What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now SAS, you used to reside in this neck of the woods and I think you know better than that!!
Of course there will be no "joint ventures" as well you know...
Of course there will be no "joint ventures" as well you know...
Last edited by 21stCen; 3rd Dec 2011 at 16:12.
Thoughts from a casual observer east of the Pond.....
Let’s be honest, the USMC never did like going to a party dressed in anything anyone else was wearing (V-22, CH-53K and UH-60 Series are cases in point (VH-60 White Hawk not relevant)) and also no one likes to admit they might have been wrong, but can the DoD afford to continue to invest in the V22 program in such austere times?
Let’s be honest, the USMC never did like going to a party dressed in anything anyone else was wearing (V-22, CH-53K and UH-60 Series are cases in point (VH-60 White Hawk not relevant)) and also no one likes to admit they might have been wrong, but can the DoD afford to continue to invest in the V22 program in such austere times?
Lifetime cost of V-22s rose 61% in three years
Posted Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2011
By Tony Capaccio
Bloomberg News
In three years, the lifetime cost to operate and support the U.S. Marine Corps' fleet of V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft has increased 61 percent, or $46.1 billion, according to a Defense Department estimate.
The 2008 estimate of $75.4 billion has swollen to $121.5 billion, adjusted for inflation, according to a report approved Oct. 31 by the Pentagon's weapons-buying office.
The new figure may increase scrutiny of the Navy's plan to spend $8 billion to buy 122 more V-22s, made by Textron's Bell Helicopter unit and Boeing.
The previously undisclosed estimate stems from increased maintenance and support costs, according to the report obtained by Bloomberg News. The cost model factors in many variables and assumptions for operating the 458 aircraft through their service lives, extending into the mid-2040s, said Col. Greg Masiello, the program manager.
The $53 billion V-22 Osprey is the Pentagon's sixth-largest acquisition program, according to cost estimates from December 2010.
The Pentagon is seeking to trim $450 billion in overall spending during 10 years to meet deficit reduction targets outlined in the Budget Control Act.
Christopher DeNicolo, primary defense credit analyst for Standard and Poor's, said in a Nov. 21 report that the V-22 and its suppliers are at risk for budget cuts.
The Navy, which includes the Marines, is seeking to cut V-22 costs "by pursuing repair and maintenance improvements, maintenance concept changes, and reducing repair turn-around times," the document said.
The Marines also want to buy more parts directly from the original makers rather than from Bell and Boeing "to eliminate contractor pass-through costs," the document said.
The $8 billion in proposed V-22 spending, in the early discussion stages, would supply aircraft to the Marines and Air Force through 2017, renewing a current deal of 174 aircraft for five more years. A multiyear contract almost guarantees that the aircraft can't be canceled because of steep termination costs.
The V-22 is a fixed-wing plane with rotors that tilt so it can take off and land like a helicopter. Bell builds components for the V-22 at plants in Fort Worth and Grand Prairie.
Read more: Lifetime cost of V-22s rose 61% in three years | Business | Dallas Business, Texas Busin...
Posted Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2011
By Tony Capaccio
Bloomberg News
In three years, the lifetime cost to operate and support the U.S. Marine Corps' fleet of V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft has increased 61 percent, or $46.1 billion, according to a Defense Department estimate.
The 2008 estimate of $75.4 billion has swollen to $121.5 billion, adjusted for inflation, according to a report approved Oct. 31 by the Pentagon's weapons-buying office.
The new figure may increase scrutiny of the Navy's plan to spend $8 billion to buy 122 more V-22s, made by Textron's Bell Helicopter unit and Boeing.
The previously undisclosed estimate stems from increased maintenance and support costs, according to the report obtained by Bloomberg News. The cost model factors in many variables and assumptions for operating the 458 aircraft through their service lives, extending into the mid-2040s, said Col. Greg Masiello, the program manager.
The $53 billion V-22 Osprey is the Pentagon's sixth-largest acquisition program, according to cost estimates from December 2010.
The Pentagon is seeking to trim $450 billion in overall spending during 10 years to meet deficit reduction targets outlined in the Budget Control Act.
Christopher DeNicolo, primary defense credit analyst for Standard and Poor's, said in a Nov. 21 report that the V-22 and its suppliers are at risk for budget cuts.
The Navy, which includes the Marines, is seeking to cut V-22 costs "by pursuing repair and maintenance improvements, maintenance concept changes, and reducing repair turn-around times," the document said.
The Marines also want to buy more parts directly from the original makers rather than from Bell and Boeing "to eliminate contractor pass-through costs," the document said.
The $8 billion in proposed V-22 spending, in the early discussion stages, would supply aircraft to the Marines and Air Force through 2017, renewing a current deal of 174 aircraft for five more years. A multiyear contract almost guarantees that the aircraft can't be canceled because of steep termination costs.
The V-22 is a fixed-wing plane with rotors that tilt so it can take off and land like a helicopter. Bell builds components for the V-22 at plants in Fort Worth and Grand Prairie.
Read more: Lifetime cost of V-22s rose 61% in three years | Business | Dallas Business, Texas Busin...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In three years, the lifetime cost to operate and support the U.S. Marine Corps' fleet of V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft has increased 61 percent
...the operational fleet has amassed about 125,000 flight hours, nearly half of which have come in the past two years.
Lets assume the Israeli's dig into their "Reserve" money and buy the 10-12 Aircraft they have indicated a need for to suppport their SpecOps units and Long Distance CSAR missions. Now who else in the area is going to ante up for the aircraft?
Previous cancelled orders or Letters of Intent might be reconsidered if the unit price is improved over those previously offered. I don't see the US Army or US Navy getting into the deal as they have committed all their funding on other airframes.
Likewise the USCG has opted for other choices in aircraft and ships.
It must be a tough sell for Bell....as they have a very expensive Pony.
Perhaps Saudi Arabia and Norway will dust off their old notes and see what the changes in cost have been. That would be a potential order book of up to 36 aircraft.
Previous cancelled orders or Letters of Intent might be reconsidered if the unit price is improved over those previously offered. I don't see the US Army or US Navy getting into the deal as they have committed all their funding on other airframes.
Likewise the USCG has opted for other choices in aircraft and ships.
It must be a tough sell for Bell....as they have a very expensive Pony.
Perhaps Saudi Arabia and Norway will dust off their old notes and see what the changes in cost have been. That would be a potential order book of up to 36 aircraft.
Tcabot....pray tell what provoked your post? When has the 92 been compared to the V-22 in this thread?
You best check your numbers....S-92's cost more like 17-20 million US Dollars per copy.
You best check your numbers....S-92's cost more like 17-20 million US Dollars per copy.
SASless, IIRC, the number you cited looked a lot like a UH-60M flyaway cost ... are you sure S-92 to a Mil Spec is that low?
I take a peek at the Canadian figures for their buy
(Granted, a notoriously unreliable source, wikipedia)
Unit costUS$32 million[citation needed
CH-148 appears looks to cost about 30 million dollar each. Or so. .
I have no idea what numbers/support/parts/spares and all that goes into such a number.
Also, given numbers of a buy, if one bought in the dozens the price might go down ... you seem to have lowballed it, that's all.
EDIT:
OK, from a defense news article on Ch-148. (Accuracy unknown).
28 maritime helicopters ... by 2010 ... cost of purchasing, providing 20 years of in-service support for, training personnel for, and extra spending to keep the CH-124 Sea King fleet operational during project delays ... C$ 6.2 billion.
Not sure how to break that down to a per unit flyaway cost, to be honest, given how muddy the cost categories are.
I take a peek at the Canadian figures for their buy
(Granted, a notoriously unreliable source, wikipedia)
Unit costUS$32 million[citation needed
CH-148 appears looks to cost about 30 million dollar each. Or so. .
I have no idea what numbers/support/parts/spares and all that goes into such a number.
Also, given numbers of a buy, if one bought in the dozens the price might go down ... you seem to have lowballed it, that's all.
EDIT:
OK, from a defense news article on Ch-148. (Accuracy unknown).
28 maritime helicopters ... by 2010 ... cost of purchasing, providing 20 years of in-service support for, training personnel for, and extra spending to keep the CH-124 Sea King fleet operational during project delays ... C$ 6.2 billion.
Not sure how to break that down to a per unit flyaway cost, to be honest, given how muddy the cost categories are.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 5th Dec 2011 at 17:27.
I googled S-92 and price....took the highest of the prices shown.
I am not a 92 Salesman....just a guy who took exception to the ridiculous price Tcabot threw out for the 92.
When the 53K is far cheaper than the MV-22....it seems logical the 92 was also be far cheaper. Or....do I miss something here?
Also...from a Defense Tech article.
I am not a 92 Salesman....just a guy who took exception to the ridiculous price Tcabot threw out for the 92.
When the 53K is far cheaper than the MV-22....it seems logical the 92 was also be far cheaper. Or....do I miss something here?
Also...from a Defense Tech article.
The CH-53K is steadily eating away at the V-22 Osprey market. In late 2009, the Marine Corps decided to go with the CH-53Ks to replace their 40-year old CH-53D fleet (MV-22 Ospreys were originally slated to replace the CH-53D). At about the same time, Israel decided to forego the Osprey for the CH-53K, killing the Osprey’s best hope of snaring an international buyer. And with the Osprey 65% availability and the MV-22s high operating costs of about $11,000 dollars an hour, the CH-53K posed a serious threat to the MV-22 program.
Even worse, studies from the Pentagon demonstrated that a CH-53K-equipped big-deck amphib provided a lot more logistical support for embarked Marines than the MV-22, suggesting the mix of embarked MV-22s and CH-53Ks needed tweaking (and possibly fewer MV-22s).
Slowing CH-53K development will keep the new helicopter out of the air (and prevent real-data comparisons between platforms) until after a second multi-year MV-22 contract gets signed in FY 2013. Even worse, slowing the CH-53K schedule raised the program price by at least $1.1 billion dollars, raising the per-unit price.
Read more: http://defensetech.org/2010/04/29/wh...#ixzz1fguJWTqC
Defense.org
Even worse, studies from the Pentagon demonstrated that a CH-53K-equipped big-deck amphib provided a lot more logistical support for embarked Marines than the MV-22, suggesting the mix of embarked MV-22s and CH-53Ks needed tweaking (and possibly fewer MV-22s).
Slowing CH-53K development will keep the new helicopter out of the air (and prevent real-data comparisons between platforms) until after a second multi-year MV-22 contract gets signed in FY 2013. Even worse, slowing the CH-53K schedule raised the program price by at least $1.1 billion dollars, raising the per-unit price.
Read more: http://defensetech.org/2010/04/29/wh...#ixzz1fguJWTqC
Defense.org
I googled S-92 and price....took the highest of the prices shown.
I am not a 92 Salesman....just a guy who took exception to the ridiculous price Tcabot threw out for the 92.
When the 53K is far cheaper than the MV-22....it seems logical the 92 was also be far cheaper. Or....do I miss something here?
As to S-92 version, I think your logic (if you actually had a price on CH-53K that meant anything) would be sound, given the Stallion's greater complexity and payload. If we posit a 53K @ about 60 million per copy -- I am not sure if that's a realistic high ball or low ball, given how cost creep infests every aircraft program that I am aware of -- we might have a useful basis for cost comparison ... which would put the "30 million per" for the Canadian S-92 variant at least in the ballpark, and be supportive of your reasoning.
According to wikipedia, cost for CH-53K is about $128 million each, but I am not sure what they base that on, nor what program production run it assumes. (I heard 200 or so, but numbers like that vary wildly in reality, see also C-17 numbers and the roller coaster that went on ...)
Consider this: the CH-53K's rotor hub and transmission weigh 15,000 pounds – about the empty weight of a UH-60 Black Hawk.
EDIT: SAS, you seem to be using 2009 mission readiness figures. In the last year we seem to have seen some figures that are an improvement ... but take them all with a grain of salt.
I've seen numbers massaged a variety of ways in the past, and am aware of some of the moonshine pedalled here and there.
EDIT 2: SAS, you also have, within a couple of posts of each other, an older reference to the IAF not buying V-22's coupled with the newer info that IAF is looking into V-22 again. Won't those people make up their minds?
Real Unit price price will probably be somewhere in between but the 20 mio figure for the civilian 'public transport bus' will be surely exceeded by a solid margin for a fully equipped military version including defensive/navigation/communication avionics / ballistic protection, uograded engines, transmission, etc.
What's in the Cost?
At this point in time one could only guess what the actual unit price of the MH-53K will turn out to be. Likewise the one cannot even come close to estimating the unit cost or price of the Canadian CH-148 Cyclone at this time. Other than basic size and shape any comparisons of the Cyclone with a basic S-92 are ludicrous at best. A few of the many Cyclone modifications to the basic S-92 include:
• Increase Gross Weight – 30,000 lbs
• Run Dry Gear Boxes
• Increased Engine Performance
• Fly By Wire
An entire recertification effort is required, and on going, to accommodate many of the specific Canadian requirements. All of this is born by one customer at this time. Additional projected sales will help bring down the cost of this variant of the S-92. Comparing the cost of a basic747-200 to the cost of the VC-25 (Air Force One) provides a similar but exaggerated example.
• Increase Gross Weight – 30,000 lbs
• Run Dry Gear Boxes
• Increased Engine Performance
• Fly By Wire
An entire recertification effort is required, and on going, to accommodate many of the specific Canadian requirements. All of this is born by one customer at this time. Additional projected sales will help bring down the cost of this variant of the S-92. Comparing the cost of a basic747-200 to the cost of the VC-25 (Air Force One) provides a similar but exaggerated example.
The problem with pricing is how it is calculated. Remember the legendary "Hammer", "Ash Tray", and "Toilet Seats" flap?
When one takes the multi-year total package price and tries to do simple division of total cost by aircraft numbers purchased...the per aircraft cost is really huge and has no validity as the resulting number is not representative of the actual cost of the aircraft itself....as it includes spare parts, training, simulators, special tools, admin overhead costs, fees, bonuses, kennel fees for executives and the lot.
If you think that simple math works....read up on the allocation of Overhead Expenses by Defense Contractors and you will gain an education on just what goes into total program costs.
The two year set back of the 53K IOC added Five Million Dollars to the cost per airframe...and if the production run is cut then the cost goes up yet again.
I defy anyone outside the procurement system to correctly calculate the per aircraft cost for any of these aircraft. Me and Google sure aren't definitive sources....and never claimed to be.
The old rule was never fly the "A Model" of anything......and I reckon the rest of that rule would be never "pay for the development costs of the A model of anything" as well.
When one takes the multi-year total package price and tries to do simple division of total cost by aircraft numbers purchased...the per aircraft cost is really huge and has no validity as the resulting number is not representative of the actual cost of the aircraft itself....as it includes spare parts, training, simulators, special tools, admin overhead costs, fees, bonuses, kennel fees for executives and the lot.
If you think that simple math works....read up on the allocation of Overhead Expenses by Defense Contractors and you will gain an education on just what goes into total program costs.
The two year set back of the 53K IOC added Five Million Dollars to the cost per airframe...and if the production run is cut then the cost goes up yet again.
I defy anyone outside the procurement system to correctly calculate the per aircraft cost for any of these aircraft. Me and Google sure aren't definitive sources....and never claimed to be.
The old rule was never fly the "A Model" of anything......and I reckon the rest of that rule would be never "pay for the development costs of the A model of anything" as well.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
International Customers
December 5, 2011
Bell Boeing to brief India on V-22 Osprey
Minister of State for Defense, Mallipudi Mangapati Pallam Raju, accompanied by the deputy chief of the Indian Navy, Vice Admiral Satish Soni, asked the Bell Boeing V-22 Tiltrotor Team for a briefing on the aircraft.
A US Marine Corps MV-22.
The US Bell Boeing collaboration on the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor is to brief India on the aircraft sometime early next year. In a meeting held at the Dubai Air Show last month, Minister of State for Defense, Mallipudi Mangapati Pallam Raju, accompanied by the deputy chief of the Indian Navy, Vice Admiral Satish Soni, asked for a briefing on the aircraft.
Bob Carrese, Executive Director of V-22 Business Development of the Bell Boeing Tiltrotor Team spoke to StratPost at the show, saying, “We did have an Indian delegation that came by, the minister – we briefed him on this. We’ve been invited to give another brief to the staff – the naval staff.” Carrese says Admiral Soni was the ‘gentleman who actually requested the brief on the airborne early warning platform on the V-22′. “V-22 as an AEW (Airborne Early Warning) platform,” he said.
This is not the first time the navy has been briefed on the aircraft, but as India moves to firm up designs of the two aircraft carriers it is building at Cochin Shipyard, the navy’s plans for aircraft acquisitions to fully equip the carrier groups with onboard and complementary land-based platforms, replace aging platforms and move towards all-round aerial capabilities, are also due to be set in stone. Carrese says they’ve briefed India on the platform earlier and will make an updated presentation again, ‘probably at the beginning of next year’.
“We’ve made presentations at a number of Heli Power conferences and also presented to the air force chief of staff – responded to a navy RFI (Request for Information) for land-based and ship-based search and rescue platforms,” he says, adding, “We keep refreshing our briefs at the Heli Power. We continuously get inquiries – usually about our ability to reach islands that are well off the coast and (airlift) a rapid reaction force.”
The Indian Navy currently operates a fleet of helicopters and land-based surveillance and transport aircraft that include Dorniers, IL-38s and Tu-142s, besides other, smaller aircraft. Many of these are coming to the end of their life. The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has also noted the age of the navy’s rotary assets. The navy has, so far, ordered eight Boeing P-8I Long Range Maritime Reconnaissance (LRMR) aircraft, with an expected follow on order of four, and also plans to shop around for Medium Range Maritime Reconnaissance (MRMR) aircraft.
Carrese says his team has ‘done some early work on airborne early warning systems’. “There’re a number of different radars that could be mounted on the aircraft,” he says, adding, “This is not the first time that we’ve been asked to present some kind of application in that regard.”
The aircraft is already replacing a number of types in the US Marine Corps and the US Air Force. In the US Air Force, alone, 50 Ospreys will replace around a 100 aircraft, both rotary as well as fixed wing. The Marines, too, are planning to replace their CH-46 Sea Knight medium-lift tandem rotor and the earlier model CH-53 aircraft with the Osprey. The US Navy has also been considering the aircraft as a replacement for their C-2 Carrier Onboard Delivery aircraft. But so far, there hasn’t been any move to configure the V-22 for the AEW role.
Since both, the INS Vikramaditya (Admiral Gorshkov) as well as the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier, are STOBAR (Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery), a vertical lift or short take off aircraft would appear to suit an Indian requirement for a carrier-borne AEW platform.
Jean Chamberlain, Vice President, General Manager of Boeing Mobility, says the Osprey is designed for requirements that include shipboard operations, pointing out that its automatic blade fold and wing stow in 90 seconds can reduce its footprint on the ship deck.
John Garrison, President and CEO of Bell Helicopter, points out that the vertical take-off and landing capability allows delivery of critical supplies to any aviation ship, ‘not just big deck carriers’. Colonel Greg Masiello, US Marine Corps, the Joint Program Manager for V-22 at NAVAIR PMA-275, agrees. “It can go to a spectrum of ships. It doesn’t have to go just to an aircraft carrier,” he says, adding, “It works on our amphibious carriers now – they can do a short take off and landing,” or ‘operate ‘from a helipad’.
Marine V-22 pilot, Major Benjamin Debardeleben, who used to fly the CH-46 Sea Knight tandem rotor helicopter, says, “It really provides you more flexibility than I had before because I can taxi on the deck myself, so I don’t have to get towed around. I can also do a short take off from the front – I can do a running take off and take off with a much heavier weight.” The nacelles on the aircraft rotate 96 degrees backwards, allowing the pilot to reverse the aircraft, as well.
He says, “Most helicopters fly a little under 2 miles a minutes anything about a 120, 100 knots – we fly around 240/260 – its 4 miles a minute. And that’s what shrinks the battlespace.”
“I flew the CH-46 before. And it was a helicopter that did about 110 knots. And with that, the ship was always very close to the shore. And so we had to deal with very short legs. And with the Osprey we’re able to be much further away from the shore or operate in two locations and be able to conduct the mission instead of being just focused on one location,” says the Marine, adding, “You need less bases, you can reach farther with the same aircraft.”
The Osprey could be configured for a variety of other roles, as well. Garrison points out, “As an aerial and ground refueler, the Osprey can serve not only as aerial refueler for helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, it can also land and quickly deliver fuel to ground vehicles.” He thinks the ‘aircraft can easily be modified to serve as an excellent intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance and command and control platform’.
“So if you had an ISR platform we could roll that capability on it – launch of a navy ship or land-based over pretty long distances. This aircraft can fly up to 25,000 feet, so you get range well beyond – you get the speed – lot of coverage there,” explains Masiello.
Garrison also cites rescue and medevac as obvious applications for the aircraft, something that has been demonstrated during Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, as well as in Afghanistan.
According to Masiello says six V-22 Ospreys flew around 3,400 nautical miles from the Afghanistan theater to the Mediterranean to deploy for operations in Libya, with aerial refueling by KC-130 aircraft. “It left, in this case, Afghanistan and ended up landing in Greece and Sigonella. 15 hours and 25 minutes,” he recounts. “We flew them – two flight of three – six V-22s – they took off, flew across three continents, and ten countries and over 3, 000 nautical miles – and we did that in less than 15 and a half hours of flight time. We don’t have another aircraft that’s able to do that,” he says.
Debardeleben had a special role to play during that deployment. He remembers getting from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean as a ‘very long day, very long flight’. He was the V-22 pilot that led two aircraft into Libya in March to rescue the crew of a downed F-15 fighter. “I don’t have the timeline in front of me,” he says, but roughly, “I flew for about 40 minutes. There were two MV-22s – I was the section leader. And then we landed for about 2 minutes and then flew back for 40 minutes. So it was an 82-minute flight. We were very quick – in and out.”
“We had all the right information. When I landed there was nothing (no hostiles) going on. It was all quiet. I did have jets overhead to provide security,” he recounts.
“We have done the timing and the estimating for that – if we had used a helicopter it would have been at least an additional hour,” says Masiello.
In June, 2010, an aircraft crashed near Kunduz in Afghanistan, stranding 32 coalition forces. Masiello narrates, “It’s bad weather, it’s at a bad spot where people are less than friendly for the forces in there – we launched two CVs in this case – they flew right over the top of a 15,000 foot mountain range, penetrated the weather, came down, picked them up, brought them home and in less than four hours.” The distance one way was around 400 nautical miles.
The aircraft has also taken fire in Afghanistan and survived. “It’s been engaged by some less than friendly people – I guess they wanted to shoot at it at different times. And fortunately the systems on board and the built-in survivability aspects of the V-22 make it very hard to hit. But on the occasion when that aircraft has been hit, it’s incredibly survivable. And it’s repairable right in the field – the composite structure lends itself to great amount of abilities even in the field for repairs,” says Masiello. “This aircraft is the safest tactical rotorcraft that the Marine Corps operates,” he says.
Chamberlain says, “The V-22 is designed to carry troops into the danger zone and return those troops safely. The features that allow for this are ballistic tolerant fuselage, design redundancy, advanced warning systems, and counter-measures.” She says the times spent in these high threat zones are dramatically less than what is experienced by legacy aircraft.
The distinctive profile of the aircraft makes it instantly recognizable. The Osprey has rotating engines on fixed wings that enable vertical lift like a helicopter and it the ‘speed and range of a turbo-prop airplane’.
“It covers most of the envelope that a helicopter as well as our fixed wing transport aircraft in a single platform,” says Chamberlain. She says the aircraft can execute missions at speeds of 282 knots, ‘more than twice as fast as conventional helicopters’. It has a maximum load range of 1000 nautical miles, but she says, “Since it is refuelable, that range can be extended indefinitely.”
Masiello says, “This is not a heavy lift aircraft, but with the exception of those extreme heavy lift missions, there’s not much that this aircraft couldn’t do. And it can do it farther, faster and it can carry still the significant amount of 20,000 pounds (around nine tons),” besides an external load of 12,000 pounds (around six tons).
Masiello says cost management is a continuing focus for his team. “We’ve got a very deliberate plan,” he says, explaining, “We’ve made almost a 20 percent decrease in our cost per flight hour.”
His team has gone over ‘42 different components’ to bring down the operating cost. “It’s almost 130,000 flight hours. Whether it’s a component or a different methodology to maintain the aircraft and we’ve put that back into the calculus, if you will, and we’ve been able to dramatically and steadily decrease the operating cost. And we’re not done, we’re going to continue with that.”
Masiello also says they’re also working on improving the performance of the aircraft. “Our previous software drop – this is a software driven aircraft, so without any hardware changes we increased the air speed by 20 knots.” He says the next software drop will increase the power of the aircraft ‘just by changing the pitch of the prop rotor, no physical change’.
The Bell Boeing team is planning to ramp up full rate production, up to 40 aircraft a year, in 2013 and Garrison says they can begin deliveries to international customers from 2015 onwards.
Bell Boeing to brief India on V-22 Osprey
Minister of State for Defense, Mallipudi Mangapati Pallam Raju, accompanied by the deputy chief of the Indian Navy, Vice Admiral Satish Soni, asked the Bell Boeing V-22 Tiltrotor Team for a briefing on the aircraft.
A US Marine Corps MV-22. The US Bell Boeing collaboration on the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor is to brief India on the aircraft sometime early next year. In a meeting held at the Dubai Air Show last month, Minister of State for Defense, Mallipudi Mangapati Pallam Raju, accompanied by the deputy chief of the Indian Navy, Vice Admiral Satish Soni, asked for a briefing on the aircraft.
Bob Carrese, Executive Director of V-22 Business Development of the Bell Boeing Tiltrotor Team spoke to StratPost at the show, saying, “We did have an Indian delegation that came by, the minister – we briefed him on this. We’ve been invited to give another brief to the staff – the naval staff.” Carrese says Admiral Soni was the ‘gentleman who actually requested the brief on the airborne early warning platform on the V-22′. “V-22 as an AEW (Airborne Early Warning) platform,” he said.
This is not the first time the navy has been briefed on the aircraft, but as India moves to firm up designs of the two aircraft carriers it is building at Cochin Shipyard, the navy’s plans for aircraft acquisitions to fully equip the carrier groups with onboard and complementary land-based platforms, replace aging platforms and move towards all-round aerial capabilities, are also due to be set in stone. Carrese says they’ve briefed India on the platform earlier and will make an updated presentation again, ‘probably at the beginning of next year’.
“We’ve made presentations at a number of Heli Power conferences and also presented to the air force chief of staff – responded to a navy RFI (Request for Information) for land-based and ship-based search and rescue platforms,” he says, adding, “We keep refreshing our briefs at the Heli Power. We continuously get inquiries – usually about our ability to reach islands that are well off the coast and (airlift) a rapid reaction force.”
The Indian Navy currently operates a fleet of helicopters and land-based surveillance and transport aircraft that include Dorniers, IL-38s and Tu-142s, besides other, smaller aircraft. Many of these are coming to the end of their life. The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has also noted the age of the navy’s rotary assets. The navy has, so far, ordered eight Boeing P-8I Long Range Maritime Reconnaissance (LRMR) aircraft, with an expected follow on order of four, and also plans to shop around for Medium Range Maritime Reconnaissance (MRMR) aircraft.
Carrese says his team has ‘done some early work on airborne early warning systems’. “There’re a number of different radars that could be mounted on the aircraft,” he says, adding, “This is not the first time that we’ve been asked to present some kind of application in that regard.”
The aircraft is already replacing a number of types in the US Marine Corps and the US Air Force. In the US Air Force, alone, 50 Ospreys will replace around a 100 aircraft, both rotary as well as fixed wing. The Marines, too, are planning to replace their CH-46 Sea Knight medium-lift tandem rotor and the earlier model CH-53 aircraft with the Osprey. The US Navy has also been considering the aircraft as a replacement for their C-2 Carrier Onboard Delivery aircraft. But so far, there hasn’t been any move to configure the V-22 for the AEW role.
Since both, the INS Vikramaditya (Admiral Gorshkov) as well as the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier, are STOBAR (Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery), a vertical lift or short take off aircraft would appear to suit an Indian requirement for a carrier-borne AEW platform.
Jean Chamberlain, Vice President, General Manager of Boeing Mobility, says the Osprey is designed for requirements that include shipboard operations, pointing out that its automatic blade fold and wing stow in 90 seconds can reduce its footprint on the ship deck.
John Garrison, President and CEO of Bell Helicopter, points out that the vertical take-off and landing capability allows delivery of critical supplies to any aviation ship, ‘not just big deck carriers’. Colonel Greg Masiello, US Marine Corps, the Joint Program Manager for V-22 at NAVAIR PMA-275, agrees. “It can go to a spectrum of ships. It doesn’t have to go just to an aircraft carrier,” he says, adding, “It works on our amphibious carriers now – they can do a short take off and landing,” or ‘operate ‘from a helipad’.
Marine V-22 pilot, Major Benjamin Debardeleben, who used to fly the CH-46 Sea Knight tandem rotor helicopter, says, “It really provides you more flexibility than I had before because I can taxi on the deck myself, so I don’t have to get towed around. I can also do a short take off from the front – I can do a running take off and take off with a much heavier weight.” The nacelles on the aircraft rotate 96 degrees backwards, allowing the pilot to reverse the aircraft, as well.
He says, “Most helicopters fly a little under 2 miles a minutes anything about a 120, 100 knots – we fly around 240/260 – its 4 miles a minute. And that’s what shrinks the battlespace.” “I flew the CH-46 before. And it was a helicopter that did about 110 knots. And with that, the ship was always very close to the shore. And so we had to deal with very short legs. And with the Osprey we’re able to be much further away from the shore or operate in two locations and be able to conduct the mission instead of being just focused on one location,” says the Marine, adding, “You need less bases, you can reach farther with the same aircraft.”
The Osprey could be configured for a variety of other roles, as well. Garrison points out, “As an aerial and ground refueler, the Osprey can serve not only as aerial refueler for helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, it can also land and quickly deliver fuel to ground vehicles.” He thinks the ‘aircraft can easily be modified to serve as an excellent intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance and command and control platform’.
“So if you had an ISR platform we could roll that capability on it – launch of a navy ship or land-based over pretty long distances. This aircraft can fly up to 25,000 feet, so you get range well beyond – you get the speed – lot of coverage there,” explains Masiello.
Garrison also cites rescue and medevac as obvious applications for the aircraft, something that has been demonstrated during Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, as well as in Afghanistan.
According to Masiello says six V-22 Ospreys flew around 3,400 nautical miles from the Afghanistan theater to the Mediterranean to deploy for operations in Libya, with aerial refueling by KC-130 aircraft. “It left, in this case, Afghanistan and ended up landing in Greece and Sigonella. 15 hours and 25 minutes,” he recounts. “We flew them – two flight of three – six V-22s – they took off, flew across three continents, and ten countries and over 3, 000 nautical miles – and we did that in less than 15 and a half hours of flight time. We don’t have another aircraft that’s able to do that,” he says.
Debardeleben had a special role to play during that deployment. He remembers getting from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean as a ‘very long day, very long flight’. He was the V-22 pilot that led two aircraft into Libya in March to rescue the crew of a downed F-15 fighter. “I don’t have the timeline in front of me,” he says, but roughly, “I flew for about 40 minutes. There were two MV-22s – I was the section leader. And then we landed for about 2 minutes and then flew back for 40 minutes. So it was an 82-minute flight. We were very quick – in and out.”
“We had all the right information. When I landed there was nothing (no hostiles) going on. It was all quiet. I did have jets overhead to provide security,” he recounts.
“We have done the timing and the estimating for that – if we had used a helicopter it would have been at least an additional hour,” says Masiello.
In June, 2010, an aircraft crashed near Kunduz in Afghanistan, stranding 32 coalition forces. Masiello narrates, “It’s bad weather, it’s at a bad spot where people are less than friendly for the forces in there – we launched two CVs in this case – they flew right over the top of a 15,000 foot mountain range, penetrated the weather, came down, picked them up, brought them home and in less than four hours.” The distance one way was around 400 nautical miles.The aircraft has also taken fire in Afghanistan and survived. “It’s been engaged by some less than friendly people – I guess they wanted to shoot at it at different times. And fortunately the systems on board and the built-in survivability aspects of the V-22 make it very hard to hit. But on the occasion when that aircraft has been hit, it’s incredibly survivable. And it’s repairable right in the field – the composite structure lends itself to great amount of abilities even in the field for repairs,” says Masiello. “This aircraft is the safest tactical rotorcraft that the Marine Corps operates,” he says.
Chamberlain says, “The V-22 is designed to carry troops into the danger zone and return those troops safely. The features that allow for this are ballistic tolerant fuselage, design redundancy, advanced warning systems, and counter-measures.” She says the times spent in these high threat zones are dramatically less than what is experienced by legacy aircraft.
The distinctive profile of the aircraft makes it instantly recognizable. The Osprey has rotating engines on fixed wings that enable vertical lift like a helicopter and it the ‘speed and range of a turbo-prop airplane’. “It covers most of the envelope that a helicopter as well as our fixed wing transport aircraft in a single platform,” says Chamberlain. She says the aircraft can execute missions at speeds of 282 knots, ‘more than twice as fast as conventional helicopters’. It has a maximum load range of 1000 nautical miles, but she says, “Since it is refuelable, that range can be extended indefinitely.”
Masiello says, “This is not a heavy lift aircraft, but with the exception of those extreme heavy lift missions, there’s not much that this aircraft couldn’t do. And it can do it farther, faster and it can carry still the significant amount of 20,000 pounds (around nine tons),” besides an external load of 12,000 pounds (around six tons).
Walking to the V-22 at the flight line at Dubai, your correspondent marveled at the sight of a C-27J Spartan aircraft performing a 360 degree roll. This elicited a snort from a member of the Osprey team, “Yes, but can it hover?”
The aircraft has, however, been criticized for its cost. At USD 70 million a unit, it’s as expensive as some fighter aircraft and its cost of operation has also increased, according to one report, by 61 percent.Masiello says cost management is a continuing focus for his team. “We’ve got a very deliberate plan,” he says, explaining, “We’ve made almost a 20 percent decrease in our cost per flight hour.”
His team has gone over ‘42 different components’ to bring down the operating cost. “It’s almost 130,000 flight hours. Whether it’s a component or a different methodology to maintain the aircraft and we’ve put that back into the calculus, if you will, and we’ve been able to dramatically and steadily decrease the operating cost. And we’re not done, we’re going to continue with that.”
Masiello also says they’re also working on improving the performance of the aircraft. “Our previous software drop – this is a software driven aircraft, so without any hardware changes we increased the air speed by 20 knots.” He says the next software drop will increase the power of the aircraft ‘just by changing the pitch of the prop rotor, no physical change’.
The Bell Boeing team is planning to ramp up full rate production, up to 40 aircraft a year, in 2013 and Garrison says they can begin deliveries to international customers from 2015 onwards.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may be a silly question - but why does the V22 not have it's engines horizontally mounted over or under the wing roots driving the rotors by shafts and gearboxes that I presume it already has for cross coupling?
This would avoid having to tilt the engines and make FOD ingestion easier to handle, reduce the weight slung a long way outboard and probably ease maintenance.
I await the incoming flak for not seeing the obvious..............
D
This would avoid having to tilt the engines and make FOD ingestion easier to handle, reduce the weight slung a long way outboard and probably ease maintenance.
I await the incoming flak for not seeing the obvious..............
D
When the 53K is far cheaper than the MV-22
SEAPOWER Expo Online
CH-53K Unaffected by Force Structure Review
By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. - The Marine Corps still plans to procure 200 Sikorsky CH-53K heavy-lift helicopters, even in light of the Marine Corps Force Structure Review released in March.
Even with the proposed force structure reduction, the Corps still had a requirement for 200 CH-53Ks to replace the 152 CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters in service, Col. Robert Pridgen, the Navy’ s program manager for H-53 Heavy-Lift Helicopters, said April 11 at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space Exposition. The CH-53Es are heavily involved in warfighting and humanitarian operations in several areas of the world.
“The is no shortage for work out there,” Pridgen said, speaking of the worldwide demands on the Corps’ heavy-lift force. “We’re working at risk with fewer 53s than we need.”
Last month, two CH-53Ks were transferred from HMX-1, the squadron that provides helicopters for presidential use. The two are being upgraded and returned to the operating forces.
The CH-53K is an extensive redesign and features numerous improvements, including the new GE-38 engine, which delivers more than 7,500 shaft horsepower, compared with 4,380 for the T64 engine on the CH-53E. The new design also features a new airframe, transmission system and tail rotor, as well as composite rotor blades and a cargo cabin that is 12 inches wider than that of the CH-53E. The new helicopter also will feature a fly-by-wire control system, the first in such a large helicopter.
Pridgen said the CH-53E “has historically been very expensive to operate,” and that one of the program goals is to reduce operating costs for the CH-53K.
The Navy’s Critical Design Review for the CH-53K has been completed. First flight of the helicopter is scheduled for 2013. Initial operational capability is scheduled for 2018.
Pridgen said the expected unit cost of a CH-53K when built in full-rate production is $55 million to $65 million.
Sikorsky Aircraft is under way with assembly of the CH-53K ground test vehicle (GTV) and work has begun on the second test article.
By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. - The Marine Corps still plans to procure 200 Sikorsky CH-53K heavy-lift helicopters, even in light of the Marine Corps Force Structure Review released in March.
Even with the proposed force structure reduction, the Corps still had a requirement for 200 CH-53Ks to replace the 152 CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters in service, Col. Robert Pridgen, the Navy’ s program manager for H-53 Heavy-Lift Helicopters, said April 11 at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space Exposition. The CH-53Es are heavily involved in warfighting and humanitarian operations in several areas of the world.
“The is no shortage for work out there,” Pridgen said, speaking of the worldwide demands on the Corps’ heavy-lift force. “We’re working at risk with fewer 53s than we need.”
Last month, two CH-53Ks were transferred from HMX-1, the squadron that provides helicopters for presidential use. The two are being upgraded and returned to the operating forces.
The CH-53K is an extensive redesign and features numerous improvements, including the new GE-38 engine, which delivers more than 7,500 shaft horsepower, compared with 4,380 for the T64 engine on the CH-53E. The new design also features a new airframe, transmission system and tail rotor, as well as composite rotor blades and a cargo cabin that is 12 inches wider than that of the CH-53E. The new helicopter also will feature a fly-by-wire control system, the first in such a large helicopter.
Pridgen said the CH-53E “has historically been very expensive to operate,” and that one of the program goals is to reduce operating costs for the CH-53K.
The Navy’s Critical Design Review for the CH-53K has been completed. First flight of the helicopter is scheduled for 2013. Initial operational capability is scheduled for 2018.
Pridgen said the expected unit cost of a CH-53K when built in full-rate production is $55 million to $65 million.
Sikorsky Aircraft is under way with assembly of the CH-53K ground test vehicle (GTV) and work has begun on the second test article.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: El Paso, Texas
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So How is the 53K Cheaper than the 92 and 60M
The price for the 53K is a fantastic bargain, but I am surprised it is fantastically cheaper than the 60M:
That works out to $70+M a piece.
Make Sikorsky commit to that price and the US can avoid the S-92 Canadian fiasco.
TC
July 13/11: The US DSCA announces [PDF] Thailand’s official request for 3 UH-60M Black Hawk Helicopters,... The estimated cost is $235 million.
Make Sikorsky commit to that price and the US can avoid the S-92 Canadian fiasco.
TC
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
expected unit cost of a CH-53K when built in full-rate production is $55 million to $65 million.
Of course in the end it's an 'apples and oranges' comparison. The 53K is a heavy lift a/c with great lifting and high alt hover capability, whereas the V-22 is a medium lift a/c with very high speed and long range capability. I can see why the Marines would want both to carry out a wider range of missions.
Last edited by 21stCen; 7th Dec 2011 at 08:05.
21st:
Last chart I saw on "costs per flight hour" for Osprey and one of the 53 models (not sure if it was D or E) put it around 13k.
I am not sure what costs and assumptions go into arriving at that figure.
Last chart I saw on "costs per flight hour" for Osprey and one of the 53 models (not sure if it was D or E) put it around 13k.
I am not sure what costs and assumptions go into arriving at that figure.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LW,
Sorry, I'm probably behind you on that, your info may be more up to date. I haven't been privy to any details on hourly costs. The last info I heard in the open press was that the V-22 rate was at 11k/hr (although claims of late are that it is now 20% lower) and the 53E was higher than the 11k figure. No official confirmation, and unfortunately as we all know we cannot rely on numbers floating around on the internet.
Like you, I do not represent a vested interest in the V-22 (shareholder, employee, spokesperson). We are an offshore helicopter operation in the middle east, and a future operator of the 609 (whenever it gets here!!). We only have peripheral access to the manufacturer reps and some current and former military personnel engaged in the program at the operational level.
21stC
Sorry, I'm probably behind you on that, your info may be more up to date. I haven't been privy to any details on hourly costs. The last info I heard in the open press was that the V-22 rate was at 11k/hr (although claims of late are that it is now 20% lower) and the 53E was higher than the 11k figure. No official confirmation, and unfortunately as we all know we cannot rely on numbers floating around on the internet.
Like you, I do not represent a vested interest in the V-22 (shareholder, employee, spokesperson). We are an offshore helicopter operation in the middle east, and a future operator of the 609 (whenever it gets here!!). We only have peripheral access to the manufacturer reps and some current and former military personnel engaged in the program at the operational level.
21stC
Last edited by 21stCen; 7th Dec 2011 at 17:27.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may be a silly question - but why does the V22 not have it's engines horizontally mounted over or under the wing roots driving the rotors by shafts and gearboxes that I presume it already has for cross coupling?
This would avoid having to tilt the engines and make FOD ingestion easier to handle, reduce the weight slung a long way outboard and probably ease maintenance.
I await the incoming flak for not seeing the obvious.............
This would avoid having to tilt the engines and make FOD ingestion easier to handle, reduce the weight slung a long way outboard and probably ease maintenance.
I await the incoming flak for not seeing the obvious.............
That's actually quite a good question, so you'll get no flak here. And there have been some recent tilt-rotor designs proposed with just such a drivetrain configuration. The primary advantage of this arrangement is that the engine (and its lube system) would not be required to operate at various attitudes. The disadvantages are that this configuration is a bit more complex (requiring an additional set of bevel gearboxes), and the interconnect driveshafts would be required to handle 100% of single rotor torque for the life of the drivetrain, thus these parts would be much heavier. The current V-22 interconnect system is only required to handle something like 55% of single engine OEI power for a brief period. For the large majority of its life, the V-22 interconnect system is only required to transmit a very small amount power, likely less than 5% of single engine MRP.
While designing a tilt rotor drivetrain like you propose is quite possible, getting the interconnect driveshaft system design safe and reliable would take some work.
Regards,
riff_raff