing!"
As much as I admire and trust SASless's observations, in this case they're hardly scientific, and he wasn't in the LZ but out on a boat, no?
How many LZ's and rotorcraft landings have I seen with my MK 1 eyes and ears FH? Reckon I might be able to speak to what I saw that day with some basis of experience and knowledge even if not scientific methods were not used? Recall I was very close to the LZ....and anchored sailboats are very quiet save the gurgling of the Rum Bottle emptying.
FH1100, you seem to have your mind stuck in the Vietnam method of rotary wing employment. If you're planning on landing in an LZ where the enemy is actively engaging the LZ itself, your plan sucks. If you survive the mission, it's because you are lucky not because of your skill or how aggressive you flew the approach. Fly like you're in Vietnam, expect to get shot down like you're in Vietnam.
Also, if you sit in an LZ with clear line of sight around said LZ, ALL helo approaches look slow.
Thank you, busdriver for not answering the question...even though I agree with you. Let us just hope that the V-22 is always used in peacetime, where there is no chance that it might be shot at as it goes about its business. Sounds like a good plan! "Bad guys" never shoot at helicopters anymore, eh?
Meantime, I'll just wait form someone to chime in with a real answer.
Bob, There is one person posting on this thread who is uniquely qualifed to accurately answer your question. He has years of experience on the CH-53 and years of experience on the V-22 with countless approaches into LZs in both aircraft. He has been verified as credible by all the regulars here. So why don't you just ask your friend Mckpave!!
Having watched and experienced both Chinooks and the V-22 going in and out of Lzs my impression is that an experienced pilot in the V-22 does have the advantage.It seems to be a question of how quickly the pilot goes though the transition,how late he leaves it on the way in and how quickly he accelerates on departure.
SAS, I think what busdriver02 was referring to was an 'insertion' where enemy fire was expected or encountered, not 'an extraction of troops under fire.'
Of course you are right that if there are those on the ground needing help, the a/c commander will make the decision to lay ground fire (if capable) and/or go in whether it is a helicopter or a tiltrotor.
Linear Mode
