I was a fighter pilot in Korea and Vietnam. I knew that if I got shot down, a helicopter rescue force, which always was on standby, would operate to the limits of their capability to get me out. Consider today. If our pilots running bombing missions had been shot down over Afghanistan—a country roughly the size of Texas—would they have had the same likelihood of recovery? Present-day requirements have surpassed current vertical-lift capabilities. We must give our forces the equipment that will sustain their confidence in realistic support.
That equipment is wing-borne vertical lift: the V-22 Osprey. It long has been seen as something the Marines need. But the need got bigger and became more urgent after 11 September.
Current Vertical Lift Hit the Wall
We have placed a huge value on vertical lift, aircraft that can take off and land without a runway. When they first were integrated into the operating forces in 1950, they just were used to do medevac and reconnaissance. Since then they have come to be the enablers for a wide variety of missions—some 16 missions—ranging from combat assault to special operations.
Now, 50 years later, this vertical-lift technology is up against the laws of physics. Marines realized that as weapons' ranges increased amphibious warfare ships had to stand off farther from coastlines. From greater distances, their vertical lift could not build up forces ashore fast enough. We also saw the impact of increased distances in past rescues. In the 1980 hostage rescue attempt in Iran, vertical lift required a complex ground refueling scheme that ended in disaster. In the 1990 rescue of U.S. citizens in Somalia, ships launched helicopters 460 miles from shore, and they arrived just as the enemy forces were coming over our embassy's walls.
Wing-borne Vertical-Lift Capability Is Needed
To get the extended range, speed, and lift capacity that war fighters require demands new vertical-lift capability—i.e., wing-borne vertical lift. That is a plane that can take off and land vertically. Wing-borne vertical lift is possible with tilt-rotor technology, essentially rotors that tilt on fixed wings. When they tilt upward, the aircraft can vertically take off and land. When they tilt forward, it generally can fly at the same altitudes, speeds, ranges, and carrying capacity as some turboprop, commercial airliners.
Today, this technology is proven by the V-22 Osprey. After two V-22s crashed in 2000, some rushed to condemn the technology, but a blue ribbon panel of aviation experts reached a different conclusion: "It appears that there is no basic inherent flaw in the tilt rotor approach." Equally important, it found that tilt-rotor aircraft had "accumulated approximately 6,000 total flying hours," an essential element of proof that the technology is sound.
Some question whether this technology can be developed into a reliable, safe, and operational aircraft, particularly after a "vortex ring state" was identified as a causal factor in a V-22 crash. That concern was addressed by NASA's Ames Research Center in its recent report: "The principal conclusion of the Panel is that there are no known aeromechanics phenomena that would stop the safe and orderly development and deployment of the V-22." It also recommended resuming flight tests as soon as possible.
The biggest issue with tilt-rotor technology is that it is a new capability. It is different from anything we know. For some, that is the problem with the V-22. Many see it as a helicopter. Others see it as a fixed-wing aircraft. However, "it should be regarded as a new machine, not just an extension of one or the other," states aviation expert Dr. E. E. Covert of MIT. Our challenge is learning how to exploit it. Such a wing-borne vertical-lift aircraft promises new tactical concepts in which we can go faster, farther, higher, and carry more, relative to current capabilities.
The need for the V-22 is long-standing. The Marines began pursuing it in 1981. They saw it as a replacement for their medium vertical-lift helicopters, which today average 32 years in age. With such wing-borne vertical lift, they also could build up forces ashore more rapidly from greater distances at sea. A 1987 study by BDM International found that in ship-to-shore assault scenarios at ranges out to 370 nautical miles, the V-22 could build up forces twice as fast, using only about two-thirds of the aircraft that would be required using today's equipment.
U.S. special forces also need the V-22. "Special Operations Forces' existing helicopter fleet is among the most technologically advanced in the world, but lacks the speed and unrefueled range necessary to conduct sensitive missions deep in enemy territory within a period of darkness," states Air Force General Charles R. Holland, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Special Operations Command. The V-22 has the speed and the range. General Holland has testified: "The CV-22 is a capability we need to stay on the leading edge of change."
There are no alternatives. The blue ribbon panel on the V-22 stated that the aircraft is "the only alternative that is capable of performing all of the stated missions of both the Marine Corps and the Special Operations Command." It further said that "any new aircraft of comparable performance would likely cost more." This is not just one finding. Over the past 20 years, 18 studies have said the same thing—the latest being done by the Center for Naval Analyses this past November.
11 September Attacks Raise the Stakes
Today, the United States is in a high-stakes war on terrorism. Afghanistan is only the beginning. The al Qaeda network operates in nearly 60 countries. So far, the United States has fought sequentially, rather than in multiple states simultaneously, but this network may pose gambits that force the United States to intervene in several countries, causing it to overcommit forces and inciting Muslim populations against them. This is not a war in which overwhelming force is a primary factor. Speed, flexibility, and agility are essential.
The V-22 can get into theater fast and with few strategic-lift assets. That is pointed out by special operations pilot Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jeff White: "We have to box up our helicopters and take them there. The Osprey is leaner. We could respond much quicker." As implied, the V-22 does not have to be boxed and loaded on strategic airlift. It can self-deploy with aerial refueling worldwide. For example, a V-22 squadron could deploy to Uzbekistan in about four days, with a C-17 carrying the support/maintenance equipment and a Civil Reserve Airlift Fleet aircraft carrying the personnel. That is a fraction of what it takes to move today's vertical-lift force.
The V-22 does not require the expenditure of political capital to gain basing or overflight rights. Today's vertical-lift assets have short ranges and most cannot refuel in air. They need ground refueling bases to go long distances. That was the case with vertical-lift assets on the carrier USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) in Operation Enduring Freedom. They were 300-400 nautical miles from Afghanistan and needed bases in Pakistan.8 Those negotiations caused public discord in an already politically fragile country, and that could occur in other countries, playing to al Qaeda's strategic and tactical advantage.
By contrast, the V-22 can operate from Navy ships that can go almost anywhere, creating bases where they are needed. The V-22 also can operate from nearby countries that are receptive to the establishment of U.S. bases. Yet, because of its long ranges and aerial refueling capability, the V-22 can fly over or around politically sensitive countries and still reach its objective.
The V-22 also can go where most vertical lift cannot. For example, Afghanistan has mountains that are higher than the capability of today's vertical lift. This may require traditional vertical-lift assets to take a less direct route to an objective, requiring even more time and fuel. The V-22, however, can operate at higher altitudes and in more adverse weather.
A big reason for the V-22 is that it can strike fast and deep. For special operations in particular, the goal is to execute raids and other missions within one period of darkness, which is difficult to do when long distances are involved. The few existing vertical-lift assets that can refuel in air are relatively slow, limiting how far they can go in one period of darkness.
The raid on Kandahar is illustrative. According to Time magazine's account, on 18 October 2001, vertical lift moved troops from the Kitty Hawk to Dalbandin, Pakistan, a distance of about 300 miles. Two days later, early on 20 October, the helicopter-borne raid then launched from Dalbandin to Kandahar, which was another 200 miles.
Factor the V-22 into this problem, with its superior cruise speed of 250 knots; tactical range of more than 1,100 nautical miles; and aerial-refueling capability. Using V-22s, the same raid force could have launched from amphibious assault ships, such as the USS Bataan (LHD-5) and USS Peleliu (LHA-5), conducted a mission at Kandahar, and returned within about six hours. Obviously, all this could have occurred within one period of darkness, but it also would have enhanced operational security.
The V-22 also can respond rapidly to the unplanned. Ask pilots what aircraft they want to rescue them if they are downed and they will say, the fastest one. That aircraft is the V-22. Consider the execution of the guerrilla Afghan leader Abdul Haq. An armed unmanned aerial vehicle was sent to aid his flight from the Taliban. "The assistance unfortunately was from the air, and he was on the ground," stated Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The V-22 could have responded quickly and bridged this gap.
In addition, our forces may need to act on the "sum of all fears." On short notice, they may have to seize weapons of mass destruction that may be in the hands of a destabilizing government, the al Qaeda, or another adversary. In such situations, our forces likely will need wing-borne vertical lift that can go fast, far, and operate without ground-- refueling infrastructure. That is best done by the V-22. V-22 Is Worth the Investment
The biggest reason why our armed forces need the V22 is survivability. That should be apparent after two downed Black Hawks in Somalia left U.S. Rangers exposed to bloody ambushes and ultimately changed our foreign policy in the region. Now and in the future our forces face a variety of air defense systems, to include several types of shoulder-launched antiaircraft missiles, as well as 12.7-mm, 14.4-mm, and 23-mm antiaircraft guns.
The V-22 is the most survivable vertical lift. It can fly higher than many air defenses can reach. It also is fast, and relative to today's medium vertical-lift assets, is 75% quieter and has 95% less infrared signature. These characteristics can reduce an adversary's reaction time by 90%. As V-22 instructor Major Paul Rock stated, "I don't have to worry about his shoulder-fired missile because by the time he knows I'm there, I'm out of range."
Other features enhance the V-22's survivability. It is hardened to withstand impact from antiaircraft rounds up to 23 mm, and that has been demonstrated in live-fire tests. In addition, a concerted effort has been made to reduce the vulnerability of key components to ground fire.
This improved survivability, alone, is worth the cost. Survivability reportedly is one of the selling points for the F-22, and it carries only one individual. The V-22 carries three crew members and up to 24 combat-loaded warriors and it costs considerably less than the F-22. By comparison, the V-22 is a bargain.
The V-22 defines transformation. It is an airplane that can take off vertically, continue on wing-borne flight, and revert to vertical landing, when needed. Just as the V-22 offers greater effectiveness, it also promises greater efficiencies. It can replace two to five different aircraft and all their varying support requirements.
It is time to give our forces the V-22 so they can go faster, farther, higher, and carry more into combat.
Lieutenant General Smith was Deputy Chief of Staff for Aviation, Headquarters Marine corps, prior to his retirement in 1988.