1. Ken Moritz and Bo Goode NAVAIR PMA-275 18 January 2004 V-22 International NAVY-INDUSTRY INTERNATIONAL DIALOG

2. Slide 2 The V-22 and the War on Terrorism

3. Slide 3 Forces - Afghanistan [Prevent] (without V-22) KC-135 C-17 (2) KC-135 C-5 (3) KC-135 2/75 th Rangers (100) DOE Tech (10) 5 th SFG (12) AC-130 (3) Physical security risk:= high= moderate= low OPSEC considerations:= moderate profile= high profile 3 C-5s, helicopter teardown at Taegu 19 aircraft through Kadena B-1 (3) MH-53M (4) MH-47E (4) MC-130H (3) MC-130E (5) Complex; Multiple Failure Nodes

4. Slide 4 KC-135 2/75 th Rangers (100) DOE Tech (10) 5 th SFG (12) CV-22 (7) Physical security risk:= high= moderate= low OPSEC considerations:= moderate profile= high profile Forces - Afghanistan [Prevent] (with V-22) KC-135 C-17 (2) B-1 (3) AC-130 (3) KC-135 MC-130H (3) Simpler and More Likely to Succeed

5. Scenario Prevent 1 Support Costs Afghanistan $388,035 $2,307,342 $1,852,165 $6,846,330 $2,171,621 $610,801 + += $ 3,083,412 + = $9,017,951 Total Air Costs $2,800,901 $13,167,494 $566,131 $337,935 (Not actual number of tankers)

6. Slide 6 Summary: Key Benefits Identified For Scenarios/Analysis Cases Studied Force Protection Refueling Support Campaign- Level Exposure (Positioning) Exposure (Employment) Operational Flexibility Tanker Availability Refueling Events Responsive- ness Operational Effectiveness Risk (ac and tanker ops)* with V-22 Reduced vulnerability: 50 – 90% less exposure of the force Enhanced OPSEC: smaller footprint, less adversary reaction time Response to unplanned events: 60 – 85% quicker reaction Scheduling flexibility: 3 hours wider window for time-critical ops Versatility: >10x more launch pts; harder for adversary to locate Up to 90% fewer refueling events Utilized available strategic tankers (C-130 tankers were not required) Time-critical strike operations: 1-2 days earlier execution Air-land vs air-drop option to improve recon effectiveness Higher mission success probabilities* (fewer critical nodes) MissionMeasure * Based on probability of aircraft launch, assumed same for all aircraft types Threat-penetrating tankers were not required Force projection: ~ 80% faster closure Geometric increase in target coverage (uncertain target location)

7. V-22 Multi- Mission Applications for the UK Final Report September, 1999

8. Tilt-rotor Characteristics Required Additional Missions The basic V-22 airframe, with the appropriate mission kits or system modifications, is suitable for all of the eight additional missions which were examined, but not modelled.

9. Slide 9 Multi Mission Capability ASW –Large area search –Small area localization Airborne mine countermeasures AEW Search and Rescue –Peacetime and combat –805 nm range (MV/HV mission) Command & Control NATO Reaction Force In Flight Refueling (tanker) –At 600 nm radius, give away 2,500 lbs –At 200 nm radius, give away 16,500 lbs COD/VOD/VERTREP –24 personnel –15,000 lbs cargo –20,000 lbs internal Special Operations –Single aircraft ops –Choice of USMC and SOCOM

10. Slide 10 Public Web Site: http://pma275.navair.navy.mil

11. Slide 11

12. Slide 12 Take-Away Breaking the paradigm “It’s not a typical Helicopter, it’s a Tiltrotor” –Flight characteristics better than a conventional Helo –Significant increase in response time, survivability & maintainability –Unit cost slightly higher than conventional Helo but yields returns in capabilities + support footprint + manpower = lower operational cost Reduce Type Model Series and gain –Multi-mission platform optimizes V-22 saving over life cycle –Mission support structure optimized (manpower, facilities & other platforms) –Interoperability with NATO and coalition partners –Cooperative development program opportunities –Support structure commonality