Not a good idea due to the stern ramp. However,
An all MV-22 fleet would be nice, but it's too expensive
COMMAR, I'm a MV-22 fan, but also a believer in helicopters. A mix of both might be more mission and cost effective for the Marines.
A UH-60M costs around $3,000 per hour of flight time. A MV-22 around $10,000.
A little back-of-the-envelope calculation leads to these estimates:
• MV-22: $72 million upfront flyaway cost and $10,000 per flight hour x 60 hours/month in theater = $600,000 per aircraft per month
• UH-60M: $18 million upfront flyaway cost and $3,000 per flight hour x 60 hours/month in theater = $180,000 per aircraft per month
Multiply these figures by each MV-22 squadron yields $7.2 million monthly cost for 12 MV-22, and $2.16 million for 12 UH-60M PER MONTH.
Sure, Marines need speed and unrefueled range to go ship-to-shore and for some distant area of responsibility flights. But for shorter flights, why wouldn’t Marines be better off using more capable than UH-1N helicopters already in use by Navy brothers?
Similarly, a Marine Expeditionary unit might need just 12 MV-22s to get to shore repeatedly for any assault whereas 12 UH-60s would make the ship-to-shore trip once and then support locally at a fraction of the cost/logistics (360 gals per fill-up for a UH-60 vs. over 1200 gals top-off per V-22).
The UH-60M would have:
• greater high/hot HOGE and similar payload capability
• similar external load speeds
• less brown-out risk
• more small LZ capability
• more aircraft in larger LZs (no 250’ separation between)
• easier and more dispersed shore maintenance
• closer proximity to forward Marines for aerial QRFs and MEDEVAC…not CASEVAC without onboard care
At current flyaway costs a notional pair of Marine Squadron with 12 MV-22, and 12 UH-60Ms w/ folding rotors would cost around $1.08 billion to procure. Two squadrons with a total of 24 MV-22s would cost $1.728 billion for procurement. Savings: $648 million for just 24 a/c.
Similar savings result from the difference in monthly flight hour costs for 1440 hours of $14.4 million for 24 MV-22 vs. $9.36 million for a mix of 12 MV-22, and 12 UH-60M. The savings in recurring monthly cost per hour of flight is over $5 million, or over $60 million saved annually for just 24 aircraft. In a decade you equal the procurement savings.
In reality, you probably would discover that you could shift more flight hour burden to the helicopter fleet for most shore missions thus saving even more money. Let's say you plan on using 35% of flight hours in the MV-22, and 65%flying the cheaper UH-60M. That ratio would result in a cost per month for 1440 hours equaling about $5.04 million for the 12 MV-22 (504 hrs), and $2.808 million for 12 UH-60M (936 hrs) or about $7.848 million a month vs. $14.4 million for 24 MV-22s flying the same 1440 hours. That is $78.6 million in annual O&M savings.
And because a mix of 12 MV-22 and 12 UH-60M would use less deck/hangar space aboard Marine ships, several CH-53Ks could fit in the remaining space.
Sure the UH-60M would carry fewer Marines. But a few more CH-53K per boat would make up for it:
• 24 MV-22 carrying 20 Marines (heavier body armor/center belly gun/ hot/high) = 480 Marines in one lift.
• One squadron of 12 MV-22 and another with 12 UH-60M, and just four CH-53K carry 240 Marines in the MV-22, 120 in 12 UH-60M, and 120+ in just four CH-53K for a greater lift of 480+ Marines the first lift.
Add a 60% MV-22 mission capable rate to the equation and 80% rate for the UH-60M, and 75% for the CH-53K, and suspect the lift per mixed-squadrons-alternative is more than a little in favor of the 12/12/4 mix…with ample taxpayer money not spent, initially and annually. In fact the savings would purchase all the CH-53K fleet and its flying hour costs.
Just my personal views.
