USMC V-22 vs EH-101

The Marines were aware in the late 1980s that their CH-46 fleet would realistically need replacement by 2000 or so, considering the fact that most of their airfranes dated to the 60s and 70s. When development started in the mid-1980s, the Osprwy was probably supposed to enter service in the mid-1990s. However, after the Osprey crashes in 1991 and 1992, the Marines may have considered procurement of the forthcoming EH-101 as an interim replacement for the Sea Knight. I've only seen references for this timeframe on Wikipedia, put there are other documents from the early 2000s considering replacement of some of the V-22 buy with EH-101s.

If the Marines have an interim medium-lift solution in place by 2000, how would this affect V-22 development and how could it impact Marine combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan prior to the OTL retirement of the Sea Knights?
 
I've read about this as well but I wasn't able to find much information on the subject. I have a feeling that much like the Stryker this "interim" solution would stick around and the Osprey would more than likely be abandoned as the EH-101 has proven reliable in British service and performs well in Afghanistan, I doubt the Marines experience would be any different. Tilt-rotor technology would continue to be refined until we have something like the V-280 to prove the designs reliability.
 
It might not be relevant to the USMC but the EH101 was knocked out of the Australian Blackhawk replacement competition early due to deficiencies in hot weather performance.
 

SsgtC

Banned
One thing to keep in mind, the Marines get a very small slice of the pie when it comes to the budget. They can't afford "interim" solutions. If they buy the EH101, they won't be buying the Osprey. They don't have the budget to operate both types.
 
Been sitting here trying to recall any reference in the USMC literature of that era to substitutes for the MV22. There was speculation about the naval version of the Blackhawk, and hyper SLE for the Sea Knight, but don't remember anything about others. My take was the Osprey was so firmly backed by a variety of groups there was no serious chance of a substitute.
 
It might not be relevant to the USMC but the EH101 was knocked out of the Australian Blackhawk replacement competition early due to deficiencies in hot weather performance.

One thing to keep in mind, the Marines get a very small slice of the pie when it comes to the budget. They can't afford "interim" solutions. If they buy the EH101, they won't be buying the Osprey. They don't have the budget to operate both types.

Were something second best like the EH101 adopted a new replacement program would probably be restarted, with new specifications and new design study starting over from zero. There would also be a considerable lobby effort to continue Osprey development. It had some powerful backers. They'd keep trying to draw in other users to contribute cash to the development costs.

The delays in the Osprey caused extra costs in attempting to keep the Sea Knight fleet airborne. Adoption of the EH101 would allow some of that extended maintiance cost to be used elsewhere.
 
Been sitting here trying to recall any reference in the USMC literature of that era to substitutes for the MV22. There was speculation about the naval version of the Blackhawk, and hyper SLE for the Sea Knight, but don't remember anything about others. My take was the Osprey was so firmly backed by a variety of groups there was no serious chance of a substitute.

I have heard about the CH-60 proposed for the Marine assault role. I personally doubt the viability of that replacing the Sea Knights because they have half the lift capability and no rear ramp. The CH-60 might have been better to replace UH-1s in the light utility transport role instead.

I think that, if the interim EH-101 plan had gone through, they would have replaced the oldest half or maybe two-thirds of Sea Knights while the lowest-hour Sea Knights might get SLEPed up until the V-22 enters service.

I do agree that, despite the horrific impact of the F-35/V-22/EFV trifecta on two decades of Marine procurement, there's no chance of the V-22 getting cancelled despite any delays that may occur.
 
I have heard about the CH-60 proposed for the Marine assault role. I personally doubt the viability of that replacing the Sea Knights because they have half the lift capability and no rear ramp.

It was the capacity that made it a non starter. Too much deck space for to little capacity. The ramp is a issue with pros & cons.
 
Comparing EH-101 with Sea Knight and MV22 it does appear to offer the capacity and load etc required as per the OPs suggestion

The current Royal Marine 'Junglie' the Merlin HC4A can carry 24 seated troops and the Aircraft has folding rotors and tail reducing its footprint for hanger purposes.

The only issue I can see is the expense - Merlin is not cheap

It might not be relevant to the USMC but the EH101 was knocked out of the Australian Blackhawk replacement competition early due to deficiencies in hot weather performance.

What were those Deficiencies?
 
What were those Deficiencies?

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/multi-role-helicopter-program

Citing as reasons that despite being a MOTS aircraft in service with the United Kingdom, Portugal and Canada, the EH101 had poor maneuverability; limitations in support of amphibious operations due to its larger size; its payload and range advantage reduced markedly in hot and high operations (performing worse than the S‑70M but still better than the MRH90); and was unsuitable for Counter Terrorism operations.

Keep in mind that these are Australian requirements, which is why I said they might not be relevant to USMC, for example Counter-Terrorism operations will likely be unique to Australia and be about specific conditions in Melbourne and Sydney rather than generic GWOT operations. However Australia is pretty well known among lower-tier militaries without large domestic industries for looking at its requirements closely, so if we say it's unsuitable it probably is.
 
OTL USMC almost flew EH 101s to transport VIPs, especially the president.
Back in 2005, Lockheed-Martin proposed EH 101s to replace long-serving Sikorsky Sea King helicopters in the “Marine One” role. Numerous changes (demanded by the gov’t) drove the price so high that the project was abandoned in 2009.

Instead, POTUS will fly in a variant of the Sikorsky S-92. From the outside, both EH 101 and S-92 look similar but EH 101 has a third engine.

The nine incomplete EH101s were sold to the Royal Canadian Air Force to provide spare parts for their EH101 Cormorant search and rescue helicopters.

If you want to see a full-fledged procurement disaster, look at the Canadian Sea King replacement program!
Hah!
Hah!

Master Corporal Rob Warner, CD
Retired Sea King wrench-bender
 
My impression of the whole Australian helicopter procurement program was that they were looking specifically for a medium helicopter to replace the Blackhawks, and that the RFP was written to narrow the competition down to 7-ton mediums like the Blackhawk and NH-90. As a supermedium, the EH-101 is significantly larger and more expensive to operate than the smaller helicopters it was competing against. The size matter would definitely have been a concern before the Canberras, but a country with almost a dozen 40,000 ton phibs wouldn't be so constrained.

My impression of the supermedium military niche is that it's heavily concentrated in carrier-based (not surface combatants) ASW and logistics and land-based maritime SAR and CSAR. This would be a step up from the battlefield assault/utility role that Blackhawks and Twin Hueys perform.
 
My impression of the whole Australian helicopter procurement program was that they were looking specifically for a medium helicopter to replace the Blackhawks, and that the RFP was written to narrow the competition down to 7-ton mediums like the Blackhawk and NH-90. As a supermedium, the EH-101 is significantly larger and more expensive to operate than the smaller helicopters it was competing against. The size matter would definitely have been a concern before the Canberras, but a country with almost a dozen 40,000 ton phibs wouldn't be so constrained.

The Army already had Chinooks in service and most of our new CH47F have rotor brakes so they can operate from the Canberra's, so the extra size of the EH101 was not particularly valuable.

A key requirement of AIR 9000 was to reduce the helicopter fleets from 9 to 4 or 5, the EH101 wasn't just to replace the Blackhawk, it was also to replace the final dozen or so UH1H and 6 or 7 Sea King Mk50. This further would have compromised the big EH101, as it is substantially less 'handy' than the UH1 and S70.
 
The Army already had Chinooks in service and most of our new CH47F have rotor brakes so they can operate from the Canberra's, so the extra size of the EH101 was not particularly valuable.

A key requirement of AIR 9000 was to reduce the helicopter fleets from 9 to 4 or 5, the EH101 wasn't just to replace the Blackhawk, it was also to replace the final dozen or so UH1H and 6 or 7 Sea King Mk50. This further would have compromised the big EH101, as it is substantially less 'handy' than the UH1 and S70.

I think the point is that the EH-101 in British service are quite large beasts - 15 tons or so

The Blackhawk is half the size and the UH-1s are even smaller - so replacing both with the NH90 makes a lot of sense. But I note that the navy SH-70s are being replaced with the COTS MH-60 'Romeo' not the proposed NH90 - this does make sense especially given the rather sorry SH 2G Seasprite procurement disaster of the noughties and only operate a handful of NH90s.
 
Without the rush to get a Sea Knight replacement into service, would the Osprey have looked significantly different from the OTL form? For example, a tilt-wing design could improve takeoff and hover performance at the cost of hover stability, while something like the V-280 with static engines and tilting output shafts and rotors might alleviate the Osprey's deck-heating problems. More minor improvements from a more protracted development might be better capabilities for defensive weaponry.
 
The Blackhawk is half the size and the UH-1s are even smaller - so replacing both with the NH90 makes a lot of sense. But I note that the navy SH-70s are being replaced with the COTS MH-60 'Romeo' not the proposed NH90 - this does make sense especially given the rather sorry SH 2G Seasprite procurement disaster of the noughties and only operate a handful of NH90s.

The Army recommended the UH60M but stated that the NH90 met the capability requirement, so for Whole Of Government reasons (such as Eurocopter setting up a facility in Brisbane and Thales and the French Ambassador putting pressure on the Minister) the Government selected the NH90 to replace the UH1, S70 and Sea Kings. Apparently the Army is biased toward the Blackhawk and pretty much should get over it.

However the Romeo was an FMS buy from the US, likely due to the very different cost of ownership requirements of an ASW helicopter and being able to hook in to the USN development path. We backed ourselves into a development corner with our S70 Sea Hawks and they ended up not meeting expectations despite the money spent on them, and we didn't want to go down that road again.
 
The Army recommended the UH60M but stated that the NH90 met the capability requirement, so for Whole Of Government reasons (such as Eurocopter setting up a facility in Brisbane and Thales and the French Ambassador putting pressure on the Minister) the Government selected the NH90 to replace the UH1, S70 and Sea Kings. Apparently the Army is biased toward the Blackhawk and pretty much should get over it.

However the Romeo was an FMS buy from the US, likely due to the very different cost of ownership requirements of an ASW helicopter and being able to hook in to the USN development path. We backed ourselves into a development corner with our S70 Sea Hawks and they ended up not meeting expectations despite the money spent on them, and we didn't want to go down that road again.

They got a good offer for the Romeos as I understand it and a ASW Helo operating from a Frigate is a different creature to a Logistics one operating from land!

The S60 was a good choice IMO
 
They got a good offer for the Romeos as I understand it

Yes and no.

There is no Congressional appropriation for FMS, it is at zero cost to the US taxpayer, so there is no special price or anything like that. We paid the sticker price for the Fiscal Years we bought them plus a 3.2% Admin charge.

That said FMS is a good deal as small countries/customers are able to leverage from the US system in terms of bulk buying power, using the US training system, buying into the US supply equity system etc etc etc. This is all user pays, but is in many cases is much cheaper than doing it ourselves or the using equivalent systems the Europeans or US commercial organisations would set up.
 
Top