PC: Have the V-22 Osprey replaced all USN & US Army Helicopters

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
With a post 2000 pod.

Have the US Navy start to replace all their SH-1 SeaSprites, SH-70 SeaHawks and S-3 Vikings with a shipbourne anti submarine variant of the V-22 (SV-22's) plus replace all the Grumman Greyhound's & E-2 Hawkeye's with a CV-22 & EV-22 variants, plus remaining CH-46 SeaKnights in the VERTREP role.

Also have the US Army replace all their stock of UH-70 Blackhawk's and CH-47 Chinooks with a standard cargo version of the V-22, (CV-22).

Bonus points if you can also get the USCG to replace all their HH Dolphin and JayHawk helicopters.

Would it work?

Regards filers.
 
Before you get in to the argument about whether the V-22 is safe, useful, good, etc. the POD doesn't work. The various helicopters you mention have different missions, and a variety of sizes. Just as an example you can't fit a V-22 on the helo deck of surface combatants smaller than large amphibs. The flight envelope of the V-22 doesn't work for replacing some of these aircraft, such as the E-2. One size fits all is attractive but has not worked. Commonality is nice, but only goes so far - the F-111 did not fit the bill, and the F-35 variants are very different from each other.
 
There is no reason to replace the S-3, E-2 and C-2 with a VSTOL airceaft unless you get rid of large deck carriers. As long as you have carriers capable of supportin F-14 & F-18 aircraft they have the capability of supporting conventional support aircraft. Conventional aircraft are much more efficient than VSTOL aircraft in payload/range etc.

If you only had VSTOL capable carriers then various versions of the V-22 (or a followon aircraft) would make sense. They still need more deck space than is available on smaller ships (FFG, DDs, etc) so there will always be a need for more compact VSTOL aircraft. In most cases a single rotor helo will be the most efficent small size VSTOL package.
 
I can see replacing Sea Sprites, CH-46 and S-3 Vikings because they were all getting "long in the tooth" by the turn of the century.
OTOH CH-47 Chinooks and CH-53 Stallions were difficult to replace because they can lift such heavy loads. Chinooks also have massive surplus horsepower which allows them to operate high in Afghan mountains.
Osprey would probably never replace USCG Dolphins because USCG needed a smaller and less-expensive rescue helicopter than was currently in US service.
Replacing UH-60 Blackhawks, Sea Hawks and Jayhawks is also problematic because you can operate one or two SH-60 from decks as small as DDE, where they vastly increase the ships' range to chase submarines, short-range rescue in the middle of the ocean, interdict smugglers, Internet pirates, etc. Those decks are too small for Osprey.

Osprey could replace C-2 Greyhound COD because it can land on a far greater range of decks and a bewildering array of LZs ashore

As for replacing E-2 Hawkeyes ... it is primarily a question of endurance .... how many tons of fuel they can carry?
Consider that E-2 and C-2 were highly-specialized with only short production runs = expensive unit price. When existing airframes wear out, bean-counters may tell USN to replace E-2 and C-2 with an airframe that already serves several other roles ... if only to simplify logistics.
 
OTL the Navy has decided to replace the C-2 with the CV-22 modification with changes to allow for greater range. The E-2 is still being produced in new mods with many upgrades. Aside from the range issue, I'm not sure it is physically possible to put the radome on a V-22 without the propellers not having enough clearance in vertical mode, and the large size of the propeller/rotors will probably cause issues with interfering with the radar beam. As far as ASW helicopters, the V-22 actually operates in vertical mode for a relatively small percentage of the time it is in the air - it would not be efficient using dipping sonar. ASW helos are effective against subs, especially in pairs, because they can hover and dip, move, repeat etc. This would not be so easy for a V-22.
 

thorr97

Banned
I like the Osprey. I think it's a tech which needs be more applied to the civilian market as was originally intended. I think that, since we've paid the price for developing that tech, we should apply it to other and new systems for our military as well.

That said, most folks don't realize how truly small the V-22 is. Until recently, there wasn't any motorized vehicle in the DoD inventory that could fit in the thing. And the only combat vehicle that can now fit inside the tight confines of an Osprey had to be specially developed for just that single purpose. It is an exceptionally complex machine due to the exceptionally complex specifications the Navy insisted on for it to be a shipboard machine. That drove its size down and its weight up, among other thing, and that limited its payload as well.

So, no, the Osprey would not work as a 1 for 1 replacement of all those other systems you listed.
 
I like the Osprey. I think it's a tech which needs be more applied to the civilian market as was originally intended. I think that, since we've paid the price for developing that tech, we should apply it to other and new systems for our military as well.
One of the numerous problems with the Osprey, even if all the technical glitches get ironed out and ignoring complexity and cost, is that it can perform NEITHER helicopter NOR transport plane rôles as well as the units it replaces. What it CAN do, is fill intermediate niches that neither can do. It's faster than a helicopter, can land vertically (which a transport can't etc.), so there really are good uses for it - but if you attempted to force such a plane to replace everything, you'd cripple your armed forces.
 
I can see replacing Sea Sprites, CH-46 and S-3 Vikings because they were all getting "long in the tooth" by the turn of the century.

The CH-46 was specifically identified to be replaced by Osprey. The 46 should have been replaced in the 1990s at the latest, but politics and replacement options prevented that. Within the USMC Ospreys are replacing the CH-46 as the medium lift aircraft.

OTOH CH-47 Chinooks and CH-53 Stallions were difficult to replace because they can lift such heavy loads. Chinooks also have massive surplus horsepower which allows them to operate high in Afghan mountains.
Osprey would probably never replace USCG Dolphins because USCG needed a smaller and less-expensive rescue helicopter than was currently in US service.
Replacing UH-60 Blackhawks, Sea Hawks and Jayhawks is also problematic because you can operate one or two SH-60 from decks as small as DDE, where they vastly increase the ships' range to chase submarines, short-range rescue in the middle of the ocean, interdict smugglers, Internet pirates, etc. Those decks are too small for Osprey.

Osprey could replace C-2 Greyhound COD because it can land on a far greater range of decks and a bewildering array of LZs ashore

As for replacing E-2 Hawkeyes ... it is primarily a question of endurance .... how many tons of fuel they can carry?
Consider that E-2 and C-2 were highly-specialized with only short production runs = expensive unit price. When existing airframes wear out, bean-counters may tell USN to replace E-2 and C-2 with an airframe that already serves several other roles ... if only to simplify logistics.

All that illustrates a tiny bit of the complexities of mission requirements & why one airframe usually will not cover many mission profiles.
 
Agreed Her Schwarmberger,

USCG Dolphin is more likely to be replaced by Augusta Bell AB-609 as a comparatively light/medium VTOL aircraft that can rescue a few survivors at a time.
AB-609 was originally designed as an executive VTOL aircraft and we sincerely hope that they sell thousands to civilian customers to haul executives, oil workers, wounded, etc.

Tilt-rotors' biggest advantage is when it is delivering small numbers of troops (e.g. artillery spotters) hundreds of miles from a ship.
 
Top