Osprey collection (merged thread)

**Steve Blair** · 10-14-2006

I, for one, haven't seen much in the way of commentary about this. But it is worth remembering that the much-praised Blackhawk was originally nicknamed the Crashhawk due to many developmental problems. The Apache, which was supposed to be highly survivable, has also turned out to be something more and something less than promised. We may not "really" know how the Osprey does until it comes under actual fire in an actual combat zone. At one time the UH-1 was even deemed too fragile to survive ground fire.

Much of it may also end up boiling down to doctrine. The USMC sees the Osprey as a medium lift vehicle, which means it may not end up in the same sort of situations that the UH-60 does. The AF, on the other hand, is looking at the Osprey as a SAR platform, which means it will possibly come under much heavier fire than the UH-60.

**979797** · 11-12-2006

I guess we'll find out soon. I have heard that the first operational Osprey squadron will be heading with an ACE to the box sometime next year.

While the Marines may envision it as a medium transport, you still need to assume that it would be used as a vehicle to take troops directly in and out of the battlespace. Look at the Army Chinhooks in Afghanistan. The Blackhawks there lack the capability to operate at the higher altitudes, leaving tactical air transport to the CH-47 which, while powerful, is also very big and very slow. We've lost more than a few already to hostile fire.

**Rifleman** · 02-03-2007

It seems to me that the Osprey would be the ideal insertion aircraft for parachute raiding operations, since the same aircraft can serve for insertion and extraction. That's if the bugs can be worked out and it turns out to be a safe aircraft.

In the Ranger raid on Kandahar the assault element parachuted in from C-130s later to be extracted by helicopters. With something like the Osprey the same aircraft can parachute a raiding force, circle on station, then land to extract them after the objectives are seized and the drop zone is secure. An improved runway isn't required either.

That's one way to solve the problem of landing it in a hot LZ to offload troops.

Of course, a wider usage of parachute insertion isn't the answer to everything.....but it might be the answer to some things.

**gute** · 07-11-2009

I'm wondering if the MV-22 would do better as a delivery platform for airborne and air assault forces then its role as medium lift "helicopter"? Its speed and range are a plus. Could this aircraft follow-up C-130s and provide an air assault element for the paratroopers on the ground - enhanced maneuverability? Would Airborne-Air Assault BCTs (MacGregor's design) with MV-22 aircraft be practical?

The things are cool, but for what the Corps needs I would think they would be better of with their own CH-47s and UH60s.

Thoughts please.

**Uboat509** · 07-11-2009

Despite being airborne, I am not a huge proponent of airborne ops. I believe that advances in airmobile technology like the helicopter and the Osprey have made the concept largely obsolete (Somewhere on Ardennes Ave. a CSM just developed an angry facial tic although he is not sure why

). The chaos and disorganization of an airborne op are just not conducive to successful combat operations. There are few, if any, places where you can execute an airborne operation that you could not land rotary wing aircraft or Ospreys. Given that, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to conduct airborne operations.

SFC W

**gute** · 07-11-2009

I see your point, but what about an operation that would require moving a large number of infantry (IBCT) over a long distance, greater then the combat range of the Osprey (450 miles)? I'm talking about a distance that would require C-130 transport of paratroopers and follow-up by a platform such as the Osprey, which has a ferry range of 2,000 miles, to enable the paratroopers to air assault further objectives - am I reinventing the wheel? I've read that the 101st is more like a heavy division when it deploys with all its helicopters.

Example - moving 173rd BCT to Iraq in C-130s, jump in, empty MV-22 with air refueling capabilty follow-up drop enable to air assault toward Baghdad. Practical? Smart? feasible?

**Uboat509** · 07-11-2009

Originally Posted by gute

I see your point, but what about an operation that would require moving a large number of infantry (IBCT) over a long distance, greater then the combat range of the Osprey (450 miles)? I'm talking about a distance that would require C-130 transport of paratroopers and follow-up by a platform such as the Osprey, which has a ferry range of 2,000 miles, to enable the paratroopers to air assault further objectives - am I reinventing the wheel? I've read that the 101st is more like a heavy division when it deploys with all its helicopters.

Example - moving 173rd BCT to Iraq in C-130s, jump in, empty MV-22 with air refueling capabilty follow-up drop enable to air assault toward Baghdad. Practical? Smart? feasible?

In my opinion, on the modern battlefield, dropping light infantry that far from support is probably not a good idea. In WWII the nature of the communications that were available to the defenders slowed and desynchronized the defender's response to the airborne operations. Furthermore, with the weapons that were available in WWII, light infantry was quite a bit more survivable on the battlefield than today. I am thinking that advances in modern communications and weaponry greatly reduce the chances of a successful airborne operation. That said, your example, a limited drop for an airfield seizure followed by the air landing of heavier weapons and equipment is certainly feasible and practical. Smart depends on the METT-TC, of course.

Keep in mind, I am referring to the worst case scenario, major combat operations against a peer-competitor nation here. If we are talking about a conventional fight against a much less capable nation then all bets are off.

SFC W

**Ken White** · 07-11-2009

Originally Posted by Uboat509

...a CSM just developed an angry facial tic although he is not sure why

).

and knows he will hear it many more before someone solves the range problem for your alternatives.

The chaos and disorganization of an airborne op are just not conducive to successful combat operations.

Disagree -- degree of training is important. We don't do that nearly as well as we could or should; the training system you've been under for 18 plus year is an impediment, not an aid, to training. That we're as good as we are is a tribute to many like you who overcame a bad process. Good training can slice through the disorganization bit easily.

The real issue is what you want done. Airborne operations are not suitable for many things (linkups over 24 hours being one) and an airmobile op is better if range and conditions permit, no question. However, there are some things they can do as well or better than most other methods -- including really noisy hoptiflopters. Chaos is part of all war, disorganization leads to LGOP tooling about doing their thing. Airborne Ops are just like SF Ops -- do it right and good things can happen; do it wrong and it can make things worse. Come to think of it, that sort of describes combat in general...