Sunday, February 06, 2011
V-22 Internally Carried Vehicles...time to dump this requirement.
Again, you've got to be kidding!
There isn't enough room in that bird to carry anything but a vehicle!
Call it mission creep, bad planning, day dreaming...call it whatever but the idea of an Internally Carried Vehicle inside a V-22 is a non-starter. Better to air drop one out of a tasked Special Ops C-130 or even use a CH-53K to carry it but this ain't gonna work.
Side note---
Did you notice the vehicles displayed in this test? The only one not present was the Growler ITV. Seems as if AF Pararescue and Combat Controllers have already written that vehicle off their list of potential candidates in their competition.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
I have a few dumb questions
ReplyDelete1.
Is the V22 cargo box width and height the same as the Chinook in order to exploit already in service vehicle designs that have been designed with this as a common constraint
2.
Is the V22 cargo box width and height the same as the CH53 in order to exploit already in service vehicle designs that have been designed with this as a common constraint
3.
If not, why not?
I know, wheels need to constantly reinvented
hey ThinkDefence...
ReplyDeletethe V-22's cargo area is sized to equal the CH-46...a pure troop hauler.
when first designed, the requirement to carry vehicles internally wasn't part of the bill. sadly the Marine Corps has been down this road before...i think you covered it on the British side and i know i've done the issues with the mini-jeep so that the old UH-34 could have an internally carried vehicle.
the effort was pathetic and soon abandoned.
you know what really sucks about this effort?
COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE, cheap, All Terrain Vehicles already exist that could provide mobility to small teams and if you used just a bit of imagination (like designing trailers that could carry equipment and stretchers) this could be a non-issue.
our defense department at work i guess. but honestly, any country boy with a little sense could work this out in 5 minutes. a manufacturer could have a prototype in weeks but here we are.
Its very depressing isn't it !!
ReplyDeleteHave a look at the picture montages in this post
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/05/why-have-we-bought-the-springer/
As you say, many many clever people have done this sort of stuff man many times but it would seem all defence departments have an institutional memory loss
The V-22 seemed more cramped to me than the CH-46. Are you sure the cargo areas are the same?
ReplyDeleteI think it all depends on the intent of this internally carried vehicle. The seemingly canceled RST-V was going to be a scout and recon vehicle. In that role you don't want to need multiple aircraft flying out to no-where to drop off 4 marines. If its the same sort of need driving this developement, then I don't really see a problem.
ReplyDeletedamn good point B. Smitty.
ReplyDeletei'm going to have to check on that one. i was going by memory of the requirements but you're exactly right...i've never flown in a V-22 but that looks awful cramped.
Just got an issue of "Natinal Defense"... they mention the requirement to fit in a V-22 is because its the smallest and want it to fit in that, the CH-47 and CH-53. This unfunded program is largely being sold from the manufacturer side; GD is trying to drive up interest by offering an ambulance version of the vehicle. Despite being internally carried, the intend it to be externally carried as well. The V-22 internal carry just seems to be the constraining requirements.
ReplyDeleteI was told by a senior naval type some years ago that the V-22 could be used only for marine troop lift and joint CSAR, and that the Marine should focus their attention on the CH-53K as a heavy hauler.
ReplyDeleteMeaing of course that the whole Osprey solution was the wrong one!
Leesea,
ReplyDeletei'm not sure if i'm cooling to the MV-22 or just becoming excited about the possibilities that the CH-53K will bring at a much lower cost.
we're talking about a fast, powerful, heavy lifter that is being designed to operate in hostile airspace (or that's what the advertisements say..:))
we'll see.
not ready to dump the V-22 but if the Ch-53K delivers...
I am not saying dump the Ospreys, just recognize their advantages and limitations. They are not going to be the whole tactical airlift solution for the Marines. The CH-53Ks are really needed as heavy lifter just as the Army uses its Chinooks. The 53s will help make the LHA(R) America worthwhile too?
ReplyDeletenot copying you on that one.
ReplyDeletethe USMC is already using a superior platform to the Chinook in the form of the "E" model right now (at least at sea level)...
i just like the idea of the 53K being a true multi-role airplane much like the UH-60 but just a whole lot more effective.