Perhaps you didn't get the memo but one of its secret attributes is it has a stealth capability (which would be the ONLY reason on earth for keeping this POS around)!
Note that the photo in post 480 is a CH-53D from the 60's era, not one of the brand new CH-53E's from the 80's. The big differences are one engine, one rotor blade and a whole lot of payload up hot and high.
The payload of the phrog in that country is often nonexistent. It's often noted that in the Marine Corps the V-22 is primarily replacing the H-46, not the H-53. For Afghanistan it doesn't have to do much to be a great replacement.
Having flown with a number of units from both Kabul and KAF I think you will find that no matter what the helo is, it is going to struggle there. Only one that it didnt bother - from what I saw - was the Chinook.
Would be nice to see some V22s operating over there on direct action stuff. Who knows the USAF might even have some there already working with the Special Ops guys at night
I for one think its a great aircraft/helo/hydbrid but thats just my opinion and besides all the guys on the front lines flying with them, well they just have to work with what they got.
The vaunted Osprey is intended to replace the CH-46's and CH-53A/D's but not the CH-53E soon to be CH-53K's.
A quick google search will find numerous official sources for that statement.
Some other thoughts....
I wonder if the 53D in the photograph is one of the aircraft moblilized from Davis-Monthan AFB and restored to service for service in Afghanistan. Funny how with all the 22's the Marines have to dip into the mothballed aircraft stashed in the desert.
Again, anyway you look at it.....there is real evidence that refutes the propaganda being put forth by the Marine Corps about their Osprey program.
If we divide the total number built by sixteen or whatever the number each squadron is assigned....we come up with a heck of a lot of squadrons but as I understand it the manning right now is only four squadrons....three operational and one soon to be.
The numbers just don't add up....either in aircraft or performance....or in past deployments.
The company I fly for just picked up a Beechcraft King Air 200 in addition to our 206B, and I am now (presto!) a combination helicopter/fixed-wing pilot. Flying this new aircraft is as interesting as it is instructive. For instance, on short hops when we have to stay down below 10,000 feet, our true airspeed and fuel burn are truly horrible. To get maximum efficiency out of the King Air, we have to take it up high - into the 20's. We typically cruise it at 25,000 feet or above. Of course, we're pressurized so this is no problemo.
And it got me to wondering about the magical V-22. Everybody keeps talking about the wonderful capabilities...how it's "this times" faster than a helicopter, or carries "this much" more than a helicopter, and has "this much" more range.
Oh really?
Well, what altitudes are these comparisons done at? How does a V-22 carry 24 Marines on a long, fast flight? Can it even do that? V-22 proponents say that it'll carry this much "load" over a given distance. But what if that "load" is soldiers? Will they have to wear oxygen masks and cold-weather gear if their destination is ultimately a hot desert? What are we, back in WWII B-17's?
I guess what I'm getting at is this: What is the real world performance of the V-22? What if it has to stay below 10,000 feet due to passenger considerations? How fast it is below 10,000? What is the fuel burn below 10,000 feet? How far can it go at that speed and fuel burn?
We often get bamboozled by the manufacturer's hype. Figures lie and liars figure. Yes, I'm sure the V-22 has amazing capabilities...that it can fly very high and very fast and very far. But can it do all of that together with two dozen living, breathing human beings onboard?
To wit: On this much-ballyhooed recent 147-mile medevac flight from the Bataan, what altitude did they fly at and at what airspeed? And the big question - just how much "better than a helicopter" was that?
Aviation Week & Space Technology leaps to an interesting conclusion from last week's USS Battan medevac mission:
"This was the first time the aircraft had been used to conduct such a mission from the sea, and it demonstrated the tiltrotor would be suitable for use as a combat search-and-rescue platform."
Who knew the CSAR mission was so simple? And to think people have been getting worked-up over steep-descent VRS, suppressive fire and OEI performance...
How does landing on a LHD flight deck.....then flying ashore to an airfield connote anything remotely comparable to flying a CSAR mission into hostile territory...doing a winch pickup...then exfil'ing to a safe location?
Exerpt from article below: ...."the bigger story is the 40 missing MV-22s, which some Generals insist do not exist, despite the facts found in Congressional budget documents that were recently compiled by the Congressional Research Service. Timid reporters may want to write about "allegations" of missing MV-22s, but this is a fact -- 40 MV-22s are missing!"
Hmm, something's fishy. Why is it that the Marines cannot say with accuracy how many V-22's they have? Why are they evasive on this? Why did Lt. Gen. Trautman say in his prepared statement that the Marines have only taken delivery of 91 V-22's? A full year ago he was at a ceremony for the delivery of the 100th V-22. Say what?
We're not talking about thousands of Hueys distributed around the world. We're talking about a 114 or so aircraft, all of which right now are in the U.S.! (Although to be fair, some of them are on the USS Bataan and so are not physically on U.S. soil.)
Okay, very simply: How many V-22's do the Marines have? How many of them are still flyable?
This part is really disturbing. On one random day, the Marines reported on the readiness of their V-22 fleet.
"Of the 47 combat deployable, only 22 were mission capable on June 3, 2009."
So...the Marines have taken delivery of around 114 Ospreys. Yet only 47 are "combat deployable." And of them, only 22 were actually mission capable. (And just what exactly is "combat deployable" anyway? What do they have to do to an Osprey to make it ready for combat?)
Something is going on that we're not being told.
Okay, here comes the opinion part...
My suspicion is that it's the actual aircraft structure itself - all that weight out on the end of those wings. I'll bet that it's causing unrepairable problems with the spar as it interacts with that composite fuselage. I believe that the Marines have found a serious structural weakness and that the V-22's are not lasting nearly as long as anticipated. My suspicion is that there are big structural problems with the V-22 that are being covered up because, perhaps, they know that if this information becomes public it will kill the program.
But think about it: 47 airworthy aircraft out of 114 delivered. Less than half. And NONE of them have been shot down. What are we missing here?
The inventory list of Osprey's is "classified" and cannot be released to Congress. Make's one wonder about the power of Congress then in my view.
I know for a fact....straight from a USMC Maintenance Officer who is tasked with the reporting.....every day....365 days a year....each aircraft's status is reported to USMCHQ.
They know exactly how many they have, where they are located, and exactly what status they are in.....every day!
When I was a NCIS Special Agent.....we investigated stolen/missing Angle Grinders.....so I know a missing MV-22 would qualify for an investigation.
Where's Mark Harmon on this the world wonders?
Heck, the Navy Audit Service has the ability to do an inventory and readiness audit if requested by the appropriate authority.
By the way....."Mission Capable" in Marine jargon means "being able to carry out at least one (operative word...."ONE") of the aircraft's assigned missions.
That means it can get off the ground under its own power, even if only to fly a circuit for "training" so the pilots can earn their monthly flight pay.
By Colin Clark Wednesday, June 24th, 2009 5:13 pm
Posted in Air, Naval, Policy
A retired Marine who also happens to be one of the most powerful defense lawmakers, Rep. Jack Murtha, has begun raising questions about the future of the Osprey MV-22 The chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee told our own Christian Lowe this morning that he plans to go down to Camp Lejeune in the next few weeks to do a reality check. “That’s where I’m going to find out what the hell is happening,” the ever-blunt Murtha said.
“The military tends to give you nothing but optimistic portrayals,” he added. “They have been telling me the V-22 was doing fine.” Well, not so much, as was made clear at yesterday’s hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The Osprey does face “severe maintenance problems,” Murtha said, adding that they are to be expected in the early stages of an aircraft’s deployment.
While he said “it’s just too early to know” just what to do about the aircraft, Murtha also made pretty clear that he does not think it necessary to shut down production of the MV-22, as his colleague, Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said yesterday. “At this point we are committed and we have to go forward with the V-22,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Marines began their counterattack designed to rescue the hostage MV-22. I spoke for about an hour this afternoon with Lt. Col. Rob Freeland, an Osprey pilot with about 1,000 hours on the plane.
He made it very clear that the Marines are doing everything they can to bring down maintenance costs. The GAO report presented at yesterday’s hearing claimed the current cost per flight hour of the “MV-22 today is over $11,000—more than double the target estimate and 140 percent higher than the cost for the CH-46E.” Freeland said the flying hour cost for the B model — the plane that is flying in combat — is closer to $9,700 and will come down over the next two to four years as the Marines implement a range of engineering change orders and craft a maintenance contract.
Among the engineering changes the Marines have recently made to save money, Freeland listed infrared suppressor panels. “We used to replace those at $110,000 a piece. That’s because we didn’t expect them to break,” he said. Now the service is repairing them for $10,000 per unit. In addition, they have developed $10,000 repair procedures for flaperons that they used to replace $280,000 a pop. And Coanda valves will be repaired for $5,000 instead of replacing them for $27,000.
“We know we are on a path that will get us there,” to lower maintenance costs, he said. The performance based maintenance contract currently being negotiated will lead to the longest lasting and most substantial savings over time, he predicted. Due to be signed in 2010, that contract should start showing substantial savings after three years.
There was one other major issue that has dogged the Marines before and during yesterday’s hearing — just how many Ospreys actually fly. Here’s the service’s breakdown. Of the 94 aircraft looked at on 3 June by the committee, 48 are Block B, 29 are Block A, and 17 are pre-Block A.
There are 48 Block B aircraft — 47 on June 3. Those are the planes flying day to day.
Of the 17 pre-Block A, one is a developmental test plane, two were destroyed in the 2000 crashes, six have been turned into trainers, one was sent to the Air Force, two are being modified to a Block B configuration, and five are in storage. Those storage aircraft are pre-Block A aircraft. The Marines say they were going to be modified to Block B, but decided against that because the costs were just too high. They will probably be turned into trainers.
Of the 29 Block A’s, nine are being modified to the Block B variant.
Folks who believe there is a Hangar of Shame with dozens of planes in it will be disappointed to learn that, according to Freeland, those five aircraft are the only ones in some sort of storage. Occasionally, a single part does get cannibalized from them but they are by no means being stripped for parts to keep the fleet flying, he said.
Now we wait for Murtha’s visit.
Occasionally, a single part does get cannibalized from them but they are by no means being stripped for parts to keep the fleet flying, he said.
First off.....who can believe anything that spineless, corrupt, two faced lying weasel Murtha says?
Also....anyone with more than a few days in aviation know very well about "Hangar Queens" that slowly begin to look like the picked carcass of a dead critter if left in a U/S condition in the hangar for anytime at all.
I'll bet some Marines are looking under rugs for U/S bits to put back on some Osprey's as we speak....so the machines look in good condition.
I know....we played that game in the Army with Chinooks too!
For you folks that know not of Murtha (the only EX-MARINE I know of....)read up on Charlie Wilson, Abscam, the deal Tip O'Neill made with Wilson to protect Murtha,Haditha and the Marines acquitted of all charges despite Murtha proclaiming them guilty as sin (before the investigation even began) before giving that fat assed windbag any credence at all.
“At this point we are committed and we have to go forward with the V-22,” he said.
When you start an investigation with an assumption, why even bother asking any questions?
Quote:
There was one other major issue that has dogged the Marines before and during yesterday’s hearing — just how many Ospreys actually fly. Here’s the service’s breakdown. Of the 94 aircraft looked at on 3 June by the committee, 48 are Block B, 29 are Block A, and 17 are pre-Block A.
There are 48 Block B aircraft — 47 on June 3. Those are the planes flying day to day.
Of the 17 pre-Block A, one is a developmental test plane, two were destroyed in the 2000 crashes, six have been turned into trainers, one was sent to the Air Force, two are being modified to a Block B configuration, and five are in storage. Those storage aircraft are pre-Block A aircraft. The Marines say they were going to be modified to Block B, but decided against that because the costs were just too high. They will probably be turned into trainers.
Of the 29 Block A’s, nine are being modified to the Block B variant.
Folks who believe there is a Hangar of Shame with dozens of planes in it will be disappointed to learn that, according to Freeland, those five aircraft are the only ones in some sort of storage.
I guess reporter Colin Clark just took Lt. Col. Freeland at his word and never bothered to check or ask for verification of that. Good reporter! With instincts like that, he should receive some sort of "Woodward and Bernstein" award.
Last month on 23June, Lt. Gen. Trautman said that the USMC had taken delivery of only 91 Ospreys. But even before that the Marines were saying 94. According to a GAO memo dated 19June, the committee seems to think the number is 105. Budgetary allocations say that the Marines should have around 114 by now. Why the discrepancy? Why can't we get accurate numbers on this aircraft?
Again, very simply: HOW MANY OSPREYS HAVE THE U.S. MARINES TAKEN DELIVERY OF?
For many years, as a FW/RW pilot I wanted to fly tilt-rotor; I believed the hype. Back then the argument was who would be best able to fly it - a fixed wing pilot, or a helicopter pilot.
Reality kicked in when I saw that the whole design concept is flawed, too complicated and too expensive. The only advantage is it's higher cruise speed, it loses out everywhere else to helicopters, both in cost and in performance.
Despite some at the top of the tree having made a career out of the concept, and being duty bound to show that it can work, it's broken.
They tried to build a Ferrari to do the work of a LandRover.
I'd like to have BOTH a Ferrari and a LandRover in my garage if I could afford them. I would choose which one to use each day based on whether I was taking a long highway trip (without speed limits), or doing a desert safari, or something in between.
The US military/US taxpayer has a lot more money than I do, and they have much more important missions to persue. For military missions there are times when a Ferrari equivalent is needed, and there are more times when a LandRover equivalent is needed. I hope they create the correct ratio mix, and I would encourage oversight from Congress and others to make sure that they make the right decisions so that commanders in the field can call on the right aircraft for the required mission.
Last edited by 21stCentury : 30th July 2009 at 21:25.
but thats just my opinion and besides all the guys on the front lines flying with them, well they just have to work with what they got. 
Linear Mode
