EH-101 or S-92 for Marine One?

[Nuke]

Well lets get some input. What is your choice of helo?
Is it the EH-101?

[Nuke]

Or the S-92 for Marine One?

[Xdeth]

Whichever is cheaper.

[SN]

S-92

Politics, can't have the president in a frreign helicopter. US-101 wins the AF contract.

[DY]

Nuke already knows how I'd vote. But since WSC says the AF already got ours in the bag, I abstain.

[SN]

Originally posted by DY
Nuke already knows how I'd vote. But since WSC says the AF already got ours in the bag, I abstain.

No inside info, just an educated guess. The original RFP was for multiple helo missions, the revised RFP (just before I PCS'd) "de-linked" the Navy/Marine portion of the competition. Having done the AO thing, the tea leaves tell me the AF/Navy will take a different road.

The US-101 (HH-101?) will be a good CSAR platform, but I think it is overkill for the Missile Site Support mission. I'd like to see the 60's rolled into the missile mission (unless we have actually worn them out).

Logistics seems to be the driving factor in a single airframe.

[Nuke]

With three engines that recently have been upgraded with 12% more power and a larger cabin for team members, I feel the 101 is the way to go for the new Rescue platform.

However, the 92 has ease of maintenance on it's side and wholly built in the US. It's draw back is the ramp is too small and the tailboom is quite low for any real use. It's engines are also still in development and have not been FAA certified as of yet!

I do agree with WSC, that POTUS can't be seen flying around anything remotely foreign.

Team US101 is led by Lockheed Martin Systems Integration – Owego, which serves as the prime contractor and systems integrator for the American-built US101 aircraft, an American variant of AgustaWestland’s successful EH101 multimission helicopter.

[Sdiver]

I wonder why the V22 wasn't up for consideration?

Just think.....as it comes in on the South Lawn, the rotor wash would get rid of all those pesky reporters. If that doesn't seal the deal for that A/C....I'm no salesman.

[DCH]

Originally posted by Sdiver
I wonder why the V22 wasn't up for consideration?



It was, but then Kerry lost.

[TigerHooter]

CLEAR !!!

You shoulda seen the look on the faces of the SS detail as they turned to run back to our helicopter once the VP was aboard the primary. Our crewchief had to hand-prop our huey!

I shy away from anything built or engineered by the brittish, but headroom and access are two important considerations for the mission profiles mentioned.

disgruntled Brittish Leyland owner

[SN]

The primary reasons not to go with the US-101 are technology transfers, and spare parts. My understanding is the helicopter will be assembled from components built in the US and europe.

The Brits or Italians could get a bug up their ass, and decide not to sell spare parts or software upgrades (as a way of protesting operations in Iraq or elsewhere).

[Rotor Strike please]

Well, having flown on the 101, and walked on the 92, I have to go with the 101. It is a dream maching. Has to be the most fantastic helicopter I've seen. However, it's avionics package is not as nice as the -92. So, since the pilots are the ones with the input that counts, I'd guess -92. However, I think that the -101 should win both the POTUS contract and the CSAR contract. That ride is like a magic carpet, baby. Plus, the evil of politics will confound the legitimate developers of information. That's why we'll get the lesser -92. Fuck...if I could be king for a day...

[cj]

S-92..I live less then 1 mile from the Sikorsky plant/headquarters. Folks around here are literally banking on that contract. Although Sikorsky has picked up some nice contracts lately, to include a big one for a fleet of SAR birds for the Canadian military, they have had their share of disappointments recently.

Yesterday, they trucked in a mockup on a flatbed, I passed it as it was getting off of Rt 8 in Shelton. At first glance it struck me as being somewhat small, I guess because it was lying on flatbed without it's rotors.

[Fire-Gunner]

I got this e-mail a few weeks ago regarding the Canadian version of the EH/US-101:

FYI. The Cormorant is (a.k.a. EH/US-101)


CH-149 Cormorant limited to SAR operations and test flights only


CFB WINNIPEG: As a precautionary measure, the Air Force has limited its fleet of 15 CH-149 Cormorant helicopters to search and rescue (SAR) operations and test flights only until more details are known about cracks that were found on the tail rotor half hubs of Cormorant CH-149908. The decision was made Saturday night.

"The safety of the men and women who operate the Cormorant is a top priority," said Major-General Charles Bouchard, Commander 1 Canadian Air Division. "After assessing the preliminary data of this particular case, it was decided that SAR operations and the necessary test flights required to do that job can continue for the fleet without putting our crews at an unacceptable level of risk."

The cracks on the tail rotor half hub were larger than previously seen in Canada. While the depth of the cracks are not known at this time, the largest, which is hairline in nature, can be seen spanning out along a portion of the half hub.

The cause of the cracks is under investigation and inspections of that area of the aircraft have been increased. The situation will be re-evaluated as more details from the investigation are made available. Training, general purpose and air displays will not be conducted until further notice.

My guess is that the S-92 will be the next Marine One and CSAR PRV.

[Pavejimm]

If we are talking about CSAR, then the CV-22 trumps all comers. It can fly almost 3 times faster than any helicopter out there and and fly 4 times farther. It can then transision to a hover if necessary, and do its business and then turn around and fly home. It is as stable a hover platform as I have ever seen and does not have the ACL issues that HH-60 has today. If we are going to upgrade, then we should go for the platform that will make the most out of the "Golden Hour".

[KJ]

Using that logic, an F-15 beats all comers. What good does it do to get to the site, only to be able to fly over it without picking up the survivor? It might be a stable hover platform, but it is a level-5 hurricane under those monster rotors. Trees break, the grass gets put on fire, the tarmac melts, the ocean flies sideways, the hoist goes 60 yards out to the one o'clock of the airframe, The fast rope has to be weighed down with lead weights, a rope-ladder is too dangerous for a healthy, physically-fit individual let alone an injured survivor, the litter will roll away with the patient if not physically held down. No offense Pave Jim, but I think the hover idea will not work underneath. This platform will become a fast track to the nearest clearing to land. Not that I am complaining, as an old PJ head, this will make Pararescue tactics, (that I have long fought for) become a necessary reality. The idea of moving a team a half-mile to a mile and then back with an incapacitated survivor will become a daily occurrence for a training reality. This will make it a hay-day for PJs, but in the end, is it worth it? At $62.1 million each?

"It can fly almost 3 times faster than any helicopter out there."
C'mon, the fastest this bird has gone is 342 knots (despite the advertised engine capability of 360 knots). And you and I know that the SOCOM variant of this plane will never reach anywhere near that. But I will grant you that it is still twice as fast as the 165 knot "fastest" of the EH-101, S-92 or future compound helicopter variants.

I rave for the day the rescue force can keep up with the attack package and still maintain a viable rescue capability. The tilt-rotor is getting there, but the hover element is only good for landing in my mind. Trying to breed it to do AIE's is at best "a real mother-fucker" for the guy under the rotors. And flying in the cabin is like being in a giant laundry dryer, only you don't have that large window to look out with.

Armaments? Again, this is a bus company that asked the driver to design the bus. The driver is wondering how to get automatic machineguns at his fingertips while still being able to fly. The driver has a nice seat with central heat and air. The driver likes the speed and maneuverability. Of course we can't put any vehicle in the bus save a motorcycle (and that has to be backed in because there is not enough room to turn it around). But that is a small loss compared to the increase in performance (sic?) The driver has picked out a corvette for the bus company to use. Someday perhaps, the bus will grow to fit the driver.

P.S. (God Bless you and yours and all those who are away from their families during these holidays doing "the King's business". Pavejimm, we always appreciate your input.)

[Pavejimm]

You do make some valuable points. The biggest problem the V-22 program faces today is overcoming years of negative publicity/performance. Without fail, everytime there is a story printed about the program there is always mention of the two crashes or other problems that have plagued the program. Truth be told, the program is doing exceptionaly well. We are about to embark on the final stage of the Marine Operational Eval. This time next year the aircraft will be ready for the fleet, and AFSOC will be moving forward with its OPEVAL. A lot of the problems you mention have been resolved...the hoist for example will be mounted off the tail. In addition to the hoist, the ramp will also be the primary deployment point for fast rope delployments. Downwash issues overwater are not restricted to just the V-22, granted it has the biggest one. But an increase in hover altitude takes care of the "huricane force winds". An aircraft that can fly a lot faster than any helicopter out there but stop and hover like one. It ability to do the job it was designed for (go farther, faster) during one period of darkeness is unmatched by any helicopter out there. The bottom line is that this is new, different aircraft that will require the rethinking of how we do business. Tactics will have to be readressed, just as they were when the guided air-to-air missle was deemed more effective than the gun.

[SOTB]

Originally posted by Pavejimm
In addition to the hoist, the ramp will also be the primary deployment point for fast rope delployments. Downwash issues overwater are not restricted to just the V-22, granted it has the biggest one. But an increase in hover altitude takes care of the "huricane force winds".Sooooooo, are you thinking that the fast-rope exits are going to be higher? Fast-roping from current max rope lengths can get a little warm.

I never complained when the exit was from lower altitudes. But then I'm skeered of heights....:D

[Pavejimm]

Rope deployments have been done from 60, 90 and 120 feet...

[SOTB]

Originally posted by Pavejimm
Rope deployments have been done from 60, 90 and 120 feet... Yes. BTDT. You mentioned a higher elevation in your earlier post.

From your last post, I guess you are saying that the fast-rope exits should take place at max-length of the ropes? And YES, I imagine that every branch has put people in at those heights. Still gets warm, though. REAL warm with lots of gear....

[Pavejimm]

The increased altitudes I am talking about are for overwater hoist work...cuts down on the spray.

[SOTB]

Originally posted by Pavejimm
The increased altitudes I am talking about are for overwater hoist work...cuts down on the spray. Ahhhh, OK. I looked around and found a couple of photos with fast-roping from Ospreys. This one shows a roping training-ex from about 30-40 feet (I think). In this photo you don't see the guys too bothered by the wash, but then I wasn't there -- AND they don't have any gear on either....

[Pavejimm]

Fast rope deployments should take place at the lowest possible altitude. Most training is done at 30'. Regardless though, at least 5' of the rope has to be on the ground...safety first.

[Fire-Gunner]

"The customer is always right.";)

[SOTB]

Originally posted by Pavejimm
Fast rope deployments should take place at the lowest possible altitude. Most training is done at 30'. Regardless though, at least 5' of the rope has to be on the ground...safety first. Agreed on ALL points....

[johca]

I agree with the lower the better for fast roping. I noticed those doing the fast roping were lacking weapons, LBE, and rucks.

Depending on the weight of the rucks 60 foot and higher fast rope can get quite interesting especially at night. All it takes is top person or two to slide faster than somebody below them

I've seen it happen (more than once) and it did result in treatment requiring visit to the local base medical treatment facility after bandages and splints were applied on one occassion.

BTW--this comment is not aimed at the V-22, it is aimed at agreeing lower is better.

[busdriver]

does anyone know if the 92 and the 101 have movable stabs like the 60?

[KJ]

Wouldn't make sense for the H-92 having only a right side stab on the tail rotor side. In the pictures I notice a hydraulic arm attached to the stab and tail pylon. If that arm is used to move the right stab, how will that effect the lft/rt yaw of the helicopter? My GUESS is the arm is used to support the large right stabilizer that is in a fixed position.

[busdriver]

Good point about the yaw, kinda sucks though. That stab is half the reason that we can stop so damned fast.

[Pavejimm]

What you are seeing is a SUPPORT strut. The E, D, J and M model 53,s all have horizontal stabs of some sort.

When the V-22 is fielded, it will change how people look at helicopters.

[busdriver]

while I offer no argument against the osprey (I think it will prove to be a useful asset) the stab on the hawk allows us to slow down very fast when compared to the 53. When the stab programs down, it acts as a very large airbrake and helps us hawk drivers in the quick stop department. It seems to me to be a sad lose to not have the same ability in our replacement helo. Mind you, I'm not talking about v22's and the future of pavejim's flying carreer, I'm talking about the future of the rescue pilot.

[Pavejimm]

Well I can not speak directly to the future of the rescue pilot ,whatever aircraft replaces the HH-60 will be agood one.
.

[Fire-Gunner]

I saw this today on Fox News...

Navy To Pick Presidential Helicopter Builders (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144378,00.html)

[Nuke]

My paycheck is on the S-92 for Marine One.
There are to many implications with POTUS flying around in a foreign aircraft. That and the security issues with the gearboxes and other components being manufactured in Europe by folks without the proper clearance.

I do like the idea of haveing three engines, but the fact that the 101 can not take off with out all three operating is dishearting. It needs all the power it can get.

The PRV decision may go away as the H-60 is the newest frame in the inventory and it will be hard to spend that kind of money to replace a New aircraft!

[johca]

If we are talking about CSAR, then the CV-22 trumps all comers. It can fly almost 3 times faster than any helicopter out there and fly 4 times farther. It can then transitions to a hover if necessary, and do its business and then turn around and fly home. It is as stable a hover platform as I have ever seen and does not have the ACL issues that HH-60 has today. If we are going to upgrade, then we should go for the platform that will make the most out of the "Golden Hour". This statement is totally out of touch with reality.

The CV-22 platform is incapable of arrive on-incident with rescue-feet-on-the-ground in the golden hour unless we are talking 50 miles off the departure end on a runway. Even in full alert ready mode the platform won’t be off the ground in less than 10-minutes, and it takes at least 10-20 minutes to get the word that something happened needing a response. That Golden Hour is well expired by the the time any helicopter or aircraft can get a PJ to the survivors.

It may fly faster and farther, but in a real remote situation in marginal weather and get it there fast and back and finding holly-shit, this is the spot-lets do it, the CV-22 will not perform. Aerodynamics, physics, and real world environment/circumstances doesn’t give a sh’t for smoking mirrors and what the advertisements say about the CV-22.

This weapon system has been in test and evaluation since 1989 and I have yet to see a test report showing deficiencies found in 1989 are fixed or resolved. The only way I can be convinced is being provided full disclosure of every test from 1989 to present and the demonstrated proof the problems are fixed or resolved.

Don't trade your SGLI in for a civilian life insurance policy if you plan to do the no sh't missions done in combat on CV-22 similar what has been accomplished by the HH-43, H-3, HH-53, UH-1, CH-47, CH-46 and H-60 weapon systems.

Edited to add: It's because the quickest any aircraft (even the V-22--if it was perfect in everyway) can best situation hope to be on-scene at the tail end of the golden hour that PJs are trained to provide significant medical capability. The Golden Hour in civilian means getting the patient to a definitive medical treatment facility having operating room needed to save life and limb. PJs are given extensive medical training to (if its medically possible) to extend that golden hour with out having to put a medical treatment facility on-ground at the incident site.

[Pavejimm]

Everything we are talking about relative to the V-22 is based on conjecture. Only time will tell the true story of V-22 not the past. A lot of the answers that people are looking for will be answered this year. However, the V-22 does posses the capability to close the time/coverage gap in CSAR/SAR that currently exists. Based on my experience, a cocked V-22 can be airborne within 10 minutes of notification. Further, it could cover a distance of 100 miles in 20-25 minutes (normal cruise is 260ish). There have been problems in the past; we are reminded of them anytime someone writes a story on the program. It is a safe, maintainable and capable aircraft. It is not the solution to every problem we face in the military, but it is a step in the right direction. Any new aircraft is unproven until it proves it’s self. I am confident that day will come.

[Joe Lippke]

Originally posted by Nuke
My paycheck is on the S-92 for Marine One.
There are to many implications with POTUS flying around in a foreign aircraft. That and the security issues with the gearboxes and other components being manufactured in Europe by folks without the proper clearance.


I wonder why we Europeans used/use US material and weapons with all those security issues and things manufactured by Americans without proper.... ;)


Got my point? Don´t get paranoid...


JOE

[SN]

Originally posted by Joe Lippke
I Got my point? Don´t get paranoid...


JOE

He's not paranoid, he's stating a fact. Aircraft purchased for use by heads of state have higher security requirements. Their construction is watched by that gov'ts security organizations. There are issues with the EH-101 that will preclude it's use as Marine 1.

[Wench]

Lockheed wins contract (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050128/ap_on_go_co/presidential_helicopters_3)

Looks like WSC is buying the drinks :D.

K

[Rotor Strike please]

Roll on Team US101. First this...then then PRV contract. Better airframe by a long shot. And that CV-22 can go off somewhere the fuck else instead of CSAR.

[SN]

Originally posted by GirlCop74
Lockheed wins contract (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050128/ap_on_go_co/presidential_helicopters_3)

Looks like WSC is buying the drinks :D.

K

1st round is on me, assuming congress let's this one pass.

Ryan, it will be interesting to see if the HH-101(?) replaces the HH-1's in the missile role, my guess is the HH-60's will go there first.

[Nuke]

Originally posted by Ryan Renuart
Roll on Team US101. First this...then then PRV contract. Better airframe by a long shot. And that CV-22 can go off somewhere the fuck else instead of CSAR.
I second that RR.
Three engines, more cabin space, a ramp that is usable!
CV-22 can haul rubber dogshit to china!

[Rotor Strike please]

Originally posted by WSC Guy
1st round is on me, assuming congress let's this one pass.

Ryan, it will be interesting to see if the HH-101(?) replaces the HH-1's in the missile role, my guess is the HH-60's will go there first.

Supposedly, we are all going to get the same helicopter. I'm not sure why. They should take the -60's and give them to the missile silo guys. That way they can have more funding to put into all the excess shit they're going to cram into the PRV and make it as overloaded as the H-3 was.:rolleyes:

[Pavejimm]

RR,

Now that CSAR isn’t broke anymore, you guys can have it and what ever aircraft you choose to do it in. Granted, just like the MH-53 used to pick up the HH-60's slack I am willing to bet the CV-22 will do the same for the PRV. At any rate, the PRV is years from a reality, although the US 101 is definitely the front runner...

[Rotor Strike please]

Originally posted by Pavejimm
RR,

Now that CSAR isn’t broke anymore, you guys can have it and what ever aircraft you choose to do it in. Granted, just like the MH-53 used to pick up the HH-60's slack I am willing to bet the CV-22 will do the same for the PRV. At any rate, the PRV is years from a reality, although the US 101 is definitely the front runner...

Nuke,

I'd really like to know where you are getting your info and in what context you are referring to the usefulness of the V-22 ramp???

I can assure you that CSAR is far from FIXED...but like you said, we ain't broke anymore. It seems to me that OIF pretty much proved that we don't need -53's to pick our SLACK as you say. Like you said...things are a changing. I think the world has changed since you left the real world and went to test. Maybe you ought to get back in touch with the guys doing it for real before you talk about slack and not being able to do the job. As a matter of fact, if you want to talk about slack in CSAR, why don't you ask your old friends in Pave's who was working with who and who was left out for most of the war. This was definetly CSAR's war and not the Pave. And that's not a knock on PaveLow guys either. They are the best at what they do. If you can get the CV-22 in workable order, then maybe you'll get to try to pick up someone's slack. Until then, I'd suggest you not insult a very effective part of the rotary wing community.

And I would be willing to bet that Nuke was talking about the S-92's tiny ramp, not your precious Osprey. Have a wonderful Air Force Day.

[Pavejimm]

Originally posted by Ryan Renuart
I can assure you that CSAR is far from FIXED...but like you said, we ain't broke anymore. It seems to me that OIF pretty much proved that we don't need -53's to pick our SLACK as you say. Like you said...things are a changing. I think the world has changed since you left the real world and went to test. Maybe you ought to get back in touch with the guys doing it for real before you talk about slack and not being able to do the job. As a matter of fact, if you want to talk about slack in CSAR, why don't you ask your old friends in Pave's who was working with who and who was left out for most of the war. This was definetly CSAR's war and not the Pave. And that's not a knock on PaveLow guys either. They are the best at what they do. If you can get the CV-22 in workable order, then maybe you'll get to try to pick up someone's slack. Until then, I'd suggest you not insult a very effective part of the rotary wing community.

And I would be willing to bet that Nuke was talking about the S-92's tiny ramp, not your precious Osprey. Have a wonderful Air Force Day.


RR,

First off I have been non-operational for 6 months. Second, there were no insults being thrown around. CSAR/PR for the HH-60 world WAS broke prior to OEF. I am fully aware of how busy the CSAR folks have been since 9/11. If your communities’ performance is any indication of the overall health of CSAR, then it is defiantly heading in the right direction. As for who was doing what when, it safe to say that both communities have been busy doing their own thing. Despite what you might think you know, Pavelow has not been sitting on the sidelines post 9/11. As for the slack that exists in our profession...there will always be slack for someone else to pick up. My point was that no one should be writing off the CV-22 as a "gap" filler for the rescue professionals.

Nuke,

If your comment was direct at the S-92 disregard my question.

[Rotor Strike please]

Fair enough...and I am quite aware of what the -53's have been doing both in the Stan and in Iraq. I have friends in low places. But the real point is that there shouldn't be a CV-22 doing CSAR. I'm open to having it do other mission, though.

[Pavejimm]

I agree, the primary PRV will be a dedicated CSAR aircraft. But, CSAR will be in CV-22's bag of tricks as a secondary role, with SOF as its primary role, just like it is for the MH-53's. Now, other than taking a mission from a dedicated aircraft, why do you think the CV-22 should not be doing CSAR? And please, dont use previous issues as a basis for your reasoning. There will be times that the PRV (60, 101, etc) can not get to a survivors location in ample time but a CV-22 could.

[Rotor Strike please]

It's not that it shouldn't be doing PR, it's that it shouldn't be doing PR as the primary role. I completely agree that the best aircraft for a PR mission is the one that can complete the mission the fastest. However, that doesn't always mean who can get there the fastest. Nor does it mean the CV-22 couldn't do in a pinch. Really it comes down to the hover environment. I think that is where the CV-22 loses some of its luster. The idea of PR is to use the right tool for the right task, and I don't think that the CV-22 is the right tool to be the primary PRV.(armament being an issue for me as well) Nor is using rotary wing for all PR as well. Sometimes unconventional recovery works better. All we get is claims of extraordinary capability from the Osprey program...and they might turn out eventually to be true. I just don't believe it to be the revolution it's touted to be. But hey, prove me wrong. I'm somewhat of a skeptic. Look at the Comanche as an example.

BTW, CSAR is going the way of the PaveLow. Nowadays it's all about Personell Recovery.

[Pavejimm]

I hear ya...in reality when we (Pavelow) were doing CSAR in the 90's (Desert Storm, Bosnia, Allied Force) we would have rather been doing SOF missions. But CSAR was, with the exception of Desert Strom, the only game in town. I think the GWOT finally put one capability(CSAR) in its place and SOF in its place. But lets face it, as for rotary wing SOF, the Pavelow is on the way out. The SOAR has long since taken the lead in that arena. Granted there is still a place for Pavelow, but the sad truth is that its time is quickly coming to an end. That is where the CV-22 comes in...lets just call it a Hybrid aircaft, it does a little bit of everything. But we want it to everything really good. I know that is a stretch, but if it is required to do a little bit of everything, then it has to do everything good. It will have its shortcomings...so will the US-101, but what those shortcomings are remain to be seen. Tell me though, when was the last time a combat rescue was done from a hover( I am not talking a sick Afgani)? Vietnam I am willing to bet. Airland is/will be the method of choice 99% of the time. As for PR, it is an ever changing beast. At the end of the 90's we were operating off of a Cold War mentality. Now everything is going global. It is safe to say that Combat Rescue, SOF, and unconventional methods will all still have a role in the PR picture for a long time to come.

BTW, are you at PAFB? If so tell a certain gunner (we called him Umpa) D.M., The General said hi.

[Nuke]

First off.
Pavejimm, I find it hard to understand the fact that you are stating claims of the V-22 to be so good at all missions, when in fact, it has proven to be under par on all mission.

The V-22 has not proven itself in any mission except that it can get somewhere faster than a helo.
So can a C-130, but it too can not hover over the trees to pick up a survivor.
You say that there have been no instances of hoist pickups since Vietnam? How about all the civilian rescues that the community has performed? Can the V-22 hover next to a injured hiker on a ledge and hoist him up on a stokes litter? Not likely!

If in fact we do not need hoists for rescue anymore, then why do we spend the money and waste the weight installing them?

Of course airland it the number one choice for pickups. It is the safest and quickest. But one can not expect the textbook pickup!

Has anyone shot a round out of a CV-22? Dont we all (Pavejimm & RR) feel we need to provide cover fire during the most critical phase of the mission? ie. hover and landing and takeoff! Then how is the v-22 going to do that?

I am all for the V-22 being the savior of all that is SOF and CSAR. Just show me that it can hover in the trees with a stokes liter and PJ on the hook. Show me it can hover over a ship and rope a team onto the 6x6 ft deck. Show me it can defend itself in a hover from 75% of it's quadrants.

So before anyone can tout the V-22 as the shit and sell it as a viable SOF and CSAR platform, show me the money! Dont just take the salesman's word for it.

And for the record, I was talking about the S-92 ramp. But if anyone feels they also might have a small ramp, I am sorry for offending you!

[Pavejimm]

I won’t get into what the V-22 can and can’t do. That has yet to be determined. I will say that some of the initial thoughts/requirements on what it was going to be able to do make come up short. That said, it will still be a capable aircraft.

About the hoist pickups...I am referring to COMBAT rescues. I think we can agree that if two good old boys need to be hoisted out of a canyon in NC, the V-22 won’t be the one to do it. That said though, having stood underneath this aircraft hovering at 100', it is not as bad as you state. In fact it felt a lot like standing under a heavy Pave.

I am fully on board with the need for some sort of defensive armament. At present it is TBD as to what weapon the CV-22 will have. The MV-22 is looking at the M-240 as a short term fix. I think we can all agree that a larger weapon is need. I like the idea of the M3M (Belgium made .50cal), but that is all down the road. The fact is that aircraft will spend 95% of its time in airplane mode flying at or above 200 KCAS. I think until there is a solid fix for the weapons issue some sort of attached escort will be necessary for terminal area protection. What ever weapon is selected it will only be able to cover an area from the 3 back to the 9 o'clock. In reality that will be sufficient.

[Rotor Strike please]

Originally posted by Pavejimm
What ever weapon is selected it will only be able to cover an area from the 3 back to the 9 o'clock. In reality that will be sufficient.

See, that's what I am worried about. I don't think that this is even remotely sufficient. Our guys up front are AFU as it is without having to manage a chin gun, and only a tail gun to protect the a/c just doesn't make sense to me. And for once, can we get some new shit that doesn't already have to rely on a temp fix right from the get-go.(M-240) How about just designing something correctly. It's designed for war, so it should have had gun systems designed in the package to begin with. Now it's always just going to be half ass. Much like the HH-60G is a half ass version of the HH-60D that should have been purchased eons ago.

[SN]

Originally posted by Pavejimm
What ever weapon is selected it will only be able to cover an area from the 3 back to the 9 o'clock. In reality that will be sufficient.

That assumes our enemies are not sitting on the LZ with a RPG waiting for us. Nothing is 100%, but conceding 50% of the engagement zone doesn't make sense to me.

[johca]

That said though, having stood underneath this aircraft hovering at 100', it is not as bad as you state. In fact it felt a lot like standing under a heavy Pave. Having done many hoist insert and extract missions, the helicopters in the past did not hover high above incident site without a good reason.

If the helicopter was hovering at fifty feet or higher above the ground it was because trees or other natural or man made obstructions or hazards caused a need for it.

If the tree are 50' tall you are basically implying the V-22 would need to hover at 150" to reduce the hazard effect of trying to hoist through trees or if the terrain of Gullies, ravines, and slope at the incident site require perhaps 100’ hover the rotor wash might require an additional 50-100’ feet to reduce the hazard of blowing debris to those riding the hoist up and down. The V-22 performs adequately when the groomed site is selected and hovering over a clearing that is actually suitable to land in, but take away the going and doing in a surveyed training site element of safety and then do your hoist work and tell me what you think.

I like the idea of the M3M (Belgium made .50cal), but that is all down the road. I disagree.

Having fired M-50 cal, GAU-2 minigun,M-60, and M-240 from various helicopters (H-1, H-3, H-53, H-60) I have concerns pertaining to rate of fire, field of fire (on the ground and in a hover to included up-down and left-right), and amount of ammo available to sustain defensive fire. The 50 cal rounds put significant more weight the airframe has to fly with to have the same sustain return fire capability of the M-60, M-240, or GAU-2. In my opinion it would be better for the V-22 not to have any weapon system and invest money in more A-10s.

What ever weapon is selected it will only be able to cover an area from the 3 back to the 9 o'clock. In reality that will be sufficient. ROFL--if the threat is at one concentrated location on the ground and the pilot is able to turn the ramp towards the ground threat in a timely manner and still hover.

[Pavejimm]

All good points...the reality of it is unless the V-22 has a mounted (non-crew served) weapon up front (and currently there are no plan for such), then the best you can hope for is 3 to 9. I know that is not ideal, but that is what we have to work with. There are some "other" options, but those are years away.

I am not implying that doing a 100' hoist is ideal, the lower the better. Equally though I am not implying that the V-22 will be the choice to do hoist work of any sort given other options. However, until we have a hoist on the aircraft and have tested it at varying altitudes, no one can say for sure what is good and what is bad including me. But to write off the capability on hearsay and rumor is as bad as me saying that this thing is the best thing since fried chicken.

I have always been an advocate of putting down as much lead as possible and getting the hell out of Dodge. There are some pro/cons to each type of weapons system..(.50 cal) .bigger gun, heavier, slower rate of fire but with a bigger punch, more diverse round selection mechanically operated and longer effective range. Or a smaller weapon (mini-gun), lighter, higher rate of fire but with less punch, electrically operated and a shorter effective range. If the primary purpose of a weapon on the V-22 is for terminal area protection then a mini-gun type system would be the best choice. This however is not the direction things seem to be going.

I agree that attached/detached escort with an crew served weapon (of some sort) will probably provide the best level of protection that we will be able to get with the V-22.

[busdriver]

Is there HE rounds available for the .50 cal? even a relatively small burst radius would make it much better for fire suppression.

[Rotor Strike please]

Originally posted by busdriver
Is there HE rounds available for the .50 cal? even a relatively small burst radius would make it much better for fire suppression.
Yes, but we in the -60 community do not currently have access to it. We're trying very hard down here to make that change, however.

[Pavejimm]

RR,

What are you looking at getting...SLAP, APIT??

[Rotor Strike please]

We're trying to get Raufoss from the Navy in .50 cal. Either that or the APIT

Raufoss link
http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/raufoss/