V22 Osprey discussion thread Mk II
Sorry SAS, you made a specific, pointed jab at the unit cost of the V22.
Turns out the Greyhound isn't as cheap as it appears if you are comparing apples to apples. If the UK MoD was going to procure aircraft, they'd almost certainly be buying new. You give a benefit of the doubt to modern new C-2 production cost savings but not the same to a new multi-year on a batch of Ospreys? Seems a bit disingenuous. Remember V22 procurement and maintenance costs have been steadily dropping over time as well.
A C-2 CODA costs $39 million Now does that include inflation to MY2012 USD?
Bottom line is the C-2 isn't an el-cheapo stripper UH-60 at $20 million a pop, and this is a great illustration as to why the old argument that "you can get a whole fleet of XXXX aircraft for a V-22" isn't really as accurate as people are led to believe.
And yes, I did miss my coffee this morning
Turns out the Greyhound isn't as cheap as it appears if you are comparing apples to apples. If the UK MoD was going to procure aircraft, they'd almost certainly be buying new. You give a benefit of the doubt to modern new C-2 production cost savings but not the same to a new multi-year on a batch of Ospreys? Seems a bit disingenuous. Remember V22 procurement and maintenance costs have been steadily dropping over time as well.
A C-2 CODA costs $39 million Now does that include inflation to MY2012 USD?
Bottom line is the C-2 isn't an el-cheapo stripper UH-60 at $20 million a pop, and this is a great illustration as to why the old argument that "you can get a whole fleet of XXXX aircraft for a V-22" isn't really as accurate as people are led to believe.
And yes, I did miss my coffee this morning
Last edited by SansAnhedral; 18th Jul 2012 at 15:42.
Slopes and Thrust Vector
SAS, your recollection of the limits re the CH-47A speed trim limits and results of mis-application in manual mode matches mine. Only point I was getting at is that the tilting of the thrust vector using that mechanism in the Chinook isn't very different than tilting nacelles in the V-22.
21st Century, great post with some specific info that ties into the McPave post. ( Looks like my expectation that the V-22 would be very good laterally was short-sighted: I did not take into account the bottom of the nacelle ( exhaust stack ) winding up fairly low when at the 90 degree tilt condition ). The V-22 has the lateral control power, but is limited by the aircraft's geometry.
Thanks,
John Dixson
21st Century, great post with some specific info that ties into the McPave post. ( Looks like my expectation that the V-22 would be very good laterally was short-sighted: I did not take into account the bottom of the nacelle ( exhaust stack ) winding up fairly low when at the 90 degree tilt condition ). The V-22 has the lateral control power, but is limited by the aircraft's geometry.
Thanks,
John Dixson
Sans.....discussing the cost of a 22 is not "jabbing"....merely stating the fact they are one very expensive machine.
The UK MOD budget being what it is....I am sure they would be glad to have SLEP'd surplus C-2's if they were much cheaper than buying new....which they most certainly would be.
We are not comparing Apples....much more like Apples and Oranges as the two aircraft are very different....one being an Airplane that is Cat/Trap capable but has no VTOL capability and the other being a VTOL aircraft with no Cat/Trap capability (or need).
When you quote the 39 Million price tag...that included design, testing, training, and all the support equipment, production tooling, Sims and the like that went with the initial program. As there are very few of the aircraft being built the cost will reflect that fact. That is why the SLEP program has so much merit.
Spin it all you may....the Osprey is a very expensive aircraft.
One thing is absolutely certain....the British MOD will screw it up....if past performance in other programs are any indication. Read up on the Chinook buy they did that was a total disaster....all because they insisted upon a unique software system rather than buying the existing Boeing system used by the US Army.
The UK MOD budget being what it is....I am sure they would be glad to have SLEP'd surplus C-2's if they were much cheaper than buying new....which they most certainly would be.
We are not comparing Apples....much more like Apples and Oranges as the two aircraft are very different....one being an Airplane that is Cat/Trap capable but has no VTOL capability and the other being a VTOL aircraft with no Cat/Trap capability (or need).
When you quote the 39 Million price tag...that included design, testing, training, and all the support equipment, production tooling, Sims and the like that went with the initial program. As there are very few of the aircraft being built the cost will reflect that fact. That is why the SLEP program has so much merit.
Spin it all you may....the Osprey is a very expensive aircraft.
One thing is absolutely certain....the British MOD will screw it up....if past performance in other programs are any indication. Read up on the Chinook buy they did that was a total disaster....all because they insisted upon a unique software system rather than buying the existing Boeing system used by the US Army.
I did not take into account the bottom of the nacelle ( exhaust stack ) winding up fairly low when at the 90 degree tilt condition ). The V-22 has the lateral control power, but is limited by the aircraft's geometry.
And to SAS, yes, in my opinion the biggest drawback to foreign sales is the price, way too high but I do understand the economics of limited production. I believe the 609 suffers from the same peril.
McP,
I was referrring to the C-2 in particular for the limited production run....something like 58 of them as compared to the 300 plus for the Osprey as planned now.
The larger the run.....the less ancillary costs applied to each machine.
Harken back to the F-18 and the unit cost of the Sim and Tools assigned to each aircraft. If broken out by line item then the aircraft cost was much less but when the other costs were added to the aircraft unit cost, that number skyrocketed upwards.
Sometimes it might make sense to buy more of the things than you actually need....drive the per unit cost down...and get more aircraft for the same amount of money. A good example might be the Lockheed C-130.....look how many have been built and the advantage the buyers had as a result.
The trick is to find that happy spot where costs and number of aircraft cross on the graph and then get Congress to buy off on the deal.
I was referrring to the C-2 in particular for the limited production run....something like 58 of them as compared to the 300 plus for the Osprey as planned now.
The larger the run.....the less ancillary costs applied to each machine.
Harken back to the F-18 and the unit cost of the Sim and Tools assigned to each aircraft. If broken out by line item then the aircraft cost was much less but when the other costs were added to the aircraft unit cost, that number skyrocketed upwards.
Sometimes it might make sense to buy more of the things than you actually need....drive the per unit cost down...and get more aircraft for the same amount of money. A good example might be the Lockheed C-130.....look how many have been built and the advantage the buyers had as a result.
The trick is to find that happy spot where costs and number of aircraft cross on the graph and then get Congress to buy off on the deal.
Originally Posted by SAS
and if Grumman still has the tooling for re-starting the production line again....
I believe I've pointed this out before, in the first V-22 thread.
To give you idea of what it was gonna cost to reopen the line and start making phrogs again, the opening number was roughly half a billion in mid 1990's dollars. (Granted, we'll never know, as that never got to the end of a negotiation.)
That said, I seem to recall that E-2 is still being made.
Northrop Grumman Awarded $795 Million in E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Contracts (NYSE:NOC)
This suggests to me that Grumman's line is a bit "warmer" than Boeing's was so that an investigation into a C-2 buy, if our friends in the Royal Navy go after Cat and Trap carriers, would be well worth considering.
But I don't think it would be cheap, due to low production run.
My dos centavos, amigo.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 18th Jul 2012 at 22:32.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: El Paso, Texas
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mck
Sikorsky may have queered foreign sales for a long time with the $200 million apiece Canadian Cyclone. Not delivered and 4 Years late and counting. The V22 has a production line and known cost. Little unknown cost beyond maint manual translation.
TC
Sikorsky may have queered foreign sales for a long time with the $200 million apiece Canadian Cyclone. Not delivered and 4 Years late and counting. The V22 has a production line and known cost. Little unknown cost beyond maint manual translation.
TC
El Cheapo
Now Sans,
Your quote: " Bottom line is the C-2 isn't an el-cheapo stripper UH-60 at $20 million a pop " is a bit off the mark.
Actually, the available international version of the UH-60M is $14.5 per unit. Glass front office, Dig map with world wide data base and a coupled autopilot that makes approaches to an automatic hover hold in anyone's back yard. Essentially, a 60M without the military radios.
And it carries the M777 155mm howitzer, just like it's hugely more expensive V-22 counterpart.
Just saying...
Thanks,
John Dixson
Your quote: " Bottom line is the C-2 isn't an el-cheapo stripper UH-60 at $20 million a pop " is a bit off the mark.
Actually, the available international version of the UH-60M is $14.5 per unit. Glass front office, Dig map with world wide data base and a coupled autopilot that makes approaches to an automatic hover hold in anyone's back yard. Essentially, a 60M without the military radios.
And it carries the M777 155mm howitzer, just like it's hugely more expensive V-22 counterpart.
Just saying...
Thanks,
John Dixson
Last edited by JohnDixson; 19th Jul 2012 at 13:37. Reason: missed a word
External loading a 155 on a Blackhawk ... there's a fine sight to see.
I think I'll google up a few pics of that.
(I wonder how often that's done in practice).
I think I'll google up a few pics of that.
(I wonder how often that's done in practice).
Brother John.....did you mean the 105mm howitzer and your fingers type 155?
OOPS! As usual....Brother John is spot on the money!
The A1 model of the gun weighs 8980 pounds.
One unit price for the L model was quoted as being 5.9 Million USD for the Army version.
OOPS! As usual....Brother John is spot on the money!
The A1 model of the gun weighs 8980 pounds.
It can carry 11 troops with equipment, lift 2,600 lb (1,170 kg) of cargo internally or 9,000 lb (4,050 kg) of cargo (for UH-60L/M) externally by sling.[
the up engined blackhawks can lift the M777, however this will not form part of the operational doctrine for the weapon. It would be a combat emergency situation which would result in this being done. The prototype M777 weapons (known back then as Ultralight Feild Howitzer UFH) weighed 8500lbs a this point the Blackhawk was considered as a prime helo lift asset, howevetr the development of the weapon has increased the weight up to 9300 lbs for the basic weapon, and 9800lbs for the M777A1. The A1 weapon having the digital fire control system. The marines will use the CH53 for ship to shore operation and the army will use the CH47 as the prime helo asset to move the hozitzers. The MV22 Osprey is actually the driving force behind the weight requirememt, 9800lbs being the maximum the osprey can carry the proscribed distance to meet Marine Corp doctrine. I am not at liberty to say how far this is for obvious reasons.
In July 2004, the M777 successfully completed a series of airlift tests with the US Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft. The M777 was carried as an external load for a distance of 69nm.
Last edited by SASless; 19th Jul 2012 at 14:42.
155mm Lift
Lonewolf,
Not in practice to my knowledge. SA ( Chris Geanacopoulos piloting) did it with an L model just to " get on the board " so to speak. Hook position in UH-60 is at center of lift between main and canted TR, so things come off the ground without trim shift.
Thanks,
John Dixson
Not in practice to my knowledge. SA ( Chris Geanacopoulos piloting) did it with an L model just to " get on the board " so to speak. Hook position in UH-60 is at center of lift between main and canted TR, so things come off the ground without trim shift.
Thanks,
John Dixson
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank You
Good morning Gentlemen,
Thank you for the responses that I have had.
My preference would have been to go for an EMALS carrier with Greyhounds (or something similar). There is no money for the MOD. I will actually be surprised if we even keep one of the carriers (slightly). After all, following our government logic, it will be cheaper to sell the carriers on at a vast loss than to keep them (you have to assume that the government and certain Civil Servants believe that the military are a waste of money and should be got rid of).
Thank you for the responses that I have had.
My preference would have been to go for an EMALS carrier with Greyhounds (or something similar). There is no money for the MOD. I will actually be surprised if we even keep one of the carriers (slightly). After all, following our government logic, it will be cheaper to sell the carriers on at a vast loss than to keep them (you have to assume that the government and certain Civil Servants believe that the military are a waste of money and should be got rid of).
Ah, G-12. :-) Hadn't heard his name in a while.
(Looking about in some of the literature I have in a pile, it appears that you could operate a UH-60M at up to 23,500 with an external load, but the 155, if it has grown another 30 pounds, would exceed the 9K cargo hook. From Sans' link, it has grown almost 800 pounds, so the M may not get the chance to carry it about.
Did G-12 pick it up and put it down, or did he fly it away and fly it back and put it down? A load that heavy, in comparison the total helicopter mass, calls for very smooth flying to keep it stable during accel and decel.
(Looking about in some of the literature I have in a pile, it appears that you could operate a UH-60M at up to 23,500 with an external load, but the 155, if it has grown another 30 pounds, would exceed the 9K cargo hook. From Sans' link, it has grown almost 800 pounds, so the M may not get the chance to carry it about.
Did G-12 pick it up and put it down, or did he fly it away and fly it back and put it down? A load that heavy, in comparison the total helicopter mass, calls for very smooth flying to keep it stable during accel and decel.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 20th Jul 2012 at 14:24.
Nay problem Jimmy! Put Helium in the tires.....
155mm Lift
Chris had an L model and the lift was done with a USMC gun at Camp Lejeune. His weight and balance had him at around 22000 ( i.e., half fuel ). Your comments are correct re the sling limits: above 8K sling load has a max gross weight of 23,500 lbs.
He picked it up and did a vertical takeoff, said he had a very decent vertical climb at the 120% Q limit. Flew it around awhile and returned it to place. It was a demo, not a data exercise.
Actually high density loads like guns usually fly quite well, and relatively fast. Its the high volume, low density loads that tend to want to fly their own flight path.
Thanks,
John Dixson
He picked it up and did a vertical takeoff, said he had a very decent vertical climb at the 120% Q limit. Flew it around awhile and returned it to place. It was a demo, not a data exercise.
Actually high density loads like guns usually fly quite well, and relatively fast. Its the high volume, low density loads that tend to want to fly their own flight path.
Thanks,
John Dixson
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: El Paso, Texas
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JD,
$11 mill per, really, this obviously does not include engines, avionics etc... If it does how do explain this:
http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defen...ailand&id=5811
That works out to $78 M apiece to procure and operate. Agreed that is less than half of what the $200M Canada is paying for the worst procurement agreement they ever made on the H-92.
TC
$11 mill per, really, this obviously does not include engines, avionics etc... If it does how do explain this:
http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defen...ailand&id=5811
That works out to $78 M apiece to procure and operate. Agreed that is less than half of what the $200M Canada is paying for the worst procurement agreement they ever made on the H-92.
TC
Cost
Tcabot,
My post reads $14.5M for an international version of the M. That is the unit price for the aircraft and everything in it. Pricing of spares, training and the like is separate, and subject to the desires of the purchasing agency/government.
Actually, we used to sell L models for a price around $11M, but that was 20 or more years ago. When one compares the equipment and systems in the basic M, that price I mentioned is a heck of a buy.
Thanks,
John Dixson
My post reads $14.5M for an international version of the M. That is the unit price for the aircraft and everything in it. Pricing of spares, training and the like is separate, and subject to the desires of the purchasing agency/government.
Actually, we used to sell L models for a price around $11M, but that was 20 or more years ago. When one compares the equipment and systems in the basic M, that price I mentioned is a heck of a buy.
Thanks,
John Dixson
Thread Starter
JD
Correct me if my recollection of the time frame is a little fuzzy but I believe that the L model had plenty of excess performance allowing G-12 to lift the load and climb straight up. The only limits that were approached were hook and airframe structure. I believe that at the time some consideration was given to providing a bridge from the MGB to the hook eliminating any airframe structural issues.
Also as a side note, the Two Malaysian VIP S-70s cost a total of $30M. That got them two heavily modified machines that incorporated Honeywell EFIS, Seahawk AFCS and a complete spares support package. The basic FMS UH-60L was about $10.5 at that time.(circa 1997)
Cheers
Jack
Correct me if my recollection of the time frame is a little fuzzy but I believe that the L model had plenty of excess performance allowing G-12 to lift the load and climb straight up. The only limits that were approached were hook and airframe structure. I believe that at the time some consideration was given to providing a bridge from the MGB to the hook eliminating any airframe structural issues.
Also as a side note, the Two Malaysian VIP S-70s cost a total of $30M. That got them two heavily modified machines that incorporated Honeywell EFIS, Seahawk AFCS and a complete spares support package. The basic FMS UH-60L was about $10.5 at that time.(circa 1997)
Cheers
Jack