What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?

[SASless]

Errrrrr....uhhhhhhh......not Hoist certified in 2009?

Now if it cannot perform that mission......am I wrong in thinking that might be the very straw we read about when discussing camel spines?

[Ned-Air2Air]

The hoist on the CV22 is built into the ceiling above the end of the ramp and swings out of the way when not in use.

Ned

[SASless]

Gonna get a bit crowded back on that ramp iddnit....M-2 Browning .50 Cal....a gunner...winch operator...and winchman...a casualty on a stretcher???

Ah...I forget...one swings the only Machine gun aside while doing winching.....in a hostile area with bad guys all around....now that is good thinking!



How does the CH-53E, MH-53 do that job?

Isn't it two door guns (Starboard side gun has to be swung aside)and a ramp gun while winching?

But then I forget.....tactics have changed since Vietnam....they always go where the bad guys aren't now days.

[FH1100 Pilot]

Oh SAS, as big a cynic and skeptic of the V-22 as I am, I do not envision the ship carrying out hoisting operations in hostile areas. I was thinking more along the lines of CSAR. I assumed that the hoist would be positioned at the right-hand forward cabin door, but obviously that is wrong if as Ned sez, it is accessed via the ramp. But...come to think of it, neither *pilot* will be able to see the load/patient. They will have to rely on the crewman for positioning - which I would have to guess isn't all that big a deal. But then, wouldn't the winch operator have to lean out beyond the ramp? How's that work?

Also, having the hoist extend out the ramp would *seem* to be a better place with regard to rotorwash impingement.

But still...

We've all seen videos of dangling stretchers rotating under the hoist for various reasons. And so I wonder how a stretcher would behave under the swirling rotorwash of the twin proprotors?

I suspect that hoisting work is something for which the V-22 is not the optimal platform. I suspect that they are still working out the procedures and details.

[Dan Reno]

Ospreys might have saved these 4 Marines.

'We're pinned down'
4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush
By Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Newspapers
GANJGAL, Afghanistan — We walked into a trap, a killing zone of relentless gunfire and rocket barrages from Afghan insurgents hidden in the mountainsides and in a fortress-like village where women and children were replenishing their ammunition.
"We will do to you what we did to the Russians," the insurgent's leader boasted over the radio, referring to the failure of Soviet troops to capture Ganjgal during the 1979-89 Soviet occupation.
Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away.
U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village.
"We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We've lost today," Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter's repeated demands for helicopters.
Four U.S. Marines were killed Tuesday, the most U.S. service members assigned as trainers to the Afghan National Army to be lost in a single incident since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. Eight Afghan troops and police and the Marine commander's Afghan interpreter also died in the ambush and the subsequent battle that raged from dawn until 2 p.m. around this remote hamlet in eastern Kunar province, close to the Pakistan border
Read more: 'We're pinned down:' 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush | McClatchy

"We're Pinned Down"

If you were in RVN, Army or Marine and you heard "We're Pinned Down"
you knew that rain or shine, night or day 'they were coming' to help. Didn't matter if they were slicks, gun ships or cargo haulers, 'they were coming'.

Fast forward 4 decades with incredible advances in helicopter capabilities and technologies and 4 Marines die because there's no one, no helicopter to answer their call for help.

These 4 dead Marines should have had a better chance at survival had Marine leadership during those 40 years done the right thing. I fear those 4 Marines deaths can be blamed on poor leadership, greed and incompetence. I know about woulda/coulda/shoulda but this is plain wrong! IMO

[zhishengji751]

Originally Posted by Dan Reno

Ospreys might have saved these 4 Marines.

That's a stretch.

I presume they were calling for attack helicopters, not troop lift.

It sounds like the artillery would have been a better first response.

The rules of engagement need revision.

[SASless]

Time for the Lads and Lasses to come home.....this "Don't Shoot Back Saloon" business is only going to get our folks killed, wounded, and maimed.

I don't care who is running the show....if the particpants on one side are restricted from using both hands in the ring....that only makes it into a losing fight. Being fresh back from a visit to the Vietnam Memorial yesterday reminds me of just how costly such a mindset can be!

[Dan Reno]

I agree SASless. If we are to fight another political war like VN and treat the enemy as criminals, we should withdraw and send in the FBI to handle it. Afterall, that's their type of mission. Capture, mirandize and take them to court.

Otherwise, we need to take the gloves off, drop leaflets and then carpet bomb the country from north to south then east to west like we were going to do in VN until the (democrat) politicians took charge of the war from DC. Either let our troops "Kill people and break things" without restrictions or pack their trash and get out. IMO

[Lt.Fubar]

Originally Posted by Ned-Air2Air

The hoist on the CV22 is built into the ceiling above the end of the ramp and swings out of the way when not in use.

Ned

I haven't seen the rescue hoist on the USAF CV-22Bs, are you sure you didn't meant USMC MV-22B ?

[Senior Pilot]

Originally Posted by Svenestron

Off topic now but..

Yes.

Maybe time to get back to the V22 Osprey?

[Dan Reno]

Tilt-rotor helicopter still looking for mission




By Andrew Tilghman - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Sep 20, 2009 9:09:37 EDT

The Navy may replace its aging fleet of C-2 Greyhounds with tilt-rotor V-22 Ospreys, a Navy spokeswoman said.
“The V-22 is being considered as one option for the replacement of the C-2; however, there has been no final determination and, to date, there have been no Navy-specific requirements designed into the V-22,” said Lt. Callie Ferrari, a spokeswoman at the Pentagon.
The Osprey — a revolutionary aircraft that takes off like a helicopter and flies like a fixed-wing plane — has just recently begun to deploy with the Marine Corps, its primary customer.
Last year, the Marines took the MV-22 Osprey to Iraq; this year, the aircraft deployed at sea for the first time on the amphibious assault ship Bataan.
Talk of a Navy variant of the V-22 dates back decades, but it’s always been unclear precisely what, if any, role it might fill.
The original V-22 program that began in the 1980s included three possible applications for a Navy Osprey — combat search and rescue, special warfare and fleet logistics.
Today, the growing fleet of H-60 helicopters handles the bulk of combat-search-and-rescue missions as well as some special warfare support.
Meanwhile, the C-2, known as a carrier on-board delivery plane, or COD — bringing mail, supplies and people to carriers — is nearing its twilight years.
Today’s fleet of 35 CODs dates back to 1984. The aircraft has reached the end of its initial service life, but Navy officials have put them through a service-life extension program, said Marcia Hart-Wise, a spokeswoman for the C-2 program office at Naval Air Systems Command.
The program aimed to stretch their lifespan from 10,000 flight hours to 15,000. So far, 28 of those 35 aircraft have undergone the SLEP.
Navy officials were unable to say how long the C-2 is projected to remain in the fleet, or when its replacement will be needed.
The Navy agreed to buy 48 Ospreys in the aircraft’s “program of record” — a long-term planning agreement between the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force.
But the Navy, unlike the other two services, has never allocated money or carved out a clear mission for the aircraft.
In the past, the Osprey also has been considered a potential anti-submarine platform, or an “SV-22,” and for electronic warfare, or an “EV-22.”
A spokesman for Bell-Boeing’s Osprey program said they have discussed with Navy officials the possibility of providing an Osprey for “fleet logistics.”
Other uses remain conceptual at this point

[stepwilk]

Oh, that's great. A zillion-dollar development program and they're replacing Stoofs. Good lord, you could probably buy up every old Cessna 401, put hooks on 'em and call them CODs.

[Lt.Fubar]

Wasn't Navy interested in what comes of the Lockheed ACCA program ? You know, a JET powered transport plane ?

Replacing a plane with tilt rotor that have less range, speed, OEI performance, cost twice as much, and have common logistics with... nothing else... it's a joke right ? My crystal ball shows an AEW&C variant next...

[SASless]

I bet Shorts could come up with an improved Sky Van that would work a treat!....and you could buy the entire fleet for the price of one Osprey!

[FH1100 Pilot]

The Navy will not buy the V-22 to replace the Grumman C-2. Too expensive. Most likely, a bunch of people in the Pentagon were sitting around, discussing the old C-2s and what should be done with them in the long run. One of the options on the list was, "Replace C-2 with V-22," over which the Admirals and such probably had a good belly-laugh at the stupidity of such a thing. But hey, even the most outlandish suggestions must be considered, even the ones that everyone knows won't work. Then some media boob got ahold of that information and came to the brilliant conclusion that, "THE NAVY IS CONSIDERING REPLACING THE C-2 WITH THE V-22!!! OMG!!!"

Jeez Louise. Not. Gonna. Happen.

Yes, all of the current C-2's were manufactured back in the mid-1980s. This does not mean that they are entering their "twilight years," which is just a silly thing to say. The phrase brings to mind doddering grandfathers who've outlived their usefulness. Which is not the case with the current C-2.

The 35 C-2's in the inventory are undergoing an improvement program that will keep them operational until 2027. Mostly, it's about increasing the number of allowable carrier landings. But then what...after 2027?

Well...I suppose Grumman *could* be enticed into re-opening up the line and building 30 or so more C-2s. They could call them C-2A(R)(R) for "re-reprocured." Or maybe just call it the dang B-model. I mean, if something works well - as the C-2 so obviously does - and nothing is on the drawing board to replace it, then why not stick with the original? What's wrong with that?

The C-2 carries more troops and litters than a V-22. And it does it faster. On less horsepower (fuel consumption).

And it won't melt and buckle the carrier deck when it lands.

Replace the C-2 with the V-22? Suuuuuuuuure.

[Dan Reno]

Windstorm in Frankfort Kentucky

Low-flying military aircraft leave street in disarray

By Paul Glasser
about 3 hours ago

Huevos and Coco, dogs who live at 111 Willow St., bark in their cage after limbs fell on top of their kennel. (State Journal/Hilly Schiffer)

Broken limbs lay on the ground in front of a vacant home at 113 Willow St. after two aircrafts flew nearby Tuesday afternoon. (State Journal/Hilly Schiffer)

Tim Evans picks up lawn furniture and children’s toys that were knocked over in his backyard at 112 Willow St. after two aircrafts flew nearby Tuesday afternoon. (State Journal/Hilly Schiffer)




Residents of the Holmes Street area say low-flying military aircraft left their neighborhood in disarray Tuesday with tree limbs in the road and lawn furniture strewn across yards.
A Marine Corps officer said they’ll fix the damage today and will avoid the area in the future.
Tim Evans, 33, of 112 Willow St., said two military cargo aircraft flew at “tree-top” level over his house at around 3:30 p.m. Tuesday. Marines were hanging out the back of the aircraft waving at residents below, he said.
“They were so close you could see the tattoos on their arms,” Evans said.
The aircraft are part of an urban training exercise by the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit. In an open letter to the community, Marine officers asked for residents to be patient and understanding during the training exercises.
Evans said he was in his backyard playing with his 2-year-old daughter, Neveah, when the aircraft flew over. He said his daughter and wife ran inside because the aircraft were so loud and kicked up “hurricane strength” winds.
“It was pretty intense,” Evans said. “Everyone’s yard is pretty much destroyed.”
The aircraft hovered about 10 or 12 feet off the ground at Leathers Field 75 feet from his home and then departed, Evans said.
The aircraft knocked over his picnic table and chairs, damaged his wood fence and tossed his daughter’s play set across the yard, Evans said.
The damage was limited to the Willow Street area – nearby Spring Street was free of downed limbs and debris.
Jonda Hopper, 36, is Evans’ neighbor and said she was inside when the aircraft flew overhead.
“It sounded like a plane, but it was very close,” she said. “My back door flew open, my walls started shaking, and my front window bowed in.”
The aircraft threw her swing across the yard, knocked down her phone and cable lines and tossed tree limbs into her yard, Hopper said.
Don Allison, 67, is a landlord and owns several properties in the Willow Street area. A number of his tenants suffered damage as a result of the military fly-over, he said.
“I never dreamed of something like this,” Allison said.
The military should be responsible for any damages caused by the training exercise, he said.
Evans said he called the Frankfort Police and was directed to a hotline to report damage or complaints from training exercises.
Capt. Robert Shuford, spokesman for the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, said an engineering and claims assessment team will visit the Willow Street area today. They will evaluate the damage and make repairs, he said.
The landing zone has also been marked as off-limits, Shuford said.
“Our intention was not to disturb anyone’s day or break anything,” he said.
The mission involved V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, he said, which fly like a plane but can hover like a helicopter.
While hovering, the rotors create an intense rush of wind, which likely caused the damage, Shuford said.
Shuford said he apologizes for any problems and thanked the residents for their patience and understanding.
About 150 Marines are in the Frankfort and Peaks Mill areas this week conducting urban training. The unit is based at Camp Lejeune, N.C., and is a sea-based landing force.
Exercises will also include mock raids and ambushes with actors dressed in Middle Eastern clothes and carrying fake weapons.

[Dan Reno]

Study: Air Force CSAR should grow, not shrink

By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Sep 11, 2009 16:03:34 EDT

Air Force combat search and rescue should grow — not shrink as Defense Secretary Robert Gates has suggested, a new study concludes.
The Air Force needs 171 rescue helicopters to meet the requests of the service and joint combatant commanders, according to a report by the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency.
The agency, part of U.S. Joint Forces Command, helps coordinate rescue training and equipment needs across the services. The report was done as part of an ongoing review of the Defense Department’s rescue forces.
The recommendation is a boost to the Air Force rescue community after Gates canceled the CSAR-X helicopter program in April and questioned whether the military needed a large number of troops and aircraft set aside for search-and-rescue missions. Many airmen wondered if their mission would be turned over to another service.
Today, the Air Force flies about 100 HH-60G Pave Hawk rescue helicopters, most bought more than 20 years ago. If Congress approves, another five Pave Hawks could be purchased in fiscal 2010, which begins Oct. 1.
The report raises hope among the airmen who have seen it.
“The data is impossible to argue with,” said a rescue officer who asked that his name not be used because he isn’t authorized to talk to the media. “It is time to get [airmen] more resources.”
For Darrel Whitcomb, an author and rescue historian, the study “revalidates the importance of the mission and recognizes the requirement for each service to maintain its own recovery capability.”
“It shows that the Air Force, with its well-developed and historically proven CSAR capabilities, has been the leader in this critical mission,” Whitcomb added.
The report is far from the final word in the Pentagon CSAR debate. The Joint Staff and Gates’ advisers will have their say, and the ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review could address the rescue mission as well.
Joint Forces Command refused to discuss the report because it was written for Pentagon officials, a command spokesman said. Pentagon officials would not discuss the report either, saying they were too busy planning commemorations of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The agency looked at the CSAR capabilities of the four services’ conventional units as well as Air Force Special Operations Command and Army Special Operations Command.
The 11 areas looked at included the training of medics, communications gear, night operations, ability to launch a mission on short notice, urban operations and capability to rescue people trapped at high altitudes.
The Air Force got the highest scores in seven categories and second place in three. Army special operations ranked second with a pair of first places and seven second places. Conventional Army and Marine units got their top scores for urban operations because the services’ ground forces figured into the equations. The Navy did best with its abilities to rescue people with hoists.
The report concludes that each service needs a rescue capability as a quick response force, from carrier-based Navy helicopters responding to an aircrew in the water to Army medical evacuation helicopters flying out wounded soldiers.
However, the services depend on each other in extreme conditions, such as mountaintop rescues.
“There is no single service solution to recovery of isolated personnel,” the report states.
As an example, the study cites ongoing operations in Afghanistan, where Air Force Pave Hawks often get the call to fly night missions to evacuate wounded soldiers because the helicopters have sophisticated navigation gear — forward-looking infrared cameras and terrain-avoidance radar — and door-mounted machine guns. Army helicopters are unarmed and have only limited night operations capability.
To fly those high-risk missions, the Defense Department needs aircraft and crews qualified for those assignments, the study states.
When the agency looked at aircraft, it concluded “only current Air Force and Army Special Operations Command [helicopters] are likely to have the capabilities sufficient to succeed at the range of expected missions.”
The report argues against a mixed fleet of rescue aircraft — some helicopters able to fly in benign conditions and others equipped for difficult missions.
“The concept of ‘mixed fleet’ of different aircraft types was originally considered by the study team, but no practical concept of operations could be envisioned that ensured the right mix of capabilities in the right time,” the report states.
As an example, the report cites complications of using tilt-rotor V-22 Ospreys flown by the Marines and Air Force special operations for rescue missions.
The V-22’s “excessive” rotor downwash makes it impractical to use a hoist to lift people onboard, ruling out the Osprey for rescues at high altitudes where it couldn’t land, the report states. The agency also questions the V-22’s self-defense capabilities since the aircraft lacks 360-degree coverage by guns.
Another aircraft would have to be deployed to fill the V-22 gaps.
“The result would be an excess of assets assigned to the CSAR mission to ensure coverage across the range of potential conditions with no assurance of operational benefit,” the report states.
Instead of advocating a fleet of aircraft with widely different capabilities, the agency favors investing in aircraft able to fly the full range of missions.
The recommendation for the 171 Air Force helicopters is based on past operations and current deployment rates for the service’s CSAR units. The report does not suggest specific aircraft to fill the role.
To arrive at the 171 aircraft recommendation, the report’s authors cited the Defense Department goal of service members expecting to deploy for one year out of every four and historical requests for CSAR aircraft.
Those factors led the agency to conclude the service needs 115 helicopters for operations, 25 for training, 29 as backups and replacements, and two for testing. About 25 percent of the helicopters would be assigned to Guard and Reserve units.

[riff_raff]

V22 operational issues

The V22 ultimately suffers from the same basic problem that any VTOL aircraft with a turboshaft engine suffers from: Debris ingestion into the engine during landing or takeoff that results in erosion of the compressor airfoils. This is a serious problem with any turboshaft engined aircraft, whether fixed wing, tilt rotor, or rotary wing. The V22's Rolls AE1107C engines are lasting less than 100 hours in service, even with their modern IPS systems. These are 1000 hour MTBR engines that likely cost over 1.5 million dollars each.

Besides the engine life issues, there are also issues with other subsystems such as the electrical slip ring life in the rotor system.

The reason the V22 is attractive as a CSAR platform is due to its speed and range capability. But its primary drawback for CSAR is its high rotor downwash velocities.

[birrddog]

Wouldn't it make more sense, for a MK II with engines fitted on the side of the fuselage, or under the wings?

It would require new gearboxes and hard points though would seem to solve several of the criticisms with the current design....

[Ian Corrigible]

Originally Posted by riff_raff

These are 1000 hour MTBR engines that likely cost over 1.5 million dollars each.

$1.9M a pop according to the latest contract award ($128M for 66 donks).

The unfortunate design issue with the AE1107 is its 14-stage axial flow compressor, which renders it more prone to FOD damage than an axi-centrif architecture. The Corps has previously hinted that it is considering replacing the AE1107 with the more robust five-stage axi/single-stage centrif GE38 from the CH-53K, but whether anyone really has the appetite for such an engineering effort at this stage in the game has to be questionable.

I/C