No they were just as new in the RAF, who also went through a rash of crashes. RAF IOC was 1969, USMC IOC was 1972.  This was after a three year evaluation of the Hawker Kestrel by a special US/UK/FDR composite squadron. No matter who flew them Harriers crashed a LOT.  For one thing the original desgin was too small for to add a second seat to make a two seat conversion trainer. First flight was always a solo.  The whole airframe had to be redesigned so the exhaust nozzles were in the correct position to balance a two seat nose and this took a number of years.  Once solved, it was noticed that to 2-seater handled better and the rear seat pilot had a much better view. The 2 seat design was converted back to a 1 seat to make the Sea Harrier (with the radar where the front seat would be and the pilots seat where the rear was in the trainer), and then combined with a larger American designed wing to make the AV-8B and GR.5-7.

The developing of the thrust control and balancing system was a extreamly difficult technical undertaking. Any malfunction in it will cause a crash. Its the same thing with the nacell tilting and torque transfer on the Osprey. It is a suprise to me that only 3 have crashed so far.

More to do with the oppostion to the Osprey is the $$$ spread by Sikorski on capital hill. The Nighthawk, Jayhawk, and Knighthawk were all purchased by their respective services as a DIRECT result of the delays in the Osprey program.  Prior to 1991 all of those services were planning to buy Ospreys to replace Vietnam era helicopters in those roles. The Osprey cancellation made BILLIONS for Sikorsky...

Other than 100 kts of airspeed, I don’t  understand what a V-22 does that a CH-53 doesn’t.  I don’t buy spending tens of billions of dollars on 100 kts.  I would rather see us spend a few billion on a pusher propeller with stub wings version of the CH-53.  This would be a technology that is much more likely to work.

I would guess that these types of decisions are based far more on politics than military reality.  For instance, one of the many legends of the Marine Corps is that the decision to keep the AV-8 is based on the fact that its range makes it useless for Air Force planning.  Therefore, the Air Force can’t task them meaningfully in joint operations.  Whether the legend is true or not, it turned out to be operational fact in the Gulf War.  The Marines got to task their AV-8s, while the Air Force absconded with the F/A-18s.   I can’t say that I completely believe these legends, but if they are even partially true, they may explain a certain amount of the V-22 mania.  

The reality of the V-22 is this.  It is too heavy to deploy on the current generation of amphibs without dangerously raising their center of gravity in foul weather.  They are more than 35 million dollars each.  That’s awfully expensive for a utility helicopter.  They are not able to carry a HMMWV internally.  They are very difficult to manage in an HST (sling loading payloads).  They cause so much wake turbulence that other V-22s can’t safely operate in reasonable vicinity.  If you figure the number of square feet needed in an HLZ to land one V-22, then add the wake-turbulence danger area, and find the total square feet required to land, say, four V-22s, you end up with an area larger than not only 90% of the HLZs available, but significantly larger than the area needed to land the same number of troops in any other rotary-wing aircraft that we currently own.  It’s important to note that the V-22 immediately behind the one that crashed in Yuma, was a write-off after it slammed into the ground after the first one crashed.  This was, of course, due to the wake turbulence of the first aircraft.

The V-22 is, according to the people who do the maintenance, way too fragile for field use.  The cargo bay is notoriously easy to tear up.  To a point, this has been caused by the need to make this the ultimate joint vehicle.  Since the various services haven’t managed to standardize the way they store gear internally, all of the optional mounts are included.  The result is a fairly fragile interior.

As expensive as they are, I doubt that anyone will be firing 50 rounds of GPMG into them to see if they are still airworthy.  I would guess that some of the Vietnam era helos that we are flying now would fail that test, but we have spent billions of dollars on this one.  I would expect battle hardening to be one of the primary issues addressed during design.  It is specifically one of the reasons that he CH-46s are limited in payload.  They have added enough armor over the years that they can’t carry the same payload they were originally designed for.  When this happens to the V-22, it will become an even bigger waste of money.

I could go on.  You wouldn’t get me on one of those things without a direct, lawful order.

ummm, The Harrier was a line aircraft for British forces for a while before It was brought to the US. So they had worked up the concept, design, and testing before adopting it to the British "arsenal". When did they first propose it. Is it me or does '69 and '72 seem a liitle too long ago.....

I'm not up to speed on the V-22, but it is constantly mentioned as a boondoggle, a pork project, a plane that no one wants. It seems like a mighty complicated piece of fairly fragile plane, more in the tradition of the Air Force, then of the USMC who always want/need to do more with less. The V-22 seems like less to start with.

I don't think it's ready to be used as a frontline aircraft. I'm not sure it ever will be. Those props look like trouble, as far as loading etc. Would't a thrust vectored design (cargo harrier) be easier to build, maintain, and use??

EDIT:- I looked up the Harrier, first hover in 1960, adopted by the Royal Navy 1969. I'm still not sure about 1972 for the US, wouldn't it have been used in Vietnam?? Maybe 1982 after the Falklands War?

LOOKS LIKE THE ARMY IS FINALLY LEARNING WHAT WE IN THE CORPS HAVE KNOWN FOR 226YRS

They just entered service right after the Easter Offensive ended, even then there was the crash problem.  Although they were technically operationally capable neither squadron was ready for combat.  The original AV-8A was built in England by BAE and was identical to the GR.1 of the RAF, it still even had the British pattern ADEN 30mm cannons.  Of course the very next year- as soon as Nixon had resigned- congress cut ALL funding for Vietnam effectively preventing any US operations there.
1982 was the year the AV-8B was rolled out.

Doug,
The V-22's higher airspeed- and more importantly higher airspeed AT ALTITUDE allows it to tank from plentiful KC-10's rather than the fairly scarce KC-130.  It could even tank from a KA-6 if it had to. The USN/USMC have a tanker shortage, and where the MEU's operate there is the very real possibility that a KC-130's would have trouble reaching them. Ultimately a KV-22 will solve the tanker problem for both the Navy and Marines.

BTW. Humvee cant fit in Chinook or Sea Stallion internally either. That is why the 75th has a supply of SAS pattern Land Rovers and the Marines still have M151's in service.  But the Osprey was designed to carry a certain number of Marines- it was never a requirement to carry a Humvee or any other vheicle .  It was designed to carry the same number of fully loaded Marines as the AAAV, which it does. Both carry 19. Both have almost the same size passenger cabin. No one asked the AAAV to carry a Humvee either.

Making ships topheavy? They can fill the deck with Super Stallions but fill the deck with Ospreys and their over weight? Sounds like another zinger from the Sikorsky PR office.

The Osprey is NOT a bigger Sea Knight- its a smaller C-130, it is a VTOL aircraft not a helicopter. It is not designed to hovertaxi around at 75kts NOE like the Blackhawk family. It is designed to take off, fly X distance, land vertically and unload troops, take off again and fly back to get the next load.  It normally will fly too high and too fast to attract small arms fire like the Sea Knights do.

compare the services to college. the Corps is a small prestigious private school and the Army is a big generic state university. at the small school students must perform to succeed and because of that their education carries the aire and reputation of their alma mater. while at the big school most students major in beer and ass while a select few carefully apply themselves to challenging programs and receive an education every bit as good as the small school however they are stigmatized by the poor reputation of the big party school. my father is an Army CW5 with 35+yrs. he recommended i join the Corps. that was all the endorsement i needed. i think Army grunts are pretty high speed but they are the minority in their service. in the Corps its all about the grunt. every Marine in Corps knows that if he isnt a Grunt his job is to support a Grunt. that's part of the Ethos. i met a Cadre member from the Army infantry school. he told me that infantry school has been left largely unchanged while basic keeps getting easier. the result being that a lot of new soldiers who show up for infantry training cant hack. i think the Marines were chosen for their ability to operate independently for 15 days. 45 days with a MSPRON. all their basic needs for combat are organic to the unit. they are truly expeditionary. the current push for a lightened Army and the Air Force AEF (air expeditionary force) is those services attempts to emulate the Marine Corps in light of the senate kassebaum-baker report. which among other things stated that since the end of the cold war forces designed for large scale high intensity conflict in Europe would lose relevance in the 21st century. the other services are adapting to slowly. we will always need an Army and a Marine Corps but if they don't get with the program the Army will find themselves left on the bench more and more.

Oly, Doug, go here: [url]http://www.helicopterpage.com/html/tiltrotor.html[/url]

Freelance site by a engineer [i]AND[/i] pilot of helicoptors explains whats what with Osprey.

Somewhat true, but the Marines have been used for whatever pupose suited the brass plenty of times. Sometimes the army is asked to do things they can't do. Sometimes the Marines are asked to do things they shouldn't be able to do, but the get the mission done. It has happened lots of times.

Ok, thanx, that was interesting. I think it is a neat concept. But I'm not sure the V-22 is a "ready" system. I understand some, maybe a lot about the V-22, as a non flight person. I don't have a good grasp on range, armor, IFR capbalilites etc. It just seems that it is an awfully big aircraft to be tilting rotors etc., seems that what would be a minor problem for other aircraft will turn the V-22 into a lawn dart.

Plus it's a troop/cargo craft so if something goes wrong it's not like the crew can eject and no one else get hurt......you loose all the passengers too.

It also seems kinda expensive.

Ok here is my $.02 worth.  All branches have roles, the 10th mountain are holding an airfield in northern afganistan the Delta force, Airforce CC and PJ's have been on the ground for weeks now.  Hell force recon and the SEALS have probably been in for weeks also.  I don't see the problem A MEU is ready to go all the time and is like the first responders of the military.  they can go in and set up fast I would bet that before long that Marine base will have all branches represented on it.
john

If the V-22 is going to replace the CH-46, then the V-22 is going to be used as a utility helicopter most of the time.  There is no way that the basic design is as robust as the CH-46.  The V-22 will never stand up to the abuse of day to day operations.  That will leave us with nothing.  At least the Corps had the forsight to issue us new boots lately.  It looks like we will be doing a lot of walking in the future.

Getting them off means a shorter line in the mess hall.

It's so very simple.
The Marines' concept of the Marine Air/Ground Task Force is what's needed.

Where else can you find a Battalion of Infantry, that comes fully packaged with it's own logistics, communication, transportation, arty, and close air support?
NO WHERE BUT THE MARINES.
Yes the Army could put a task force together, but that wouldn't work.
The MEU trains for these deployments, they work together, they're a tight unit.

As additional MEUs land, and join with the MEUs on the ground, they need only add additional Command and B/FSSG assets, to maintain their coordination.

The Army just isn't made for this.
They're not EXPEDITIONARY.
Yes the Airborne and the Rangers can GET there, and get there fast.
That's fine, but that's not what being EXPEDITIONARY is about.
It's about showing up with every thing you need to fight a war.

The Army line forces are what I want when the Red Army is pouring through the Fulda Gap.

I was taught at Marine OCS, and reinforced at The Basic School in Quantico, that my job as a Marine was to Locate, Close with, and Destroy the enemy.  It didn't matter what my MOS was, I either carried a rifle, lead other Marines who carried weapons, or supported Marines who fought.

The Marines who landed in Afghanistan are NOT an elite unit.  They are typical of any combat unit that is task organized in the Marine Corps.  They may have spent 6 months training as a unit to get ready for their float, but the Marines who make up the 26th and 15th MEUs, are no different than any other Marine I see running around town here outside Camp Lejeune.  They are the typical 18, 19, and 20 year olds we have always used to fight our wars because they think they are invincible and can't die.

The Marine Corps does not use unit patches, different colored headgear for units, or an abundance of pin on hardware for their uniforms.  The distinctive symbol of the Marines is the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor (EGA).  It is this symbol, and the title "Marine", a Recruit who successfully completes the Crucible earns, that makes him/her unique.

This is not intended as a hit against the Army.  Fact is, I had more time on active duty at Army schools (Airborne School, Special Forces Underwater Swimmer School, Ranger School) than I had with the Marine Corps when I got commissioned.  It's a different approach to warfare and a matter of a warrior philosophy that's instilled at Boot Camp/OCS.  Notice, I said "different", not better, not worse, just different.  Most Marines have a problem with the Army's "Army Of One" because the Corps is built on the concept of teamwork.  Contrary to what the media portrays, rugged individualists don't last long in the Marine Corps.

I recall a meeting I attended at the Pentagon where, as a Marine Corps Captain (O3), I represented the interests of the Corps.  My "peers" in the other services were all O6's Army/Air Force full Colonels and a Navy Captain.  There are advantages to being a smaller organization.  As a Lance Corporal, my son received training as an NBC technician, equivalent to what the Army teaches their Staff NCOs.

The MV-22s are currently grounded because of required changes in the control software and engine hydraulic lines.  To have deployed them in combat, with their current deficiencies, would have been a criminal act.  They are intended, and desperately needed, as a replacement for the CH-46.  People have a tendency to forget that the CH-46 and the Harrier both used to fall out of the sky with alarming regularity.  That's one of the reasons we do operational testing before the deployment of any new weapons system.

Semper Fi

My unit was lucky to have a successful peacekeeping deployment without any friendly fire deaths from disgruntled soldiers who need their mommy. I am still in the Army ( for now) but do not feel confident in the conventional Army fighting anything more trained then the boy scouts. Today's Army is sorry and I'm sorry to be a part of it. There are good people here but they are few and far between. When good E-3's or E-4's must routinely square away those E-7 or above something is very,very wrong with the system. I should have joined the Marines.    

I have to disagree I think the closest and more capable unit or division to do what the marines have done would be the 82nd Airborne. No hit on the 101st but they would need a staging area and a massive element to get their helicopters in to place. With the 82nd it would be approx. an 18 hr flight and a lot of airplanes. C-17 and C-141's could make the trip with ease. That force would also be helped out by almost every other Light Airborne Infantry units around the states to include what Ranger Batts that were not deployed yet and ABN Units that are in Italy.
Just my $.02

my .02 cents.....we have the greatest military in the world (the usa) all our branches have their place...i served about 10 years in various infantry units and saw quite a few ex marines who left the corps to join the army. to include a platoon sgt who seved 2 tours with force recon in the nam...the thing that bothers me with SOME  marines, is that they think they are better than anything. and jump at any chance to put down any other branch...doesnt sound like teamwork to me...im proud to be an American veteran, and am proud of our boys in the army navy air force AND  marines

You'll see more and more of these "purple" operations as the military, due to downsizing,  relies more and more on "Joint" operations.  The marines can definately do the job and so could the Army.  I think it was more of the fact that the marines were there and the Army, except for those in Uzebekistan, wasn't there.  The ones in Uzbekistan obviously already had a mission and couldn't be used.  

Me too

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted:
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that marines operating in the middle of the desert was odd.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You must have missed Twenty-nine Palms, the Gulf War, and Somalia....

[url]http://www.navair.navy.mil/v22/crash.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.navair.navy.mil/v22/suscept.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.navair.navy.mil/v22/vulner.htm[/url]

Armor up to 7.62x54R AP; self sealing tanks; provision for a gun turret in nose; pilots night vision; IR supressed engines; active IR jammer; Radar,laser, and missile launch detection systems; chaff/flare dispenser; crash worthy crew seats; floats on water and [i]capsise proof up to sea state 5[/i]; full NBC system for both cockpit and cargo bay (seperate systems; EMP hardended (steel wire mesh throughout fusalage skin acts as full-aircraft Farraday Cage)

All this in the BASIC MV-22.  How many of these to the CH-46's have?

Yes its complex, EVERYTHING today is complex that is how you get the extra edge that lets us walk all over people like we do.

And you think keeping Harriers flying is [i]simple[/i]?!?  If they can be kept working in a place like the Falklands 20 years ago, we can keep a Osprey running today. As awsome as the performance of this thing is, even if there was a greater maintanance requirement the Osprey would still be ahead of helicopters. It would have to need two and a half times as many man hours of service as Blackhawk to be less efficient because of its greater speed and payload.

And it probably wont be as reliable until we have it in the fleet and found all the ways people can screw them up.  You cant "Marine Proof" something untill you give it to Marines.

I'll admit my bias right up front:  I'm a retired Marine fighter pilot, and I feel like stirring up a hornet's nest:

The Marine Corps continues to exist only because it does things cheaper and better than the other services.  The only Army outfit I ever dealt with that didn't underwhelm me was the 82nd, although of course there are undoubtedly other fine units.  The infantry and armor outfits I got to know were magnificently equipped, but undisciplined, unmotivated, inadequately trained and poorly led.  The Navy was usually downright embarrassing to be near, although they do turn out good tactical pilots.  Those ships have mind-blowing capabilities, but most of the time the magic systems are down for maintenance, and the Navy's personnel problems are appalling.  And speaking of tactical pilots, they're the only warriors at all that the Air Force produces. Otherwise, it's a corporation with uniforms - everybody else stands by the runway, waves goodbye and wipes a tear from their eye.  

Our Army turned out good soldiers thru about WWI, but then we became a primarily urban society rather than frontiersmen and hunters.  WWII proper started for the Army when it got it's ass kicked at Kasserine Pass, and as a general rule for the duration was never able to beat the Germans on anything like equal terms.  In the Pacific, the Marines carved out the niche they still occupy today because they (and the Australians) dramatically outperformed the Army.  Ditto for Korea and Vietnam.  Only recently does it seem like the Army's getting back to a warrior culture.  It took literally decades of disasters, and it's generals are still sometimes more concerned with political correctness than combat readiness.

As a matter of fact, the USMC [b]was[/b] tasked to fight Soviet forces in Europe in the event of an invasion.  Marine units would have been deployed to Norway to secure NATO's northern flank.

Of course, the Marines would have been fighting Spetznaz and naval infantry and airborne units, not the armored hordes that the Army and Air Force were supposed to stop.

Well, I'm back from my @home induced exile, and I have only seen one specific response to who could have done what we did.  That suggestion was the 82nd Airborne.  It is obvious at this point, and should have been obvious at the beginning of the operation, that it is not enough to just take the airport.  Of course the 82nd could have captured the airport.  The issue is, once it is captured, how will they get resupplied, and what are they going to do?  

The 82nd has no organic capability to get resupplied.  Especially in the middle of nowhere in Asia.  Let's just pretend for a moment that the Air Force does it.

What matters more is what are they going to do when they get there.  We showed up with a good rotary-wing capability.  We can helo out quite a distance and conduct patrols.  We can contribute to the elimination of Taliban fighters a good distance from the base.  We also have a good number of wheeled vehicles.  We have wheeled ground patrols out right now.  I don't think the 82nd has a reasonably similar capability.  The reason I mentioned the 101st is that at least they have the rotary-wing mobility.

I just don't see the Army having the capability to do what we have done.  At least they don't have women suing them so they can where whatever they want on liberty.  

Doug_in_CO

The 82d could be resupplied by air drops just like the humanitarian efforts. And to popular disbelief the 82d does have airlift capabilities but not enough to move a complete division at one time.
Another thing the 82d can do more than take down an airport, once we are on the ground we are just like and other light division with assets.
Transportation is no big deal either due to them airdropping  them in so I think that any type ABN Division or slice from a ABN Division could accomplish this mission.

I doubt you would want to be resupplied “just like the humanitarian efforts.”  C-17s scattering MRE’s out of the back at altitude would probably by ineffective.

I just don’t buy that the 82nd has the organic wheeled and rotary-wing assets that we have.  If I am wrong about that, please detail them for me.  BTW, I am not talking about them raiding every unit in sight for someone else’s organic vehicles and putting those vehicles on an ad hoc Air Force airlift.  I’m talking about a planned deployment of vehicles.

You are correct, that the Navy gives us a large part of our expedionary capability. But there is a big difference in the Army-AF and Marine-Navy relationships. The ships in the Phibron exist for the Marines, the lift ships in the AF are for the movement of general cargo, to them it could be troops, MREs or fuel.

There is one critical difference between the way the Army is supported by the Air Force and Navy, and the way the Marine Corps is supported by the Navy.  The gator Navy’s entire reason for existing is to support the Marine Corps.  They have no other mission, and no deconfliction of tasking.  I know that there are agreements between the Army and other services for support.  However, the other services don’t have assets sitting around with nothing to do but support them.

edit:  This is what I get for taking too long to reply.  Someone else beat me to the punch.

Very well.  I will extend respect to the highest decorated veterans of each service.  The rest of them can kiss my ass.

Just a couple thoughts:
A combined arms operation consists of more than just throwing units together and telling them to play nice.  Everybody looks at the MEU and says they are self supporting without realizing what that really means.  It means they can do everything they need, for a fixed period of time, without having to receive external support.  People look at the MEU and think of it just in terms of the Grunts from the Division.  It also includes a support element (from the Force Service Support Group) and an Air Detachment (from the Marine Air Wing).  They have their own medical because Navy Doctors and Corpsman are part of the FSSG.  Every member of the MEU is armed, trained to fight, and if necessary can be placed into combat.

Does the 82nd have the ability to make their own water?  If you think the Marine Corps uses a lot of assets to transport their equipment, take a look at what was required to move the Army's assets in Desert Storm.  The Army was onboard when we did the Operational Test of the Light Armored Vehicles (LAV) in 1982.  They elected to not field them and only recently, when they decided they wanted to move in the direction of light armored, have they taken another look at the LAV.  Last time I checked the TO of the 82nd didn't include the Abrams.  You can move an Abrams by air, but most go by sea.

One last point to ponder- the 15th MEU and the 26th MEU are from different Marine Divisions, hell different coasts of the US, but they can be placed on the ground and function in concert.  Throw in the MEU sitting in Okinawa and you've got a Regiment without any command and control problems and no issues of how do we do this or who's in charge.  The principles of amphibious warfare, developed by the Marine Corps in the island hopping campaign of WWII, are still applicable today.  It's not just about crossing or holding a hostile beachhead.

It's been over 20 years since, as a courtesy from the 82nd's Command Sergeant Major, I last jumped with the 82nd.  Good unit, but in the military we all have a tendency to accept any mission rather than admit we can't do it.  I guess the point is use the right tool for the right job.

The problem with the Army Airborne really does seem to be a shortage of lift assets.

Eventually, once all 300 C17's are delivered it wont be as much of a problem.  Right now though, we only have about 75.

They C-5's require sturdier runways than C-17's, so they would have to airdrop only- and they arent used to doing that.

If the former Russian republics hadnt drug their asses so much, the Army might have been able to do something more involved.

Taking and holding a airfield as a FOB is suposidly a Standard mission for Army Airborne. More than a few hypothetical plans for verious situations call for simultainous attacks by a MEU AND a Airborne Bde.  Course none of those plans involve operating 400 miles inland from the sea over a shoreline with no ports.

Apparently you have no clue on Ariel resupply methods


Wheeled Assets in the 82d depend on the individual units that would deploy. They would get there by heavy drop as so would the soldiers too. The 82d doesn't look to other units to support (other than the Air Force to get them there, as the Marines look to the Navy to get them there). The 82d has a well equip DISCOM within the Division for support.

I don't know what military your in but all deployments are well planned regardless and planned using the METT-T that was previously discussed in this forum. The marine corp moved in approximately 3000 marines in to this airbase with out opposition if I am correct. 3000 soldiers isn't 25% of the 82d Airborne Division. So it would be a taskforce of soldiers that would come from the division if the mission would have came to us.



What have you done for your country that gives you the right to say this?

I agree totally.



Key phrase there for a fixed period of time.



If your asking does the 82d have Water purification Specialist? Yes.



Yes, but remember this was for the heavy divisions also. It's not like the Marine Corps just walked over there either they used the same stuff we(army) did. But there was a Massive build up there before we went to war. Situation is different now.



Correct, But the 82d is also a Light Infantry Division. But yes we lost our Armor assets when the 3/73d Armor was dismantled.



And by all means I'm not saying that the 82d is the perfect division or Taskforce to do this mission. But the original question was "So, if it is appeasement, name the Army unit that can accomplish what the Marines have."

ACFT
Not sure what your billet within the 82nd is, but maybe you can answer some lingering questions about the expeditionary capability of your unit.  At D+? (H+?) does the DISCOM slice arrive if less than the whole division goes in, assuming that only the DRB would deploy, how much beyond UBL would be taken in.  What type of support slice would be included in the DRBs fly away.  Since the army now is using "just in time" logistics vice the Mountain of supply concept that exsisted in the past, how will this effect resupply effort?

STLRN
Well I'm currently serving there and I have been for 8 of my 9 yrs in service. I know the capabilities of the division. The DRB would have less than the complete taskforce or full division deployment package but it would be self sustaining. The DRB package would be wheels out of Pope AFB within 18hrs. As far as resupply efforts they would be coordinated out of Germany thru Airdrops.

What part of NC you in?

I'm at Camp Lejeune

Doggies stay home.

We'll have to meet sometime and do lunch or something.