071 LPD thread

[Mysterre]

re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

Well, I was not speaking of long range air assault. I was speaking specifically of Sea Control. In that areana I believe the UK, Korea, Japan, Italy, Spain and probably Australia would all be interested in an AEW V-22 particularly, and an ASW variant of the V-22 too.

Each of them have carriers who could use it and be vastly improved by so doing. Even with ski-ramps, no nation with such a capability has developed a long range, high altitude, high capability AEW aircraft to date...they are using helos for that purpose. An AEW V-22 couldgive capabilities close to the E-2C, and at any rate, far better than the current -31s and Sea Kingas, or even the proposed Merlins, being used.

As to ASW the reach and loadout capabilities would make an ASW V-22 similarly worth their while. In fact, I believe ever since the S-3s were taken out of ASW srevice, the US Navy would benefit from them as well. And would similarly use the AEW version on the Americas and the Wasps.

At what cost? Each V-22 even totally folded up would displace 2 or 3 normal helo's in terms of surface area and far more than that in price, but would it return the same benefit in hours on station? The answer is no, meaning you would need to devote disproprotionately more hangar deck space to AEW to get the same level of coverage compared to the number of helo's it would displace, such as a Merlin or a Sea King, both of which have slightly more endurance than the V-22. And what greater benefit would the V-22 bring to AEW? You need neither speed nor range for this role. As for service ceiling, a Merlin at its service ceiling of ~4,500m has a radar horizon of 300km against a fighter at 30m altitude trying to penetrate a defense screen, more than enough range for a typical undercarriage radar panel. If you purpose-design a radar panel for the V-22 (none exist AFAIK) that could utilize its greater service ceiling, that would be the only benefit the V-22 could bring to the table in terms of AEW. 5 Merlins rotating on station could give a carrier or assault ship a 24 hour radar coverage, 6 to cover breakdown or maintenance requirements. You would need 6 rotating Ospreys to do the same, all of them devoted pretty much entirely to AEW, 7 if you want to cover breakdown or maintenance. Now think about how much floor space that would require.

How about ASW? Speed counts, endurance counts, payload capacity counts, range does not. Of these, the Osprey brings you speed, and maybe payload depending on what helo you're comparing it to. Would a navy really be willing to pay 3, 4, or 5 times what a standard ASW helo costs and 2 or 3 times the deck space, to get the benefit of speed and maybe payload?

 

[Jeff Head]

re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

At what cost? Each V-22 even totally folded up would displace 2 or 3 normal helo's in terms of surface area.

Actually, no. A folded up V-22 is on par with a folded up CH-53, actually thinner and about as long when outfitted with its wings ands rotors folded. .

and far more than that in price.

Again, actually, no. I am presuming form the way you worded that that a V-22 would cost "far" more than up to 3 helos, and that depends entirely on which helo you are talking about. We'll stick with the Super Stallion. A troop carrying super stallino is approximately 25 million. A V-22 is 69 million. So, three super Stallion are more expensive than one V-22. Nothing like the "far more" you indicated.

but would it return the same benefit in hours on station? The answer is no, meaning you would need to devote disproprotionately more hangar deck space to AEW to get the same level of coverage compared to the number of helo's it would displace, such as a Merlin or a Sea King, both of which have slightly more endurance than the V-22. And what greater benefit would the V-22 bring to AEW?

As shown, the deck space is not the issue you thought it was, and further range translates into more endurance. So, your, "no" answer is flawed from the get go.

You need neither speed nor range for this role.

As for the direct overhead misison, this is so...although, again range translates into endurance. But if you are going to set up an aircraft out somewhere on the primary or secodnary threat axis (which is common) or, send one to accompany a strike package, then these things matter more and more...and the Osprey will give you those options.

As for service ceiling, a Merlin at its service ceiling of ~4,500m has a radar horizon of 300km against a fighter at 30m altitude trying to penetrate a defense screen, more than enough range for a typical undercarriage radar panel. If you purpose-design a radar panel for the V-22 (none exist AFAIK) that could utilize its greater service ceiling, that would be the only benefit the V-22 could bring to the table in terms of AEW.

An AEW V-22 would provide the greater alitutude and a larger platform to cram more and better electronics and radars into. An AEW V-22 would have enough endurance to operate like a squadron of E-2Cs (now E-2Ds) on US vessels. Four of them would suffice for the coverage required and for the maintenance backup. With the altitude advantage and the better radar and electronics, the platform would perform in tracking crusie and attack missiles at range, which is highly desireable in this environment in addition to attack aircraft, and with the ability to vector aircraft and/or defense missile platforms against the threat.

How about ASW? Speed counts, endurance counts, payload capacity counts, range does not. ?

Again, greater range translates into greater endurance. Greater speed gets it there faster. Greater payload increases the number of tagets and type of targets you are able to take on.

The ASW V-22 would provide all of these things.

Well, we are well off topic here, so I will not go into thjis on this thread any further. Suffice it to say that time will tell.

If these variants are developed, I predict multiple countries will buy and utilize them to very good effect for theis VSTOL carriers, particularly in the Sea Control role. The US itself would probably be the major coustomer in that event.

As to testimonials regarding the aircraft in its various current forms, I will let the words of the professional who are actually flying and working with the aircraft speak for themsels:


"This aircraft is the single most significant transformation of Air Force Special Operations since the introduction of the helicopter...nearly every mission we have faced in the last 20 years could have been done better and faster with the V-22."
Donald Wurster
Air Force Lt. Gen, AFSOC Commander, Jan. 2012

"The V-22 gives us the speed and range we need to conduct our missions in a single period of darkness, where it's safest for us and most dangerous for our enemies."
Gen. Doug Brown
U.S. Special Operations Command, Mar. 2006

"The Osprey remains at the very soul of our Corps' ability to fight future conflicts across a widely dispersed battlefield. Battlefields where the tyranny of distance is solved with speed, and where an irregular enemy who chooses to fight at an urban marketplace or at an ambush site in a wadi is faced with the dilemma: 'Where are they? I know they are coming, I just don't know when or where.'"
Lt. Gen. Jim Amos
Commanding General, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Dec. 2005

“It is no surprise that this marvel of aviation is now a hit with our troops; its existence represents the cutting edges of aviation and military technology in engineering and manufacturing. Constructed of carbon fiber and titanium, outfitted with an advanced fly-by-wire system that makes flying simple and safe and fitted with a transmission manufactured to the highest tolerances available in modern manufacturing. Its recent history of on-time delivery is a model for government procurement.”
Major Michael A. Boorstein
Squadron Aviation Maintenance Officer for VMM-266, May. 2009


"... the V-22, has absolutely changed what not only what we can do with a MEU, but what people expect from one."
Major General Jon Davis
Former commander 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing, May. 2012


"This aircraft proves that transformation is more than just a buzzword. The combination of range, speed, and operational flexibility the Osprey provides is going to change all the rules for how our Marines engage the enemy."

"The Osprey can deliver Marines to battle more safely, bring them reinforcements over greater distances in greater numbers, and evacuate wounded more quickly. That all equates to lives saved, as we continue to prosecute the global war on terrorism."
Dr. Donald C. Winter
Secretary of the Navy, Jan. 2006

 

[Mysterre]

re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

Actually, no. A folded up V-22 is on par with a folded up CH-53, actually thinner and about as long when outfitted with its wings ands rotors folded.

I'm talking about the helos it would replace in the AEW role, like the Merlin and the Cougar. I had no idea CH-53's were used in either AEW or ASW. Perhaps you point me to a variant of this helo used for either of these missions.

Again, actually, no. I am presuming form the way you worded that that a V-22 would cost "far" more than up to 3 helos, and that depends entirely on which helo you are talking about. We'll stick with the Super Stallion. A troop carrying super stallino is approximately 25 million. A V-22 is 69 million. So, three super Stallion are more expensive than one V-22. Nothing like the "far more" you indicated.

I have no idea why you are trying to use a $69 million figure for the V-22. This is probably estimated program cost from someone who has a reason to lowball the actual cost, like the program manager, and even he gives a higher number than you. Even back in 2005 the official defense budget request was $115 million per unit. That's more than four and a half times the cost of a Super Stallion.

"Cost information about the V-22 and other military procurement programs is often deceptive. The program manager now insists that V-22s are costing just $76 million each, despite the facts in the FY2005 Defense budget. What the V-22 manager does not reveal is that they hope the average cost for V-22s will fall dramatically and end up with an average of $76 million a copy over the entire production run. Since the V-22 began production in 1999, these projections have been wildly optimistic. The history of V-22 production clearly shows steady unit cost growth, so the program manager should be quoting a unit price higher than today's $115 million a copy if he wishes to advertise the average unit production cost."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As shown, the deck space is not the issue you thought it was, and further range translates into more endurance. So, your, "no" answer is flawed from the get go.

What? More range does not translate into more endurance; more range REQUIRES more endurance. More endurance translates into more range at a given speed, not the other way around. I think you should think about this a little more. The V-22 is a PERFECT example of this principle. It has alot of range because of its speed but its endurance is in fact less than a normal helo's. And deck issue is in fact the issue I think it is, because unless you can point to a variant of CH-53 that does AEW (BTW, nice that you use one of the largest helos out there to compare to the V-22), the V-22 in fact gives you less bang for the buck when it comes to AEW.

As for the direct overhead misison, this is so...although, again range translates into endurance. But if you are going to set up an aircraft out somewhere on the primary or secodnary threat axis (which is common) or, send one to accompany a strike package, then these things matter more and more...and the Osprey will give you those options.

Again, range does not translate into endurance. That's like saying a 5 megaton thermonuclear explosion results in a larger amount of plutonium in a warhead compared to a 1 megaton explosion. The causation is in fact the exact opposite, in combination with speed, fuel load, and fuel efficiency.

And while I can see the potential benefit of greater range and speed if an Osprey AEW accompanied a strike package of attack helos, you have not demonstrated that any navy has a requirement for an Osprey to be used for this particular mission.

An AEW V-22 would provide the greater alitutude and a larger platform to cram more and better electronics and radars into. An AEW V-22 would have enough endurance to operate like a squadron of E-2Cs (now E-2Ds) on US vessels. Four of them would suffice for the coverage required and for the maintenance backup. With the altitude advantage and the better radar and electronics, the platform would perform in tracking crusie and attack missiles at range, which is highly desireable in this environment in addition to attack aircraft, and with the ability to vector aircraft and/or defense missile platforms against the threat.

I don't know where you are getting endurance figures from to try and claim that an AEW V-22 "would have enough endurance to operate like a squadron of E-2Cs", but the endurance of a V-22 is just over 4 hours, while the E-2C's have an endurance of 6+ hours. The Merlin has an endurance of 5 hours. As I mentioned before, a higher operating altitude would translate into greater radar horizon, but this would require a purpose-build radar, which would add to the costs of the already astronomical baseline V-22.

As to testimonials regarding the aircraft in its various current forms, I will let the words of the professional who are actually flying and working with the aircraft speak for themsels:

Really? Donald Winter the Secretary of the Navy is personally flying or working with the aircraft? Or any of the other generals you quoted? That's more than slightly humorous. I could quote you a raft of people as well who condemn this aircraft roundly, but what purpose would that serve? You will still like this thing, I will still not, and it will still cost $115 million a copy (probably even more now) no matter what you or I say.

 

[Jeff Head]

re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

You will still like this thing, I will still not, and it will still cost $115 million a copy (probably even more now) no matter what you or I say.

The Department of Defense 2013 Budget for Naval aircraft:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

indicates that the 2012 Flyaway cost for the MV-22 is the 69.3 million. You can argue all you want and quote all you want from statements that are now 7 years old, but that is the official figure upon which the budgets are established. In the US it would be a serious, felonious crime to falsify numbers in that fashion on official US budgetary planning document.

I would look for newer numbers when making an arguement about costs and procurement of an ongoing program.

As to range vs. endurance, the old addage is, "what comes first, the chicken or the egg?"

If an aircraft has a longer range than another aircraft then its endurance at anything less than its maximum range is usually (and it can depend on the type of engine and altitude if the numbers are close) going to be greater than an aircraft with less range.

As to the individuals making the comments, of course the Secretary of the Navy is not flying them...but the battlefield commanders do utilize them, and the maintenance people quoted know of what they speak. In addition, the SecNav has a responsibility for the sailors and Marines who do operate these machines, and it is not uncommon at all for SecNavs to kill unfruitful programs in the US. That has not happened with the Osprey.

As I stated, the V-22 is an excellent bird and a game changer which is now performing well in combat roles around the world...and it has several as yet untapped potential uses which can continue that saga.

Anyhow...enough off topic. Back to the Type 071 LPD, which will not have the use of any aircraft like this in any case. The hanger pictures do show a surprsingly large hanger with plenty of space for, I believe, all four helos to be housed and serviced. That is very good for the PLAN.

 

[Mysterre]

re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

The Department of Defense 2013 Budget for Naval aircraft:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

indicates that the 2012 Flyaway cost for the MV-22 is the 69.3 million. You can argue all you want and quote all you want from statements that are now 7 years old, but that is the official figure upon which the budgets are established. In the US it would be a serious, felonious crime to falsify numbers in that fashion on official US budgetary planning document.

I would look for newer numbers when making an arguement about costs and procurement of an ongoing program.

Good thing for you that "flyaway" cost excludes the costs of R&D, eh? Such figures are routinely used by program managers to justify continuing a system to the unthinking public who have no idea how much it actually costs. "Sunk cost" isn't really sunk when the country has a $16 trillion national debt.

How about a more recent 2009 cost estimate from a less biased source, like the GAO? That would be the Government Accountability Office. You know, the office tasked with keeping other branches of the government (like the DOD) from being slippery with their finances? They say $55.3 billion total cost for 458 birds. That's $120.7 million per bird, even more than my 2005 figure, and from a source even better than the DOD. And actually if you take their high number of $75.4 billion life cycle cost, that would come out to $164.6 million per bird. Even if you totally ignore R&D and life cycle costs, the GAO estimates the true procurement cost (your "flyaway" cost) to be $93 million per bird, drama about felonious criminal DOD reporting notwithstanding.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As to range vs. endurance, the old addage is, "what comes first, the chicken or the egg?"

If an aircraft has a longer range than another aircraft then its endurance at anything less than its maximum range is usually (and it can depend on the type of engine and altitude if the numbers are close) going to be greater than an aircraft with less range.

There is no chicken and egg when it comes to range and endurance. More endurance begets more range. Endurance is measured in hours; the longer you can stay in the air, the farther you can travel. It doesn't work the other way around: the farther you can travel, the longer you can remain in the air??? No. More range does not beget more endurance. I have absolutely no idea why you are arguing this point. The definition of endurance is not up for debate regardless of how much you argue about it. The endurance of the V-22 is about 4 hours, and that's being generous (see below). The endurance of the E-2C is about 6 hours. The endurance of the Merlin is 5 hours. As I said before, either you live without the ability to conduct round-the-clock AEW, or you pay a disproportionately larger cost in money and space to have it in the form of the V-22.

From

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Mission Profile
• Without Mission Auxiliary Tanks System (MATS)
- Approx 4.0 hrs max endurance
- Approx 700 nm max range in 3.0 hrs
• Ceiling 24,700’
• 325 nm combat radius
- 24 passengers
• 600 nm combat radius with 1 aerial refuel
- 24 passengers
• Additional fuel options: up to 3 MATS tanks
- 1 MATS tank, 14 passengers, 3.5 hrs endurance
- 2 MATS tanks, 6 passengers, 4.2 hrs endurance
- 3 MATS tanks, 0 passengers, 4.9 hrs endurance

As to the individuals making the comments, of course the Secretary of the Navy is not flying them...but the battlefield commanders do utilize them, and the maintenance people quoted know of what they speak. In addition, the SecNav has a responsibility for the sailors and Marines who do operate these machines, and it is not uncommon at all for SecNavs to kill unfruitful programs in the US. That has not happened with the Osprey.

As I stated, the V-22 is an excellent bird and a game changer which is now performing well in combat roles around the world...and it has several as yet untapped potential uses which can continue that saga.

And yet you have not been able to justify how the V-22 would be worth its cost and space in the role of AEW and ASW, which was the original reason for bringing the V-22 up in this 071 thread.

 

[antiterror13]

re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

deleted

 

[Jeff Head]

re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

And yet you have not been able to justify how the V-22 would be worth its cost and space in the role of AEW and ASW, which was the original reason for bringing the V-22 up in this 071 thread.

Look, Mysterre, we are not going to agree. You are now using a 2009 source to refute my 2012 source.

Fine...the fact is, I indicated that the flyaway cost of the MV-22 is 63.9 million, and that is what it is budgeted for. End of story, that is what the US is going to allocate costs according to and purchase the aircraft for.

As to ASW and AEW, the benefits are self evident. Greater range, greater ordinance loadout, larger platform with more sensors including sonar bouys for ASW; greater height, better electronics, and better radars for AEW. That is what folks with the smaller VSTOL carrier would love to have and the people who need those things are willing to pay to get them because the cost-benefit analysis of not having them should there be a hot war is simply off the scale when compared to potential more serious damage or loss of the ship itself.

As to endurance, we both now that with both range and endurance that the way you fly, the height you fly, and the engine you have, the conditions you fly in all make that a variable. There are optimum conditions, but in real life training exercises or combat you will not be able to apply them. The people planning for the V-22 have taken all of this into account and the aircraft is meeting or exceeding their expectations at this time...and that is admittedly after a rocky start. But that's the nature of bringing new technology into play. As I said before, it is not for the feint hearted or shallow pocket book.

Thank goodness with this aircraft and numerous other systems, there are those who have percervered and seen these technologies through to deployment despite problems and nay-sayers. As a result, the US Navy has the most mordern and capable equipment pretty much available to anyone in the world...which they make very good use of.

I am willing to bet, that 20 years from now, after a very sterling service record, and hopefully after those two variants have beend fielded for more than a decade and with numerous US partners...that there will be people making the same arguements on both sides...and yet the V-22 will still be in service, performing its mission, and doing it well.

As to bringing it up on the current discussion on this thread, I believe if you look back, the first mention was regarding the size of the hanger bay doors not needing to be larger unless they wanted a V-22, which you brougt up, and then went on to trash the aircraft from your perspective...from your post 1124:

A single hangar door of that size would only be needed if the PLAN were planning on something like the V-22 Osprey. IMO that bird is not worth the time or effort and probably only made it into service because it was too big to fail.

...nothing about AEW and ASW was mentioned. I simply pointed out that in addition to the troop carrying capabilities, which are its principle purpose, those other capabilities are potential missions for the V-22...so please just look back at the posts on the thread before you say such things, they really do not help your arguement when you do not. This is not meant as a personal attack, just some free, friendly advise...you have a tendancy with such facts and figures to speak of things they way you perceive them as opposed to the way they really were. Clearly in this case, what you said, "which was the original reason for bringing the V-22 up in this 071 thread." is simply not true. That's just playing loosey goosey with the facts.

Good day.

 

[asif iqbal]

re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

Of those you listed, which ones fly off of LPDs or LHAs?

that Jeff is a excellent point, infact it is the point, because we are talking about helos operating off a platform at sea

and V22 has interest from East to West, it hardly needs a justification, i am just glad that we have finally seen close up deck pictures of Type 071 LPD that clearly shows the internal hanger space and rests any doubts about its ability to cary 4 x Z8s

lets hope we now see China make a LHD using its extensive experience it has gained from operating LPDs

 

[Jeff Head]

re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

that Jeff is a excellent point, infact it is the point, because we are talking about helos operating off a platform at sea

and V22 has interest from East to West, it hardly needs a justification, i am just glad that we have finally seen close up deck pictures of Type 071 LPD that clearly shows the internal hanger space and rests any doubts about its ability to cary 4 x Z8s

Amen to to every bit of that Asif. The V-22 excels at what it does from the sea and from platforms at sea. It is changing the game, as it was intended to do...and I surely advocate for the AEW and ASW versions to be developed and produced.

The PLAN Type 071 LPD is an impressive platform. It is clearly modeled after the San Antonio class, but the PLAN has developed into the platform their own unique requirements. The hanger and the well deck are larger...and this does sacrifice storage space for more troops and equipment...but only because the PLAN saw that as meeting its mission requirements for the vessel.

I am looking forward to having a 1/350 scale version of this vessel to build and add to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

BTW, Gallery models just released the first 1/350 scale San Antonio class LPD and I have it on pre-order for delivery this fall. It will go nicely with my US Carrier group built around CVN-65, USS Enterprise. I already have a group building around CV-16 and DDG-171 Haikou for the PLAN (You can bet that as soon as a Type 052D DDG in 1/350 scale is avaialble, I will add it).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Mysterre]

re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

Look, Mysterre, we are not going to agree. You are now using a 2009 source to refute my 2012 source.

Fine...the fact is, I indicated that the flyaway cost of the MV-22 is 63.9 million, and that is what it is budgeted for. End of story, that is what the US is going to allocate costs according to and purchase the aircraft for.

Unfortunately, the GAO isn't in the habit of making yearly reports on the V-22 AFAIK. The last time they dropped some knowledge on us about the Osprey was 2009. When it comes to how much things really cost the American taxpayer, I'll take GAO's 3 year old estimates over DOD's this morning's estimates or funding requests any day of the week, especially when manufacturing costs can be offset by previous years' materials & services funding or diverted into other more obscure checklists. 63.9 million isn't the "end of the story", it's not even the beginning of the story. You even accuse me of speaking of things the way I perceive them rather than the way they are. Knock, knock, Jeff.

As to ASW and AEW, the benefits are self evident. Greater range, greater ordinance loadout, larger platform with more sensors including sonar bouys for ASW; greater height, better electronics, and better radars for AEW. That is what folks with the smaller VSTOL carrier would love to have and the people who need those things are willing to pay to get them because the cost-benefit analysis of not having them should there be a hot war is simply off the scale when compared to potential more serious damage or loss of the ship itself.

The V-22 is great for long-range high-speed assault missions which require vertical landing no doubt about it, but which folks with VSTOL carriers would "love to have" these birds for AEW and ASW? Which countries have put in tenders for Boeing to manufacture AEW or ASW variants of this class? Does even the US Navy or Marines love the V-22 for AEW and ASW? If so, which AEW or ASW variant have they developed? Which cost-benefit analysis are you referring to?

As to endurance, we both now that with both range and endurance that the way you fly, the height you fly, and the engine you have, the conditions you fly in all make that a variable. There are optimum conditions, but in real life training exercises or combat you will not be able to apply them. The people planning for the V-22 have taken all of this into account and the aircraft is meeting or exceeding their expectations at this time...and that is admittedly after a rocky start. But that's the nature of bringing new technology into play. As I said before, it is not for the feint hearted or shallow pocket book.

Listen, you said that more range gets you more endurance. That's wrong. That's all I'm saying. Range is a result of something, not a cause of anything.

As to bringing it up on the current discussion on this thread, I believe if you look back, the first mention was regarding the size of the hanger bay doors not needing to be larger unless they wanted a V-22, which you brougt up, and then went on to trash the aircraft from your perspective...from your post 1124:

...nothing about AEW and ASW was mentioned. I simply pointed out that in addition to the troop carrying capabilities, which are its principle purpose, those other capabilities are potential missions for the V-22...so please just look back at the posts on the thread before you say such things, they really do not help your arguement when you do not. This is not meant as a personal attack, just some free, friendly advise...you have a tendancy with such facts and figures to speak of things they way you perceive them as opposed to the way they really were. Clearly in this case, what you said, "which was the original reason for bringing the V-22 up in this 071 thread." is simply not true. That's just playing loosey goosey with the facts.

Good day.

Yes, you are correct, and I misremembered. In fact, YOU were the one who brought up V-22 and its alleged potential in AEW and ASW. But to use this memory slip to make a general accusation of me being intentionally loosey goosey with the facts during debates is rather dishonest of you, and that speaks volumes about you, not me. I pride myself in being as totally honest as possible during debates when using facts and logic to make my case, so perhaps you can prove me wrong by citing even a single other instance where I misrepresented the facts so obviously. In any thread. Go ahead.