Who says the UH-60L doesn't fold??? I'm not totally familliar with this version, but I don't see the Navy buying the non-folding UH-60A type as opposed to the folding SH-60B/F type helo!!!

Have seen no references on Limas being able to fold tail booms. If they do it, still better off with the osprey on deck space

Wasn't even thinking about the tail boom on the UH-60L folding. Not much need for that on a supply ship anyway. I was refering to the rotor system. I know the SH-60B tail folds, but it has to fit into a smaller hanger, don't know about F, which operate off carriers.

A few problems spring to mind. 1.) Actual troop capacity of MV-22 is more like 16-18. I has less internal volume than the CH-46. 2.) The chin gun seems to be all talk. It was requested by the Marines, but the manufacturer went so far as to complain to congress that a gun would make a transport pilot too bold. The gun is "in the works" but it's unclear how they will mount 500kg of chin turret on an already overburdened platform. 3.) MV-22 is not actually armored. Plans call for limited protection of vital areas, not including the troop bay. 4.) A gunship version would be restricted to a chin turret only because of the wing configuration. 5.) With a sling load, MV-22 is restricted to vertical configuration, and 50 kts. 6.) With a projected cost of over $200M each, plus the cost of JSF-VTOL (at $240M each), the Corps is planing to cut 7 squadrons to foot the bill. Personally, I think a modified MH-53J would have been far better. Range of 240NM, 50 troops, armor, guns in four directions, and all at about 1/4 the price.

The problem is the plane is underdelivering. Weight has grown despite all kinds of expensive kludges and various performance requirements have been traded away. Evidently the *only* advantage it has is some speed (rather less in vertical flight or with slung load) and in fact I think it is possibly not wide enough for a HMMWV, at least I recall it is the devil to fit stuff on it (or men, it will never carry 24 dismounts). The mechanisms are sensitive and fail catastrophically. Nonetheless, we flew the F-104 Starfighter even though it was rightly called the Widowmaker. If somebody MUST have such-and-such a performance envelope, I suppose they accept what comes with being on the bleeding edge. I think this platform will be chiefly a learning experience. Buy a few of these for special needs, perhaps, but some new choopers would be grand as well. If technology from V-22 can be recycled into the next generation for such as the proposed Superfrog ATT, perhaps we will have gained sufficiently. But the platform seems to be a disappointment. I do think it is worthwhile to subsidize the technology but with a realistic eye as to its pace of development. Perhaps a crash program could be undertaken to replace it, say a redesign with two sets of wings and rotors at nose and tail, rather than one set in midfuselage, which might move the aircraft into a new class operationally but would provide the needed performance rather than not.

Where do you get your info from? Remarks on your points: (1) MV-22 was tested and certified as being able to carry 24 combat loaded passengers. It was a KPP for production that was done in 2000. Easiest reference for that is globalsecurity.org. Volume and passenger capacity are apples and oranges. (2) Gun is coming. Marines will not buy without it. The cal was chosen not long ago. (3) No it isn't armored. Neither is any other MC troop helo. And the point is? On the plus side, compaired to the CH-46 it has a 95% reduction in IR signature and a 75% reduction of acoustic signature. (4) Why no one in the military is talking about a gunship version. (5) wrong. The KPP range was 50 miles. The Osprey has demonstrated the capability of 10,000 lb external load at 227Kts. Any speed restriction is due to the effects on the cargo, not the limitations of the Osprey. When they tried a highspeed external of a hummer, it was destroyed. Things like body cracked, windshield frame twisted, canvas shreaded. Hummers were not designed for that speed. (6) semi agree on this one but cost of JSF/MV-22 isn't the only reason that Marine squadrons are being cut. Some, like the CH-53D squadrons, are cuts that were planned long ago. With the cuts in the ground side since the late 80s we don't need all the air assets. Cons on using CH-53. Actual troop capacity is 37. Needs centerline seats for 55. No room to move, knees in crotch close. Thats for a Echo. Because of armor and guns not an option on Juliet. Then there is the deck space. Where you gonna put them?

1.) I have yet to hear of a test flight carrying more than 18 men. Internal volume and capacity are not the same, but are closely linked. Assuming the payload, internal configuration is the only determanant of lift cap. 2.) The are already being delivered as is, no gun. They are being stacked in a hanger awaiting upgrades, and the guns is still in development, due in 2006. 3.) I did not say any other did, but it would be a good idea, given the doctrine being espoused. I was simply refuting another poster’s claim. 4.) I would guess because the whole project has already cost far more money than the Corps can afford, and anything more will have to wait. Given the Corps’ history in things like this, several MV-22’s will be shot down at LZ, creating a scandal, and causing a number of people to demand an escort ship. 5.) Huh? I never brought up range with sling load, so I’m not sure what you are refering to. Sling loading is a game only played by helos, or V-22 in vertical configuration, which in turn greatly reduces both range and speed. 6.) Given that the Corps has never had sufficient airlift, and that OMFUT calls for even more airlift, this does not compute. The designer of the SR-71 once said that the spiraling cost of aircraft would eventually limit each side to one aircraft. Take a look at USAF warplane buying programs over the last 50 years ten tae a look at JSF and the C-17. It amounts to unilateral disarmorment. Guns, unless in a remote mount, weigh next to nothing. Please explain why the 53J can’t have those things?

(1) may not have heard about it but the test took place in 2000. MV-22 certified for 24, CV-22 certified for 18. Capability had to be demonstrated/certified to keep the program operating. (2) Do not confuse preproduction Eval and test models with production models. Ospreys are still in a EMD/LRIP stage. (4) MC doesn't need an escort ship. What do they use now? AH-1/AV-8. Guess what will be used for Osprey. AH-1 and AV-8 (F-35). Been some great articles on Osprey ops and escorts the last few years in the Gazette. (5) You gave 50kts as the limit for Osprey sling load. I thought you meant range not speed. You are wrong. There is a 50 mile range goal. Ospreys sling load in the airplane mode as well as helo mode. Demonstrated 227Kts with a 10,000 lb external load. Where are you getting your "only in vertical mode" info from. (6) OMFTS does not require more aircraft. It requires more sorties in a given time frame. The faster speed, longer range (more trips before refueling). Depending on the loads, this makes 1 osprey the equiv of 3-4 CH-46Es. And thats if they could still perform to factory specs. 53J- I would have agreed if you had said 53E. The J is the Pave Low version with all the FLIR, Terrain avoidence radar, autopilot, jamming package, armor, ect.Thats where all the weight is. They are restricted to 18 pax. Once again, where is the deck space coming from? My greatest worry if a E101/CH53 type was chosen would be that they would get pulled from the GCE commander. Although he doesn't "Own" helos, the med lift birds tend to be there when he needs them. 53s always get pulled for a heavy lift mission when you request them for troop lift. I think the funniest anti osprey article lately was in the Charlotte Observer. Claimed that the Osprey should be terminated because it hadn't passed the KPP of lifting the new howitzer, M-777. Article goes on to say that it had side stepped the milestone because it demonstrated the capability in 2000 by using a "mock up" not a production model. Did that because they knew that it couldn't carry a real M-777. Another coverup, fraud, yadda yadda yadda... Know what they failed to mention? Howitzer didn't began operational assesment until 2002. M-777 just went into Low rate Initial Production. First "production" models won't be delivered to the Marine Corps until the end of 2004 .

THe MV-22 is good idea that has been ruined in development. It's billed as a long range, over the horizon medium troop transport. However, . . . 1) It can't fly troops above 10,000' for long distance missions (requied to avoiding weather, threat, or high terrain.) It is limited by pressurization capability, not by fuel. 2) Good for the embarkers' union. It is a poor link to support the logistics line of communication as it cannot load "standard" 463L pallets. Ideally, rapid sustainment of forces could be achieved by transfering palletized cargo from C-5, 17, or 130 to MV-22. However, just like current USMC helicopters - beans, bullets, and bandaides have to come off strategic lift assests to be broke down - reorganized - and often hand loaded into the back of the MV-22. 3) Similarly- a basic HMMWV won't fit in the back of it either, and must be slung below. 4) Rotor wash in the hover exceeds that of standard helicopters to a point that interfers with insertion or extraction from a hover mode. This will impact tactical operations. It will work as no more than a beefed up CH-46, and will fly from a amphib over the horizon to shore - but not too far, and not with much. S/F

So far while reading this string I have noticed that everyone presupposes the necessity of VTOL capability as opposed to STOL. Unlike Medevac an 'attack' transport may not even need VTOL capabilities. In the days of amphibious assault no one expected that landing craft could be used at every shoreline regardless of terrain or water conditions. In planning an attack one has the option of choosing a landing site from among numerous possibles. I don't believe anyone would deliberately choose a hot zone as the prime landing site if others were available. Better to land at a location with relatively less defense, establish a base, and then spread out. Medevac is a different situation because one doesn't have any choise as to where to land. One is constrained to land where the emergency is and helicopters are probably the way to go.