I hope it flies better than the Osprey.
MH-47 for me...
This is the Army's official replacement for the Black Hawk helicopter
MH-47 for me...
This is the Army's official replacement for the Black Hawk helicopter
That was my first thought when I saw it too…those Blackhawks could take some punishment.There's something to be said for the ability to land on a small LZ. Oh well.
I just literally don't understand it. Yeah, we have them- and they suck. Bad. They get made fun of for a reason. It's literally the "sunk cost fallacy" playing out in real time.Honestly, this feels like a "if the Air Force and Marines can have one, we can too" moment.
I looked up a couple of things and it appears that this thing can fly significantly faster than our fastest helo, the Chinook. I think the range is also significantly better. I think the load is less, but let's face it, it's hard to match a 47 for that.I just literally don't understand it. Yeah, we have them- and they suck. Bad. They get made fun of for a reason. It's literally the "sunk cost fallacy" playing out in real time.
Those stats are the same for the Osprey. Guess what? Hoisting is terrifying. Water work is almost completely a no go. Fast roping? Uh, nope. It's terrible on the pilots from a human performance standpoint. Small LZ? Nope. Rooftops? One wheel? Anything resembling precision troop employment in a tactical sense? Nooooope.I looked up a couple of things and it appears that this thing can fly significantly faster than our fastest helo, the Chinook. I think the range is also significantly better. I think the load is less, but let's face it, it's hard to match a 47 for that.
I fully acknowledge my biases in favor of the 47 platform, but I can't help but wonder if we would have been better off by just buying a bunch more 47s and updating the 60s.
The above notwithstanding, I'm not now, nor have I ever been, a pilot. Any pilots on the site want to chime in?
Those stats are the same for the Osprey. Guess what? Hoisting is terrifying. Water work is almost completely a no go. Fast roping? Uh, nope. It's terrible on the pilots from a human performance standpoint. Small LZ? Nope. Rooftops? One wheel? Anything resembling precision troop employment in a tactical sense? Nooooope.
Now- if you think Africa and need something to defeat "tyranny of distance" and can fly longer and faster? Sure. But that's really about it. They're small on the inside. Not even big enough for a PJ team's ego, let alone a full belly of Army assaulters (in comparison to the 47).
Those stats are the same for the Osprey. Guess what? Hoisting is terrifying. Water work is almost completely a no go. Fast roping? Uh, nope. It's terrible on the pilots from a human performance standpoint. Small LZ? Nope. Rooftops? One wheel? Anything resembling precision troop employment in a tactical sense? Nooooope.
Now- if you think Africa and need something to defeat "tyranny of distance" and can fly longer and faster? Sure. But that's really about it. They're small on the inside. Not even big enough for a PJ team's ego, let alone a full belly of Army assaulters (in comparison to the 47).
Terrifying, right? Lemme just reach *all the way out over the ramp's edge without being tied in to grab the rope, which is at a 45 degree angle and hop out on this bad boy*.Fast roping from an osprey was a core memory for me.
I never want to do that again.
Honestly, this feels like a "if the Air Force and Marines can have one, we can too" moment.
Great questions.But why not the same one? Why come up with an Army version of the V-22? Why not adopt the Osprey, paint it green and put “ARMY” on it? Is it some kind of 46 vs 47 thing? Seems like a waste of money to have two kinds of tiltrotors. If we’re talking air assault, vertical envelopment, moving combat troops and their gear, why are the Army’s requirements so different from the Marines that it needs a whole new aircraft?
Or am I making too much sense?
But why not the same one? Why come up with an Army version of the V-22? Why not adopt the Osprey, paint it green and put “ARMY” on it? Is it some kind of 46 vs 47 thing? Seems like a waste of money to have two kinds of tiltrotors. If we’re talking air assault, vertical envelopment, moving combat troops and their gear, why are the Army’s requirements so different from the Marines that it needs a whole new aircraft?
Or am I making too much sense?
They are on the tail end of production of the Osprey; it's a pretty old AC now. It's a matter of time until the Corps starts shopping. They won't produce more to replace existing airframes.
@amlove21 , looks like your boss isn't interested in the new thing and wants to support the Osprey (2020 article):
Futuristic V-280 Not Advanced Enough to Replace the Osprey: AFSOC Commander
I can see ACC replacing the HH-60W with this.They are on the tail end of production of the Osprey; it's a pretty old AC now. It's a matter of time until the Corps starts shopping. They won't produce more to replace existing airframes.
@amlove21 , looks like your boss isn't interested in the new thing and wants to support the Osprey (2020 article):
Futuristic V-280 Not Advanced Enough to Replace the Osprey: AFSOC Commander
Was hoping he'd retire.Lt Gen Slife changes command on Friday. I will have more to say about his opinions, record, and decisions in AFSOC after that.