Sudan Rescue- Helo vs Osprey

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Saw the reports of us getting our people out. Sounds like a rough copy of failed Iranian hostage mission- long range, refueling. Probably not as ‘hot’ at the objective. But why did they say that they used CH47s? I guess those are now the premier helo for a bigger mission like this, but with the range involved, I would have thought a CV22 would have worked better? Or did they want a closer rally point anyway, so setting up a fueling point wasn’t that much of a difference? Is the CV22 still having issues? Or are the MH-47s just that awesome?

[AKDoug]

Saw the reports of us getting our people out. Sounds like a rough copy of failed Iranian hostage mission- long range, refueling. Probably not as ‘hot’ at the objective. But why did they say that they used CH47s? I guess those are now the premier helo for a bigger mission like this, but with the range involved, I would have thought a CV22 would have worked better? Or did they want a closer rally point anyway, so setting up a fueling point wasn’t that much of a difference? Is the CV22 still having issues? Or are the MH-47s just that awesome?

Because the Night Stalkers were involved and they rock MH47's. I wonder if the MH47 use is better suited to more urban/roof top use. I'm no expert, but a CV22 can't hover as long as an MH47, and the rotor wash/exhaust temp is brutal with them.

[WillieThom]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/seal-team-6-army-special-forces-rescue-us-diplomats-in-sudan-aid-workers-urged-to-shelter-in-place-live-updates/ar-AA1adWkD

Elements of SEAL Team 6 – which rose to fame for killing Osama Bin Laden 12 years ago – and the Army’s 3rd Special Forces Group took part in the evacuation, a security official told The Washington Post.

[chuckman]

It was a multiservice event. Not 'just' SOF, and not 'just' US. There are (were?) an estimated 15K-20K Americans in Sudan, I know they didn't them all.

CH-47 can carry more people than can the Osprey (or CH-46). My guess is that was just the AC that was available at the time.

[Lawnchair 04]

I would bet the unit available just happened to use Ch-47’s. Without going down the rabbit hole outside of the range capabilities the osprey is not well suited to NEO evacuations, quite honestly I’d chose an old ch-46 over the osprey. They may not carry as much but they will get out of the chocks on time. And that’s coming from a 53 guy.

[chuckman]

I would bet the unit available just happened to use Ch-47’s. Without going down the rabbit hole outside of the range capabilities the osprey is not well suited to NEO evacuations, quite honestly I’d chose an old ch-46 over the osprey. They may not carry as much but they will get out of the chocks on time. And that’s coming from a 53 guy.

I miss the Phrog. You can have the Osprey.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I was just looking at the info on the 47 series. Interesting comments about the two rotors allowing a fairly wide range of CG because the two rotor disks can be balanced- some for the ‘half-on-the-mountain’ landings- but is the amount of lift from each rotor disk discretely controlllable, or is it just acting like a unified single rotor disk? Does the cyclical have a ‘split’ function?

[Lawnchair 04]

They do allow a wide range for CG balance just because you essential have two main rotor points, versus say a 53 which only has the main rotor that the CG is based around. There’s no way to independently control the rotors on the ch-47 they are connect by a sync shaft running down the center of the cabin overhead. They have always been inherently more controllable and agile than the standard main rotor/tail rotor style of helo. Cool fact when they take off they will nose right or left to essentially split the main rotors so they can grab more air versus being inline with each other.

[Rifleman_04]

When I was in Iraq we were ferried around quite a bit by ospreys and 53’s. Seemed the Marine pilots always needed a LOT of room to take off and land the ospreys. We never did a complete vertical take off or landing that I can remember. And the 53’s just seemed massive even in the wide open Syrian Desert.

A few years ago when I was in Africa in the same region being discussed now the army crews flying us around in 47’s could pretty much insert us anywhere they had a landing area just slightly bigger than the footprint of the 47. It was pretty impressive.

[C-grunt]

The 47 has a pretty decent range. If I remember correctly it was over 300 miles.

[sinister]

Osprey = 24 troop seats.

Leg Army CH-47F = 44 troop seats. MH-47 has fewer seats if internal fuel bladder installed.

RAF Chinook "Bravo November" transited 88 war-loaded paratroops seated on the floor in the Falklands.

If carrying SF shooters, they'll probably want to fly out when the helo leaves as well. It's always a long way/fight out of a contested NEO evacuation if you have to walk.

[Lawnchair 04]

Didn’t the California national guard pack in almost 50 people (in a 47) during one of the wild fire rescues in recent history? I’m sure their situation dictated that was necessary, under normal circumstances we are limited to as many packs as there are seats available. Not sure if the 47 has center line seating capabilities or not. The 53 does which bumps us from 30 to 55 but I can tell you we never used them. Much easier to get a commander to sign off on a seats out waiver and have packs ride on the floor.

[sinister]

I don't remember how many floor-seated pax we had in an MH-53 -- but a lot, with a moonless night goggles over-the-ocean tanking.

[ZGXtreme]

Didn’t the California national guard pack in almost 50 people (in a 47) during one of the wild fire rescues in recent history? I’m sure their situation dictated that was necessary, under normal circumstances we are limited to as many packs as there are seats available. Not sure if the 47 has center line seating capabilities or not. The 53 does which bumps us from 30 to 55 but I can tell you we never used them. Much easier to get a commander to sign off on a seats out waiver and have packs ride on the floor.

My buddy created the Hangar Z Podcast and in Episode 5 titled “Flying Through Fire and the Distinguished Flying Cross” he had the pilot; CWO 5 Rosamond, on to discuss that mission.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/1vRXr4J9Zh9vhWci3rChaA?si=wx5u3mM9Qi6TkSZMEfx6PA&dd=1

[Lawnchair 04]

I don't remember how many floor-seated pax we had in an MH-53 -- but a lot, with a moonless night goggles over-the-ocean tanking.

Nice low light haar over water is a great time :cool: I’m sure the crew was so excited lol.

[chuckman]

I don't remember how many floor-seated pax we had in an MH-53 -- but a lot, with a moonless night goggles over-the-ocean tanking.

I hated being in the back for refueling. You feel it, even if you never see it. Especially at night.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

So where does the Osprey excel? It letting our Amphib ships operate further out to sea?

[Lawnchair 04]

So where does the Osprey excel? It letting our Amphib ships operate further out to sea?
Honestly not in my experience, on my last boat ride we were not able to launch with packs in the back unless we were within 20 NM of land, granted that was directed by the MEU CO but hey what’s the point of having something capable if people won’t let you use the capabilities? In my eyes and I’m a jaded 53 guy I see the osprey as a perpetual money pit that we keeping pouring our budget into. They can’t move 24 combat loaded troops either, so if it does excel at something I am unaware of it.

[Hank6046]

So where does the Osprey excel? It letting our Amphib ships operate further out to sea?

Speed in the air. The Osprey is much faster to get in and out and that is important against manpads and ground fire, I was raised on the CH-53E but even in 2010 it was made clear that the Osprey was the future, and the reason that the Marine Corps and soon the Army (supposedly, article linked below) will go to the VSTOL type platform.

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2022/12/05/us-army-makes-largest-helicopter-award-in-40-years/

[chuckman]

Honestly not in my experience, on my last boat ride we were not able to launch with packs in the back unless we were within 20 NM of land, granted that was directed by the MEU CO but hey what’s the point of having something capable if people won’t let you use the capabilities? In my eyes and I’m a jaded 53 guy I see the osprey as a perpetual money pit that we keeping pouring our budget into. They can’t move 24 combat loaded troops either, so if it does excel at something I am unaware of it.

It IS a money pit. The -46 was going to go regardless, but I am not sure anyone is convinced the Osprey was the best answer.


Speed in the air. The Osprey is much faster to get in and out and that is important against manpads and ground fire, I was raised on the CH-53E but even in 2010 it was made clear that the Osprey was the future, and the reason that the Marine Corps and soon the Army (supposedly, article linked below) will go to the VSTOL type platform.

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2022/12/05/us-army-makes-largest-helicopter-award-in-40-years/

Being the AC of the future did not pan out so well. Yeah, they are using them, but they are already looking at its' replacement. It cannot replace the -53 and it is limited in its' role.

[Hank6046]

It IS a money pit. The -46 was going to go regardless, but I am not sure anyone is convinced the Osprey was the best answer.

I was on the last West PAC MEU with the CH46s and they were just old Airframes, some around since the last days of Vietnam in '75 and while the Osprey might not have been the answer, I do agree that the goal of getting guys into a LZ as quick as possible (around 300mph or 460 km/h) with a 1000 mile range vs the (160mph or 260 km/h) of the CH46 and only a 260 mile range, and the Osprey can do that speed fairly smoothly, where that's probably a very lightly loaded CH46. Now, I've had a friend of mine almost die on one while trying to land on the USS Green Bay, so I'm not the biggest fan of the actual aircraft but the capability is undeniable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGVpFmOShAg


Being the AC of the future did not pan out so well. Yeah, they are using them, but they are already looking at its' replacement. It cannot replace the -53 and it is limited in its' role.

It is limited in its role, but it will never be the CH53 replacement, nor the CH47, those are Heavy lift and high altitude choppers, and a V-22 Osprey is not designed to take that role, and the biggest failure of VTOL is its ability to carry, verse the even the Blackhawk. That is the current gap (per my very limited contact with my old buddies who have moved on Boeing and Sikorsky) where the Army and Marines while need the CH53K and the CH47F to grow in numbers.

[Lawnchair 04]

I was on the last West PAC MEU with the CH46s and they were just old Airframes, some around since the last days of Vietnam in '75 and while the Osprey might not have been the answer, I do agree that the goal of getting guys into a LZ as quick as possible (around 300mph or 460 km/h) with a 1000 mile range vs the (160mph or 260 km/h) of the CH46 and only a 260 mile range, and the Osprey can do that speed fairly smoothly, where that's probably a very lightly loaded CH46. Now, I've had a friend of mine almost die on one while trying to land on the USS Green Bay, so I'm not the biggest fan of the actual aircraft but the capability is undeniable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGVpFmOShAg



It is limited in its role, but it will never be the CH53 replacement, nor the CH47, those are Heavy lift and high altitude choppers, and a V-22 Osprey is not designed to take that role, and the biggest failure of VTOL is its ability to carry, verse the even the Blackhawk. That is the current gap (per my very limited contact with my old buddies who have moved on Boeing and Sikorsky) where the Army and Marines while need the CH53K and the CH47F to grow in numbers.

Small world on my MEU in 2022 one of the logistics guys with us was in the back of that 22 when it crashed on the Green Bay. He wasn’t a big fan of flying but at least we had 53’s. I will say this for all its faults the 46 was fast in and out of hot LZ’s. Those pilots could land them anywhere and land them fast. Watching the v22 come in for a landing is painstakingly slow. Long enough to make you question their vulnerability from ground fire.

[sinister]

The Osprey is also f@rking loud.

Those visiting Kirtland were so loud on crosswind landing leg they set off car alarms in the parking lot. Stealthy they aren't.

[ZGXtreme]

Small world on my MEU in 2022 one of the logistics guys with us was in the back of that 22 when it crashed on the Green Bay. He wasn’t a big fan of flying but at least we had 53’s. I will say this for all its faults the 46 was fast in and out of hot LZ’s. Those pilots could land them anywhere and land them fast. Watching the v22 come in for a landing is painstakingly slow. Long enough to make you question their vulnerability from ground fire.

I wish I had video of the Phrogs coming in and out of the palace we’d seized in Baghdad. Those guys were making those things look like aerobatic aircraft the way they were getting in and out under fire.

[Sam]

The Osprey is also f@rking loud.

Those visiting Kirtland were so loud on crosswind landing leg they set off car alarms in the parking lot. Stealthy they aren't.

They are LOUD. We spend a week a year in Ft. Walton Beach, just down the road from Eglin AFB and Hurlburt Field. Those Ospreys would cruise up and down the beach and they have a unique and very loud noise.

[Pacific5th]

I wish I had video of the Phrogs coming in and out of the palace we’d seized in Baghdad. Those guys were making those things look like aerobatic aircraft the way they were getting in and out under fire.

When I did the Trap team training we flew in 46’s and 53’s. The 46’s were cool but man could those pilots fly those 53’s like a sports cars. They threw them around the hills around Pendleton like they were sports cars. And the way the Inserted us in the LZ’s was impressive. This was 04/05 so no Ospreys yet in the fleet.

[chuckman]

We did some training on the Osprey. Very loud, extremely harsh prop/rotor wash, and if you fast rope, the anchor is uncomfortably placed just almost at arm's length off the back. I always felt like I was going to miss the rope. My air force PJ buddies do not like it, and they have a lot more experience in them than I do/did. They are also all over eastern NC; definitely hear them before you see them.

I like the -53s fine. They are big, but they are fast, and mush more nimble than they appear. I have not seen the -53K in person yet, but I look forward to it.

The -46s, though. I love those. After AD when I was a reservist I did some ATs with Pedro (VMR-1) out of Cherry Point doing SAR. I enjoyed that far more than my time in recon tooling around in them.

[Hank6046]

When I did the Trap team training we flew in 46’s and 53’s. The 46’s were cool but man could those pilots fly those 53’s like a sports cars. They threw them around the hills around Pendleton like they were sports cars. And the way the Inserted us in the LZ’s was impressive. This was 04/05 so no Ospreys yet in the fleet.

I was in a 53E squadron, and the 53's were always underrated. The whole Echo was designed from the ground up around improving on the D with the lessons learned from the botched Iranian hostage rescue. I remember staring out the window in AO training with 2 Cobra's attached to each aircraft as we came out of 29 Stumps for Desert Talon (6 53's in all) and it felt like the opening scene from Modern Warfare, just so much power and death cruising over the desert.

[TehLlama]

When I was in Iraq we were ferried around quite a bit by ospreys and 53’s. Seemed the Marine pilots always needed a LOT of room to take off and land the ospreys. We never did a complete vertical take off or landing that I can remember. And the 53’s just seemed massive even in the wide open Syrian Desert.

A few years ago when I was in Africa in the same region being discussed now the army crews flying us around in 47’s could pretty much insert us anywhere they had a landing area just slightly bigger than the footprint of the 47. It was pretty impressive.

I got to witness (from underneath) one of those rare vertical takeoffs from a V-22. It's impressive, but not exactly for the most brilliant of reasons, and honestly that was kinda instructive on why the CH47 is frankly a better tool for this type of job - it's just not carrying as much extra bulk that isn't cargo carriage, and that's why the range is remotely comparable despite not having an efficient mode to cruise at distance with.

Compared against the 35's, I'm glad that was the taxi of choice anytime I had to get carted around with gear... just better. for those applications, especially when brownout is more of a time-driven inevitability.

[Slater]

The USAF originally selected the Chinook for it's combat rescue helicopter, way back in the 90's (?). But they were told "That big, noisy beast? Try again."

[chuckman]

The USAF originally selected the Chinook for it's combat rescue helicopter, way back in the 90's (?). But they were told "That big, noisy beast? Try again."

AFSOF was told it was getting the V-22, they sure didn't ask for it. Their aircraft definitely needed upgrading, but I know PJs don't care for the osprey.