What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?

[madflyer26]

I have the pleasure of seeing this magnificent aircraft flying on a daily basis. Will post a few pictures in due time.

[Dan Reno]

With the V-22 now flying at 400 MPH and sporting a "Heavy Machine Gun" on its ramp, I thinks some apologies are in order from the V-22 Naysayers.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/11/23/news/top_stories/20_10_7811_22_07.txt (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/11/23/news/top_stories/20_10_7811_22_07.txt)

Osprey said to be performing well in Iraq
By: MARK WALKER - Staff Writer
Nearly two months after the controversial Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft began flying in Iraq, a Marine Corps official said this week that no significant problems have emerged for the much-troubled aircraft.

"They have been moving troops and supplies with ease," Maj. Eric Dent at Marine Corps headquarters at the Pentagon said in response to an inquiry from the North County Times. "There have been no significant maintenance issues."
The Osprey's performance is closely watched by Marine Corps officials and critics of the hybrid aircraft, which takes off and lands like a helicopter and flies like an airplane at more than 400 mph with tilt-rotor propellers.
The Osprey and its tortured development were the subject of a Time magazine cover story last month, which noted the Marine Corps had spent $20 billion developing the aircraft and that 30 lives were lost during training missions before it was put into service.

Seven years ago, two Osprey crashes killed 23 Marines. Nineteen died when one went down near Tucson and four others died a few months later in North Carolina accident.

Fourteen Camp Pendleton Marines and one from Miramar Marine Corps Air Station perished in the April 2000 crash in Arizona, a mishap investigators blamed on a condition called vortex ring state, a danger for all helicopters.

Another Osprey also crashed in a nonfatal accident and others have been damaged in mishaps involving fires, including one earlier this month in North Carolina, and stalled engines and software problems.

Officially designated the V-22, the first 10 Ospreys to see active service were sent to Iraq in September and began flying missions in October.

The North Carolina unit in Iraq, VMM-263, has been flying sorties in Iraq for more than a month, although the Marine Corps would not say precisely how many missions it has flown.

"So far, the squadron has performed exactly as projected," Dent said. "The V-22 is making a significant difference in the way Marine aviation provides medium lift assault support to our Marines on the ground and we could not be more pleased."

Among the issues being closely watched is the Osprey's ability to withstand an attack of ground fire and respond. The aircraft now only has a rear-mounted machine gun but the service is working with the manufacturer, Boeing and Bell Helicopter, to install a second, forward-mounted gun and working on a remote-controlled turret gun.

Dent was unable to say if the Osprey had been involved in any firefights, but a former Pentagon official has said he believed the Marine Corps is restricting the Osprey's use to avoid combat.

The official, Thomas Christie, who was the Defense Department's director of Operations, Test and Evaluation for five years until retiring in 2005, said earlier this year that he believed the Marine Corps would carefully plan initial Osprey missions to avoid its flying into areas where ground fire would not be unexpected.

Dent said he was unable to address Christie's assertion. That may be because Gen. James Mattis, former commander of Marine Corps Forces, Central Command, ordered in September that a tight lid be kept on the Osprey's operations, according to a Marine Corps source familiar with that directive.

Dent said he was also unable to report the number of missions the Osprey has flown.

Approximately 11,000 Marines and sailors from that force's Regimental Combat Teams 1 and 5 and its headquarters group will assume responsibility for security in Iraq's Anbar region after the first of the year.

It was not clear this week if the Osprey unit now in Iraq will return to the U.S. next year and be replaced by a similar unit deploying with the locally based troops.

Although the Osprey has a range of more than 2,500 miles and can carry up to 24 troops or 20,000 pounds of cargo, the ones sent to Iraq went by sea.

The only known problem since the Osprey arrived came during its flight from the deck of the vessel that ferried it there, the amphibious assault ship Wasp, to the Al Asad Air Base in Anbar. One Osprey was forced to land in Jordan and make a second unscheduled landing the next day because of an undisclosed mechanical issue, the Marine Corps said at the time.

A former head of the Marine Corps' helicopter test and evaluation squadron, Col. Glenn Walters, recently wrote a column for the North County Times defending the Osprey.

Walters argued that the Osprey is the most thoroughly tested aircraft in the history of aviation and pointed out no similar aircraft has a forward-firing weapon. He also said the Osprey is the most maneuverable medium lift helicopter in the world, with the ability to climb or descend at a significantly higher speed than any other helicopter.

To date, the Marine Corps has received more than 52 Ospreys from the manufacturer as it moves to replace its fleet of Vietnam-era helicopters.

The service has ordered more than 360 Ospreys for combat assault and support missions, and the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command is buying about 50.

[Dan Reno]

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd124/DanReno1/v22iniraq.jpg
071023-M-2166H-008 AL ASAD AIR BASE, Iraq (Oct. 23, 2007) MV-22B Ospreys fly over U.S. Navy Hospital Corpsman 1st Class Troy Juarez, assigned to Marine Aircraft Group 29, as he acts as an injured pilot waiting to be rescued during a Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel (TRAP) exercise at Al Asad Air Base. This TRAP exercise is being conducted as training in the event of actual situations. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Michael Haas (Released)

Now finally supporting Marines in Iraq we find the long awaited V-22 accumulating war time combat flight hours doing missions that could have been done at Disney World. Kinda makes ya proud don't it.

[21st Century]

http://www.shephard.co.uk/Rotorhub/Default.aspx?Action=745115149&ID=d34818f7-51a9-43a6-a719-419f8b838974

The following will appear in the 'Eye on Americas' column in the November-December edition of Defence Helicopter magazine.

***

Can a V-22 autorotate? No, but the reasons it won’t have to are more important.

Do USMC MV-22Bs have a forward-firing gun? No, but the reasons they don’t need one are more important.

Have Osprey prototypes crashed? Yes, but the specifics of each incident are the real point.

Selectivity - of the extreme type practiced by Time magazine in a recent cover story (‘A Flying Shame,’ September 27, 2007) - hold readers hostage to an incomplete, at best, parsing of the facts.

Speaking as a correspondent who has followed the Osprey debate pretty thoroughly over the years, this is a disservice to a genuine advance in national aeronautics capability of which the nation should be proud, not dismissive. In fact the Marines - currently and no doubt tentatively probing it’s use in Iraq - deserve our admiration for their foresight. We will go out on a limb: the Osprey is safe, well tested (within the limits of human capability), and well poised to pay back the investment of national will and treasury it took to get here.

Over the years this is a circus that has been fascinating to watch. A sort of tendentious negativism has come to roost among the Osprey's critics, which won’t be moved whatever the evidence.

In parallel, meanwhile, the technology inside it has vaulted ahead; early Ospreys, designed when digital meant watches bear, practically speaking, no resemblance to the current models.

Materials, digital controls, production predictability, maintenance and support - in fact, almost anything aerospace science and technology has given us - has in turn accelerated beyond recognition over the past ten years; it’s undeniable that much of it has made its way into the aircraft.

We were at a small Virginia airport this summer when a USAF crew returned in a CV-22. They had just flown out of the Blue Ridge mountains, 40-50 feet off the ground doing 200 knots, in actual fog, to prove a wondrous thing called TFR (terrain following radar) works as advertised.


We were in the back of an Osprey over Britain’s Salisbury Plain when its USMC pilot suddenly got taken by an urge to rack his aircraft around. No agile helicopter (and we’ve flown Apaches, Cobras, Lynxes and MH-6s) can perform like an MV-22 near the ground. Ospreys feel - well, they feel, in a word, tough. Helicopters creak and flex in the air, particularly so when flying radically. The V-22 is testament to its precision composite construction.

Some time ago - at the height of the vortex ring state paranoia - we fashioned a satirical Time magazine/Washington Post type headline: 'Sources revealed today that a 747 will fall out of the air if the pilot allows it to get below about 100 knots. Engineers call it ‘stalling’ and although they’ve known about it for years, nothing has been done...' Absurd on its face, but it has to be said (and we’re sorry to say it) the pilots in the Marana accident (four of them, the two in the lead aircraft got down with busted parts and bruised egos) flew their aircraft outside the envelope that was designed (and so noted in the flight manual) to ensure it didn’t ‘stall.’

We have - over the years - been impressed by the brainpower, persistence and commitment that’s gone into this project.

I know, I know, ‘big’ media will accuse me (they already do) of drinking the Koole Aid, but it’s a fact: this aircraft epitomises the best the aerospace culture today can come up with, which is saying a lot.

It’s not designed to ignore the realities of landing at hostile LZs, or built to ignore the fact it can’t auotorotate for convenient reasons.

It’s built, instead, to take account of new realities that have grown up while most of its negative correspondents have assiduously been fighting the last (Vietnam) war and ignoring what’s been happening since.

Battlefields today are digitally networked, prepped by precision missiles and bombs that don’t miss, hosts to true combined arms and joint integrated force action that has appeared only relatively recently.

(Surveillance, for example, is today a huge differentiatior, with UAVs doing real-time reconaissance, feeding the stuff back directly to the cockpit). No, the days of little Hueys, crewed by some of the bravest aviators in history, spiralling down into gun and rocket fire are probably over. (We say probably because asymmetric warfare is a problem; the appearance of IEDs in Iraq is an asymmetric problem).

But we also would say we respect the Osprey critics we’ve met, the real critics, the ones - industry and military - who have had to do the figuring, fix the processes, design the work-arounds, fly the tests flight, and who are part of the iterative process.

To deny the genuiness of their effort, conscientiousness and professionalism is not only wrong, but it is to fall into today’s one-sided cultural thinking - that everything that lacks an instantly emotional identity is somehow not valid. Anything said in defence of something like the Osprey is dismissable for falling outside the cultural norms of the day.

Time magazine didn’t do this directly, obviously, but Chuck Allen, the Boeing rotorcraft GM where they build half the V-22, told me he got letters from workers asking why their efforts were being thrown to the journalistic winds like this. Another source talked of mothers concerned their (Marine) kids would fly the Osprey in Iraq.

We saw Fox NewsTV - discussing the article - show the tape over and over again from Grady Wilson’s Wilmington accident years ago (1991, an early prototype, with both pilots getting out unhurt). It was troublesome that some gunner in some far off place somewhere might just have relished it greatly - the angles, the way the controls moved, the profile it presented against the skyline - for the info it gave him. It seems we’re too casual about the criticism we sometimes bring to these things. Words have consequences.

- David S. Harvey.

[21st Century]

Seems like the Spec Ops CV-22s will have a much better system than the Marines 'gun on the ramp' set up...

BAE Systems to Provide All-Quadrant Interim Defensive Weapon System For CV-22 Osprey

JOHNSON CITY, N.Y.-- BAE Systems will develop an interim all-quadrant defensive weapon system for the CV-22 Osprey aircraft. The contract awarded by the U.S. Special Operations Command, calls for rapid development, installation, testing, and qualification of a weapon capability that provides defensive fire protection to all quadrants of the aircraft.

The belly-mounted system is remotely operated and capable of delivering accurate, sustained fire throughout the CV-22’s flight envelope. The contract is valued at $491,000, with a potential value of $16.3 million, including options.

"At BAE Systems, we pride ourselves on the work we do to protect those who protect us," said Clark Freise, vice president of defense avionics for BAE Systems in Johnson City, New York. "This system will provide vital protection to this aircraft, its operators, and the Special Operations personnel that it will carry.”

The weapon system is based on BAE Systems’ Remote Guardian System, a company-funded effort to develop a common airborne defensive capability. BAE Systems has been investing in the RGS for more than two years and unveiled the system in October 2007 at the Modern Day Marine military exposition in Quantico, Virginia.

[21st Century]

MV-22 ‘Osprey’ brings new capabilities to the sandbox

AL ASAD, Iraq(Jan. 23, 2008) -- The Marines of Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 arrived at Al Asad to support air operations in the Al Anbar province on Oct. 4, 2007.

The ‘Thunder Chickens' took over the entire range of combat medium lift assault support missions in support of Multi-National Forces – West from Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 363 to include battlefield circulation, raid and Aeroscout operations, helicopter/tiltrotor governance,Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel alert and casualty evacuation alert, flying everywhere within MNF-West throughout the battlefield from Baghdad to Al Qaim providing an operational capability over distance and time that has effectively collapsed the battlespace. The squadron has completed more than 2,000 ASRs in the first 3 months of the deployment, keeping approximately 8,000 personnel off dangerous roadways and accruing approximately 2,000 flight hours. They have accomplished every mission and met every schedule while maintaining an average mission capable availability rate of 68.1%.

The New River based MV-22 squadron has experienced a higher operational tempo while deployed, with the squadron completing missions and accumulating flight hours at a sustained rate well in excess of anything they've done before.

“The area of operations has, in a number of ways, highlighted the performance of the aircraft,” said Lt. Col. Paul Rock, VMM-263’s commanding officer. “Our area of operations is large and the aircraft's speed and range has been much-appreciated by many of the folks the squadron has supported. In addition, the precision navigation and situational awareness systems in the aircraft have enhanced our ability to perform such tasks as desert landings in brownout conditions.”

In brownout conditions, the MV-22’s unique hover coupled capability significantly increases the safety of troops in the execution of combat missions enabling the Ground Combat Element to be safely and precisely inserted on the desired combat coordinates. No other helicopter or aircraft in the inventory has this unique operational capability and safety enhancement. It reduces and mitigates risk while significantly increasing both Ground Combat Element and aircraft survivability.

Cpl. Bob Cowan, a crew chief with VMM-263, believes the aircraft has performed better than expected. The normal wear and tear of the desert hasn’t been as harsh on the bird as was originally expected.

“The aircraft has performed better than expected,” said Cpl. Daniel Stratman, a ‘263 crew chief. “We haven’t had to replace any major parts like prop boxes or anything; the main problem out here is getting the parts for this aircraft. We can fix just about anything, the only thing that slows us down is getting the parts.”

As a new aircraft, the supporting logistics system is new and this deployment provides valuable maintenance and logistics lessons learned that will enhance support of the aircraft in the future.

The squadron, which was the Marine Corps’ first Tiltrotor squadron, has been training for this deployment since they stood up in March of 2006. Aside from the normal pre-deployment and Desert Talon training, the unit has completed two deployment-for-training operations to practice landings in brown out conditions and they also completed training with infantry Marines practicing inserting troops during raids and other ground operations.

“We had some snags at the beginning, but we’ve learned from our mistakes,” said Cowan, a Cookeville, Tenn. native. “We’ve done the training back in the rear, but performing the missions out here is different, so we’ve ironed out the wrinkles.”

The Marines of the squadron have kept their heads held high throughout the deployment and have done well at keeping the ‘Osprey’ mission ready.

“Our Marines are doing great; it’s incredible to watch them work,” said Sgt. Maj. Robert VanOostrom, the unit’s sergeant major. “The weather is getting worse everyday … but they have to ensure a certain amount of aircraft are prepared to fly every day. The amount of time and energy they put in every day to make sure the aircraft fly, is incredible.”

Almost every service member has heard of the new aircraft, but most Marines haven’t even seen the aircraft fly, not to mention fly in it. Now, many service members are getting their first flight in the Corps’ faster, farther traveling and heavier lifting aircraft.

“In North Carolina you see the ‘Osprey’ flying every single day and it’s just another aviation platform. ,” said VanOostrom. “It’s ironic to see the individual Marine who gets on the airplane for the first time and sees what it can do and says ‘This is the coolest thing I’ve ever seen.’”

The ‘Thunder Chickens’ have transitioned from a trained squadron to an experienced combat squadron that has completed every tasking and succeeded in maintaining the deployed operations tempo. VMM-263 has flown 5 Aeroscout missions, 1 raid, more than 1400 combat sorties and maintained an average mission capable readiness rate of 68.1% during their current deployment to Operation Iraqi Freedom 06-08.

Source: US Marine Corps

[Dan Reno]

Osprey's assault vehicles can't haul ammo

Aircraft go to Iraq without them

The Growler, manufactured in Robbins, N.C., can't perform up to its original specifications.
Courtesy of American Growler

Joseph Neff, Staff Writer

When the Marines shipped their V-22 Osprey aircraft to Iraq last year, they had to leave behind the assault vehicles and mobile mortar system that fit inside the planes.
The Marines' new mortar system can't safely carry its ammunition.
That conclusion, from a government audit, is the most recent bad news for the Marines' attempt to ferry firepower inside the Osprey. The Defense Department inspector general is investigating the program, which is two years behind schedule and $15 million over budget.
The system consists of a jeeplike vehicle called the Growler that pulls trailers carrying mortars and ammunition.
The Growler, made in Robbins, N.C., costs $127,000 each and cannot safely pull its ammunition trailer, according to interviews and the report from the Government Accountability Office. The trailer has a tendency to bounce or tip over, which could crush a Marine riding in the back of the Growler. A Growler, not pulling a trailer, was reported to have tipped over last summer when it swerved to avoid a turtle in the road.
The Marines won't discuss the program, known as the Expeditionary Fire Support System, because of the Defense Department's investigation.
The problems were predictable, said Philip Coyle, who directed the Pentagon's weapons testing from 1994 to 2001. The Marines decided to start production before testing the vehicle and mortars, Coyle said.
"It is a sign of rushing to failure," he said.
The Osprey is a rotorcraft that takes off and lands like a helicopter and tilts its huge rotors forward to fly like an airplane. The aircraft, which costs $119 million each, has suffered cost overruns, a string of crashes that left 30 dead, and repeated watering down of specifications during its two decades of development. The Pentagon has declared that most of the Osprey's problems have been fixed, and the first squadron of 12 Ospreys went to Iraq in October.
In 1999, the Marines decided the Osprey program needed assault vehicles to carry men and mortars on the battlefield. Some Growlers will pull the mortar systems on trailers. Others will be outfitted with a machine gun. The Ospreys are designed to take off from ships and go inland faster than helicopters. Once they land, the Growlers would provide assault firepower or machine gun cover for Marines on foot.
In soliciting bids in 2004, the Marines announced they had "an aggressive schedule."
In November 2004, the Marines awarded the contract to General Dynamics, which produced the mortar system. The defense giant uses a company in Robbins, Carolina Growler, to build a modified dune buggy with a design that recalls Vietnam-era jeeps.
Gov. Mike Easley awarded Carolina Growler a $25,000 grant, and U.S. Rep. Howard Coble helped get a $300,000 grant and a $112,000 loan for the company from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Contract complaint
The contract award was controversial because the founder of Carolina Growler, Terry Crews, is a retired Marine colonel with strong connections. The Defense Department received an anonymous complaint claiming that Crews was a close friend of Brig. Gen. William Catto, who headed the agency that awarded the contract, Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Va.
The complainant, who identified himself as a career procurement professional, said Catto steered the contract to Carolina Growler and General Dynamics.
After demonstrations from three companies, the selection committee recommended the contract go to a team of United Defense, which supplied the mortar, and Rae-Beck Automotive of Michigan, which built a new vehicle from scratch. According to the complaint, the United Defense bid was technically superior and cost less, while the Growler flunked crucial tests and was coupled to a much more expensive mortar system.
The Marine Corps inspector general corroborated much of the complaint but concluded that Catto did not influence the contract award or create a sense of impropriety. Its investigation was separate from the Defense Department's investigation, which is continuing.
Catto, who has been promoted to the U.S. European Command, could not be reached. Crews declined to be interviewed.
Jerry Bazinski, who owns Rae-Beck, said he designed his vehicle to meet all the original specifications. Most important, Bazinski said, his vehicle carried the mortar and ammunition. He said his system was faster, safer and more stable because it avoided using a trailer.
"Anybody worth their salt will tell you when you introduce a trailer, you have greatly diminished mobility and stability," Bazinski said. "You've increased the probability of rollover by multiple times, especially behind an extremely narrow 60-inch vehicle."
Specs diluted
Before the contract was awarded, the Marines eased critical requirements. The vehicle had to reach only 5 mph off the road, the equivalent of a brisk walk. The requirement to climb a 12-inch obstacle, such as a downed telephone pole, was dropped. A Growler pulling a trailer could never have met the original requirements, Bazinski said; the changes allowed the Growler to stay in the running.
A change that has Bazinski fuming concerned the Marines' requirement that the vehicle be capable of "driving onto/off the aircraft in both forward and reverse directions."
At the demonstration in the summer of 2004, Bazinski's vehicle had trouble backing up the ramp into the Osprey with a full load of ammunition. The Marines told him he had 48 hours to fix it or fail the test.
A colleague flew in from Michigan with a larger gear for reverse, and Bazinski and his crew installed it. The vehicle passed the test within the 48-hour frame, he said.
The Growler, however, could not drive in and out of the Osprey with its trailer attached. In August 2004, the selection committee recommended Bazinski's vehicle and the United Defense mortar.
Two months later, the Marines gave the Growler a second chance by reinterpreting the requirements: Trailers should be loaded separately instead of being driven on or off the aircraft by the vehicle. The trailer could be pushed or winched onto the plane.
Within a week, the Growler passed after being allowed to take the test again.
"From what I've seen," Bazinski said, "the performance specs were chasing the vehicle, rather than the vehicle being built to fit the specs."
Bill Crisp, the president of American Growler, disagreed.
"There has been no watering down of functional specs as far as I know," Crisp said.
Crisp, however, would not answer specific questions, referring questions to General Dynamics or the Marine Corps.
Tends to tip over
David Best, an investigator with the Government Accountability Office, said that three times during testing the trailer tipped over or ran up on the vehicle. There could have been serious injuries had someone been in the back of the vehicle, where a third Marine sits.
In September, as the Marines were poised to give final approval to the full order of 66 mortar systems and 600 Growler assault vehicles, Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, asked the Marines to postpone the decision so the Government Accountability Office could investigate.
Levin wrote the letter after complaints from Bazinski and after a Detroit television station reported that a Growler traveling at 22 mph, without a trailer, had rolled over at Camp Lejeune when it swerved to avoid a turtle.
Crisp, the Growler executive, wouldn't discuss the turtle report, saying the accident report was classified: "That may or may not have been true."

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/900148.html

[21st Century]

Friday, February 1, 2008
By: MARK WALKER - Staff Writer
Hybrid copter-airplane doing well in first wartime deployment, officials say

For years, critics attacked the Marine Corps' Osprey as an overpriced, unreliable and unsafe aircraft.

In its first four months of combat duty in Iraq, however, the service says its combination helicopter-airplane is meeting all of its expected goals and is starting to prove its detractors wrong.

"We are just scratching the surface on what the Osprey can do," said Maj. Eric Dent, a Marine Corps spokesman at the Pentagon. "When you examine all of its capabilities and what it will do in the future, we will show that it is a lot more than just another helicopter ---- it's a revolutionary aircraft."


Dent's comments this week came after the Marines reported that the first 10 V-22 Ospreys to be put into action have logged more than 2,000 hours over Iraq, flying more than 2,000 missions.

The Ospreys from the Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 from the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing in North Carolina have taken part in five combat missions, one raid and maintained a "readiness rate," or ability to fly on a moment's notice, of 68 percent. That's comparable to other aircraft in Iraq, Dent said.

The Osprey also has been able to move 8,000 troops safely around Iraq and out of the reach of roadside bombs, the weapon responsible for a majority of deaths and injuries, the Marine Corps says.

Two Ospreys recently helped evacuate casualties to medical care 85 nautical miles away in less than an hour ---- a feat, Dent said, "no other platform could have accomplished."

"If I were a ground commander who needed to move a force, I would be very happy to know that I had an Osprey," Dent said in a telephone interview.

The Osprey takes off and lands like a helicopter, using a tilt-rotor system. Once in the air, it can fly at more than 400 mph, carrying up to 24 troops.

Its long and costly development, however, was punctuated by a series of accidents that took the lives of 27 Marines, including 14 from Camp Pendleton and four from Miramar Marine Corps Air Station.

Those accidents and other mishaps during testing ---- as well as the Osprey's $20 billion development cost, incidents involving stalled engines and software problems ---- made the aircraft intended to replace the Marine Corp's CH-46 Vietnam-era helicopters a ripe target for critics.

The lack of a forward-mounted gun is also seen as potential weakness in combat.

One of the Osprey's most vocal critics, Phil Coyle, who served as an assistant secretary of defense for testing and development at the Pentagon from 1994 to 2001, continues to challenge the viability of the Osprey.

"If they continue to use it pretty much as a truck hauling people around, they will be OK," Coyle said Tuesday. Coyle is now a senior adviser for the Center for Defense Information, a Washington group that monitors and analyzes defense policy. "As long as they don't get into situations requiring sudden maneuvers that have caused trouble in the past, they will keep being OK."

Dent said Coyle's criticism is becoming outdated as the Osprey performs more missions in Iraq, including flights involving combat situations.

"Critics have the easiest job in the world," he said. "They only have to be right once."

Dent maintained that the Osprey has been flown throughout Iraq without any significant problems.

"It is performing as we expected it would," he said. "It's doing the same missions all our other aircraft are called upon to do."

Top Marine Corps officers, as well as Army Gen. David Petraeus, the overall commander in Iraq, have praised the Osprey after flying in it in Iraq.

According to a Jan. 23 report filed on the Marine Corps Web site by a public affairs correspondent in Iraq, generals aren't the only ones pleased with the Osprey's performance.

"We haven't had to replace any major parts like prop boxes or anything," Cpl. Daniel Stratman, a mechanic, was quoted as saying. "The main problem out here is getting the parts for this aircraft. We can fix just about anything ---- the only thing that slows us down is getting the parts."

The "Thunder Chicken" Osprey squadron that has been flying in Iraq since October is scheduled to complete its assignment in April and will be replaced by another East Coast squadron, Dent said.

The Osprey will eventually fly in Afghanistan, Dent said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates in January ordered 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan this spring to quell what military planners say is an expected uprising by the Taliban.

That assignment is the first large-scale presence of Marines in Afghanistan since the 2001 U.S. invasion of that country.

It will be two more years before the first Osprey unit is established on the West Coast. Current planning calls for basing a squadron at Camp Pendleton or Miramar following an environmental impact assessment and as more of the aircraft are produced, Dent said.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/02/01/news/sandiego/7_92_501_31_08.txt

[MightyGem]

More here:
www.military.com/NewsC...19,00.html (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,160419,00.html)

also:
www.defensetech.org/ar...03962.html (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003962.html)

[21st Century]

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/tiltrotors/AlAsad3.jpg

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/tiltrotors/AlAsad2.jpg

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/tiltrotors/AlAsad1.jpg

[Dan Reno]

Coast Guard suspends payments for Bell's Eagle Eye drone project

By BOB COX
Star-Telegram Staff Writer


Coast Guard officials have shelved their once-ambitious plan to spend upward of $1 billion on Bell Helicopter's proposed Eagle Eye unmanned aerial vehicle system.
The Coast Guard is still looking for the right unmanned aircraft for long-range surveillance, but Rear Adm. Gary Blore said in an interview Wednesday that the service had decided not to pay Bell for further work on its mini-tilt-rotor UAV.
When the Eagle Eye was selected by the Coast Guard in 2002 as its ship-borne unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, Blore said, service officials thought that the aircraft was nearly ready for production.
Now, Blore said, "we don't see the technology or the production readiness ... where it needs to be" after spending more than $100 million on the program. "It needs a lot of developmental work, and unfortunately we don't have a lot of money for developmental work."
Blore, the Coast Guard's top acquisition officer, said the decision was made easier when he saw how much the Navy has invested -- $500 million to $750 million -- in Northrop Grumman's Fire Scout drone helicopter, which is much further along than Eagle Eye but still isn't production-ready.
"The Coast Guard doesn't have that kind of money," Blore said.
Bell spokesman Mike Cox said that company officials had not been told that the Coast Guard had made a final decision. "It's on our back burner, but we believe in the program. We still think it's a good system."
Bell still has "some people working on the program at a minimal level," Cox said.
What was planned
Coast Guard officials selected the Eagle Eye in 2002 as part of a $12 billion, 20-year program known as Deepwater that aimed to upgrade the service's fleet of cutters, patrol boats and aircraft.
The program was being managed by a partnership of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, with Bell being a subcontractor to Lockheed.
The initial plan called for buying 69 Eagle Eye aircraft and 50 control stations, which Bell officials estimated could be worth $1 billion in orders.
Bell developed the Eagle Eye concept -- sort of a miniature V-22 Osprey -- in the mid-1990s under a Navy contract and developed a prototype aircraft that flew some demonstration flights.
What it called for
As proposed for the Coast Guard, the small aircraft -- 17.9 feet long with a wingspan of just 15.9 feet -- would have a single, small turbine engine powering a tilting rotor on the end of each wing. Like the V-22, it could fly faster than a helicopter but land and take off vertically.
The aircraft was to be deployed aboard a new generation of fast, longer-range Coast Guard cutters and would be remotely piloted to patrol wide areas for long periods and inspect ships or other targets. It was to have been equipped with cameras and other surveillance devices that would transmit pictures and data in real time.
What happened
Bell was supposed to produce three prototypes for delivery beginning in 2006. But as the Deepwater program ran into delays and budget problems, Coast Guard officials began scaling back and reassessing programs and had not spent much on Eagle Eye in the last couple of years. In October, service officials said they had "frozen" funding while they reassessed the service's requirements for unmanned aircraft.
Steve Zaloga, an analyst specializing in UAVs for the Forecast International aerospace consulting firm, said the Coast Guard's decision is "not so much they're not interested in Eagle Eye as that Deepwater has gotten in deep doo."
Blore said the Coast Guard will take its time to review options for UAVs and will probably consider acquiring either the Fire Scout for use on ships or a land-based drones such as the Predator, which is in use in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[email protected]
BOB COX, 817-390-7723

[21st Century]

BAE Systems installs defensive weapon system on CV-22 Osprey in preparation for ground-fire and flight testing
http://www.shephard.co.uk/Rotorhub/Default.aspx?Action=745115149&ID=d4b90201-50bc-4bb9-a08b-08bbc8d67ff8

JOHNSON CITY, New York — BAE Systems has installed a remotely operated defensive weapon system aboard a U.S. Air Force CV-22 Osprey in preparation for ground-fire and flight testing. The hardware installation and ensuing fit-check, completed in January, follow the company’s recent selection to develop an interim all-quadrant defensive weapon system for the Osprey.

The U. S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), which awarded the contract to integrate and test the weapon mission kit on the CV-22, is currently performing ground testing, with flight testing to follow. SOCOM oversaw the successful installation of the system hardware aboard the aircraft in January at Hurlburt Field, Florida.

“BAE Systems installed the weapon hardware to confirm the system’s suitability to CV-22 and its mission,” said Clark Freise, vice president of defense avionics for BAE Systems. “We will work with SOCOM to complete the development of this system and to demonstrate its effectiveness in protecting these aircraft and the Special Operations forces they carry.”

Using a GAU-2B mini-gun mounted to the belly of the aircraft, the weapon is designed to provide 360 degrees of accurate, sustained suppressive fire throughout the CV-22’s flight envelope. The weapon is based on BAE Systems’ Remote Guardian System™, a company-funded effort to develop a common airborne defensive capability for the V-22 and other special-mission rotary- and fixed-wing aircraft. BAE Systems designed the hardware and precision control systems without access to aircraft drawings or solid models, relying in part on its knowledge of the CV-22 as provider of the platform’s flight control system.

BAE Systems has been developing the Remote Guardian System for more than two years and unveiled the system in October 2007 at the Modern Day Marine military exposition in Quantico, Virginia. In January the company announced its selection by SOCOM to provide an interim all-quadrant defensive weapon system solution for the CV-22.

[JohnDixson]

Was there any data on the weight of the gun system and typical ammo load?

John Dixson

[Dan Reno]

V-22 engine trouble may lead to supplier switch

By DAVE MONTGOMERY
Star-Telegram Washington Bureau



http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/536059.html

[FH1100 Pilot]

So the Osprey engines are lasting around 400 hours fleet-wide, eh? I actually laughed out loud when I read that. At a cost of...how much per unit?

Then I continued laughing. Till I almost started crying.

And now the Marine Corps is now casting their "wide net" to see what *other* 7,000 horsepower turboshaft engines that can operate both horizontally and vertically might be out there? Good luck! How's about...umm...none?

Rolls Royce, for its part very cleverly says that their engines have "met or exceeded" all of the Marine Corp. specifications...if not expectations. Uhhh, but you didn't specify how *long* you wanted the stupid engines to last, and is that *our* fault? Well is it???

And now the Marines are finally and begrudgingly admitting that the Osprey needs a gun...but not only *one* gun but a second gun as well...which means it's going to get even heavier...which means it'll probably need bigger engines...which means the RR people in Indianapolis are probably pulling their hair out and pointing revolvers to their heads at the prospect of trying to get the existing engine up to, say, a 500-hour overhaul interval, much less grow the engine to 7,000 shp.

And so it goes...

[SASless]

An interesting comparison would be the MTBO for the CH-53E....CH-47D engines to the Osprey's dismal 420 hours.

Here we sit with the US Economy and the US Dollar in crisis....as much in part due to the unbelievable national debt and yearly deficit spending, yet our politicians and military will squander untold billions of dollars on projects like the VH-71, V-22, Jacuzzi driven AMTRAC, wars to create the excuse for other new and wasteful projects.

Eisenhower was right when he warned us of the dangers of a runaway military-industrial complex.

This keeps up.....we will be right beside the Russians....trying to figure out how to buy potatoes!:ugh:

[SASless]

Engine TBO for the CH-53E......"By replacing the -416 engine with the -419 in the Marines’ CH-53E Super Stallions, .... Additional savings come from a TBO extension of 3500 to 5000 hours. ...

[Encyclo]

Yes Gent's THE contract has finally been issued. Congrats to the folks at Boeing and Bell :D.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7b2DA04742-9573-42A7-AAF8-27EAD1990C6F%7d&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo

[John Eacott]

Cracking video of the Osprey and others, here (http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/2141-1/Tiltrotor+Tech.wmv) :ok:

About 6.5mb download.

[VfrpilotPB/2]

That really has "Whet my Whistle" as they say, I wonder what it would cost to get that added added to my PPL(H)!:ok:


Peter R-B

[Ian Corrigible]

More ‘FODder’ for the Corps’ plans to re-engine the V-22: looks like the current donks struggle to provide OEI capability in OIF temps.

More V-22 engine problems (http://startelegram.typepad.com/sky_talk/2008/07/more-v-22-engin.html)

I/C

[Dan Reno]

Fort Worth

Posted on Sat, Jul. 19, 2008
Cause of V-22 engine issue is still unclear
By BOB COX
[email protected] ([email protected])
FARNBOROUGH, England — The Marines Corps’ top aviator has confirmed that the service still isn’t sure what caused an engine problem in an MV-22 Osprey in Iraq last month that forced a precautionary landing well away from the base.
In remarks earlier this week at the Farnborough Air Show, Lt. Gen. George Trautman III, Marine deputy commandant for aviation, said the pilot "did a fantastic job" of bringing the heavily loaded aircraft to a safe landing.
The incident, first reported on star-telegram.com this week, occurred shortly after the aircraft took off June 21 with 20 Marines and a full load of fuel aboard.
According to an internal Marine memorandum, the pilots found that the right-hand engine on the tilt-rotor aircraft would only generate about 60 percent of the required power, and they were unable to maintain altitude, even though the second engine was performing at full power.
Trautman said the flight crew decided to make a "precautionary landing in a field" and were able to hover close to ground and make a vertical landing.
At the time of the mission, Trautman said, temperatures in the region were about 104 degrees.
The incident raises questions about why the pilot didn’t simply return to base. The V-22, once airborne and flying airplane mode, is required to be able to fly and maintain altitude after the complete loss of power in one engine.
An interconnecting drive shaft links the two prop-ro- tors on the aircraft so that it can be powered by one engine. In the worst case, if a pilot is unable to hover after loss of an engine — which could prove impossible depending on the weight of the aircraft, temperature and altitude — the pilot could make an emergency run-on landing in airplane mode.
Trautman said the Marines still don’t know exactly what was wrong with the engine.
According to the internal memorandum, obtained by the Star-Telegram, an inspection showed possible damage to the engine compressor blades from foreign objects. But there was also an indication that the engine combustion liner was breaking up and pieces had further damaged other engine parts.
The memo warned that the engine problem could have resulted in an accident or the aircraft being forced to land in enemy territory and the possible loss of personnel.
Trautman downplayed reports that the Marines were unhappy with the reliability of the Allison/Rolls Royce turbine engines, saying they were performing about as well in the heat and dust of Iraq as other helicopter engines.
Lt. Col. Paul Ryan, now commanding officer of VMM-263 Marine squadron, said he was pleased with the reliability of the Ospreys. Ryan said the squadron maintained about a 70 percent mission-capable rate, meaning that on average seven of its 10 aircraft was available for missions at any given time. The aircraft were operated about 65 hours per month and required less than 10 hours of maintenance for every flight hour, an indication that maintenance and repair requirements were relatively normal.
BOB COX, 817-723-7493

[ShyTorque]

Trautman said the flight crew decided to make a "precautionary landing in a field" and were able to hover close to ground and make a vertical landing.


This doesn't make sense to my helicopter pilot's brain. If it couldn't maintain altitude in the cruise, how did it manage a single engined hover?

[FH1100 Pilot]

Couple of questions:

I don't know how the power is controlled in the V-22, but does the blottle have a trim switch with enough range to "beep one back" to 60% Q?

...Or, is the technology good enough now that the computers can manage such a big split in available power?

Did they pull the bad one back to idle? (I'd bet real money they did.)

Okay, so given the fact that they say they could not maintain level flight, and they say they couldn't make it back to base, and they say that they made a normal vertical landing, there is only one conclusion that can be made.

Someone is lying.

Deliberately? Probably.

We don't know the real story and probably won't ever. The Marines won't ever admit anything bad about their beloved V-22.

Two other interesting tidbits. I love the way Trautman says that the V-22 engines are performing "about as well" as other helicopter engines. That's pretty coy. (Hey Trautman, got that overhaul interval up to 500 hours yet?) But then Ryan tells us they have only 70% availability on any given day??? Jeez, what's causing all the downtime? Only 65 hours per month (2.1 per day) and 10:1 maintenance to flight, huh? Suuuuuuure. The numbers don't add up. Is MD or EADS supplying the spare parts? What's the problem with availability?

And hey, go back to the video hosted on Eacott's site.

1:08 Love the barrel roll!
1:12 The XV-3! Shades of 1960!
2:56 Check out the dusty landing by a single V-22. Yikes! Holy downwash, Batman!

Sometimes I think that people are in love with the V-22 because it just looks so damn cool and impressive. But you know what? That ain't enough, folks.

[SASless]

70% availability for an aircraft that is being flown 65 hours per month......try that in the civlian world and survive?

That doesn't take in the fact the aircraft were "cherry picked" to ensure all major maintenance inspections would not take place during the deployment of the unit.

The Osprey is said to be "comparable" in that regard to other USMC aircraft availability rates.

[Dan Reno]

Remember that Bell says:

"Bell spokesman Bob Leder said compressor stalls in such engines were "really nothing."

"These kind of engine problems are very normal, not only within military aircraft, but in commercial aircraft," he said.

Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Business News | Dallas Morning News (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/0711dnbusv22.17ad314.html)

[Dan Reno]

V-22 Osprey Fails in Iraq.

V-22s Fail in Iraq (http://www.g2mil.com/V-22-Iraq.htm)

[Jack Carson]

The V-22 issues go back a far as I can remember. In the early 1990s a Marine Heavy Lift Squadron in California planned an un-refueled flight from Tustin CA. to Quantico VA in a CH-53E. The aircraft was equipped with multiple Robertson 800 gallon internal fuel tanks and crew oxygen to permit flight at higher flight levels to take advantage of the winter jet stream. The flight was planned and ready for departure when Gen H. Blot, CG 3rd MAW and of Blottle fame cancelled the flight quoting I will not permit any CH-53 flight that could compromise the capabilities of the V-22. Up until then the V-22 could only be compared the CH-46, the aircraft it was to replace.

A year later a Navy MH-53 flew 720 NM, un-refueled from Patuxent River MD to West Palm Beach FL carrying 8000 lbs. of cargo in 7.5 hours. Again this flight went unrecognized by Marine Corp management.

I am sure there are many similar stories. The sad part is that the Marines on the ground operate day to day with air support far inferior to what they require and deserve. With all of the politics, who is presently watching out for them and who if any has stepped up to apologize for those who have tragically made the supreme sacrifice in the name of this program.:(

[TwinHueyMan]

Some of this overexaggerated mumbo-jumbo being put out by the press is getting kind of aggrivating. Iraq is an absolutely horrible place to work a helicopter, especially in wartime conditions... and NOT just for the V22! IE:

"didn't mention the squadron had a dozen highly experienced Boeing tech reps to help Marines fix things"

We had dozens of tech reps for our H-60s, from Sikorsky, GE, and AMCOM. We have a tech rep with us when we are stationed at home, as well. This is not out of the ordinary at all... especially with a new airframe! Any time we get a new piece of wiring or sensor or anything, we get a tech rep or two for many months, just to make sure things are working right, and help us figure out the tough problems. Considering the most experienced V22 mechanic in the Marines has only been actively working on the ship for a few years, tech reps are absolutley required.

Not to mention the 100 or so contract mechanics we had supporting us.

"He said the V-22s engines wore out too fast and lacked the power needed by the V-22"

"He admitted that six engines had already been replaced, and later indicated that all engines will likely be replaced after less than seven months in Iraq"

Nobody has all the power they need in 65C + temps. We ran out of juice all the time, and would have killed for bigger engines, but so did EVERYONE! The poor OH-58 helicopters would skid across the tarmac with an hour worth of fuel, a couple hundred rounds for the gun, and 3 rockets... but they were very effective with that! Everyone would love more power, but its not really possible in those conditions.

Also, we replaced about a dozen engines on a dozen aircraft in a year and a half. Not to mention the engines that were swapped out during major maintenance. The sand out there kills engines, so does using them to their limits every day. Once again, nothing new for aircraft that are used down in the dirty.

"OVER THE PAST 9 MONTHS V-22 BLOCK A AIRCRAFT READINESS HAS BEEN AN AVERAGE OF 47.8% MISSION CAPABLE AND 34.9% FULL MISSION CAPABLE WHILE BLOCK B AIRCRAFT READINESS HAS BEEN ON AVERAGE 79.3% MISSION CAPABLE AND 62.1% FULL MISSION CAPABLE."

First deployment of a new type of aircraft, and it's doing damn good. We usually had 75-83% mission capable, with a "proven" and "dependable" aircraft. That includes an established spare parts and supply chain, and loads of experienced people there to jump on problems.

As for the guns -- I've never flown around iraq with a machine gun, and never had a problem. We couldn't carry them, so we planned around not having them... it is not the optimum fix, but in the grand scheme of things, you don't always have to have a gun to defend yourself. However, if we did have machine guns, I would have traded them away in a HEARTBEAT for 100kts more airspeed.

The damn things are having problems, but its a brand new aircraft type, and category! Maybe the thing will never do combat assaults into the hottest of LZs, but if people start thinking outside of the box and using different aircraft for missions they suit properly, we'd find that the V22 actually has a lot of use, just not for everything. God knows the Helicopter is not the perfect platform for a lot of the things we are using them for, so lets find more options like the tiltrotor and use them for what they are best at.

Just my opinion.
Mike

[SASless]

Never going into "hot" LZ's is not necesarily a bad thing.....unless the guys on the ground are looking for a way out of the serious poo.

Sometimes you just have to stick yer neck out in meeting your basic mission requirement....that being supporting the Grunts out there who are going nose to nose with the bad guys.

In that process they sometimes get hurt and the helicopter, errrr...excuse me....the CH-46 helicopter replacement....will have to earn it's keep by going right down there amongst the bad guys to fetch some poor infantry soldier from Death's Door. (Or does the tilt rotor crowd see themselves above that kind of thing and only operate to "cold" LZ's.....)

Am I seeing a good question for the Osprey PR guys....that being....as the Osprey is replacing the Phrog (CH-46)....does that mean the Osprey will now take over the Combat Medavac mission or will that evolve to either the CH-53 Helicopter or the UH-1N Helicopter?

Now if the USMC were to find itself buying some UH-60L's....for Combat Medavac that would tell the tale.

[The Sultan]

With all this bs from Sasless and Dan Reno on this thread I can only assume they are again being beards for another S-92 fiasco. How many 92's have been dropped into the dirt so far since the V-22 deployed? I count four 92's, but that is what has been published. Lets see, one 92 a write off and three that would have been except they were over land. Poor Sasless and Reno have to live with the ignominity of having one 92 crew picked up by a 212 and another one by a truck.

The Sultan

[SASless]

Sults,

Who mentioned 92's?

Last I checked there are no 92's in military service anywhere.

It is a fact the 22 is replacing the 46.

46's carry machine guns...big ones...and have done combat medavac flights since Vietnam days.

22's have at best one small ramp gun.

Has a 22 made a combat insertion, extraction, or medavac to/from a hasty LZ under fire?

Has a 22 ever taken hits from ground fire while operating to remote landing zones in direct support of ground units actively engaged with enemy forces?

Since the 22 arrived in Iraq....have any UH-1N's, CH-46's, or CH-53's taken hostile fire resulting from operations into/out of hasty LZ's doing inserts, extractions, or medavac's?

Perhaps I might ask my Marine neighbor for any non-classified reports that can address those questions....the answers would be very interesting I think.


A few more questions for answering.....

V-22 Osprey: A Flying Shame? (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/V-22-Osprey-A-Flying-Shame-04822/)

[Dan Reno]

Mr Sultan,
What is your reason for responding to the V-22 fiasco and linking the S92 to it? Bored?

The bigger point is that one would hope that when you spend so much time and money on a aircraft that was billed to replace the H-46 that we would all be peeing in our pants now in wonder of it's accomplishments since the Pfrog is legendary in combat. Now comes this 'Johnny come (real) lately' Godsend and we find (no real surprise) that it can't do one thing better than the Phrog.. other than perhaps giving the pilots that 'happy, fuzzy feeling' while accelerating out of a hover. Gee, I feel happy that my tax money bought another Bell failure due to politics and greed.

Go back to sleep Mr. Sultan and stop squeeking.

[TwinHueyMan]

"Has a 22 made a combat insertion, extraction, or medavac to/from a hasty LZ under fire?"

We did qualification on M4 rifles from our aircraft a while back. We hit more targets than several other units which had mounted machine guns. We also did dozens and dozens of hot zone medevacs and had 1 round hit an aircraft, with no injuries. Tactics are the key here. Aside from that, those who do the medevac stuff agree that every extra knot you can get when en route to or from the injured guy counts more than anything else.

Many of our sister units did hot inserts and extractions for the infantry guys, and none of them fired a single covering fire round. War has changed, and while vietnam meant huge amounts of covering fire, the current war means speed and agility getting the guys on the ground, more than having a blast of machine gun when you're rolling in. If you need the heavy cover, mount up the miniguns and bring some guns with you, but if it's the typical assault they're doing these days, the ability to jump 60 miles in 20 minutes instead of 30 is way more influential than a few rounds leaping from the heli on the way in.

-Mike

[Dan Reno]

Mike,
Let's hope future wars requiring vertical work fit as nicely into the V-22's parameters for waging war as does this one. It would also be nice for grunts to be able to shoot their M-4s out the window 'just in case' but that is also not possible. Anyways, here's some day-old propaganda on the V-22:
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/07/osprey-in-iraq.html (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/07/osprey-in-iraq.html)

Osprey in Iraq: The Report Card
By David Hambling July 31, 2008 | 7:19:00 AMCategories: Copters (http://blog.wired.com/defense/copters/index.html), Planes, Copters, Blimps (http://blog.wired.com/defense/planes_copters_blimps/index.html)
Presidential candidate Barack Obama's flight on a V-22 Osprey (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/07/httpwwwaviati-1.html) marks a new high point for the tilt-rotor's publicity machine -- and a further indication of its transformation from assault transport to prestige VIP taxi (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/osprey-firest-r.html). But photo-ops aside, how does the report card look for the first deployment of this much-hyped machine?
Availability rate: Could do better. Back in January we mentioned that after a bad start with rates of just 50% (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/osprey-firest-r.html), stockpiling of spare parts had brought availability up to a "more comfortable" 80%.
According to Flight International, things have slipped a little (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/07/22/225803/farnborough-2008-usmc-eyes-afghan-challenge-for-v-22.html). "On its initial seven-month deployment, [the Osprey unit] recorded a mission availability rate of around 70% and a monthly flying rate per aircraft of around 65 [hours]." You might have expected that a showpiece deployment of just ten aircraft -- one with high priority for spares and personnel -- could do a bit better than that.
Engines: More work needed. While modifications mean that the Ospreys in Iraq have not suffered from the spate of engine fires (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/osprey-burns.html) affecting tiltrotors in the US, news leaked out recently that an Osprey in Iraq made a forced landing. "A boroscope inspection of the combustion chamber showed that the liner had broken into pieces. These pieces entered into the gas generator, causing significant damage," theofficial statement (http://startelegram.typepad.com/sky_talk/2008/07/more-v-22-engin.html)said.

"The engine was breaking up. Not a good thing. But what’s more interesting is the indication that the troubled engine was still putting out considerable thrust, but the aircraft couldn’t maintain altitude," Bob Cox notes (http://startelegram.typepad.com/sky_talk/2008/07/more-v-22-engin.html) at Sky Talk. " The V-22 is supposed to be able to fly at least some distance and land on just one engine, but in this case it was unable to hold altitude while still getting significant power from the damaged engine.
We're still waiting for clarification on just how well the Osprey can fly on a single engine. Meanwhile, it turns out that then engines are wearing out much faster than expected (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/03/v-22-may-need-n.html), both in Iraq and in the US.
Armament: Improving reluctantly. For a long time, the Navy vigorously defended their decision against a huge amount of criticism (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1672497,00.html) for the Osprey to be fielded without weapons. Then, in March, the service reversed their view and decided that a 7.62 minigun will be installed after all (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/03/marine_osprey_gun_031808/) -– but not until the third deployment to Iraq. The weapon will take up about 800 pounds of cargo space and will require some seats to be removed.
Business Acumen: Excellent! A ten billion dollar contact for 167 Ospreys was agreed in March (http://springboarder.*************/2008/03/v-22-104-billion-dollars-sunk.html). The transport of future Presidents and glamor models (http://uk.askmen.com/toys/interview_250/263_mayra_veronica_interview.html) is assured.
(Photo: US Air Force)
ALSO:
· Osprey's 'Excellent Photo Op' (http://feeds.wired.com/~r/WiredDangerRoom/~3/348324259/httpwwwaviati-1.html#previouspost)
· Osprey Fire Injures Marine (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/04/osprey-fire-inj.html#previouspost)
· Osprey In Iraq Flies VIPs... When it's Ready to Fly (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/osprey-firest-r.html#previouspost)
· Osprey's Weapons Not Ready to Shoot? (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/osprey-how-much.html#previouspost)
· Time Vs. Osprey (Updated) (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/time-vs-osprey.html#previouspost)
· Osprey Bursts into Flames; "Significant Damage" (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/osprey-burns.html#previouspost)

[TheShadow]

Why the V-22 is Still Unsafe (http://www.g2mil.com/V-22survive.htm)

Carlton Meyer's essay is devastating. Question: how did the V-22 get past operational testing? I just don't get it.
I have been deeply skeptical of the V-22 for years. Meyer's article lists a variety of reports issued along the way that clearly should have given pause. It does not meet Navy crashworthy standards, but somehow went into production anyway.

This essay is superb. Here’s the best part:

The V-22 cash machine is spread among 43 states and 4 foreign countries as a jobs program to ensure solid political support. Some may wonder how such a racket survives public scrutiny. Stephen McClellan's book about the financial industry "Full of Bull" provides an overview of executive traits. He writes about the "good ole boy" style used by those hiding corporate failures, like the Bell-Boeing V-22 program, which often uses senior Marine Corps officers as their "good ole boy" spokesmen. They sweet talk reporters and government investigators, buy them lunch at the club, and take them for a ride in a V-22.

[tigerfish]

What really interests me about this thread is the extreme attitudes and perspectives that it appears to engender in the replies.

Can I assume that all the replies are based on objective reasoning and supported by fact? Some are so extreme that I am suspecting a possible commercial bias.

I do of course realise that this is a rumour network!

Tigerfish

[21stCen]

CV-22 Ospreys Complete Deployment In Mali

Thu, 04 Dec '08
Aircraft Supported Exercise Flintlock 2009

The military's fleet of Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft is seeing more light under its wheels. Four CV-22s from the 8th Special Operations Squadron at Florida's Hurlburt Field recently returned after completing their first operational deployment supporting Exercise Flintlock 2009 in November in Bamako, Mali.

The aircraft supported the training exercise in the Trans-Saharan region designed to build relationships and capacity and to enhance African nations' ability to patrol and control their sovereign territory.
The exercise included personnel from 15 countries, and the CV-22 served as a platform for multinational training. Specifically, the aircraft was used to transport Malian and Senegalese special operations forces and their leadership teams.
"We did long range, vertical lift, and dropped (teams) off at a landing zone," said Capt. Dennis Woodlief, an 8th SOS pilot. "They practiced their ground movements, then we brought them back."
Missions like this allowed the CV-22 to take advantage of its unique capabilities as a tilt rotor aircraft, said Lt. Col. Eric Hill, the 8th SOS squadron commander.
"The tyranny of distance in the African continent is amazing," he said. "We were able to go over 500 nautical miles, infiltrate a small team for them to run their exercise, and bring them back all the way to home base without doing an air refueling stop. And we were able to do that in the span of about four hours."
"It would take the MH-53 (Pave Low) twice, sometimes three times as long (to do these missions)," Captain Woodlief said. "And we did it with just one aircraft."
Colonel Hill said the CV-22 is an "unprecedented capability." And with the new capability, there were also new lessons to be learned.

"We learned some lessons like we always do on different equipment we'd like to have and requirements that we'll have in the future," he said.
Many of those lessons revolve around tailoring maintenance packages for future deployments.
Members of the 1st Special Operations Helicopter Maintenance Squadron deployed to Bamako in support of the 8th SOS. Because the exercise was held at a remote location rather than an established base, one of the maintenance challenges was self-deploying with all the parts and equipment they needed to keep the CV-22s operational for the entire exercise, and for the cumulative 10,000 nautical mile trans-Atlantic flights.
"We have a laundry list about three pages long of things we'd like to take next time," said Master Sgt. Craig Kornely, the squadron's lead production supervisor. "As we grow into the machine, we realize our needs for equipment and resources."
But despite the challenges of operating a new aircraft for the first time overseas and in an austere environment, the squadron had a perfect mission success rate during the exercise.

"We had zero maintenance cancels, zero delays, and we executed 100 percent every time," Captain Woodlief said. "I think we went above and beyond everyone's expectations."
FMI: www.af.mil (http://www.af.mil/), www.defenselink.mil (http://www.defenselink.mil/)
Aero-News Network: The Aviation and Aerospace World's Daily/Real-Time News and Information Service (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=aa88fd99-d81e-4a4a-bd10-744aa5eabf09)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/world/africa/13mali.html?th&emc=th

[SASless]

The military's fleet of Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft is seeing more light under its wheels. Four CV-22s from the 8th Special Operations Squadron at Florida's Hurlburt Field recently returned after completing their first operational deployment supporting Exercise Flintlock 2009 in November in Bamako, Mali.

Funny they didn't choose Afghanistan or Iraq for their first "operational" deployment.:oh:

I am sure the Special Forces of Mali's military benefited greatly from the deployment at great expense of four V-22's and all the support assets that went with the deployment.:ugh:

[21stCen]

According to a NY Times article and other open sources, Al Quada is digging deep into Mali to establish new training bases, and until now the government attitude there has been 'live and let live.' Perhaps these CV-22 'training operations' in Mali last month will become 'joint operations' for taking these bases out in the future.


U.S. Training in Africa Aims to Deter Extremists

Michael Kamber for The New York Times
In an exercise last month near Bamako, Mali, American troops helped soldiers from Mali and Senegal in West Africa learn to guard their borders against infiltration by Islamic militants.
By ERIC SCHMITT (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/eric_schmitt/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: December 12, 2008
KATI, Mali (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/mali/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) — Thousands of miles from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, another side of America’s fight against terrorism is unfolding in this remote corner of West Africa. American Green Berets are training African armies to guard their borders and patrol vast desolate expanses against infiltration by Al Qaeda (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’s militants, so the United States does not have to.
Michael Kamber for The New York Times
An American military officer, at back, photographed Senegalese soldiers training last month near Bamako, Mali, as part of a broad effort to deter extremism.
A recent exercise by the United States military here was part of a wide-ranging plan, developed after the Sept. 11 attacks, to take counterterrorism training and assistance to places outside the Middle East, like the Philippines and Indonesia. In Africa, a five-year, $500 million partnership between the State and Defense Departments includes Algeria, Chad, Mauritania, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Tunisia, and Libya is on the verge of joining.
American efforts to fight terrorism in the region also include nonmilitary programs, like instruction for teachers and job training for young Muslim men who could be singled out by militants’ recruiting campaigns.
One goal of the program is to act quickly in these countries before terrorism becomes as entrenched as it is in Somalia (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/somalia/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), an East African nation where there is a heightened militant threat. And unlike Somalia, Mali is willing and able to have dozens of American and European military trainers conduct exercises here, and its leaders are plainly worried about militants who have taken refuge in its vast Saharan north.
“Mali does not have the means to control its borders without the cooperation of the United States,” Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, a former prime minister, said in an interview.
Mali, a landlocked former French colony that is nearly twice the size of Texas with roughly half the population, has a relatively stable, though still fragile, democracy. But it borders Algeria, whose well-equipped military has chased Qaeda militants into northern Mali, where they have adopted a nomadic lifestyle, making them even more difficult to track.
With only 10,000 people in its military and other security forces, and just two working helicopters and a few airplanes, Mali acknowledges how daunting a task it is to try to drive out the militants.
The biggest potential threat comes from as many as 200 fighters from an offshoot of Al Qaeda called Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, which uses the northern Malian desert as a staging area and support base, American and Malian officials say.
About three months ago, the Qaeda affiliate threatened to attack American forces that operated north of Timbuktu (or Tombouctou) in Mali’s desert, three Defense Department officials said. One military official said the threat contributed to a decision to shift part of the recent training exercise out of that area.
The government of neighboring Mauritania said 12 of its soldiers were killed in an attack there by militants in September. By some accounts, the soldiers were beheaded and their bodies were booby-trapped with explosives.
Two Defense Department officials expressed fear that a main leader of the Qaeda affiliate in Mali, Mokhtar Belmokhtar, was under growing pressure to carry out a large-scale attack, possibly in Algeria or Mauritania, to establish his leadership credentials within the organization.
Members of the Qaeda affiliate have not attacked Malian forces, and American and Malian officials privately acknowledge that military officials here have adopted a live-and-let-live approach to the Qaeda threat, focusing instead on rebellious Tuareg tribesmen, who also live in the sparsely populated north.
To finance their operations, the militants exact tolls from smugglers whose routes traverse the Qaeda sanctuary, and collect ransoms in kidnappings. In late October, two Austrians were released after a ransom of more than $2 million was reportedly paid. They had been held in northern Mali after being seized in southern Tunisia in February.
Because of the militants’ activities, American officials eye the largely ungoverned spaces of Mali’s northern desert with concern.
This year, the United States Agency for International Development is spending about $9 million on counterterrorism measures here. Some of the money will expand an existing job training program for women to provide young Malian men in the north with the basic skills to set up businesses like tiny flour mills or cattle enterprises. Some aid will train teachers in Muslim parochial schools in an effort to prevent them from becoming incubators of anti-American vitriol.
The agency is also building 12 FM radio stations in the north to link far-flung villages to an early-warning network that sends bulletins on bandits and other threats. Financing from the Pentagon will produce, in four national languages, radio soap operas promoting peace and tolerance.
The New York Times
“Young men in the north are looking for jobs or something to do with their lives,” said Alexander D. Newton, the director of A.I.D.’s mission in Mali (http://www.usaid.gov/ml/en/index.html). “These are the same people who could be susceptible to other messages of economic security.”
Concern about Mali’s vulnerability also brought a dozen Army Green Berets from the 10th Special Forces Group in Germany, as well as several Dutch and German military instructors, to Mali for the two-week training exercise that ended last month.
Just before noon on a recent sunny, breezy day, Malian troops swept onto a training range here on the savannah north of Bamako, the capital, aboard two CV-22 Ospreys, rotor-blade transport aircraft flown by Air Force (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/us_air_force/index.html?inline=nyt-org) Special Operations crews from Hurlburt Field, Fla.
As the dull-gray aircraft landed in a swirling cloud of dust, rotors whomp-whomping, the Malians disembarked single file from the rear ramp in dark-green camouflage uniforms and helmets, M-4 assault rifles at the ready. (The Malians normally use AK-47s, but used American-issue M-4’s for this exercise.)
After a mile-long march through savannah grass, the troops walked down a hill into a small valley. Their target — the mock hide-out of the insurgents — was in sight. But what the Malians did not know was that their American instructors were lying in wait, and suddenly attacked the troops with a sharp staccato of small-arms fire (plastic paint bullets), with red flares soaring high overhead.
The make-believe skirmish lasted just a few minutes. The Malians, shouting to one another and firing at their attackers, retreated from the ambush rather than try to fight through it.
“We’re still learning,” said Capt. Yossouf Traore, a 28-year-old commander, speaking in English that he learned in Texas and at Fort Benning, Ga., as a visiting officer. “We’re getting a lot of experience in leadership skills and making decisions on the spot.”
Even more significant, Captain Traore said, was that the exercise gave his troops an unusual opportunity to train with soldiers from neighboring Senegal. Soon after the Ospreys returned to whisk the Malian soldiers from the training range, two planeloads of Senegalese troops arrived to carry out the same maneuvers.
Still, worrisome indicators are giving some Malian government and religious leaders, as well as American officials, pause about the country’s ability to deal with security risks.
Mali is the world’s fifth-poorest country and, according to some statistics from the United Nations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and the State Department, is getting poorer. One in five Malian children dies before age 5. The average Malian does not live to celebrate a 50th birthday. The country’s population, now at 12 million, is doubling nearly every 20 years. Literacy rates hover around 30 percent and are much lower in rural areas.
There are also small signs that radical clerics are beginning to make inroads into the tolerant form of Islam practiced here for centuries by Sunni Muslims. The number of Malian women wearing all-enveloping burqas is still small, but the increase in the past few years is noticeable, religious leaders say.
New mosques are springing up, financed by conservative religious organizations in Saudi Arabia, Libya and Iran, and scholarships offered to young Malian men to study in those countries are on the rise, Malian officials say.
In Imam Mahamadou Diallo’s neighborhood in Bamako, a congested, fume-choked city on the Niger River, a simmering debate is under way. Imam Diallo, 48, said that two new mosques had been built in his area with financing from Wahhabi extremist groups in Saudi Arabia, and that they were drawing away some members of his mosque.
“Many people here are poor and don’t have work,” Imam Diallo said through an interpreter in Bambara, one of the local languages. “They’re potentially vulnerable to these Wahhabi people coming in with money.”
Just down a bumpy, reddish dirt road, however, the leader of one of these newer mosques, Al Nour, quarreled with Imam Diallo’s characterization. Ali Abdourohmome Cisse, the imam since Al Nour opened in 2002, said he did not know who had financed its construction. He added that no one on his staff, including an Egyptian assistant who helps conduct Friday Prayer in Arabic, advocated any form of extremism.
At El Mouhamadiya, an Islamic school in the neighborhood, more than 700 students, ages 4 to 25, take classes including math, physics and Arabic. “But we don’t train them in terrorism,” said Broulaye Sylla, 25, an administrator. “We don’t talk about jihad.”
Mahmoud Dicko, president of the High Council of Islam in Bamako, acknowledged over soft drinks in his second-story office that the influence of conservative Sunni and even Shiite groups had become more visible, but he said they did not pose a serious threat to Malian society.
“Their influence has limits because of the importance of cultural ties here in Mali,” he said. “We have a tolerant Islam here, a pacifist Islam.”
American and African diplomats here said Mali was one of the few countries in the region that had good relations with most neighbors, making it a likely catalyst for the broader regional security cooperation the United States is trying to foster. American commanders expressed confidence that by training together, the African forces might work together against transnational threats like Al Qaeda. While Mali has no effective helicopter fleet, for instance, it could team up its soldiers with better-equipped neighboring armies, like Algeria’s, to combat a common threat.
“If we don’t help these countries work together, it becomes a much more difficult problem,” said Lt. Col. Jay Connors, the senior American Special Forces officer on the ground here during the exercise.
American and Malian officials acknowledged that there were other hurdles to overcome. The Pentagon needs to better explain the role of its new Africa Command, created in October to oversee military activities on the continent, and to dispel fears that the United States is militarizing its foreign policy, Malian officials said.
American officials say their strategy is to contain the Qaeda threat and train the African armies, a process that will take years. The nonmilitary counterterrorism programs are just starting, and it is too early to gauge results.
“This is a long-term effort,” said Colonel Connors, 45, an Africa specialist from Burlington, Vt., who speaks French and Portuguese. “This is crawl, walk, run, and right now, we’re still in the crawl phase.”

[SASless]

Yes....possible.

Then we can redeploy the aircraft 10,000 miles one way to carry out the strike.....why look at the money we can save by using the same maps twice.:uhoh:

[21stCen]

Good point. And think of all the money we could save if we cancel all military training missions from now on!!
:bored:

[SASless]

Guess the Navy had a similar concept to the V-22....but gave up on it a long time ago.

http://www.aerofiles.com/kaman-k16b.jpg

[Dan Reno]

April 23, 2009 - V-22s Broke Down
Over 140 V-22s have now been delivered to the Marine Corps, so they now outnumber the CH-46Es still in service. The 10 used as airplanes operating from airbases in Iraq are now worn out and have been withdrawn. They dispatched a Navy ship (LHD) from Norfolk to retrieve them, since they couldn't fly home. Ten V-22s were supposed to deploy aboard ship last November with the 26th MEU(SOC), but pre-deployment exercises prompted the Corps to cancel that idea at the last moment. Ten V-22s did deploy aboard ship with the 22nd MEU this month. There is no news on how they are performing, but note that the 22nd MEU is not a MEU(SOC) since it failed to demonstrate that it was (Special Operations Capable) during pre-deployment training. It was only the second MEU to fail such certification since the SOC concept began two decades ago.
Despite all the sales pitches earlier this year about how Marines and V-22 will dominate the battlefield in Afghanistan, it was learned last month that none will deploy (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/03/marine_osprey_afghanistan_032809w/) with the 8000-man 2nd MEB. This means there are only 10 of 140 V-22s deployed overseas, whereas half the remaining CH-46s remain committed to units in Iraq, Afghanistan, Okinawa, and aboard ships. They throw out the "new" aircraft excuse for this, but the V-22 first flew in 1989 and went into production in 1999.
From Carlton Blog

[SASless]

Supposedly......per this USMC Press Release....the reason the 22 MEU is not SOC qualified is that it does not have a SOC Company assigned. Perhaps what they meant.....is the lack of a "qualified" SOC Company but skipped over that part.

Last but not least: 22nd MEU establishes combat readiness during CERTEX (http://www.marines.mil/units/marforcom/iimef/22ndmeu/Pages/Lastbutnotleast22ndMEUestablishescombatreadinessduringCERTEX .aspx)

[usmc helo]

So despite Dan Reno trying to imply that the MEU didn't get SOC qualified because of the V-22
"There is no news on how they(V-22) are performing, but note that the 22nd MEU is not a MEU(SOC) since it failed to demonstrate that it was (Special Operations Capable) during pre-deployment training."

the reality is it had nothing to do with it.

Imagine that... an inaccuracy from the Reno/Carlton camp. This must be a historical first.

[SASless]

Right then Leatherneck pilot.....what is the gouge on MEU 22 being deployed without the SOC capability? All the predecessors of this MEU were SOC qualified.

Why would we deploy a MEU that was not SOC capable?

Can the MEU not be equipped with 53's and be SOC capable.....it surely does not require Osprey's for that.

[usmc helo]

Well...if you read your link then you would know the answer to your question:
"Since the 22nd MEU is not deploying with a Marine Special Operations Company, we're simply going to be working toward a recommendation for a MEU certification," said Armstrong.

MarineSpecial Operations Company (MSOC) is the DA for the MEU. The MSOCs replaced the MSPF. An MSOC consist of roughly 100 Marines (about half Recon and the other half command element and infantry). They don't own any aviation assets. Those belong to the MEU commander and the ACE. Therefore the 22 MEU not getting its SOC certification has nothing to do with the V-22. It sounds as though the MSOC may be committed elsewhere. Not sure how that's the V-22's fault.

...By the way... a 'non SOC capable' MEU is still a very capable combat element, which why it is being deployed.

[SASless]

Perhaps the MEU should do some "Shores of Tripoli" live fire excercises.......in Somalia.

I'd like to be there when they arrive.....as I was stood on the beach waving the last time they departed!

[Dan Reno]

USMC Helo

Perhaps now's a good time to look back on all the prior posts here..some by some very qualified people who provide the facts and charts. I'd also stay clear of MILITARY.COM as they even run off a recently retired LtCol close to V22 day to day ops, when he spewed out the facts regarding this amazing gooney bird. Or you can take the low road like some Navy & MC officers and get a chance to hire on with an outfit close to the program. Money or honor, facts or dribble, your choice pal.

[usmc helo]

Dan Reno,

You are correct. There are some very qualified people in previous post. There are also some very UNqualified people in previous post. If you mean to imply that I should trust Carltons G2mil.com and not Military.com I think you are incorrect. BOTH are filled inaccurate information, take the CDI article on Carltons site for example. Now if you mean to imply that those who support the V-22 have no honor than I can only assume that you are arrogant (or is that ignorant...hmm). There are arguments to be made on both sides. From reviewing past post it is obvious that you are closed minded on the subject.

Now to the facts of my particular post. I neither said anything good nor bad about the V-22. {I have not flown nor deployed with it so I can't judge it. I can say that Marines I do know who have flown the V-22 would disagree with your and Carltons assertions.} I only pointed out that you posted an item from Carltons blog that implies that the V-22 kept the 22 MEU from gaining it's SOC certification. The link posted by SASless seems to show this is not true. If you have FACTS that show otherwise please present them. Notice I said facts, not conspiracy theories.

Standing by

[Dan Reno]

Whatever, USMC Helo.

[usmc helo]

From your response I'll assume that you have no facts to support your argument. Perhaps you should rescind your previous post of Carltons article?

[Dan Reno]

Naa. You're right. The V22 is a piece of junk.

[21stCen]

Yq9USmupoJM&feature=related

How the Osprey Gun Works...
[From DefenseTech]
At the Modern Day Marine Expo, Adamiak explained that the crew chief will use an X-Box-like controller to move and shoot the gun. The GAU-17 (GAU-2 for the SOCOM version) Gatling gun is slaved to a sensor that rolls down out of the Osprey belly when the gun deploys -- housing a CCD camera, IR camera and laser range finder.
The gun can track 360 degress, but there is a software-driven safety zone that makes sure rounds don't blow the rotors off. If the Osprey has to maneuver away from the target and the crew chief can't hold the gun on the bad guys manually, the system slaves the gun to the point of the last shot, slewing it as the plane moves. The fire control computer compensates for range and angle as well.
There is no capability for the pilot to control the gun, but there's an auto feature than swings the gun to the barrel forward position, 10 degrees down so the pilot can steer the Osprey onto target. But he can't fire the weapon, that'll still be up to the crew chief in the back.

[Lt.Fubar]

Wow... that's almost as much firepower as Loach had in the 60's :ugh:

[21stCen]

It sure does seem small (caliber and barrel length), but perhaps the accuracy brought in with the CCD camera, IR camera, laser range finder, and computer slewing capability will more than make up for that if BAE claims are accurate. I can see the logic that it's better to 'hit the target' than 'make a louder bang' with a bigger caliber.

[SASless]

Remember "KISS".....as in "Keep It Simple Stupid"!

How many hundred million dollars will this system cost?

Think about your Crew Chief playing with his X-Box controller peering into a computer screen and fiddling with some buttons while trying to see hostile fire, maintain his situational awareness, looking out for other dangers, and also performing his other crew duties.

Nothing....nothing....beats a good pair of eyes looking out a window peering over the barrrel of mini-gun or .50 Cal......on each side of the aircraft!

[Lt.Fubar]

That's one thing - the second is pure firepower - that system goes on the USAF CSAR Ospreys. Last time I checked, their missions were run by two aircrafts - in Pave Hawk example one was used as a transport ship, second as a backup/gunship. Both armed with TWO miniguns. Now with MV-22 the numeber of weapons is cut in half, and from that, only one can be used after one lands to get the SF guys on board.

No matter what gizmos you use, you can't cover as many sectors with one gun, as you could with 4 (6 with now-retired Pave Lows)

[21stCen]

All valid points. However, the V-22 does not have access points that would allow unobstructed use of a mini-gun or .50 Cal on either side of the aircraft. The wing, engine nacelles, and proprotors are all obstructing potential external targets. And if a crew member using a mini-gun or .50 cal in the heat of battle hit one of those items, it would not be a good thing. If it works as claimed, the BAE system seems to be the best answer available based on the current design configuration where the intent is to use technology to overcome the lack of unobstructed gun port access.

[tottigol]

I have to agree with USMC Helo on the V-22. I have several friends who are flying the Osprey and they rate very highly.

I wonder whether Mr. Reno would be so judgmental of the V-22 had it been built by Sikorsky.

[Matthew Parsons]

One advantage with the xbox controller is now the gunner isn't an obvious target, and for colder climates is out of the -50 windchill.

[SASless]

Matthew......set back and cup yer mitts around a cup of tea and just think for a few minutes please.

Do you for one second think the Muj aim at the gunner or the helicopter?

We had this argument one time in a land far away about having anything but Olive Drab flight helmets. There were those that said the Bad Guys would now have an aiming point in the cockpit instead of just aiming at the glass and plastic parts of the helicopter nose.

When Muj pops an RPG at a Chinook, 53, 22 or a Humvee....he is aiming at the vehicle and not the guys.

If you are close enough....as setting on the ground or very close to the ground and slow....they are still aiming at the big bit and not just between a pair of blue eyes.

Last time I had it done to me....when folks pop off rounds at you with an automatic weapon they went for the Full Monte and might as well had a water hose for all the single aiming they were doing.

This BAE concept is the best answer to a bad question perhaps.....but as in the mortar wagon the USMC spent Billions on......it is putting a band aid over a cancer.

These 22's get a lot of praise from the Marines....but we don't see them in Afghanistan doing the work of the Chinooks and 53's. They may have their uses in Spec Ops but as a mainstay replacement for the 46 they are a miserable failure.

[FH1100 Pilot]

21st Century said:
It sure does seem small (caliber and barrel length), but perhaps the accuracy brought in with the CCD camera, IR camera, l@ser range finder, and computer slewing capability will more than make up for that if BAE claims are accurate. I can see the logic that it's better to 'hit the target' than 'make a louder bang' with a bigger caliber.

Umm, just *how* many little 7.62 rounds does this new gun have available? Judging by the size of the box in the video, not bloody many! And at 3,000 rounds per minute, the operator won't be able to hold his finger on the button for long. Will it be able to be reloaded in flight? How much does this assembly weigh? Looks heavy.

tottigol: I have to agree with USMC Helo on the V-22. I have several friends who are flying the Osprey and they rate very highly.
Well of course they do! Has anyone EVER met a pilot who really, truly thought his a/c was a piece of sh!t...a pilot who truly thought he was assigned to a bad plane that was unsuitable for the job? Heh. No, most pilots think "their" ship is the bestest, most wonderful aircraft ever built. This is especially true for the V-22 crews. You cannot expect anyone associated with the program to be objective. Just. Not. Possible.

SASless:This BAE concept is the best answer to a bad question perhaps.....but as in the mortar wagon the USMC spent Billions on......it is putting a band aid over a cancer.

How appropriate! Couldn't have said it better meself.

[Matthew Parsons]

SASless said, Matthew......set back and cup yer mitts around a cup of tea and just think for a few minutes please.

Interesting. Normally I get accused of thinking too much.

Do you for one second think the Muj aim at the gunner or the helicopter?

We had this argument one time in a land far away about having anything but Olive Drab flight helmets. There were those that said the Bad Guys would now have an aiming point in the cockpit instead of just aiming at the glass and plastic parts of the helicopter nose.

I'm not talking about what they're aiming at, I'm talking about what is exposed. Not saying this is the best solution, just pointing out that its not all bad.

Have you flown in the door gunner position when its -30C?

If you are close enough....as setting on the ground or very close to the ground and slow....they are still aiming at the big bit and not just between a pair of blue eyes.

Dangerous assumption. What if you get an enemy that is a good shot, and chooses to aim at a high value flesh target presented broadside? If you can make your people more protected, I say do so.

[SASless]

Matt......do you have any concept of what kind of armor aircraft do not have?

Shy of a round hitting something like a gear box....they usually go right the way through both sides of the aircraft.

Even 7.62 size rounds make a lot noise as they whiz through.....and .50 Caliber really make a racket when they hit something hard like a main piece of structure. As to RPG's.....they leave huge gaping holes on the way out

[Lt.Fubar]

This would work in APC or a tank, not really in helicopter, as they are soft skinned, and armor if available (to heavy for Osprey) have many weak spots, and hiding gunner away from the weapon is not cover, but merely a concealment - he will get hit if someone spray the machine with RPK anyway. If we're talking about "good shots".. they will not choose a gunner, but a pilot instead, as they can take the whole thing down with one shot - and cause a lot of damage and confusion. It all have been discussed over and over again.

IIRC arctic ops are conducted with the gun ports covered until they need to be used, on all of the aircrafts, I guess gunners can handle that much, especially with a shot of adrenaline, as this is the most critical point of their mission.

The fact is - Osprey was not designed as a gun platform, and its direct defense capabilities are very poor, and that single, remote turret don't solve that problem.
Osprey as it is today, maybe is a nice machine to fly, but definitely it is not suited for a fight.

BTW - the problem of accidental shooting at own plane by gunners was already dealt with during World War II... 70 years ago.

[Matthew Parsons]

SASless said, Matt......do you have any concept of what kind of armor aircraft do not have?

Yes I do. Very recent and relevant. You?

[heli1]

This thread seems to be still comparing the V-22 with a helicopter..which it is not.In Iraq the infidels had a shock when they realised that ,having pitched their camp outside the range of a CH-46 and expecting ample warning (noise and speed) of any attack,they found the V-22 could take off on missions in IFR conditions ,cover four times the distance at an altitude well out of range of ground fire ,sweep in a high speed relatively silently and be offloading Marines before they had woken up.
You don't need lots of guns and armour in that scenario!

[Dan Reno]

I think we're all comparing it to the CH-46 which it was billed to replace. Gee, it certainly did surprise the 'infidels' with its fantastic abilities. I bet the 'infidels' are scrambling around right now moving their camps farther away and investigating what weapon could reach this fast flyer way up in there in the clouds. And just wait until the 'infidels' get a taste of that GAU-17! WOW! What a Godsend!

[tottigol]

You finally got it Dan.:ok:
Resistance is futile. The V-22 is here to stay.

[Lt.Fubar]

Am I missing something ? When did the V-22 seen combat ?

[JohnDixson]

Question:

With the new defensive armament system installed , with combat crew and full normal tanks, what is the remaining payload at Hd = 10K feet?

Thanks,
John Dixson

[21stCen]

Heli1,
You 'hit the nail on the head.' The tiltrotor is not a great helicopter, and we could bring in some turbo-prop design engineers to prove to us that it is not the optimum airplane either. On the other hand, we could also have tiltrotor experts come in to testify that helicopters and airplanes do not make good tiltrotors! The point is that the V-22 can perform some missions that no helicopter or airplane in existence today can perform. It will NEVER replace helicopters, and it will NEVER replace airplanes -- but it was NEVER designed to replace either.

[Dan Reno]

Really? What exactly then, was the V22 expected to do for the MC since its been touted now for two decades that it would be the CH-46's replacement...amongst other things? Apparently I and others have been misslead all these years.

[21stCen]

V-22s will add tremendously to the mission capabilities previously offered by the CH-46. However, there are other helicopters that will be and should remain operational in the MC OOB to allow them to respond to a wide range of mission requirements.

[SASless]

They did deploy to Iraq I guess....but as to making combat insertions and extractions....probably not many. I seem to recall one took two hits or something like that.

[Dan Reno]

V-22 Faces Mission Capable Rates Issues


May 4, 2009

By Bettina H. Chavanne
It may be flying every mission in theater, but the MV-22 is still facing reliability issues due to inaccurate predictive modeling, according to Lt. Gen. George Trautman, U.S. Marine Corps deputy commandant for aviation.
“We’re working on it, but that’s one concern I have in the Osprey program,” Trautman told Aerospace DAILY April 30. Reliability and maintainability are “not meeting my full expectations yet.”
The V-22 was sent into combat “sooner than we should have,” Trautman said. Typically, an aircraft is deployed only after its has passed its Material Support date, which the Osprey did Oct. 1, 2008. The first squadron was deployed a year prior, in October 2007. That early deployment had an effect on the way the Marine Corps purchased spare parts for the aircraft.
With 55,000 flight hours on the V-22, it has become evident that early predictions of mean time between failures on certain parts were inaccurate. “If [mean time between failures] is worse on the kinds of spares that have a long lead time, you start getting into a problem of how you dig out of that hole,” Trautman said. The goal then is sparing models based on reality, not predictions. “We’re struggling with that a bit,” he said.
The Marine Corps has told Bell Boeing that by 60,000 flight hours, the service would like to achieve 80 percent mission capable rates. Trautman is pleased with the company’s response. “The good news is they’re standing behind the product, they’re engaged,” he said.
Sustained shipboard deployment of the V-22 also has posed a slight challenge to the service. It was discovered that on smaller deck amphibious ships, heat from the downward-pointing nacelles could potentially warp the stringers underneath the deck plates. “We’re concerned with heat on the LPD and LSD decks because the steel is so thin,” Trautman said, adding that the service has “worked through that challenge.”
One solution is to tilt the nacelles forward slightly, which gives 35 minutes of operational time on deck.
The other option is deck plates that provide protection up to 90 minutes. The Marine Corps is working with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Office of Naval Research to find coatings for the deck, particularly in light of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The exhaust from the JSF’s auxiliary power unit has the potential to cause similar heating problems, so the joint program office is working on the issue now, Trautman said.

[SASless]

Hmmmmmmmm......tall grassy field....well after the growing season....some ground time waiting for wounded to be carried to the aircraft?


Are we talking a real bit of "ground" fire here?

Or....with the prop rotors tilted forward.....now we have a danger of heads getting lopped off the unwary?

Someone tell me how well this thing autorotates!

My....what a wonder concept this tilt rotor thing!

[JohnDixson]

With the V-22 making its first flight 20 years ago this March, the comment by LtGen Trautman that it was sent into combat too early was telling.

The other comment that caught my attention was the reference to "poor predictive modeling". Sounds lame. Fly a ship for twenty years and then claim that you don't have a handle on the failure rates?

The V-22 has performance that makes it uniquely capable of performing a class of missions, but the management of the program has not served it well. One wonders. Like Comanche, it is a three cornered affair: two private companies and one branch of DOD . Not a coincidence.

Thanks,
John Dixson

[SASless]

Sent into "Combat" too early.....after only twenty years!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

What of this "609" thing.....how long has it been in "development"?:uhoh:


Leder said Bell-Boeing had stockpiled about $100 million in spare parts in the past year so that it could be ready for this deployment and any that will follow. It also sent 14 technicians with the Thunder Chickens, a common precaution for major weapon systems when they deploy.

The Marines are keeping tight control on information about the deployment.

[usmc helo]

Given that the average program from start(program awarded) to IOC is:

10.2 years for an upgrade/derivative of an existing airframe (VH-71, S92, CH148, UH-1Y, AH-1Z, ARH [projected IOC of 2011 from 2008 GAO report], CH-53K)

18.3 years for a new model (EH101, NH90, RAH66[if it had gone to production it would have increased the average])

is 25 years for a new type design (V22) really out of line with historical averages?

If so could you please provide examples of recent examples?

[SASless]

Well lessee here Marine,

What say we start with the 1981 RFP and start the clock there and ignore the first thirty years between the V-3 and V-22 RFP....despite all three programs being directly related. By my Army math....that is Twenty Six years from RFP to first deployment in Combat (and that was described as being "premature" by the USMC!)

From the V-15 to Combat deployment of the V-22 was Thirty Years.

But in reality....this aircraft was under development for over Fifty -Six Years!



Let's start with the original prototype.....the Bell V-3.

Original concept... 1951
First Flew... 1955

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/xv-3-A-27737_a.jpg


Then there was the V-15......

First flew in 1977......


http://www.vstol.org/wheel/images/VSTOLWheel/pics/12.jpg


Along comes the V-22....

The Department of Defense began the Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program in 1981, first under U.S. Army leadership, then the U.S. Navy/Marine Corps later took the lead.

The Bell Boeing team submitted a proposal for a enlarged version of the Bell XV-15 prototype on 17 February 1983. This was the only proposal received.


The JVX aircraft was designated "V-22 Osprey" on 15 January 1985.

Full-scale development of the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft began in 1986.

The first V-22 was rolled out in May 1988.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Aircraft.osprey.678pix.jpg/300px-

[Dan Reno]

Goodness! All these FACTS are making my mind spin even though these questions hae been asked countless times and explained. Its almost like everytime some Johnny-Come-Lately comes to the V22 program, they have to be reducated past their hysterical, emotional loyality to whatever a service buys, regardless of its record. Uh-oh, more hand wringing on the way.

[usmc helo]

Which one of those went into production? Which one had fly by wire? Which one had a folding wing? Which one was designed for combat?

Both were R&D concepts and nothing more. Neither was FBW, which is no easy task (any idea how The S92F is coming? Rumour is it's been put on hold until the 60M and 53K are complete and the 2008 FAA cert date has come and gone.), and neither had anything in common with the V22 other than the concept.

From what you're saying we should see X2's darkening the skies in the next couple of years, since the original concept flew in 1973 there really shouldn't be much for them to develop, right?

Furthermore you do nothing to address the question. If it takes on average 10 years to upgrade, 18 years to develop a new model helicopter, is 25 years to develop something that's never been certified before out of line? If so why did the EH101 (just another helicopter) take 19 years (1981-2000) to get into service? What's up with the CH148? Heck, the civillians are already flying them so why another 9 years (or more) to get that into service with the Canadians? Why does the CH53K need 12 years to upgrade engines, install a glass cockpit, fly by wire and stick some new rotor blades on it? Why did they decide not to use the viscoelastic lag damper? It's just another damper right, can't be that hard?

I'll answer for you. Because development is hard, it's even harder when you're on new ground (V22 and X2). How long do you really think it will be until we see operational version of the X2? Will anyone be surprised if the CH53K doesn't deliver in 2015 but sometime later, considering it hasn't flown yet so it hasn't run into it's first development issue, of which there will be more than one.

[SASless]

Well at least we aren't arguing the number of years now and are down to seeking excuses. That at least is progress of a sort.

Now....as the 22 was going to replace the 53D.....just how is it going to do that when the 53D could haul up to 55 passengers with center row seating?

Was not the USMC going to move to 53E's or K's before the 22 Mafia got in power?

It also begs the question why the USAF CSAR contract went to Boeing for the Chinook and not the V-22 which is already in production in an "MH" version (as in MH-47, MH-53)?

The 22 has some very special capabilities that surpass regular helicopters but the question has got to be at what COST?

[usmc helo]

Sasless,

I can only assume that you either need to get your bifocals checked or you don’t understand the question. The XV-15 has as much in common with V-22 as the S-76 does with the CH-53K or the X2. If it takes 12 years to install new engines, add a blade, glass cockpit, develop some control laws and probably some airframe mods, then is it unrealistic that it takes twice that to do everything from the wheels up? My point being that 25 years IS too long, so is 12. I would hope we could do a new type in 12 and an upgrade in half that, but we can’t. Not on V-22, not on CH53K, not on EH101. Why does it take 19 years to develop the 101 and then another 9 to make it VH-71? Why does it take Sikorsky 12 years to develop the S92 and then 9 more to turn it into a CH148? Looking at historical averages the V-22 is not out of line, unfortunately. Whilst you place the blame with the aircraft and conspiracy theories, I place it with a faulty procurement system and scope creep. Having worked at NAVAIR as a Marine (not on the V-22 program by the way) I would blame at least half of the cost and schedule overruns on the inefficiencies of developing an aircraft with the govt. I’ve seen stuff that OEM’s could have done in a week take 6 months to get thru NAVAIR red tape. Perhaps you've never been on a development program and therefore don't understand the issues.

Dan,

No need to wring your hands, we all know that you are hysterical and emotionally loyal to your cause, why would you need facts when you have ideology? I have grave concerns about someone who (I assume) graduated from Naval Flight School and believes what he reads on Carltons blog much less post from it. Like the V-22 or not at least get a better source of intel, perhaps then we won’t need to worry about reeducating you.

Like you I’m not sure about the utility of the gun on the V-22. Unlike you I’ll trust the people operating the aircraft and whose lives are on the line to decide what they need. I agree with Sasless that looking over the barrel of the gun is light years better than looking thru a 12 inch display. But I’ll trust our Marine and Airmen to make it work. I’ve been to Iraq, flown from the same operating areas that the CH-46s, 53s and 22s are flying from. While there were not any V-22s there during my deployment I don’t recall ANY of the 46’s or 53’s going into a hot zone. We are not in Vietnam anymore nor are we using the same tactics.

[JohnDixson]

Just to assist in keeping some of the development histories straight:

CH-53A. First flight October 1964. First USMC production aircraft deliveries in fall of 1966.
UH-60A. First flight in October 1974. First production deliveries to US Army in October 1978. And that history includes a full fly-off competition with Boeing, with an evaluation period following the fly-off and then getting production going.
S-76A. First flight in March 1977 and following FAA certification, the first delivery to Air Logistics took place in February 1979.
S-92A. First flight in December 1998, with FAA Certification in December 2002 and first delivery in September 2004. This longer development history was controlled by available corporate finance, with the program coming to a stop about four times as I recall.Just one more note re the CH-53K. Its a whole new aircraft. It looks like the "E", but the similarity ends there.

Thanks,
John Dixson

[SASless]

NavAir.....nay laddy I spent my time digging thru NavSea's dirty linen less one small foray into the Cruise Missile Program. I completely agree with you about the needless bureaucracy and cost the DOD and in particular the NAVY procurement system plays in getting things done. The Army of late has been horning in on that bit of glory it seems.

I worked for a separate command tasked with ferreting out culpable individuals and corporations involved in fraud and the like. You would have loved the reception a Naval Officer got at Athens, Geogia when he tried to convince us hammers for the F-18 program were not overpriced.

I happened to have a GSA Catalogue in my mitts when he made the famous statement ".....so you see there was no effort to hide the item or disguise it in any way!" He was referring to the "Device, impact, manually operated" that was billed to the government a bit over Four Hundred Dollars.

In all of that catalogue.....I found about a thousand different hammers....and not one of them was a "Device, impact, manually operated" and not one of them exceeded a hundred dollars no matter how esoteric in design or application.

Go Army....Beat Navy!

As to being a "Liberal".....I am on your Department of Homeland Security list of potential Right Wing Radical Rascists....due to my membership in a Racial Hate Group as identified by some in the current government as the American Legion.

[Dan Reno]

USMC HELO You're right as rain.

[Ned-Air2Air]

Question for the USMC aviators that might be here. When I was at Pendalton recently was talking with some of the aviators there and they were saying that the V22s in theatre were primarily flying the trash and ass runs and werent being used on any front line delivery of troops or special ops etc and that the 46s were still being used for this.

Just wondering what your thoughts were.

Ned

[Dan Reno]

Pentagon may buy fewer V-22 Osprey aircraft



Rob Cox - Fort Worth Star-Telegram
Published: Wed, May. 06, 2009 03:31PM

Modified Wed, May. 06, 2009 03:47PM


A senior Marine general said for the first time Wednesday that the service may consider buying fewer V-22 Ospreys than planned and instead add more helicopters to its aircraft fleet.
The Marines have long held they need to buy a minimum of 360 V-22s, built by Bell Helicopter and Boeing, to replace their aging fleet of Vietnam-era transport helicopters, and were not interested in buying less-costly helicopters instead.
But in a conference call with defense reporters, Lt. Gen. George Trautman III, deputy commandant for aviation, eased away from that position when asked about defense think tank recommendations that the Marines should buy helicopters as well as V-22s.


"I don't think this is an urgent question, but we're prepared to discuss it going forward," Trautman said.
The Marines were the only service whose prized weapons programs escaped largely unscathed from the major defense budget overhauls that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has proposed. Those measures will be in the budget the Obama administration is expected to release Thursday.
But Gates let it be known recently he also plans to challenge the Marines to better justify some of their costly future weapons buying plans.

[SASless]

Why no 22's to Afghanistan?

I would think with the distances involved the 22 would be the ticket.

Someone asked previously if the 22 had the kahunas to operate at those altitudes in the helicopter mode....and if we add the new gun system....how would that figure into the payload availiable?

Since so many Chinooks have been shot down by RPG's during landing/takeoff in hostile landing zones.....are the Marines afraid to risk a 22?

[Ned-Air2Air]

SASLess - Spoke to some friends flying the USAF V22s and they said the altitude kills the V22s performance in Afghanistan.

Maybe a V-22B version will have upgraded engines, who knows.

Ned

[turboshaft]

MV/CV-22B still has 1107s, so that'd be the V-22C... ;)

As to the earlier question regarding ash & trash runs, the MV-22 was widely said to be operating away from the frontline during its initial period in-country, which led to eyebrows being raised over last July's claim about 1,400 combat sorties (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/07/221396/picture-us-marine-corps-says-v-22-osprey-performing-well-in-iraq.html) being flown.

[SASless]

Let's get this straight....seven months (approximately 200 days), ten aircraft, two thousand hours, one thousand-four hundred sorties.....that gives a rate of 28.57 flight hours per month per aircraft....with an availibility rate of 68.1 percent and an average sortie duration of 1.43 hours?:uhoh:

So....each aircraft would have flown about 140 sorties in 200 days....assuming just one sortie per day which gives a 70% availability rate just by dividing days in country by sorties at a single sortie per day.

I would hide my face in shame if I had to brag about that being a "good" performance.:ugh:

Who is smoking dope?:rolleyes:

Even the ragged old CH-47A's I flew in Vietnam averaged 90% availability rates and flew 120-140 hours per month with average flying days of 8-10 flight hours.

Granted their avionics systems amounted to nothing compared to the 22 but Lordy.....less than 30 hours per month? A commercial operator would go broke at that rate!

Did we not have an article posted that reported Bell-Boeing stockpiled One Hundred Million Dollars worth of spares in anticipation of the deployment?

Yet the Crew Chief is quoted as saying they had problems getting parts but did not have to make any major component changes.

Any Comment there USMC HELO?

[Dan Reno]

These days, ANY flight over Iraq is deemed a 'Combat Sortie' just as long cross country flights stateside to impress the public with accumulated flight hours is all bogus. A Cessna delivering guard mail qualifies in this theater as performing 'Combat Sorties'. What's really pathetic are those who come to a forum defending such a trash heap rather than quietly putting their time in and hoping to be reassigned to something that actually supports the marines (and silently cursing his luck for having to fly the MC's biggest aviation mistake to date). Bragging about this flying junk pile just sullies our marine officers' overall credability. Perhaps Carlton was only 99% correct with his predictions that were gleamed from the FACTS but at least he retained his honor in the reporting of this colossal screw-up. Nick predicted this.

[JohnDixson]

The detailed information on the BAE RGS system is hard to come by ( cannot find the total system weight incl ammo anywhere ).

I did, however, just read an article that stated that the two turrets ( one for sensor package, one for gun/ammo box ) in fact take the place of the two cargo hooks.

So the USMC has two non-interchangeable versions of the V-22: one for landing troops in harms way and the other for ash/trash and sling missions? I'm making the assumption that a switchover takes more than 15 minutes.

Someone tell me I've got bad data.

Thanks,
John Dixson

[SASless]

John,

That gets back to my argument about the V-22's claimed speed advantage over helicopters. When you hang a slingload under the thing it has the same speed capability as a helicopter because the load determines how fast you can fly. Granted some hi-density loads ride better and would allow higher speeds but that applies to helicopters as well as the 22. I bet a 46 is just as fast as the 22 in that regard. Plus the cargo hook is not taken up by a kid's X-Box turret as it totes along two gunners and a pair of Ma Deuce's (.50 Caliber Browning M2 machine guns).

No matter how you paint this Pig.....she still Oinks!:ugh:

Latest word is the Marine General Air Marshal has admitted the USMC is willing to buy fewer 22's and buy more helicopters. Is this a crack in the armor of the Osprey proponecy?:uhoh:

For an article with a discussion of some issues relating to the V-22...

V-22 Osprey: A Flying Shame? (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/V-22-Osprey-A-Flying-Shame-04822/)

[usmc helo]

Sasless,
VMM-266 7 month deployment ended spring 09:
(3040 hours/10 aircraft)/7 months = 43.4 hours/aircraft/month
[It was stated that 266 deployment was approximately 6 months, I rounded to 7. If it was closer to 6 then it’s 50.6 hours/aircraft/month]
HMM 161 7 month deployment ended spring 09:
(4300 hours/12 aircraft)/7 months= 51.1 hours/aircraft/month
All 3 VMM deployments to Iraq:
(9000 hours/10 aircraft)/19 months = 47.3 hours/aircraft/month
HMM 161 3 deployments to Iraq:
(9100 hours/12 aircraft)/21 months= 35.7 hours/aircraft/month
[I assumed that 161 did 3 7 month deployments (USMC standard). If you cut them down to 19 months to match with the VMMs you get 39.5 hours/aircraft/month]
http://safetycenter.navy.mil/media/approach/spotlight/HMM-161.htm (http://safetycenter.navy.mil/media/approach/spotlight/HMM-161.htm)
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/us-marine-mv-22b-osprey-al-qaim-iraq (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/us-marine-mv-22b-osprey-al-qaim-iraq)
http://www.mnfwest.usmc.mil/public/InfolineMarines.nsf/(ArticlesRead)/35A69C71EB704814852575940036A13C (http://www.mnfwest.usmc.mil/public/InfolineMarines.nsf/(ArticlesRead)/35A69C71EB704814852575940036A13C)
http://www.mnfwest.usmc.mil/public/InfolineMarines.nsf/(ArticlesRead)/601B28055877F5DB8525759A002FB917 (http://www.mnfwest.usmc.mil/public/InfolineMarines.nsf/(ArticlesRead)/601B28055877F5DB8525759A002FB917)
Considering the ebb and flow of Ops Tempo and mission requirements I think the numbers compare pretty well. Considering that a V-22 will make 240 over the ground it can make 2 trips to Al Qaim in the same time it takes a 46 to make 1 (unless it’s a Bullfrog in which case the 46 takes longer). Given that, assume someone you care is wounded at AQ and needs to get back to Al Asad for treatment. (Last I was there AQ only had triage). Would you rather they spend 19 minutes on a V22 or 38 on a 46? He’s your friend not mine so it’s up you.

Ned's right, the V-22 will probably not perform well at altitude. That's a problem.
Could someone please define for what the "frontlines" are in Iraq?

"I don't think this is an urgent question, but we're prepared to discuss it going forward," Trautman said... Since they are coming after F22, F35, VH71 and every other expensive program, probably a smart move and not V22 specific. At $105m+ I wouldn't be surprised to see the 53K mentioned either.

Dan Dan Dan,
“What's really pathetic are those who come to a forum defending such a trash heap rather than quietly putting their time in and hoping to be reassigned to something that actually supports the marines (and silently cursing his luck for having to fly the MC's biggest aviation mistake to date). Bragging about this flying junk pile just sullies our marine officers' overall credability(sp).”
From this I can only assume that you think I’m a V-22 pilot and I am defending the V-22. As I have stated before I have not flown the V-22. I doubt I ever will. Could you please tell me what I have said to defend the V-22? I’ve only questioned what you and others have written and pointed discrepancies. Why does that sully my credability and make me pathetic? You have yet to respond with something anything useful.
If you have so much faith in Carlton then perhaps you should push stronger for his RAH-60 Gunhawk (http://www.g2mil.com/gunhawks.htm (http://www.g2mil.com/gunhawks.htm)) with some of your Sikorsky buds on here, or any of his other not so brilliant ideas.
By the way Dan, this is PPRUNE, Professional Pilots Rumour Network. Why do I get the feeling you’re neither professional nor a pilot?

[Dan Reno]

usmc helo

As usual you're right. I'm just an amateur misspeller compared to you Sir. (BTW, thanks for providing spell checking for this forum.)

I won't waste anymore finger tip wear going over why the V22 is junk. So, if you don't know that by now, then you are simply misinformed or plain.... If you do know the FACTS and still want to worship at this bloodsuckers altar, then you need to stand back, take a deep breath and revaluate your reasons. Stop wasting our time rehashing the hundreds of prior comments proving the point that the V22 is a POS.

Semper Fi means loyailty to flesh & blood, past, present and future marines, not loyailty to an inept weapons manufacturer.

[usmc helo]

Deep breath Dan, :* count to 10...someone get his blankie..stat!

Specifically, what is that you disagree with in my post, you were a little unclear

[The Sultan]

Calm Down USMC.

You won the war you flew in. Dan may never have got past Flight Sim simple level so give him a break. As to SASLESS how did your war go?

As to the V-22:

If an aircraft can fly three times faster, carry 3 times the load, and go (what?) five times as far as the type it replaced, why should anyone think the flight hours should not be lower for the same mission?

Dan and SAS thanks for proving the V-22 does its intended job with the intended benefits.

The Sultan

[JohnDixson]

USMC Helo:

For the hypothetical medevac from Al Qaim to Al Asad, and comparing the H-46 to the V-22, why would one use a helo or tilt rotor for that distance anyway? There are airports at both ends of that trip. Certainly the justification for the V-22 rests upon its VTOL capability , not its ability to fly from airport to airport.

Which brings me to something else noted in your last posting:

"Ned's right, the V-22 will probably not perform well at altitude. That's a problem.
Could someone please define for what the "frontlines" are in Iraq? "

Re the V-22 discussion, Iraq is becoming irrelevant, if the President's recent speech accurately describes future US military focus in that area. Afghanistan is absolutely relevant, though, and so it is appropriately pertinent to inquire as to the hover payload performance at typical Afghanistan altitudes and for typical V-22 combat configured aircraft. That means WITH the new defensive armament system, whatever it weighs ( to include the weight of the install mods to the basic aircraft as well as the (6) major pieces/parts and ammo that goes with it ).

Thanks,
John Dixson

[FH1100 Pilot]

It is odd, at least to me, to see the deep emotional investment and attachment people have for the V-22. It blinds them and removes all objectivity. No amount of reasoning will sway them that it is the best...the absolute best aircraft ever invented. The best!

Me, I neither love it nor hate it. I just believe that it's unworkable. I mean, come on, fifty years of development! And it's still not-ready-for-prime-time? Why don't we just admit that it never will be truly "ready" and move on to something more practical? Like...oh...compound helicopters? Oh heavens no - they're just not as sexy as that tiltrotor thingee.

No matter how strongly we might wish for a magic carpet, there are certain limits that tell us we'll never be riding around on one. So too with the V-22 and its civilian counterpart. I predict this with some confidence: If Agusta/Bell ever does get the thing certified, it will be stillborn to the marketplace. Agusta will sell damn few of them, certainly not enough to amortize the tooling, much less make a profit. Eventually they will quietly pull it from production, just like Beech did with the Starship. A single high-profile (perhaps fatal) accident - something that is almost inevitable - would accelerate the process.

On this board, usmc helo champions the advantages of the V-22 over a CH-46 - because...you know...those are the only aircraft that can be compared to each other. Of the greater speed of the V-22, he notes:Given that, assume someone you care is wounded at AQ and needs to get back to Al Asad for treatment. (Last I was there AQ only had triage). Would you rather they spend 19 minutes on a V22 or 38 on a 46? He’s your friend not mine so it’s up you.And that there is the canard...the red herring of the V-22. It's these emotional plays for sympathy that are so smarmy. If a soldier is injured so badly that an extra 19 minutes is going to make the difference between life and death, the guy's a goner. What is this, the Korean Conflict? We're not fighting wars with fronts anymore. I'm sure "triage" in the modern battlefield is light years beyond what it was in the 1950's. If the triage site is set up well enough to handle a V-22 medevac, an extra 19 minutes isn't going to kill the guy. (And it will have to be a big site. In my mind I have a cartoon-like vision of a V-22 landing at a M*A*S*H compound and blowing the tents away, leaving surgeons operating out in the open and the nurses showers exposed.)

But you can't tell that to the V-22 proponents. If the tiltrotor can save just one life! by speeding a soldier to better medical facilities 19 minutes faster than a CH-46, well...well...well then by God we just have to have it! It's worth whatever we have to pay for it!

It's so silly.

All the money that's been dumped into the tiltrotor program over the last fifty years could have been better spent on something else. Bell knows it - has known it - for a long time. But as long as the stupid government wants to keep giving them and Boeing money to produce this turkey, they'll happily take it. Let's hope that sooner or later, someone with brains, guts, objectivity and authority looks at the V-22 and says, "You know guys, this ain't working. Let's come up with something better."

[SASless]

Let's use the high number....51.1 hours of flight time per month and less than 70 percent readiness....seems awfully low notwithstanding the USMC overall fleet averages shown.

I know the Marine Corps places very high importance to Readiness Stats as they must be reported daily no matter it is not a work day, holiday, or Stand down.

Do we have any figures for helicopters assigned to the same area of operations?

[SASless]

Sultan,

My war went fine.....we were winning when I left on a stretcher while on my second voluntary tour.

You do puzzle me as to why you ask such a question....might you explain what you are seeking as to a response and what your question is predicated upon?
Usually here we deal with the questions and try to avoid being obnoxious but perhaps that is lost on you somehow?

If my asking about the cost of the 22 being unusually high for the capability it provides....as shown to be very limited in reality when we all can see how useless it will be in places like Afghanistan then we have to wonder about allocation of resources by the USMC.

Surely the Marine Corps looked beyond sea level operations from ship to sandy beaches at the shoreline and considered they would be in the mountains at some time in the future.

Just who is it in Congress that is so intent upon keeping Bell and Boeing funded by means of this project?

Did the Marine Corps feel those two companies needed contracts to keep them alive or something and thus bought into the Osprey as way of doing that?

[21stCen]

Regarding the V-22 development period taking over 50 years starting with the the radial engine XV-3 in the 1950's -- that's a bit of an exaggeration. That's the same as saying the S-92 started development with the original helicopter design by Leonardi Da Vinci in 1493. I don't think anyone would agree that the S-92 development program took over 500 years. The V-22 has taken a VERY long time in development (JVX program in the early 80s), and the program costs are very high for the capabilities offered. The point is that the a/c is here, the Marines and Air Force truly believe in it based on what they've seen, and it will be successful in performing missions that no other aircraft in existance can accomplish.

Regarding V-22 external load capability:
V-22 sets unofficial world record: external loads
PATUXENT RIVER NAVAL AIR STATION, Md. (August 19, 1998) Flight testing the new V-22 Osprey tiltrotor has broken new ground in its class and among all rotorcraft.

The most significant accomplishment of the past week has been the demonstration of the V-22's ability to carry external loads at very high speeds, said John Buyers, Bell-Boeing V-22 program director at NAS Patuxent River. A 10,000 pound load, attached to the aft external cargo hook was carried at a speed of 220 knots. This is the maximum
payload for a single hook on the V-22, while 15,000 pounds can be carried using dual hooks. A Marine Helicopter Support Team conducted the hookups. They have developed procedures for working underneath the V-22 during 15 hookups made during tests.

This is the fastest airspeed any rotorcraft has carried an external load, no matter what the weight, said Buyers. From all indications, this constitutes a new unofficial world record. The capability will significantly increase the
productivity of vertical lift operations on the battlefield, according to Buyers.

Reports show that pilots felt the aircraft was stable and predictable over the load during hookup procedure and they are unaware of the load during normal flying...

[SASless]

Any helicopter can fly at Vne with a hi-density load such as Ammo or water blivets....it is the aerodynamic loads that are the problem and that is where the hight Vne of the V-22 is not a factor.


How fast did they go with a CONEX container under the aircraft?

Or.....say a couple of pallets of plywood?

Have they lifted an "N" model to test recovering a downed aircraft?

Did they do a test to determine production rates Vertrep'ing and compare that to the 46's rate?

[21stCen]

Any helicopter can fly at Vne with a hi-density load such as Ammo or water blivets....

Any helicopter cannot fly at 220 kts with a high density load (which is less than the V-22's Vne). You are correct in that aerodynamic limits of loads carried externally do exist regardless of whether they are carried by a helicopter, fixed-wing, or tiltrotor.

[21stCen]

Regarding the fact that the Marines "may consider buying fewer V-22 Ospreys than planned and instead add more helicopters to its aircraft fleet":

This is what I explained to Dan on a previous page in this thread -- the tiltrotor is not here to replace helicopters. Although capabilities and missions overlap at times, helicopters and tiltrotors both have their place in the MC OOB. As to the percentage mix in procurement and mission assignments, that is not for us to decide, it is up to those who oversee, execute, and evaluate battlefield performance to make the decision. It should be left to those who understand the requirements and capabilities the best to determine which aircraft are initially purchased, then deployed in theater, and finally assigned to each mission. If the current decision made by those in a position to know have decided that it is prudent to modify the ratio mix by slowing the rate of Osprey aquisitions and increasing that of helicopters, then we should respect their decision knowing that it is based on first hand information.

It is a shame that when people who have first hand knowlege gained from flying the V-22 for the USMC or USAF come to this forum, the information they bring is rejected before they have a chance to fully present it (see earlier in this thread). Rather than appreciate the first hand information and discuss it in an intelligent way, there is an extraordinary effort to 'run them off' as quickly as possible. Sad...
(glad to see that not all threads on PPRuNe go this way)

[Gregg]

Not only are they run off, they are apparently banned from posting on this subject!

[The Sultan]

Gregg

I was hoping you were talking about both Dan Reno and SASless for their continued posts calling our brave Marines liars. Apparently SAS is still posting. Very disappointing, apparently he gets away with threatening people by PM which should not be allowed by this site. Still hoping Dan is the one you are talking about.

To SAS

From my earlier post I just noted (at least by your hero G Duh press releases) that USMC Pilot's war was won, nothing else intended. As to be carried off on a stretcher, sorry to here that. Be interested to know the circumstances and if they could have been avoided by being quieter, able to ingress and exit a hot LZ faster and why your much faunted offensive armament did not protect you?

The Sultan

[SASless]

Sultan,

Quote the post where I called the Marines "Liars"!

Post the PM that you consider a "threatening post" and let Senior Pilot pass judgement on that for us.

Seems odd I have no record of having sent you any PM but I will trust you to be telling the truth there and thus you can confirm it by posting it in the public forum here.

As to your attempt to denigrate my service in Vietnam and those like me by suggesting our weaponry let us down....perhaps you over look the reality of combat when you find yourself right there amongst the enemy who are shooting at you with small arms, light automatic weapons, .51 Caliber Heavy Machine guns and even RPG's.

Over Two Thousand of my brothers died in combat flying helicopters in that war....we paid a terrible price and deserve far more respect than you consider appropriate.

We put up with asshole comments like yours in the 60's and 70's and did not care for it then.....and we especially do not care for it today.

This is a very small world we live in Sultan....pray God we don't fetch up in the same place sometime! I am far more threatening in person than I am on the internet.

[Lt.Fubar]

Sorry to bring another issue up, but I just took a look at the US DOD FY10 budget and it is quite interesting read.

Apparently in FY2010, V-22 will cost 80mln USD per aircraft... that's exactly twice as much as C-27J Spartan, and 3 times more than a CH-47. That's just darn inefficient ! With other costly projects in history, like let's say F-22, or B-2 - high costs can be understandable as there is nothing to compare those to. But that is not the case with V-22, especially when with less than a price of one Osprey, DOD could have two other aircrafts, that would be capable of doing it's missions, more efficiently, and in every theater of operations.

If in Iraq V-22s operate only from one airstrip to another, couldn't the same job be done cheaper and faster with a Spartan ? And in Afghanistan, wouldn't the Chinook be infinitely faster, as the Osprey apparently can't operate there at all ?

[Dan Reno]

Osprey to deploy with 22nd MEU

May 9, 2009 - 5:08 PM
JENNIFER HLAD ([email protected])
The 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit is preparing to deploy later this month with a new tool in its toolbox: the MV-22 Osprey.
The Osprey, a tilt-rotor aircraft that flies like an airplane but can take off, land and hover like a helicopter, has flown in Iraq, but has never deployed as part of a MEU.
Marines say that while there have been some challenges integrating the aircraft onto the ship environment, it has gone more smoothly than expected and will bring additional capabilities to the unit.
A MEU is made up of an infantry element, a logistics element, a command element and an aviation element. The aviation element includes different types of aircraft to be used for different missions. The Osprey will replace the CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter in the MEU's arsenal.
"The MV-22 brings more lift, range and speed to the Marine Expeditionary Unit than ever before," said Col. Gareth Brandl, commander of the 22nd MEU. "The range allows us to put troops on the ground further inland than before, and the speed of the aircraft allows us to mass forces more quickly at shorter distances."
The Osprey can carry about twice as many Marines per airplane than the CH-46, said Lt. Col. Paul Ryan, commander of VMM-263 (Reinforced), the 22nd MEU's aviation element. It also can climb and descend quickly, and regularly flies at 7,000 to 10,000 feet, whereas a CH-46 rarely operates above 4,000 or 5,000 feet for long. The increased altitude can mean increased survivability, Ryan said.
During the MEU's pre-deployment training, the Ospreys allowed the Marines to do a 200-mile raid in about a four-hour window, at night - something that would have taken two days with the CH-46, Ryan said. During another training exercise, the Ospreys participated in a 400-mile operation in five to six hours, which would have taken days with the CH-46 and required the ships to move.
The long-range capabilities make the MEU more prepared "for current world events," Ryan said, noting that the aircraft will be based on ships, while Afghanistan is many miles from the ocean.
But integrating the aircraft into the MEU - and onto the ships - was a bit of a challenge.
The Osprey has a larger footprint than the CH-46, and while the MEU will only take 10 - instead of the traditional 12 Sea Knights - they take up a lot of room on the ship. The sailors and Marines had to "crack the code" on parking the aircraft to fit it and still allow some room for movement on the hangar deck, Ryan said.
The other issue is that the planes must be parked in a folded position, which is different than the way they are parked for maintenance. So, for maintenance, the Ospreys must be moved up to the flight deck, which means more work for the sailors and Marines.
But, Ryan said, there is still some space in the hangar deck to move around, and the challenges have been worked through.
"I thought it was going to be worse than it is," he said.
Capt. Chris Denver, an MV-22 pilot and VMM-263's adjutant, said all the pre-deployment workups have given the unit an idea of how to integrate the new aircraft.
"We're excited, looking forward to seeing what kinds of things we can bring to the table with the V-22," he said.
As for fitting the aircraft onto the ship, Denver said "everything went beyond expected."
There are some other challenges with the V-22 versus the CH-46, Ryan said. For example, the plane produces a lot more downwash, therefore kicking up a lot of dust and debris. It also is more difficult for things like rope operations, Ryan said.
But because the aircraft is new to the MEU, the unit approached training "with a crawl, walk, run mindset," Brandl said. "We didn't start with varsity level missions - we needed to master the basics first."
The integration went well, he said.
"We were extremely successful during our pre-deployment training and I fully expect that we will have a successful deployment," Brandl said.
Brandl and Ryan praised the Marines and sailors for their hard work, and said they are more important than any equipment.
"We definitely consider our personnel to be the ... most precious asset," Ryan said.
"We're extremely proud to be the first MEU to deploy with the Osprey," Brandl said. But, "it's equally important to highlight how the hard work, dedication and sacrifice of every Marine and sailor in the MEU has made this unit ready to conduct any mission, from combat to humanitarian assistance."

BTW Sultan, I too did a tour in RVN (69-70) and lost several friends there and resent your childish antics. You have reached a new low.

[SASless]

for maintenance, the Ospreys must be moved up to the flight deck


Now there is a new concept....take the aircraft out of the hangar deck and move them to the roof to perform maintenance! I don't reckon it rains, snows, or salt water spray or anything like that on the open deck? I assume there might even be a bit of wind if the Ship is headed somewhere into wind.

Now if we cut the numbers of aircraft from 12 to 10 and apply a 68 percent readiness rate.....

How does one maintain "Light Discipline" after 1MC calles for "Darken Ship!" and still work on aircraft set out Topside?

[JohnDixson]

Sultan wrote ( to SAS ):

"Be interested to know the circumstances and if they could have been avoided by being quieter, able to ingress and exit a hot LZ faster and why your much faunted offensive armament did not protect you?


V-22 ingress to LZ will probably be about the same as a helo, especially when one thinks about a formation landing. I assume the 40kt/-800 fpm envelope restriction will remain in place too. ( I'm taking the liberty of defining the ingress stage as the last, say 2 nm to the LZ )
V-22 will exit faster without question.As to the discussion of defensive armament in Vietnam with re to either the USMC helicopter or the US Army helicopter mix, and assuming a "hot LZ" situation: Both used armed helicopters as well as door gunners. With the V-22, there will not be armed helicopter escort, so the defensive fire plan will rely on USMC fixed wing assets and that RGS 7.62 mm remote controlled gatling.

Taking all into account, I don't think USMC will utilize the V-22 in long range contested area assaults. They will employ the V-22 so as to use its strengths and avoid the "High Noon" situations that occurred with regularity in Southeast Asia.

Of course for short range assaults, the USMC will have integral armed escort available, but that mission isn't why one needs a V-22.

Thanks,
John Dixson

[js0987]

Getting a chuckle over cost concerns. 80 mil is a lot, but then over on the VH71 thread, you read that the basic VH71 goes for 357 mil and change. Since political party's have to reimburse the gov't for using military aircraft for purely political events, I wonder what the White House would be charged an hour to fly the VH71?

[Lt.Fubar]

If any variant of a helicopter cost more than an ASW version - then there is something fundamentally wrong with it... you just can't go more expensive than ASW, it shouldn't be possible. So yes, the VH-71 is an overwhelming cost overkill. Although we don't know what a competitor would cost in the same circumstances - so like in F-22, and B-2 - no comparison available, and cost discussion is pure academics.

In the V-22 case- there is an comparison, especially as its both a plank, and helicopter (or actually neither, as it appears to be the sum of their cons ;) ) then here are two types of competition, and both can do the job cheaper.

Don't get me wrong, I want to like it, I want to see the point. But the more we know about its performance, it's more and more a purely political thing, an abstract without grounds in reality.

If you had a company that transport cargo - would you drop what you have - a Skycrane, BV234, ATR-72, DHC-8, etc. - and go with Osprey ? I wouldn't. And that's what essentially it's job in the military is, to haul cargo from point A to point B.

[The Sultan]

Dan,

What did you pilot?

I can not see how someone who flew air combat ops would disrepect our front line protectors like your posts have done to propogate your irrational hate for the V-22. That is why I assumed you were not a combat pilot sorry.

Anyone who has flown combat knows farther, faster, awesome acceleration, acoustic and thermal stealh wins the day, not whopping in to give the enemy 10 minutes to set up.

The Sultan

[21stCen]

Wow, just heard the rumor that the mystery member "who was banned" described above was usmc helo. Is this true? Just for the record, what are the things he said that we all need to avoid to prevent this from happening to us in the future?? Please advise...
thanks...

[Senior Pilot]

No one is or was banned.

A couple of posters were given a couple of days off this thread, to consider their public spat. Maybe one or two others should take note, and reconsider their attitude(s) :rolleyes:

[turboshaft]

The Phrog has been mentioned several times, but the other aircraft meant to be replaced by the MV-22B was the CH-53D. The Delta was originally programmed to be the first type replaced by the Osprey in the early 1990s, but has been retained in service in the medium-lift role long after its EOS date, initially for operations in Iraq, and now for use in the 'stan.

The Corps still has over 30 Ds in service, including several reclaimed from Davis-Monthan, and it looks like they may now be getting some new glass (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-defensemoney_17met.ART0.Central.Edition1.4c81b53.html), suggesting that they'll be around for some time to come.

[Nicholas Howard]

for maintenance, the Ospreys must be moved up to the flight deck

Whilst part of the team looking into UK helicopter procurement in 2000, I was the team's lead for the MV-22. Part of the ILS study we did stated that all maintenance could be done with the wing folded and nacelles and blades in the stowed position.

Can I ask what has changed that means the cabs have to be moved to the flight deck for maintenance? Or is it a csae of journalistic (intentional) error to over-emphasize a point?

Nick

[usmc helo]

Article on V-22 deployment. It answers some of the questions being asked.

Defence Helicopter May-June 2007 - Webmag (http://www.webmags.co.uk/mag.aspx?magcode=dh_mayjun_2007&redir=1)

[Dan Reno]

Short Video here:

News 14 | 24 Hour Local News | Coastal | Military investigating unplanned landing (http://www.news14.com/content/local_news/coastal/609843/crew-accounted-for-in-osprey-forced-landing/Default.aspx)

PENDER COUNTY, N.C. – Military officials continue to investigate after an MV-22 Osprey aircraft made an unscheduled landing Wednesday night in Pender County.
All crew members from New River Air Station got out OK.
A Marine Corps spokesperson said the aircraft experienced an engine problem and was forced to land in a grassy area at Holly Shelter Game Land.
After fixing the problem, the crew tried to take off again around 7 p.m., but exhaust from the aircraft started a grass fire. That caused some damage to the aircraft's exterior. Forestry officials and firefighters were able to contain the fire around 11 p.m.
Military personnel have since removed the aircraft from the field and taken it back to New River Air Station.
The Osprey has had a history of mechanical issues. In 2000, four Marines were killed in an Osprey crash near Camp Lejeune.

[21stCen]

A later report stated that a Park Ranger noticed a large man suspiciously resembling SASless belly crawling up to the aircraft through the 'tall grassy field' with a Bic lighter in his hand just before the fire. As the flames erupted around the Osprey, the man was seen running away high stepping at great speed as he was heard to be yelling, "Yahooooo, BOOOOONDOGGLE!!!"

Some people will do anything to make their point...
:)

[SASless]

Now if I could just be as accurate forecasting the stock market!:{

[Dan Reno]

Gee, what a (another) surprise:

Recent V-22 Foibles (http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4514&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=37&from_page=index.cfm)

-----------------------------

Also, a new June report:

V-22 Lies Exposed (http://www.g2mil.com/V-22repairs.htm)

------------------------------
"The V-22 Osprey program is the largest scandal in the U.S. military."

[FH1100 Pilot]

Well, you know...it just doesn't matter.

The believers, and by that I mean those who buy into the capabilities of the V-22, are willing to overlook a multitude of sins.

The extremely high cost doesn't matter
The terrible 'mission-capable' rate doesn't matter
The fact that it can't operate from unimproved strips without setting themselves on fire doesn't matter
The fact that V-22s don't last very long and are being retired early doesn't matter
The fact that you cannot work on them below decks in the hangar of a ship doesn't matterNothing matters! No other aircraft can do what the V-22 can do, and we need it for that reason alone, by God. Plus it's...you know...sexy.

Umm...

The numbers released by the military are always interesting to me. Hey, we're all big boys...we all know how figures (especially statistics) can be "massaged." So I always view published figures with skepticism. Mission-capable rates? Yeah, sure, whatever. They mean nothing.

I didn't think anyone disliked the V-22 as much as me. It's amusing to see that Carlton Meyer is even less of a fan (albeit for different reasons). Obviously neither he nor I subscribe to the ridiculous "if it saves just one life!" canard.

[SASless]

It is hard to argue with the 53-D's being brought out of mothballs to fly combat missions when all those brand new shiny 22's are setting on stateside ramps....and were bought at great expense in money and lives to replace those very helicopters iddn't?:ugh:

Ran across this statement in article....and shows how much progress has been made in the combat experience and capability of the V-22.

The CH-53D is due to return to the middle east in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. It will be performing the combat roles that the V-22 Osprey is not able to conduct at this time.


I bet "USMC Helo" might be able to explain the Marine Corps method of producing readiness and availability data. The Army sometimes uses a bit of twisted math to achieve their numbers and I know the Marines are not above manipulating the numbers as well.

[usmc helo]

Concerning readiness the V-22 is is at the same point on the curve as any other platform in USMC when at 50,000 hours.

In Iraq all the other platforms EXCEPT the V-22 have depot level maintenance available at Al Asad. This reduces the number of aircraft that those squadrons have on reporting status while the V-22 squadron is always accountable for reporting 12. What does this mean? In a 46, 53 or H-1 squadron I take all the parts I need off of the aircraft that's about to go depot and put all my bad parts on it, and it doesn't count against me. In the V-22 squadron you're are stuck with the hangar queen. And yes, every platform has at least one hangar queen. From what I've read and heard concerning maintenance in Iraq you could replace "V-22" with H-1, or CH-53E or CH-46E and it be a true statement.

As far as the links to Carltons BS it's more than apparent that Carlton knows nothing about aviation much less USMC aviation operations. He subtly tries to insinuate that there is some sinister reason that the V-22's are not self deploying back to the states. There is, it's called logistics. Do you tie up the entire USMC East coast C-130 assets to refuel the V-22's or do you put the aircraft on a boat that's already in the Gulf to bring back other assets? The C-130's have higher tasking right now.

Maintenance below deck. Yup, he's absolutely right. Never ever do Marines do maintenance above deck.
Carlton says "Performing maintenance on a ladder is dangerous on rocking ship, so another maintainer must hold the ladder, effectively doubling the manpower required for each task."
I guess ships don't rock below deck? They must not since I've seen Marines using ladders to do maintenance on 53's and 46's. Hmm. Interesting bit of physics.

All those ladders I saw being used on 53's and 46's, engine cowlings open, oil cans and spouts, drain tubs, tool boxes, etc must have been being used for some reason other than maintenance. Did I mention that I saw that stuff while I was on short final to spot 2? The fact is all the things that Carlton thinks make the V-22 unsuitable for shipboard ops, if applied across the board to all other platforms, would make all aircraft unsuitable for shipboard ops.

Let's see, I've been a Marine aviator, deployed on multiple MEU SOC's, been a MEU SOC evaluator, and deployed to Iraq. But what do I know. We should all listen to Carlton who was an intel officer, probably never touched the controls of an aircraft, worked aircraft maintenance issues, dealt with the deck cycle or actually planned and conducted real aviation combat op. After all, those of us who've served know we can ALWAYS trust intel because it's NEVER wrong.

[The Sultan]

USMC

Did you mention that after three tours in Iraq all aircraft flew into their base in formation? Damn cool picture.

As Dan and SAS were quoting Carlton that the ships had to be trucked to the ship and no one can do maintenance on the ships. How the hell could they all fly back to their base?

The Sultan

Other Questions: Any 53 squadron in Vietnam ever come back with all aircraft? Chinook squadron? We know Afghan eats up Chinooks (Roberts Ridge).

[OFBSLF]

We know Afghan eats up Chinooks (Roberts Ridge).
So you think V22s would perform better than Chinooks in Afghanistan?

[SASless]

Sultan,

I did not quote Carlton...that was other posters but not I. Get your facts straight please.

As to Robert's Ridge....yes Chinooks got eaten up....by RPG's, .51 Caliber Machinegun and small arms fire. They did so taking the fight to the enemy at very close range trying to save other brave men who were dying in combat with armed enemies.

Do you know the full complete story of Robert's Ridge?

I suggest you read up on it and re-think your comments.

Many good men died that day and we owe them a full measure of respect.

That again seems to be something you cannot find yourself able to do.

I suggest you get your head out of your hind end when it comes to denigrating other folk's service in combat.....you'd be a much better person if you did.

[FH1100 Pilot]

What I love is how the V-22 proponents fold their arms across their chests, stick their chins out and say, "You can't criticize the V-22 unless you've flown one! So there!"

...Or, "You can't criticize any Marine aircraft unless you are a Marine pilot!"

...Or even better, "You can't compare the development of the V-22 to the XV-15 or any prototype that came before it! There's NO RELATION!" I really love that one.

Of course we can do all of the above. Seems to me that someone who's flying the aircraft might be a little too close to be objective.

What do we know so far? Well...

The infamous hydraulic problems have *not* been solved. Gee, there's a surprise, whodathunkit?
If a V-22 lands on a boat it melts the deck unless the proprotors are tilted forward and/or the deck has been modified to accept the high heat of the engine exhaust. Funny nobody saw *that* coming.
If a V-22 lands out in the field it sets the field (and itself) on fire. Carlton is big on hyperbole, yes. But he is not wrong about everything.

[SASless]

I also see where the Marines have not explained in detail why the forced landing occurred in Iraq after one of the 22's experienced a partial engine failure due to FOD to the compressor blades on one engine. It continued running and was producing partial power but the aircraft was unable to maintain altitude and was forced to land in an unsecure field location.

Does not the 22 have the ability to fly on a single engine in cruise?


April 17, 2008


Osprey fire days before big contract awarded


Whoops, this wasn't reported by the Marines or Bell/Boeing last month when they were counting down the days to the Pentagon finally awarding a five-year, $10.4 billion contract for 167 new V-22 Ospreys.

Just two weeks prior to that award, yet another Osprey operated by Marines in North Carolina suffered an engine nacelle fire, a recurring problem. The good folks at Amarillo.com backed into the story a few days ago with a nice story on a local Marine who had to be hospitalized for inhaling too much fire suppressant while extinguishing the blaze.

No word yet on the degree of damage to the aircraft, which was apparently on ground at the time preparing to take off. A similar fire a few months ago, that broke out in flight and required an emergency landing in the middle of nowhere, essentially destroyed the engine nacelle -- the compartment on the end of the wing that contains the jet turbine engine -- and left the wing itself in very bad shape, according to both Marine and Bell sources.

The Marines have had a number of these fires over the last couple of years but fortunately none have caused a crash. No word on whether there have been any fires involving V-22s in Iraq, which were the first to have a nacelle fire prevention fix installed. What happens is hydraulic and other flammable fluids leak inside the nacelle and then get ignited by hot engine components.

Marine Corps public relations folks were busy through the winter months touting the successful debut of the long sought V-22 Osprey in Iraq and what a wonderful job it was doing carrying laundry and mail, generals and VIPs, and the occasional batch of Marines or Iraqi troops around Iraq. Osprey fan Christian Lowe at Defense Tech posted his own V-22 in action video online earlier this week (scroll down the site a ways).

The long awaited Iraq deployment was effectively a chance to show the Osprey could make good on all of the many feats Bell, Boeing and the Marines have promised it could deliver and make sure the even longer awaited big contract was awarded.

The Marines have acknowledged that the Osprey's reliability in Iraq (and stateside) continues to be less than desired and now have said the aircraft's engines are wearing way too fast. Then this week we learned of another significant problem that has popped up in Iraq.

It seems that the oil cooling system that supplies both a generator and one of the tilt-rotor gearboxes has a nasty tendency to go bad, allowing temperatures to rise to levels that could damage the gear box components. On four occasions V-22s at forward bases were grounded until repairs could be made. generators aboard the aircraft has a problem with its oil cooling system.

An internal Marine memorandum says it has been very fortunate that the cooling system hasn't failed in flight and forced a flight crew to make an emergency landing in hostile territory. The memo says the oil cooling system is lasting just 25 percent of its expected life.
- Bob Cox

[Dan Reno]

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/images/icons/icon8.gif Bell reports compressor stalls as 'very normal'!
The V-22 is experiencing an incredible amount of engine failures for a variety of reasons. Most every engine failure has been able to go unreported to the public until a flight of 3 V-22s (one spare) was forced to land in Iceland to change an engine. (see ref below). Two of these aircraft were to proceed accross the Atlantic for an air show in England. It was also reported elsewhere that "All three over a span of 4 fly-days had compressor stalls."

In a nutshell, a Bell spokesmans says "compressor stalls are very normal in military and civilian aircraft.(!)

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...2.17ad314.html (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/0711dnbusv22.17ad314.html)

Bell certainly must think that most people are as inept as their two decade old V-22 engineering team!

[SASless]

The Commandant of the US Marine Corps says the Osprey is perfect for Afghanistan. (I kid you not!)

However CH-53 D's and E's are going instead....as they have good loiter time and lift capability.

No Ospreys, for now, to Afghanistan - Navy News, news from Iraq - Navy Times (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/03/marine_osprey_afghanistan_032809w/)

[Dan Reno]

Gee, what a surprise.

[slgrossman]

FH1100 Pilot said:

What I love is how the V-22 proponents fold their arms across their chests, stick their chins out and say, "You can't criticize the V-22 unless you've flown one! So there!"

...Or, "You can't criticize any Marine aircraft unless you are a Marine pilot!"


Honestly, I don't think anyone is saying that at all. You have heard from a guy who has actual operational experience with the aircraft telling you that while it does have its flaws, the things you're focusing on are not the real problems.

You're looking at this with admitted bias and through the filter of your own experience which does not, I believe, include the V-22 or military operations. While it's just one man's opinion, he does have the benefit of seeing the aircraft up close and personal, and in the context of its current concept of employment. I, for one, like hearing what he has to say.

-Stan-

[FH1100 Pilot]

Stan Grossman:You're looking at this with admitted bias and through the filter of your own experience which does not, I believe, include the V-22 or military operations.

Heh. You too, Stan? In the interest of full disclosure, Stan should probably have mentioned that he was once a Marine pilot. Just forgot to mention it, I s'pose.

With all due respect, I have heard *exactly* the three things I quoted in the time we've been discussing the tilt-rotor (how long has it been now?).

As a Rotorcraft/Helicopter pilot of 30 years and 11,000+ hours of experience, I certainly *can* offer an educated and valid opinion on the V-22 in the helicopter mode. I don't have to be ex-military, or a V-22 pilot to do that.

As you know from our extensive personal discussions in the past, my "bias" toward the V-22 is based on the subject of A-VRS. People go on and on and on about how the V-22 is sooooooooooo fricken unlikely to get into "VRS" and that some such "new tactics" and procedures will prevent pilots from getting into it when approaching hot LZ's in the often-chaotic conditions of real battle.

I don't care about that. It's not "VRS" that I worry about. It's A-VRS. Asymmetrical VRS.

What I predict is that some V-22 (or maybe a 609 if it ever sees the light of day) somewhere will get into a condition where *one* of the proprotors nibbles at the edge of VRS. The tiltrotor will roll in that direction (remember, VRS isn't an on/off switch). As the ship rolls, the pilot will naturally make an anti-roll input, which will make things worse. Before he can get his fingers to the magic nacelle-tilt button, the ship will roll over and smash into the ground just like the one in Marana.

You mark my words: If the V-22 ever does get used in real combat situations, this WILL happen. And everyone will call it "pilot error."

Stan, I know that you believe that combat pilots can at critical times divert and focus their attention on things like the subtle changes in lift between the proprotors, but I am not so confident in the human being who's being overloaded with tasks, not to mention being shot at.

Now. Yes, that is my "bias" toward the V-22. It is the aspect of the Marana crash that people just want to sweep under the rug or otherwise ignore.

But in addition to that, we find that even 10 years down the road they have *not* solved the hydraulic problems that were so easily predicted. Did I actually hear a serious suggestion that they run the hydraulic lines *OUTSIDE* of the cowlings? Are they kidding?

Then we learn of V-22's melting boat decks, and setting themselves on fire in off-airport landings. ...And reliability reports that are suspicious at best.

And now some idiot at Bell Helicopter says that the compressor stalls that plague the V-22 are "common" in military *and* civilian helicopters?

Look, nobody is saying that the V-22 is a total, abject failure. OF COURSE it can do some things well.

It's just the biggest waste of tax dollars I've ever seen. I'm tired of my government spending *my* money on a piece of **** that will NEVER overcome certain insurmountable problems until some genius at Bell/Boeing can find a way to repeal the laws of physics. Maybe it'll be that idiot, Leder. (I was just trying to think of the last compressor stall I got in an aircraft...had to be back in 1988 or so in a PHI 206B with a bleed valve that was starting to go bad. And even then, it only happened on the ground as I was rolling the throttle up from Idle.)

But at the end of the day (and the end of the post) I see that, yes, you are completely correct, Stan. Since I have no military and no V-22 experience, I should just shut the hell up and leave the thing alone.

Hey wait, didn't I just complain about being told that? Once a Marine, I guess....

[Dan Reno]

The scariest weapon in the U.S. inventory?

Fri, 06/05/2009 - 12:43pm

The V-22 Osprey, which takes off like a helicopter and then in flight tilts its engines forward to fly like an airplane, is an aircraft that just plain scares me. Basically, my problem is that it depends on levels of hydraulic pressure usually found in jet engines -- if I recall correctly, about 5,000 pounds per square inch. But unlike a jet, it flies into dirty places, where its rotors stir up flying dirt. And each little fleck of dirt that gets into the nacelles, which house the engines, can wear away at the hydraulic lines as they vibrate incessantly. This blog points out problems (http://www.g2mil.com/V-22repairs.htm) in the nacelles.

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/05/the_scariest_weapon_in_the_us_inventory (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/05/the_scariest_weapon_in_the_us_inventory)

(Ya gotta register)

[SASless]

Stan,

Do we have to drink sour milk to prove our nostrils correct?

[Jack Carson]

I believe like many, that the V-22 has some basic flaws. This view stems form my experience as a former Marine pilot with flight experience in the CH-53A/D/E, UH-1E/N, AH-1G/J/T and the CH-46D/E/F and having flown with many of the pilots that sustained fatal injuries in V-22 mishaps. These gentlemen were all consummate professionals assigned the task of testing and fielding this machine. All were very experienced second or third tour aviators more than capable of handling what most aircraft would throw at them. Their mishaps are proof that the machine got the best of them. Furthermore, I have reviewed the V-22 operators manual and have seen the many WARNINGS, CAUTIONS, LIMITATIONS and NOTES associated with what I would categorize as normal operating procedures. Anyone, performing a similar review of these procedures would come to the same conclusion, “The machine as fielded is flawed” My concerns lie not with the politics of procurement. The VH-71, Air Force CSAR, and next generation tanker programs more than highlight the system’s problems.

We should all be concerned with the safety and well being of those presently tasked with operating the V-22 and with those innocent passengers unfortunate enough to be assigned transport in it. :(

[slgrossman]

FH1100 Pilot said:

As a Rotorcraft/Helicopter pilot of 30 years and 11,000+ hours of experience, I certainly *can* offer an educated and valid opinion on the V-22 in the helicopter mode. I don't have to be ex-military, or a V-22 pilot to do that.

Now who's folding his arms across his chest and sticking out his chin?

But at the end of the day (and the end of the post) I see that, yes, you are completely correct, Stan. Since I have no military and no V-22 experience, I should just shut the hell up and leave the thing alone.

Why so defensive? My comments were pretty innocuous, yet you deliberately twisted what I wrote and took offense. By no means did I state or imply that you weren't entitled to your opinion, but you really ought to open your mind enough to respect the perspective of those with direct knowledge and hands-on experience with USMC tactics and the subject aircraft. I'm pretty sure that at least a few of them can think for themselves and have not been seduced by the "system."

SASless:

Perhaps the V-22 program does deserve to be cancelled. Comanche was. F-22 production has been halted. The VH-71 is history. But, if we do cancel it let's make sure it's for the right reasons. Let's hear congress say it's too expensive, or the Marine Corps say it can't do the job.

While I hope it succeeds, I'm not an apologist for the program, the manufacturer, or the aircraft itself. It's just that the detractors persistent arguments have in many cases been discredited by those who will ultimately have to live and work with the thing and are in a position to know.

-Stan-

[usmc helo]

Svenestron (http://www.pprune.org/members/207967-svenestron)

Ok, so you accuse me of cherry picking so I’ll try and do better this time.

You asked:

Is the deck or the hangar-bay designed for maintenance tasks (has cranes, lights etc. fixed)?
Yes.


How many helos or planes are taking off from the hangar whilst maintenance is blocking the deck? None

I believe what you are really asking is how does a V-22 spread on the maintenance deck affect flight ops? Is this correct?

All flight operations aboard ship are closely planned events. Starting in the A.M. the day before when Operations develops the schedule until Later that evening at the Air Ops meeting which consist of the ACE (Aviation Combat Element) operations and maintenance personnel, the Air Boss, the deck handlers, and a representative from the bridge. At this meeting it is determined which aircraft will be spotted where, what time it will take off, for how long, how many people, what it is doing, when it will return, whether it will be a gas and go or a shutdown and stow. Maintenance actions are also planned at this meeting to include what kind, whether it will be conducted top side or below decks, spot number, which aircraft need to be moved below decks and which need to come topside, etc. From this a spot plan/tow plan is developed so as not to interfere with flight ops. i.e. most movement of aircraft from/to the hangar deck and to the flight deck is accomplished before or after flight ops. After the initial launch and an aircraft is required to be towed the affected aircraft will be told to enter holding or the instrument pattern (assuming all the spots are being utilized…which is rare). Often this doesn’t affect the whole deck just certain spot numbers. Considering that the V-22 CAN be worked on below deck (despite other reports the engines can be worked on in the folded position with the exception of engine changes) the impact of V-22 maintenance on the boat is a logistical one, not an operational one. The hangar deck is always a crowded space and the movement of any airframe requires coordination with the deck handlers.

What part of a boat will normally rock more (see higher G’s), the lower or the upper?
Is the hangar or the deck colder, windier and rainier?
Do you like performing maintenance/inspections in salt-spray?

Since maintenance is accomplished on the flight deck to the maximum extent possible for all airframes these conditions apply across the board not just to the V-22. Daily, turn around and preflight inspections, pump changes, track and balance adjustments, etc are either accomplished in the slash or once the aircraft is spotted, very rarely in the hangar bay. I think there is a misconception that the aircraft are put in the hangar every night. In fact an aircraft on the MEU will spend 80-90% of the deployment topside, even during a typhoon, and only be brought down the hangar deck for major maintenance such as engine change, blade change, phase inspections (but I’ve seen these accomplished top side also). As sea state rises different aspects of maintenance are stopped based on conditions. For example at some point hoist operations are stopped for safety reasons, ladders are no longer aloud to be used, personnel are not allowed on the aircraft etc.

Does having a light on in the hangar-bay influence the visual profile of the ship?
This list could get long.

Generally speaking maintenance activities topside at night are limited to inspections and such for light discipline reasons but more importantly for personnel safety. If heavy maintenance is required the aircraft will have been relocated to the hangar deck (see above) and the hangar doors are closed for discipline reasons.

The point would however be that the V-22 CAN’T be worked on anywhere else should the need arise.

As I’ve pointed out, yes it can. Carlton never actually says that it can’t, he implies that it clobbers so much space that it’s better to work on it topside. The V-22 will present some planning issues but they are nothing that won’t be resolved. I think you under estimate the ability of the deck handlers and how they manage the flight/hangar deck.

My point about Carlton’s, and others, comments is that they have no context to compare them to. You read all of Carlton’s comments and think “Oh my God!”, I read them and think “and that's different how?”. Feel free to criticize but put it in context and don't make assumptions.

Oh yeah....The engine flame out thing. Why is someone posting a 3 year old news article as though it just happened? Open the link and look at the date…July 2006! No negative V-22 news so we had to pull out something from the past?

Personally I think the biggest waste of my tax payer dollars is the $6b a year we give in tax rebates to people who pay ZERO income tax. :eek:

I've had enough, I'm going on vacation.

[SASless]

Stan,

I agree with what you say about how to make the decision on the 22. However, one must bear in mind Boeing, Lockheed, Bell, Sikorsky or any manufacturer is going to say....scrap my project. The government...politicians, civilians, and military that have some much vested interest in the projects are not going to stand up and volunteer that statement either.

What effect would such a stand by a serving Marine Officer have upon career prospects for the person brave enough to make such a statement?

These programs are almost self fulfilling prophecies once they take life.


Eisenhower warned us of this many years ago!

[Dan Reno]

Yes, any Marine Officer standing up publically for this POS is likely looked upon by his peers as a hero publically, but as a fool and apple-polisher otherwise. And like so many other unsolved problems, the engines are still junk and whether or not it's been a 3 or 4 year old problem, the taxpayer still hasn't gotten what the manufacturer crowed about (sounds like fraud), along with that greatest of all features: 'power by the hour' for the marines. Gee, what happened to that BS feature I wonder?

If anyone TRULY has a beef with the originator of these so-called falsehoods or reams of disinformation, then that person needs to go to the source for clarification and not the messengers here making reference to them...make sense? Here's a primer sports fans:

Lee Gaillard via the World Security Institute’s Center for Defense Information: http://www.CDI.org ([email protected])
Carlton via: http://www (http://www).G2mil.com ([email protected])
Besides the GAO, complaints are also taken by these kind folks at: Disinformation: http://www.disinfo.com/content/index.php (http://www.disinfo.com/content/index.php)
And as me dear ol' skipper at Marble would say: "If all else fails see your Chaplain": http://www.navy/chaplain/ (http://www.navy/chaplain/)And please 'share with us' what these people tell you. Thanks!

[Dan Reno]

Hot-Breathing Osprey Sparks Five-Acre Fire


By David Hambling ([email protected])
June 5, 2009 |
2:47 pm | An unfortunate incident last month when a MV-22 Osprey was damaged in a grass fire (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/05/marine_osprey_052809w/) is just the latest indication that the tilt-rotor’s fearsomely hot exhaust can cause real problems; it can even damage ships’ decks.
Eagle-eyed Osprey-watcher Springbored (http://springboarder.*************/) noticed some differences between the Marine Corps explanation of the event (http://springboarder.*************/2009/05/osprey-down-grassfire-edition.html%20%20) and the coverage on a local news channel (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/05/marine_osprey_052809w/) in North Carolina, where the incident occurred.
In the official version, the aircraft landed due to mechanical problems at 7 pm in Holly Shelter Game Land (http://northcarolina.hometownlocator.com/maps/feature-map,ftc,2,fid,1025392,n,holly%20shelter%20game%20land.cfm) in Pender County, NC. When it was preparing to take off, the heat from the exhaust ignited the grass underneath it.
“The grass fire was quickly extinguished by the crew chief, but caused an undetermined amount of heat damage to the aircraft exterior,” according to a rather bland Corps statement.
The News 14 version is more colorful (http://www.news14.com/content/local_news/coastal/609843/military-investigating-unplanned-landing/Default.aspx). They say that fire-fighters did not bring the blaze under control until 11 pm, implying a larger conflagration that could not be put out by one man with a portable extinguisher. Springbored quotes another local news source (http://springboarder.*************/2009/05/osprey-down-grassfire-edition.html%20%20)saying that brush was set on fire. Local emergency management director Eddie King added, “It burned a little less than five acres.”
Springbored can claim some foresight on this one. In April, he stated (http://springboarder.*************/2009/04/systems-engineering-ox-goes-before-cart.html%20), “we’ve known for years that V-22 downwash is notorious for setting nearby vegetation afire” and questioned how this would affect training exercises in Southern California during the dry season” “Are MV-22s going to be restricted to landing at only neatly-groomed, nicely leveled backwoods landing sites? Or do Marines just like hopping off their transport with fire extinguishers?” (Cue the joke about arriving in a hot Landing Zone.)
A few fires are one thing, but the hot exhaust can also cause trouble on board a ship, where it can warp steel. Last month Aviation Week reported that as well as reliability issues, the exhaust was a problem (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/V22-050409.xml&headline=V-22%20Faces%20Mission%20Capable%20Rates%20Issues):
It was discovered that on smaller deck amphibious ships, heat from the downward-pointing nacelles could potentially warp the stringers [horizontal structural beams] underneath the deck plates. “We’re concerned with heat on the LPD and LSD decks because the steel is so thin,” Trautman said, adding that the service has “worked through that challenge.”
There are two suggested solutions. One is to angle the nacelles forward rather than leaving them vertical, which would allow the aircraft to remain for about half an hour. The alternative is to add deck plates which would give ninety minutes of protection.
Secrecy and a refusal to disclose details of the aircraft’s operational rate in Iraq (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/five-minutes-in-osprey-hearing-crashes/)(rumored to be poor) have increased the rumblings of doom (http://springboarder.*************/2009/05/mv-22-lookin-vulnerable.html%20); a Marine general has suggested buying less Ospreys and more helicopters (http://www.star-telegram.com/metro_news/story/1361445.html%20). At least the Osprey involved in last month’s incident avoided serious damage: explaining how your $73 million aircraft came to be destroyed by a forest fire it had started would be really embarrassing.
ALSO:

Five Minutes In, Osprey Hearing Crashes (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/five-minutes-in-osprey-hearing-crashes/#previouspost)
Official: Ospreys Heading to Afghanistan, New Trucks Not Heading … (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/04/official-ospreys-heading-to-afghanistan-new-trucks-not-heading-anywhere/#previouspost)
Special Ops Osprey Squadron Ready for Action (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/03/spec-ops-osprey/#previouspost)
Osprey In Iraq Flies VIPs… When it’s Ready to Fly (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/01/osprey-firest-r/#previouspost)
Buy Your Own Osprey! (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/07/buy-your-own-os/#previouspost)
Osprey Fire Injures Marine (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/04/osprey-fire-inj/#previouspost)
Osprey in Iraq: The Report Card (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/07/osprey-in-iraq/#previouspost)
As Defense Boss, Cheney Pushed Big Weapons Cuts (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/04/as-pentagon-chi/#previouspost)
Osprey Bursts into Flames; “Significant Damage” (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/11/osprey-burns/#previouspost)
Ospreys over Africa (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/11/ospreys-land-in/#previouspost)
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/06/hot-breathing-osprey-sparks-five-acre-fire/ (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/06/hot-breathing-osprey-sparks-five-acre-fire/)

[SASless]

I lived 70 miles south of the Marine Base at Camp LeJeune where the Ospreys are based and distinctly recall hearing news reports of the fire mentioned in the latest post by Dan Reno.

It was not put out by the Crew Chief.....it took a full response by the local fire department and units from the State Forestry Service as I remember it.

The difference in the reporting may be the crew chief was able to put out the fire in the immediate surrounds of the aircraft itself but not the rest of the blaze. Once the broom straw catches fire it burns like blazes! With the rotor wash fanning the fire it would spread faster than a scared man can run.

We routinely get fire warnings over the radio and TV stations in the area when the humidity drops and the winds pick up. It is not unusual to have brush fires in those conditions.

Vehicles with catalytic converters can start fires if they stop in tall grass so the hot exhaust of the Osprey is an absolute certainty to start such a fire.



What of this aborted takeoff that is reported???


Local TV Station Report

Osprey emergency landing sparks Pender Co. fire

Posted: May 27, 2009 11:19 PM EDT

Updated: May 28, 2009 05:16 PM EDT







Reported by Claire Simms - bio|email
Reported by Gavin Johnson - bio|email
Posted by Debra Worley - email

PENDER COUNTY, NC (WECT) - A military plane made an emergency landing Wednesday evening around 8:30 in Pender County. Now, military officials are trying to determine how to get the Osprey back on base.

Emergency officials say the pilot landed the plane in a swampy area of the Holly Shelter Game Land off Lodge Road.

After hours of repairs, crew members tried taking off with the aircraft, but smashed into swamp mud nose first.

"Exhaust from that attempt to take off actually ignited some grass and brush in the area that was around the aircraft," said Emergency Management Director Eddie King. "It burned a little less than five acres."

Firefighters and the forestry service worked throughout the night to contain the blaze. No one was hurt because the shelter is closed to hunters for the season.

According to a statement provided by the Marines, training engine problems began when the plane was at a low altitude.

"One thing this [the situation] enables us to do is make some contacts with some folks over at Camp Lejeune and at New River and to develop standard operating guidelines with the military and county," said King.

Another Osprey crashed in 2000 in the Jacksonville area killing four military personnel.




The Marine Corps Version

Osprey damaged after precautionary landing

Staff report
Posted : Saturday May 30, 2009 8:57:11 EDT

JACKSONVILLE, N.C. — An MV-22 Osprey made a precautionary landing Wednesday night in a national game land after one of its engines ran low on fuel, officials said.
The aircrew, of the Marine Corps Air Station New River, N.C.-based with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Training Squadron 204, was conducting low altitude training when an engine ran out of fuel, according to 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing statement.

The pilot landed about 7 p.m. in a field in Holly Shelter Game Land in Pender County, which is south of the air station. After the Osprey was fueled, it was ready to take off until the grass underneath it caught fire from the heat exhaust.

“The grass fire was quickly extinguished by the crew chief, but caused an undetermined amount of heat damage to the aircraft exterior,” the Marine statement said.
The extent of the damage has not been determined, but the Osprey was flown back to New River on Thursday afternoon, said 2nd MAW spokeswoman Maj. Aisha Bakkar.

[Dan Reno]

Talk like that isn't allowed to leave the county never mind get on the national news. The last time a volunteer fireman reported the details on TV about the last V22 accident there, that resulted in the aircraft being flat bedded back to New River, the Fire Chief said "That man is not authroized to speak for the fire department."

Cover-ups for this gooney bird are many and run deep.

(SASless isn't where you live near Holly Ridge?)

[SASless]

I was docked on the Cape Fear river at Wilmington but now have moved about the same distance south of Norfolk....in a town that could be "Mayberry".

[FH1100 Pilot]

See, this event is a classic example of how you cannot believe anything the military releases to the public.

On the surface, we're told that it was a simple case of "one engine running low on fuel." That's all, nothing serious, just one engine running low on fuel. Happens all the time! It landed at either 7 PM or 8:30 PM on Wednesday evening depending on which spokesperson or report you choose to believe.

After "hours of repairs" to this low fuel situation it tried to take off. This would be around 11 PM, maybe? But, according to the newspaper report, it smashed "nose first" into the swamp, and that's about when the fire started...the fire that the firemen had to "work throughout the night" to get under control? Whatever, the V-22 RON'd in the field, and the Marines did manage to get it back to base the next afternoon. Spokesman Maj. Bakkar says they flew it. Perhaps they did.

Well that's muddy enough. I'm no Lt. Columbo, but google, msn, and airnav.com provide pretty good maps of that area.

The V-22 landed near Lodge Road, just about smack-dab in the middle of the Holly Game Preserve. That would have put them about 15 miles north of the big airport at Wilmington, NC and about 20 miles south of their base at New River Airport. But their own Camp Davis outlying field was only 9 miles away, and there is a paved private strip about 7 miles away. Just how low on fuel was that engine??

No, let's just admit that it wasn't a simple, little low-fuel problem. That was a lie. It was some sort of maintenance issue. A maintenance issue that caused them to want to be on the ground RIGHT NOW.

Defenders of the V-22 do not realize the huge credibility problem events like this generate for the military. If we cannot believe what they tell us about a "relatively" minor problem (i.e. not a fatal accident), why should we believe ANYTHING they tell us with respect to bigger, more important things like availability rates, maintenance issues, compressor stalls, engine life...

My personal opinion is that the military and the manufacturer have been lying to us all along about the V-22. They've told us only what they think we need to know, shading and coloring the "facts" in a way that doesn't ever make the V-22 look less than the bestest aircraft that's ever been invented.

I know that some of this goes with the territory. No manufacturer wants bad stuff about their product to get out, and they'll go to great lenghts to prevent it. So too the military leaders in charge of the project only want to accentuate the positive. But in the case of the V-22, this process has been perverted to the point where NOTHING negative will ever be released, even if they have to lie about it. It's one thing to put the best "spin" on things that you can, but when you start to compromise honesty you've just put your foot on that steep, slippery slope.

Without guys like Bob Cox, Dan Reno, Carlton Meyer and others, we'd probably never know some of the less-flattering things about the V-22. They might not be correct 100% of the time, but I don't believe they intentionally lie to us like the military and Bell-Boeing so obviously does. Let's give them credit for that.

Heh. I just had a chuckle as I was thinking about this post. If the exhaust from a V-22 can melt the steel deck of a naval ship, what would that exhaust do to an asphalt pad? I'm thinking about the 609 and the little holes it's going to be making on asphalt airport ramps all over the country. And the fires it's going to be starting when it lands at the corporate headquarters of companies that don't already have big, concrete tiltrotor landing pads built.

The V-22 - and tiltrotors in general - work better in theory than in reality. They'd be great if their downwash wasn't so damaging, and noise (in helicopter mode) wasn't so objectionable. They'd be terrific if they just didn't have that danged jet blast coming out so close to the ground when the nacelles are up. They'd be super if they weren't so dad-blamed complicated and maintenance intensive. (I mean, did we ever think we'd see something invented that made a helicopter look simple?) They'd be wonderful if there was an IFR system that was even remotely prepared to handle their unique capabilities. And if there just wasn't that pesky A-VRS thing...

Dump the V-22. We've wasted enough money on it as it is.

[500e]

Low on fuel on 1 engine? No transfer from tanks? No X over of fuel supply? or 1 engine non serviceable? Will it only fly on 2 engines? even in aircraft mode?.
"The V-22 landed near Lodge Road, just about smack-dab in the middle of the Holly Game Preserve. That would have put them about 15 miles north of the big airport at Wilmington, NC and about 20 miles south of their base at New River Airport. But their own Camp Davis outlying field was only 9 miles away, and there is a paved private strip about 7 miles away. Just how low on fuel was that engine??"

Lots of questions no answers

[Dan Reno]

FH100 Unfortunetly, there's no one in high places within this program now and past with any honor. False pride and greed has laid waste to many in the aviation side over this flying junk pile.

(SASless Twenty five years ago, I trudged around Hyde County and ended up buying 200 foot of shoreline on the northwest end of Mattamuskeet for a retirement home. Wish I still had it.)

[FH1100 Pilot]

500e, that's just it, the "low fuel on one engine" thing was just bullsh*t. A misstatement. A ruse. A falsehood. What most of would simply call a "lie."

Now. If they lied about that, what ELSE have they lied about?

[ramen noodles]

If there was a headline every time a regular helicopter landed somewhere in a very-low-on-fuel state, the newspapers and TV would have no room for the ads that keep them in business.

And if you want some "How dumb was I?" stories like the grass fire incident that followed, see the other thread on Rotorheads!

Someone somewhere else must have some proportion about this, I hope!

[SASless]

The issue was not "a headline" but rather the plainly different accounts set forth by the Marines and the local press which quoted persons at the same site the Marines were at. Reading the two accounts one would think there were two incidents and not just the one as they differ so much from one another.

The question begged is which one is more correct?

If the local account was correct then there is far more to the incident than the Marine Corps is owing up to.

What of the aborted Takeoff....did it happen or not?

If it did....what caused the abort?

Why if it were a fuel quantity issue....why the "several hours working on the aircraft"?

Would you not just top off the tanks and fire up both and head for the barn about ten miles away?

Did the aircraft have "other" engine problems?

If the Marine Crew Chief put the fire out.....why the five acre brush fire that was fought by fire and forestry units all that night?

I don't know about you Ramen...but when I read differing accounts of a single event....I have to ask those kinds of questions and base my assumptions that are unanswered by trying to figure out who has a reason to LIE.

Anyone with any kind of techical , aviation, or investigative background who is used to analyzing empirical data and the like would be enclined to do the same I would think.

People, beyond Liberal Politicians, seldom are pathological liars thus usually there is some motive, reason, or need to not tell the truth when they with malice aforethought LIE.

(I consider non-Liberal politicians to be liars as well....just not pathological liars as their Liberal colleagues!)

[ramen noodles]

I guess you cant figure it out, but I can. A V22 gets very very low on gas, and lands off site. They refuel it, and when they start, it causes a grass fire that scorches the bird.

Sounds like a typical Darwin award. What do you expect from Marines? How is this other than a typical human dumb mistake? OK, all guilty, so who do we hang?

[The Sultan]

SASless how is it that you stated you never called Marines liars, but here you are doing it again. We definitely know the liar now.

As to the V-22 it is certain that Dan, SAS, FH and Carlton (who ever the f*** that is) do not know **** about the V-22, its operations, or what it is doing. The war fighter wants it and that is all there is too it (god knows enough died needlessly in 53's that they would want something better).

The Sultan

Also where can I fine the H-60 thread discussing why one seems to crash into the sea every few months with no survivors and no cause published. The V-22 record is far superior to that porked up POS.

[Dan Reno]

SULTAN

I suggest you file a Freedom Of Information Request regarding the Seahawk crashes you mentioned. I've done several over the years and their easy to do. In fact, they may simply redirect you to another department where you can view the info on-line. These requests only cost money if they require over 30 minutes of investgation and reproduction time. Mine have been all free and a couple were on-line. Be sure to ask a for accident photos too and be as specific as possible.

Go here: FCC Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Home Page (http://www.fcc.gov/foia/)

[FH1100 Pilot]

Sultan, *now* I get it! Why didn't I see it? It's so simple. If the military wants something, then that's enough reason to buy it.

Even if it hasn't been completely invented yet.

Got that about right?

[SASless]

Sultan,

May we have your Resume' and Bona Fides so that we might qualify you as an "Expert"?

If you wish....I did call someone a "Liar"....but did not specify whom as I recall.

What I did say is the Marine Account varies from the Civilian Account and the physical evidence supports the Civilian Account. As no one was waterboarded then I have to assume the two accounts were volutarily given thus ignoring the small issue of an aborted takeoff and a five acre brush fire that rolled out teams of fire fighters....then I guess maybe it was only an oversight.

Funny how these oversights always favor the Marines and the Osprey, wouldn't say?

As the source of the Marine Account was a Marine as named in the Navy Times article (it also is a civilian company....and not military), then one could parse words I guess like Bill Clinton and say there was only a civilian version of events presented.

As I have "O" Club privileges and live so close to Camp LeJeune.....you reckon I might just know a bit more than you suspect? Reckon I might even go fishing with maintenance officers sometime? I do anchor out on Camp LeJeune from time to time....no telling who might show up for a drink or dinner on weekends.

However, until you can prove you are more than a (banned word removed) Rag Wipe at Amarillo.....we'll just continue to consider the source and try to ignore your comments.

[21stCen]

By Amy Butler and Douglas Barrie
LE BOURGET
http://www.aviationweek.com/media/images/defense_images/Miscellaneous/OspreyUSAF.jpg The U.S. Marine Corps MV-22 squadron preparing to deploy to Afghanistan in the third or fourth quarter of this year is now flight testing a turreted gun to beef-up the aircraft’s fire-power.
The Bell/Boeing MV-22 unit is likely to be deployed to Camp Bastion in the Helmand region as part of the U.S.’s ramp-up of forces in the country. The BAE Systems turret uses a GAU-17, 7.62mm cal. mini-gun in the belly or “hell hole” of the tiltrotor aircraft.
USMC Lt. Gen. George J. Trautman III, deputy commandant for aviation, says some “basic” testing work is now being carried out by the squadron, and that next month will see full operational tests. Trautman is “fairly confident we’ll meet the fall objective.”
Along with the turreted gun, the USMC is also qualifying a 50-cal. weapon for the ramp station. The MV-22 now includes an optional M240 on the ramp. Air Force Special Operations forces are now training to use the 50-cal. gun on their CV-22 fleet because it provides superior coverage for the back of the aircraft.
The MV-22 will, says Trautman, help support dispersed force operations, providing troop and cargo transport, as well as medical evacuation.
Trautman says he hopes to improve the 62% mission capable rate of the aircraft supporting operations in Iraq. However, one contributing factor to that mission capable rate is that nearly one-third of the fleet are MV-22A models, which lack some of the reliability qualities designed into the B version. “We accept that and we realize that,” he says, noting the MV-22s were deployed to Iraq sooner in its maturity than most systems would have been sent abroad.
Trautman is also monitoring problems with recently delivered UH-1N and AH-1Z aircraft delivered to the Navy/Marine Corps from Bell. Bad parts from a subvendor caused problems with the transmission in these aircraft. Fixes are underway, and by mid-July, these helicopters will be back in service, he says.
The USMC is also planning to deploy the new Hueys to the Afghan theater later this year. Operational testing of the AH-1Z is expected to finish next year, Trautman says.

[SASless]

Seems there is more than a small bit of concern about USMC availability data....along with other issues.

A good source for articles on the V-22...

Defense Tech: Grand Ole Osprey Archives (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_grand_ole_osprey.html)

Panel to examine V-22 cost, maintenance, performance



By BOB COX
[email protected]
A congressional committee that has been asking hard questions about Bell Helicopter’s V-22 Osprey aircraft is scheduled to meet today to examine the aircraft’s performance in Iraq, along with ongoing maintenance and cost issues.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing was scheduled for May 21 but was postponed when the Marine Corps and Defense Department did not provide an extensive amount of requested data ahead of time.

The committee submitted a detailed list of questions seeking specifics about the condition and status of all V-22 aircraft produced, maintenance requirements and operating performance of aircraft in Iraq, and copies of internal Marine reports on the aircraft’s performance.

"This hearing will provide a thorough and public examination of the Defense Department’s V-22 Osprey, an aircraft with a controversial past, a troubled present, and an uncertain future," Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-New York, the committee chairman, said in a statement.

"The American people deserve to know that this $120 million aircraft, paid for with taxpayer dollars, is working as advertised and does the best job of protecting our troops and helping them accomplish their missions."

Bell and Boeing developed and build the V-22. Procurement costs of aircraft now being delivered to the Marines are about $75 million each, according to budget documents.

The committee commissioned a study by the Government Accountability Office of V-22 operating performance and costs that will be made public at the hearing.

Senior Marine leaders have praised the performance of the V-22 during the 19 months it was deployed to Iraq but have acknowledged that reliability and heavy maintenance requirements are a concern.

Twelve V-22s were sent to Iraq beginning in October 2007. Three Marine squadrons deployed and operated the aircraft during that time, and they returned to the U.S. in April.

A squadron of Ospreys is now making the aircraft’s first seaborne deployment, aboard the USS Bataan, an amphibious ship, and the Marines say they intend to send a squadron to Afghanistan this year.

Lt. Gen. George Trautman III, deputy commandant for Marine aviation, said last month that the Osprey’s performance in Iraq was "marvelously successful. The performance thus far tells us that the aircraft completed every assigned mission . . . flying faster, farther and with safer flight profiles" than helicopters.

Ospreys continue to have more reliability problems than the Marines would like, but Trautman said Bell and Boeing are working on them.

In a recent interview at a meeting in Grapevine, Col. Matt Mulhern, the Marines’ V-22 program manager, said the aircraft has about a 70 percent mission capable rate — meaning the percentage of aircraft ready and fully capable of flying a mission. A report in Aviation Week last week cited Trautman as saying the mission capable rate was 62 percent.

Mulhern said Marine maintenance crews strained to keep up with the repairs.

Witnesses scheduled to testify at the hearing include Trautman and Lt. Col. Karsten Heckl, commander of a Marine squadron sent to Iraq.

Representatives of the GAO will appear, as will Dakota Wood, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. A retired Marine, Wood wrote a study last year suggesting that the Marines buy fewer V-22s and supplement them with lower-cost helicopters.

A recent addition to the witness list is A.R. Rivolo, an Air Force veteran, aviation expert and former analyst on the Pentagon’s V-22 testing staff. He has written a number of critical reports about the Osprey.

A committee staffer said that the 1 p.m. CDT hearing will be webcast and that a link will be posted at oversight.house.gov.

[JohnDixson]

21st Century,

Gen. Trautman quoted as follows in your note:

Trautman says he hopes to improve the 62% mission capable rate of the aircraft supporting operations in Iraq. However, one contributing factor to that mission capable rate is that nearly one-third of the fleet are MV-22A models, which lack some of the reliability qualities designed into the B version. “We accept that and we realize that,” he says, noting the MV-22s were deployed to Iraq sooner in its maturity than most systems would have been sent abroad.

"Sooner in its maturity than most systems.."

CH-53A test aircraft made its first flight in the fall of 1964 and six production ships were sent to Danang in late 1966. A well managed USMC program all around.

Thanks,
John Dixson

[SASless]

Quoting USMC Major General Kelly......

Kelly also partially answered the question of the Osprey's suitability in Afghanistan. He said the CH-46 can only carry about four passengers and crew in the summer and about 10 pax plus the crew in the winter. The 53 does well in Afghanistan, but is in short supply.

"The 46 is very, very limited in what it can do over there. That's why the 53 is so important over there, it's got the legs and it's got the power. But the V-22 will do it all."

[Dan Reno]

Hey! That's not fair to compare the H-53 to the V-22. Th V-22 can go faster..so there.

Here's the latest:

Panel to examine V-22 cost, maintenance, performance

By BOB COX
[email protected] ([email protected])
A congressional committee that has been asking hard questions about Bell Helicopter’s V-22 Osprey aircraft is scheduled to meet today to examine the aircraft’s performance in Iraq, along with ongoing maintenance and cost issues.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing was scheduled for May 21 but was postponed when the Marine Corps and Defense Department did not provide an extensive amount of requested data ahead of time.
The committee submitted a detailed list of questions seeking specifics about the condition and status of all V-22 aircraft produced, maintenance requirements and operating performance of aircraft in Iraq, and copies of internal Marine reports on the aircraft’s performance.
"This hearing will provide a thorough and public examination of the Defense Department’s V-22 Osprey, an aircraft with a controversial past, a troubled present, and an uncertain future," Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-New York, the committee chairman, said in a statement.
"The American people deserve to know that this $120 million aircraft, paid for with taxpayer dollars, is working as advertised and does the best job of protecting our troops and helping them accomplish their missions."
Bell and Boeing developed and build the V-22. Procurement costs of aircraft now being delivered to the Marines are about $75 million each, according to budget documents.
The committee commissioned a study by the Government Accountability Office of V-22 operating performance and costs that will be made public at the hearing.
Senior Marine leaders have praised the performance of the V-22 during the 19 months it was deployed to Iraq but have acknowledged that reliability and heavy maintenance requirements are a concern.
Twelve V-22s were sent to Iraq beginning in October 2007. Three Marine squadrons deployed and operated the aircraft during that time, and they returned to the U.S. in April.
A squadron of Ospreys is now making the aircraft’s first seaborne deployment, aboard the USS Bataan, an amphibious ship, and the Marines say they intend to send a squadron to Afghanistan this year.
Lt. Gen. George Trautman III, deputy commandant for Marine aviation, said last month that the Osprey’s performance in Iraq was "marvelously successful. The performance thus far tells us that the aircraft completed every assigned . flying faster, farther and with safer flight profiles" than . mission . helicopters.
Ospreys continue to have more reliability problems than the Marines would like, but Trautman said Bell and Boeing are working on them.
In a recent interview at a meeting in Grapevine, Col. Matt Mulhern, the Marines’ V-22 program manager, said the aircraft has about a 70 percent mission capable rate — meaning the percentage of aircraft ready and fully capable of flying a mission. A report in Aviation Week last week cited Trautman as saying the mission capable rate was 62 percent.
Mulhern said Marine maintenance crews strained to keep up with the repairs.
Witnesses scheduled to testify at the hearing include Trautman and Lt. Col. Karsten Heckl, commander of a Marine squadron sent to Iraq.
Representatives of the GAO will appear, as will Dakota Wood, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. A retired Marine, Wood wrote a study last year suggesting that the Marines buy fewer V-22s and supplement them with lower-cost helicopters.
A recent addition to the witness list is A.R. Rivolo, an Air Force veteran, aviation expert and former analyst on the Pentagon’s V-22 testing staff. He has written a number of critical reports about the Osprey.
A committee staffer said that the 1 p.m. CDT hearing will be webcast and that a link will be posted at oversight.house.gov.
BOB COX, 817-390-7723

Source: Panel to examine V-22 cost, maintenance, performance | Nation | Star-Telegram.com (http://www.star-telegram.com/238/story/1447606.html)

[usmc helo]

Readiness rates from 2004 GAO data:

CH-47D/F: Goal: 80% Actual: 69% (as high as 75% in 2001)
CH-53E: Goal: 70% Actual: 64% (62% in 2000, 59% in 2001)
CH-46E: Goal: 80% Actual: 75% (79% in 1999)
AH-1W: Goal: 85% Actual: 70% (76% in 2000)
AV-8B: Goal: 76% Actual: 68% (64% in 2000 and 2001)

It's not that it's twice as fast, it's that it's twice as quick! What the V-22 can do in 1.0 hour the 53E takes 1.6 and the 46 takes 2.1. That's reinforcements and supplies in the zone where they need to be, not on the way.

[The Sultan]

John Dix

You forgot to mention that the 53 has been involved in the Mayquez disaster do solely to the platform, the Desert One disaster due to the platform, the worst helicopter crash in history in Israel due the platform. The V-22's track record is infinitely better than the 53's even if you add ten years of grace to the 53.

Maybe Spielberg can help to right a better spin.

The Sultan

[Ian Corrigible]

usmc helo,

As you probably know better than I, the Osprey was never intended to replace the CH-53E, but rather the less complex CH-53D. As has been pointed out before, it's always dangerous mixing selected readiness rates and MC rates, but for what it's worth HMH-463 (http://www.marine-corps-news.com/2006/10/hmh363_assumes_role_of_assault.htm) claimed an average MC readiness rate of 89% during their first 7 months in theater.

I/C

[usmc helo]

IC,

I couldn't agree more. I felt the 53E was a fair comparison since so many on here seem to make that comparision and some feel we should get rid of the V-22 and replace it with the 53K.
Also remember that the CO of VMM-266 (in Defence Helicopter) pointed out that if depot level maintenance had been available for the V-22 at Al Asad as it was for the 46's and 53's then his numbers would have been higher also. But some on here probably believe that he also has "sullied his honor" and "drank the cool aid" by saying so.
As I've pointed out before I've been in squadrons that reported over 80% MC but for some reason only 2 out of 9 aircraft could fly.

[SASless]

You forgot to mention that the 53 has been involved in the Mayquez disaster do solely to the platform, the Desert One disaster due to the platform, the worst helicopter crash in history in Israel due the platform. The V-22's track record is infinitely better than the 53's even if you add ten years of grace to the 53.


Sultan......you don't know squat about what you are talking about!

Mayaquez....Flying Fortresses would have been shot down in all of that hostile fire.....the losses were due to enemy fire. Brave men died there.

Desert One was pilot error....pure and simple. Again...Brave Men died!

The size of the aircraft determines the number of casualties....the 22 will never kill as many in one go as can the Chinook or 53 because it carries less than half as many as do the helicopters.

Please try to add to the discussion please......and not your usual poor contribution!


Lessee....if a CH-53 totes 55 troops....and the V-22 totes 24.....how does that play with numbers of troops per hour?

[JohnDixson]

Must be a coincidence, Sultan, but this past weekend I went to the wedding of a daughter to one of Sikorsky's Senior Test Pilots, who was the pilot of the USAF H-53 that was shot down in the Mayaguez incident. A USAF Academy graduate, he nonetheless followed the dictates of many other air cavalry types in similar situations: he dismounted his H-53 and fought as infantry with the USMC troops he had on board. Don't know how one makes that out to be an H-53 induced disaster?

As SAS pointed out, the Desert One crash was a clear cockpit caused accident.

With regard to the Israeli accident, one of the factors, in fact THE factor, was that the aircraft was being used way outside of the usage spectrum upon which component replacement, and component overhaul times, were based. As I recall, the Israelis were using the USAF H-53C usage spectrum, but their mission spectrum wasn't at all represented by that spectrum. They knew what the spectrum was.

John Dixson

[The Sultan]

SAS and JohnD

Facts are facts the 53 was the centerpiece of two miltary disasters.

Desert One without a shot being fired. How many crapped out just trying to make the first refueling stop eight or so years after entry into service. The operation failed solely because of the reliability of the 53's. No other reason. The collision occurred after the decision to abort due to too few helicopters being left to continue on.

Relative to the Mayaguez:

Knife 13 was brought down by a rotor failure before the assault without any enemy fire. I guess those 23 souls do not count in your minds. As to the "flying fortresses" you are admitting the 53 was as good as 40 years older technology. SAS hard to believe you would admit some sandle wearers could defeat one of your dream companies products.

As to the people that were there glad they got out. Too bad they departed so fast they left three marines behind alive to fight and die alone.

The Sultan

[Dan Reno]

V-22’s Iraq Performance Should Prompt Program Review, GAO Says
By Tony Capaccio
June 23 (Bloomberg) -- The V-22 Osprey (http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/aircraft/military/bellV-22.cfm)’s performance during its 19 months in Iraq was substandard and the Pentagon should review whether the aircraft’s cost and reliability merit continuing the program, according to congressional auditors.
The tilt-rotor plane’s components wear out too soon, making it too costly to maintain and grounded too much of the time, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (http://www.gao.gov/) said.
The Defense Department has spent $28 billion on the aircraft developed and built by Textron Inc. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=TXT%3AUS) and Boeing Co. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=BA%3AUS) and has bought 206 planes to date. It plans to spend $25 billion more on upgrades and the purchase of the remaining 252 planes in the 458-aircraft program for the Marine Corps and Air Force Special Operations Command.
Given the “significant funding needs” to complete the program, “now is a good time to consider the return on this investment as well as other, less costly alternatives that can fill the current requirement,” the watchdog agency said.
The report, scheduled for release at a congressional hearing today, is the first independent assessment of the V-22’s performance in Iraq. The aircraft has been in development for 20 years and Marine Corps officials say it is likely to be deployed in Afghanistan this year.
The Osprey has rotors that tilt, allowing it to take off and land like a helicopter. The military sees it as useful for long-range Marine Corps and commando missions such as those the Marines anticipate in Afghanistan.
Pentagon Response
David Ahern, a Pentagon acquisition official, defended the aircraft’s effectiveness in Iraq but said the GAO “properly identifies reliability and availability concerns.”
“Correcting the reliability and availability problems is a priority and actions are being taken,” Ahern stated in comments included in the report. “Neither the Defense Department nor the Marine Corps is satisfied,” he wrote in comments coordinated with the Marine Corps.
Ahern said the Pentagon sees no need for a reassessment of the program of the scope recommended by GAO, but “as more is learned about the V-22’s performance, future adjustments to planned quantities may be appropriate.”
Pentagon performance reviews of the Osprey in 2000 and 2001 criticized the aircraft for a host of deficiencies, including problems with its design, safety and reliability. Subsequent reviews concluded that the problems had been largely corrected.
No Heavy Combat
The V-22 didn’t face heavy combat conditions in Iraq. The first squadron of 12 arrived in October 2007, after the once- heavy fighting in Anbar province between U.S. forces and al- Qaeda insurgents had died down because local Sunni tribesmen had turned against the insurgents.
While the V-22 flew its assigned missions successfully, maintenance problems left the planes available for flight at rates “significantly below minimum required levels,” the GAO said.
During three periods studied during the V-22’s deployment from October 2007 through April 2009, the planes were available for combat operations on average 68 percent, 57 percent and 61 percent of the time, “while the minimum requirement” is 82 percent, said the GAO.
And these low rates “were not unique to the Iraq deployment” but were on par with other V-22 squadrons in the U.S., GAO said.
In addition, the 12 planes arrived with nearly three times the spare parts required, yet some parts wore out more quickly than expected, creating shortages that forced maintenance crews to cannibalize components from these planes or get them from Ospreys based in the U.S.
In addition to keeping the plane grounded, these constant repairs put the plane’s flying cost at $11,000 per hour, double the original estimate.
Design ‘Challenges’
The V-22’s continuing design “challenges have raised questions over whether the aircraft is best suited to accomplish” the full range of missions of the older aircraft it’s replacing, the agency said.
Ahern defended the V-22’s performance in Iraq.
“The aircraft was pressed into combat operations in Iraq at the first opportunity,” he wrote. “The V-22 is arguably the most survivable, versatile and capable medium-lift airframe in the Iraq theater” and “evidence in the report leads to a conclusion that the V-22 was operationally effective in Iraq,” Ahern wrote.
Providence, Rhode Island-based Textron’s Bell Helicopter unit co-produces the Osprey with Boeing’s Ridley Township, Pennsylvania, facility. Chicago-based Boeing makes the fuselage. Fort Worth, Texas-based Bell mates the wings and the tail to the fuselage and conducts flight tests.
Bell Helicopter spokesman Tom Dolney said that, while the companies haven’t seen the GAO report, “We have a plan in place and an ongoing program to improve the availability of the entire V-22 fleet.”
“We’ve been working with our customers and the Osprey industry team to identify components, support activities and designs that will improve aircraft availability. Several improvements are already in place,” Dolney said in an e-mail statement.
To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Tony+Capaccio&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) at at [email protected] ([email protected])
Last Updated: June 23, 2009 11:48 EDT

Source: V-22?s Iraq Performance Should Prompt Program Review, GAO Says - Bloomberg.com (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=axdXXwjEYNYc)

[Dan Reno]

MILITARY: New government report slams Osprey
Findings raise questions about scheduled 2010 sitings at Pendleton, Miramar

The U.S. Marine Corps' troubled V-22 Osprey aircraft has failed to live up to its billing in Iraq and continues to face a multitude of reliability issues and rising costs, a new government report concludes.

As a result of heavier troop equipment, the tilt-rotor aircraft that takes off and lands like a helicopter and flies like an airplane can only carry 20 troops, not 24 as was originally intended.

And the planned installation of a gun in the aircraft's belly to improve its defense could further cut the troop number to 18, the report from the Government Accountability Office finds.

The Osprey's ability to perform well in Afghanistan, where thousands of additional Marines have been assigned in recent weeks and mountains soar above 12,000 feet, is questionable because of the aircraft's problems with its de-icing system and 10,000-foot operating ceiling, the report says.

The 41-page report prepared for Congress and released Tuesday recommends Defense Secretary Robert Gates direct a study to determine whether the Marine Corps should continue the program as designed.

It also suggests the Marine Corps should consider keeping a large fleet of older-generation CH-46 and CH-53 helicopters to ensure all its missions can be fulfilled.

The Government Accountability Office findings fly in the face of consistently glowing Osprey reports from Marine commanders and aviators.

The report also comes as Camp Pendleton and Miramar Marine Corps Air Station are getting ready to place 114 Ospreys on those bases and phase out the CH-46 and CH-53, which have proven to be reliable workhorses since the Vietnam era.

That scheduled 2010 transition to what is supposed to become the primary troop mover could be put on hold.

"I would be surprised if the Defense Department doesn't accept the recommendation to take a new look and perhaps scale back the program," said Phil Coyle, an Osprey critic at the Center for Defense Information in Washington and a former assistant secretary of defense from 1994 to 2001. The center is staffed with former members of the military and analyzes defense issues. "With its high maintenance costs and low readiness rates, the review being called for is appropriate."

The Marine Corps has spent $28.8 billion to date to develop the Osprey, which first flew in 1989. Its development was set back several years by a series of crashes between 1991 and 2000 that claimed the lives of 27 Marines, including 14 from Camp Pendleton and four from Miramar.

Government auditors say the cost of flying the aircraft, which is manufactured by Boeing and Bell, is now $11,000 per hour, more than double the expected price and twice the hourly cost of a CH-46. Research and development costs have ballooned from $4.2 billion to nearly $13 billion, despite the reduction in the number planned for purchase by the Marine Corps and Air Force from 1,000 to 500.

The cost for a single Osprey has skyrocketed 148 percent, from $37.7 million when the program was launched in 1985 to $93.4 million. About 250 Ospreys remain to be built.

"The issue for the Marine Corps is they can buy four conventional helicopters for the price of one Osprey," Coyle said. "I've always felt that the Osprey could be used as a truck, but it's a pretty expensive truck."

A Marine Corps spokesman defended the Osprey while acknowledging the service still faces an array of issues with the aircraft.

"The performance of the Osprey in Iraq has given the ground commanders everything they've asked for, and done so faster, farther and safer than any helicopter could do," said the spokesman, Maj. Eric Dent. "But we know there is still work to be done to improve reliability and maintainability of some components to enhance readiness. We are fully engaged and partnered with industry on this."

While the 12-aircraft Osprey unit in Iraq last year was able to complete most of its missions flying farther and faster than older-generation helicopters, none involved combat. The unavailability of replacement parts rendered many inoperable, and resulted in maintenance crews "cannibalizing" one aircraft to keep another flying, according to the report.

As for serving in Afghanistan, the report notes that the Osprey cannot live up to its promise of being able to fly day or night in all kinds of weather and at varying altitudes.

"Identified challenges could limit the ability to conduct operations ... at high altitudes similar to what might be expected in Afghanistan."

No Ospreys are now in Afghanistan. The military is relying on older-model heavy-lift helicopters to ferry troops and equipment.

A spokesman for Marine Corps reservist U.S. Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R-El Cajon, a member of the House Armed Services Committee who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said the congressman supports the Osprey while at the same time recognizing it has not yet been tested in combat.

"Congressman Hunter believes the V-22 should be incorporated into the combat mission in Afghanistan and tested in that environment," spokesman Joe Kasper said. "Until then, any criticisms or evaluations of its combat capability are premature."

Call staff writer Mark Walker at 760-740-3529.

Source: MILITARY: New government report slams Osprey : North County Times - Californian 06-23-2009 (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/06/23/military/zd584f2d41ba799dc882575de0069d481.txt)

usmc helo: Please inform Maj Dent that the V22 is 'quicker' not faster. Thanks. Semper Fi

[SASless]

Two accounts of the action at Koh Tang Island....

RETAKING THE MAYAGUEZ - The final battle of the Vietnam War (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3227/maya.htm)

Mayaguez (http://www.ifma-austin.org/facs/mayaguez.htm)

Knife 13, the aircraft that crashed shortly after takeoff lost a Main Rotor Blade.

Lt Gen Burns also directed 50 members of the 56th Security Police Squadron (56th SPS) to deploy from NKP to Utapao as a contingency assault team. In a harbinger of things to come, one of the “Knife” CH-53s transporting the SPs to Utapao crashed shortly after takeoff from NKP, killing all eighteen SPs and five crewmembers on board.

(Author’s note: A few months prior to this accident, a similar event occurred during a CH-53 Functional Check Flight, the crew. The accident investigation crash found a sleeve or bushing missing from the rotor head assembly shipped from the stateside maintenance depot. This same missing bushing was a primary suspect in this mishap.)

[usmc helo]

Dan Reno post:
"Government auditors say the cost of flying the aircraft, which is manufactured by Boeing and Bell, is now $11,000 per hour, more than double the expected price and twice the hourly cost of a CH-46."

Therefore a CH-46 cost $5500. A CH-46 does 120 kts. If we assume a one hour mission (60 nm out and back, not counting time on deck) it will take the CH-46 1 hour, or $5500. The V-22 does the same mission at 250 kts and completes it in 29 minutes or $5280 for a savings of $220/hr.


Found the following numbers for the 53E from a brief:
-The CH-53E costs approximately $20,000 per flight hour.
–400+ maintenance labor hours per flight hour to operate.
–There are approximately 160 operational CH-53 helicopters.
–PMA-261(CH-53) spends $512M per year on maintenance.

I'm not sure if the $20K/hr number is an apples to apples comparison to the V-22 and 46 flight hour numbers. Using a similar comparison as above though, a CH-53 needs to cost $6600/hr to break even with the V-22.

Dan Reno, Unlike you I'm sure Maj Dent would understand the intent of my comment, but unlike you he knows what he is talking about.

[usmc helo]

Osprey delivers for Honduran villagers
by 2nd Lt. Mark Lazane
1st Special Operations Wing Public Affairs

6/11/2009 - HURLBURT FIELD, Fla. -- Unable to access remote villages in the mountainous areas of Honduras poses problems for many non-governmental agencies when they try to deliver life-saving supplies to villages along trails not accessible by conventional vehicles.

Except, of course, when the CV-22 Osprey, and its unique capabilities, just so happen to be in the area already.

The 8th Special Operations Squadron, along with their unique airframe stationed at Hurlburt Field, recently traveled to Honduras in support of ongoing operational missions.

While there, they contributed air power to a large humanitarian aid campaign taking place throughout the nation's rugged countryside.

Taking advantage of the Osprey's unique payload and lift-off/landing capabilities, three Ospreys each made three different deliveries of critical items, including non-perishable food items, hospital beds, and textbooks into remote villages in and around Puerto Limpera, a small village in the northeastern state of Gracias A Dios, said Lt. Col. Darryl Sheets, the mission commander.

"This was a 13-hour crew day, landing on a dirt strip, resulting in a "brown out" landing each time," said Colonel Sheets. "This was cargo that the American embassy in Honduras and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) had been trying to get to the village for some time so all parties were very pleased with the outcome."

In total, approximately 43,000 pounds of goods were delivered.

The effort was coordinated through joint US-Honduran diplomatic channels, and was executed with help from members of the Honduran military. At both the villages and the aerial port, Hondurans assisted in loading and unloading the CV-22s, delivering over 20 tons of supplies to local residents.

"The power, range, and speed of the CV-22 Osprey offer unique capabilities to a broad spectrum of humanitarian relief efforts," said Colonel Sheets. "Precious food, shelter, and medicine can be delivered to the most remote regions a given country with the speed of an aircraft and the austere landing capability of a helicopter."

[Dan Reno]

usmc helo Gee, pretty testy today. I also would have assumed you knew my 'intent' but you chose to 'correct' me, and when I simply asked you to get the Major on the same sheet of music as you and I, you again chose to be arguementative. Military.com has a lot of folks like you there and also at the Bell site. Your pain needs to be directed at those from your service that chose to put money ahead of themselves rather than pride and honor when they allowed this aircraft to continue. If you're looking to argue with someone, email those who create the articles rather than the messengers here. Of course as you've found, they'll simply ignore your assnine assumptions and hope you'll go away, like I think I will.

[Dan Reno]

Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Osprey Shortfalls Lead Chairman to Call for Production Halt



For immediate release: Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Contact: Oversight and Government Reform Press Office, 202-225-5051

Osprey Shortfalls Lead Chairman to Call for Production Halt
Towns determines V-22 Osprey performance, cost, safety issues not a recipe for longevity

Washington D.C. – House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Edolphus “Ed” Towns (D-NY) today called for a halt to production of the V-22 Osprey. The Chairman reached this conclusion during a committee hearing titled, “The Future of the V-22 Osprey: Costs, Capabilities and Challenges.” The hearing examined the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) study of the operational effectiveness, suitability and cost of the V-22 Osprey. After hearing witness testimony from individuals with extensive knowledge of the V-22 Osprey and reviewing the GAO report, Chairman Towns stated in his closing statement, “It’s time to put the Osprey out of its misery.”

Closing statement of Chairman Towns:
At the outset of this hearing, I expressed strong reservations about the performance and cost of the V-22 Osprey, but I wanted to hear what our witnesses said today before reaching a conclusion.
What we have heard today convinces me that the dream of a viable high-speed, long-range, tilt-rotor aircraft has not been realized.
Moreover, there is at least some evidence that the aircraft is inherently unsafe.
To sum up, it has problems in hot weather, it has problems in cold weather, it has problems with sand, it has problems with high altitude, and it has restricted maneuverability.
The list of what the Osprey can’t do is longer than the list of what it can do.
Not only has the Osprey failed to live up to its initial billing, it has failed expensively.
Our investigation indicates that we’ve gotten half the aircraft for three times the cost – that’s not a recipe for longevity.
I am going to ask the staff to prepare a report on the findings of this investigation, which we will forward to the Appropriations Committee with recommendations for further action. It’s time to put the Osprey out of its misery.

[SASless]

The complete GAO report.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09692t.pdf

[Dan Reno]

Looks like a cut & paste from all the conclusions stated here and at G2MIL over the years. What took them so long?

[JohnDixson]

SAS/Sultan, I called the SA pilot who was in the Mayaguez operation and he confirmed the loss of that ship with the police. Cause was traced to an improper re-assembly of one of the sleeve/spindle assemblies by the NARF at Pensacola.

As to the RH-53D that turned back on the way to Desert One, I believe that was related to the loss of attitude reference. Those ships had been modified ( don't know by whom ) with strap down inertial systems and I think the situation was that some of the USMC troops on board put their gear on top ( they were on the floor up front ) and they over heated.

And I was reminded that during the flight over, the flight crews were on a C-141 that when it landed on Diego Garcia had to sit in the machine for an extended period because the USAF crew went out of crew duty time, so they had to wait for the fresh 141 crew. They didn't get much sleep, if any, on the boat either.

Thanks,
John Dixson

[Jack Carson]

The old adage “Number lie and liars use numbers” may be pertinent to some of the past discussions. There are some engineering numbers that are pertinent and absolute when comparing the two vehicles.



V-22 CH-53E
• Empty Weight 35000 lbs. 35000 lbs.
• MGW 52000 lbs. 69750 lbs.
• Total Installed Hp 12800 ESHP 13110 ESHP
• Max Payload 17000 lbs. 34750 lbs.
• Max Passengers 24 + 3 crew 55 +3 crew
• Main Rotor Disk Loading 22.94 lbs/sq ft 14.25 lbs/sq ft
• Power Loading 4.06 lbs/ESHP 5.32 lbs/ ESHP

Some of the issues with the V-22 are purely a function of its physical design. The V-22 has two small rotors relative to its design lift requirement. As a result, the V-22 requires engine power similar to that of an aircraft that is 35% heavier. Along with a requirement for more horse power the high disk loading also brings with it questionable maneuverability in the helicopter mode and unmanageable auto rotational flight characteristics (i.e. very high rate of descent). These arguments and discussions will continue well into the autumn of our rotary wing careers. In the end Newton and Bernoulli are in the driver’s seat, and they are indisputable and they will have the final word.:ok:

[usmc helo]

Jack,

Your numbers are irrefutable. But you left out one, Airspeed. The customers primary desire was airspeed and range, not payload. Remember that the Marines already have a world class heavy lift aircraft. Given that could you fill in the variables of what it would take to make the CH-53E go 250 kts?

V-22 CH-53E
• Empty Weight 35000 lbs. _______ lbs.
• MGW 52000 lbs. _________lbs.
• Total Installed Hp 12800 ESHP ________ ESHP
• Max Payload 17000 lbs. ________ lbs.
• Max Passengers 24 + 3 crew ___________ crew
• Main Rotor Disk Loading 22.94 lbs/sq ft __________ lbs/sq ft
• Power Loading 4.06 lbs/ESHP ___________ lbs/ ESHP

SASLESS, thanks for the link to the GAO. I found some interesting stuff there.

From GAO report 101184 CH-53E Helicopter Program. February 25, 1977
- Specifically, we have not been able to find a clear mission need and there was no competition during its development.

- While it is difficult to speculate on what the outcome of a program such as this woild have been if the acquisition policy had been different--this current program has been plagued by controversy ot- the need for the helicopters, by significant
cost growth (the current estimated unit cost is $11 million as opposed to the original estimate of $7,8 million), and significant technolngical problems.

- Mission Need The mission of the CH-53E has not been specifically defined and, as a result, the program was subjected to much debate. In our Feburary 1972 study we reported that elements of OSD questioned the need for the CH-53E in view of the capability of existing helicopters to support the Marine Corps amphibious assault operations. In 1973, Department of Defense system analysts, based on extensive review, believed the described missions for the
CH-53E did not represent firm requirements nor did they justify a 16-ton lift capability because the missions could be satisfied by a less capable helicopter.
- In summary, Mr. Chairman, the CH-53E program has prcgressed almost to the point of a production decision although
--there is a questionable need for an aircraft with its characteristics,
--the consideration of alternatives was limited,
and
-- there was no competition in the developmental phase.
Its current status can best be described as excessively high
cost and a fair degree of risk because of the problems being
encountered.

From GAO report PSAD 78-27
Is Production of the CH-53E Helicopter Warranted? 1978
These concerns and the recent reduction to 49 aircraft make procurement of the CH-53E debatable. GAO questions the merits of a 49-aircraft program and believes it should be reevaluated.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Congress and the Secretary of Defense should determine whether the capability provided by 49 CH-53E helicopite:s warrants the planned expenditure. The Secretary of Defense should determine whether the deficiencies identified during Navy testing have been satisfactorily resolved prior to the initial production decision. Similarly, the Secretary of Defense should make sure that the operational testing, scheduled to be completed in November 1978, is successful before the Navy is allowedto
exercise the option to purchase the 14 fiscal year 1979 aircraft.

Downwash
Operational tests have cited the CH-53E downwash as being operationally inhibiting (i.e., personnel were not able to perform normal duties and nearby aircraft were damaged). The September 21, 1977, OPTEVFOR report noted that two downwash incidents occurred during shipboard trials. One involved a loose object being blown into and causing damage to another aircraft, and the other involved a crewman being slightly
injured when blown down by downwash.
The OPTEVFOR report stated that proper fleet training will be required to eliminate downwash damage, injuries, and surprise. The report further stated that the CH-53E, at a 68,000 pound gross weight and at a 75 foot height or less, can seriously injure personnel moving within 80 feet of the
aircraft.
Specifically, the September 16, 1977, BIS report stated that "postural stability could not be maintained by medium weight (170 lbs.) personnel under the aircraft at hover weights above 56,000 lbs." The September 6, 1977, Naval Air Test Center (NATC) report stated that "the downwash forces generated by a 70,000-lb. aircraft were beyond the postural stability limits of all test personnel."

If the CH-53E is used in an amphibious assault in an area where missiles are present, the CH-53E's vulnerability is apt to be severe. In the only survivability and vulnerability tests conducted to date, OPTEVFOR showed the CH-53E to be extremely vulnerable to infrared missiles. The test report noted that once acquisition and lock-on was made, it was seldom lost until the aircraft was well beyond the maximum range of the missiles. Because an infrared plume suppressor will not be available in the near future, vulnerability/survivability is a problem. (See pp. 12 and 13.)

Although the CH-53E can lift substantially more than its predecessors, we question the need to airlift these items. Seventy-six percent of assault echelon items beyond the CH-53D's lift capability and within the CH-53E's capability consists of trucks which will be combat loaded. Whether
the airlift of trucks would substantially affect the outcome of an amphibious assault has not been documented and should be further evaluated. A Marine Corps official stated that every item of assault echelon equipment has been selected and screened due to limited ship space. He added that determin- ing the criticality of items is difficult without knowing the particular combat situation or ground commander's plan- ned maneuvers.

And yet it went on to become a very valuable asset to the USMC.

[Jack Carson]

The point of the discussion was not to compare the 53E to the V-22. It was to establish a baseline for helicopter design. A similar comparison could have been made with a fixed wing aircraft. in terms of wing loading. Once again the V-22 would not fare very well. I do not have any specific issues with the V-22 only that it is stuck in the middle with an insufficient rotor to be a decent helicopter and not enough wing to be a decent transport airplane.

Speed was not specifically addressed as was HOGE. Either number would be skewed to a specific machine. To specifically answer the 250 KIAS H-53 question, the answer is most likely never. But I did fly an H-53E at 194 KIAS in straight and level flight as part of a demonstration sanctioned by the USN to verify what speed may be attainable in a future medium lift helicopter. 194 KIAS was achieved without exceeding airframe or engine limitations. Only the Vne was exceeded. That would make up 50% of the V-22 advantage.

[Dan Reno]

Perhaps this site would be helpfull:

http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/we_listen/ (http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/we_listen/)

[chuckolamofola]

Methinks House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Edolphus “Ed” Towns (D-NY) had his mind made up long before he came to work yesterday...:*

[SASless]

Any wonder why?

This article might be a good starting point.

Saving the Pentagon's Killer Chopper-Plane (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/0507-chopper-plane.htm)

The final sentence sums it up!

Mike Lieberman, a military affairs aide on the House Armed Services Committee, has a more pragmatic view: "My God, we've thrown so much money at it, we have to get something out of it."

[usmc helo]

Jack,

In order to establish a baseline for design does one not need to consider the customer requirements? The aircraft the Marines wanted had to be able to take off and land vertically, operate from a ship, have an internal payload larger than the CH-46E (not the 53), a mission radius of over 200 nm, airspeed of 275 kts, etc. What helicopter or fixed aircraft fulfills all those requirements? None. Therefore any comparison of the V-22 to a fixed wing is useless since the fixed wing aircraft can only do the enroute portion of the mission. If nothing meets the requirements then you either need a new design baseline or the customer needs to change their requirement (which is really what the V-22 argument comes down to). From my point of view, and it’s strictly mine, you are using engineering data to make an argument against the operational effectiveness of the aircraft. What your baseline does not consider is the flexibility the V-22 adds to the operational capabilities of the MEU commander. The ability to “reduce the ops area in half” which also implies that the enemy has twice the operational area to defend, the reduction by ½ of the time required for reinforcements, beans, bullets and band aids to arrive in zone during combat operations, the elimination of FARP requirements for what would be a long range mission for helicopters (FARP security which reduces your combat forces available for the assault and for reinforcement, do you use 53’s to refuel which reduces the MEU commanders 53 assets available by ½, or do you take over an airfield for the C-130’s which requires it’s own assault force to secure the airfield (a further reduction in forces available for the assault), plus just the general risk and exposure of FARP operations), the more than doubling of Marines it can carry compared to the aircraft it’s replacing. The sole purpose of Marine aviation is to support the grunts, and they want their support now, not later. Given that, in order to meet the airspeed, combat radius, shipboard operations, vertical takeoff and landing and pax requirements established by the USMC, what aircraft other than the V-22 meets or exceeds those requirements?

[OFBSLF]

380 hours for an engine on the wing. Dust causing problems with the wiring. Nacelle center bodies being replaced at $100k each. Great.

null (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_includes/articlePrint.jsp?storyID=news/om609v22.xml&headLine=null)

USMC helo, how many V22 airframes are parked in hangars after having been damaged beyond repair, and without the required Class A mishap reports?

[JohnDixson]

Question for USMC helo:

Assume Hp = 7000 ft and OAT = +28C ( Hd = 10000 ft )

With a combat equipped and crewed V-22, full normal tanks, normal ammo load for defensive guns ( assume the new 7.62 mm gatling gun with remote gunner ),

What is the HOGE payload capability under the conditions as stated?

Thanks,
John Dixson

[Ian Corrigible]

USMC helo, how many V22 airframes are parked in hangars after having been damaged beyond repair, and without the required Class A mishap reports?
Unsubstantiated internet gossip and therefore to be treated with due caution/skepticism, but one of the commentators to the DoD Buzz article (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/21/pentagon-stonewalls-on-osprey) on last month's abortive House Government Oversight and Reform Committee meeting stated this:

Anyone know about the Osprey “Hall of Shame” located at the Boeing facility in Pennsylvania were dozens of unrepairable V-22s are stashed. I’ve been told there are several damaged V-22s in a hangar at New River NC that were cannibalized for parts. I’ve been told there are several that were sent back to Amarillo for conversion to “Block Bs”, but their airframes had damage that couldn’t be repaired. Congress has funded 150 V-22s through FY2009, so around 140 have been delivered. The Corps claims only 84 are in service, and won’t account for the rest. Meanwhile, there are none in Iraq or Afghanistan. From what I understand, after two years of service they have so many problems with leaky hydraulic lines and cracks in wings or the floor that they are quietly retired.

The editor at defense-aerospace.com (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/106341/house-panel-calls-for-halt-to-v_22-production.html) had some interesting comments on yesterday's V-22 reports:

EDITOR’S NOTE: Defending the MV-22’s performance, Lt. Gen. George J. Trautman, the Marine Corps’ Deputy Commandant for Aviation, noted that “the three VMM squadrons that have deployed to Iraq have flown over 9800 hours while executing more than 6000 sorties, carrying over 45,000 passengers and lifting 2.2 million pounds of cargo.”

Yet, on average, these figures work out to a distinctly unimpressive 7.5 passengers and 366 lbs load per sortie, which doesn’t do much to bolster the Osprey’s operational credibility.

And, as noted by committee chairman Edolphus Towns, only 47 of the 105 Ospreys that the Marine Corps has bought since 1988 are considered “combat deployable,” and only 22 of these 47 were ready for combat on a given day.

Giovanni also (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/106340/gao%3A-v_22-underperformed-in-iraq%2C-not-fit-for-ships.html) points out that, despite their age, Phrogs in Iraq have averaged MC rates of 85% or greater.

I/C

[Dan Reno]

"The V-22 Osprey program is the largest scandal in the U.S. military."

http://springboarder.*************/2009/05/mv-22-catches-hostile-firefrom-congress.html

[FH1100 Pilot]

usmc helo, let's not be naive. Bell has been working on the tilt-rotor concept since the 1950's with limited success. I would imagine that Bell went to the Pentagon in 1980 or so and said, "Look, we're dead in the water with this XV-15 unless we can get a military customer. We need to grow it, we know that, but we need more funding. Suppose we say that we can give you a vertical take-off aircraft that can operate from a ship, have an internal payload greater than the H-46, have a mission radius of 200 miles or so, and cruise at, oh, let's say 275 knots. Let's see Sikorsky match that!"

Pentagon brass probably asked, "Can you really do that?"

And Bell executives all looked at each other nervously and said, "Uhhhhh yeah! Sure! You betcha! You know... if it works out and we make some big advances in computer technology and hydraulic systems in the very near future. But yeah, uhhhh, definitely!"

Then the DoD came out with their JVX program in 1981 and the requirements were, coincidentally, exactly the same as what Bell proposed.

Or do you think the DoD pulled those requirements out of thin air?

If the JVX came out of the failure of Operation Eagle Claw, then the requirements are a little strange.

[ramen noodles]

As I understand the points being made, the V-22 ended its Iraq tour with a final MC rate of 62% (the first several months were reported at 68% as I recall). I also remember that the USMC kept the same airframes in Iraq and rotated squadrons to keep the pressure up to test the airframes and logistics.

OK, so we see 62% Mission capable and now some ppruners are ready to toss in the towel.
Can I suggest you read the MC rates for all the military equipment, including ground vehicles? Here is the source:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06141.pdf

Here are a few plots from that document:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2601/3662030568_e7f1a6c165.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3377/3662031668_a1cd1f757f.jpg?v=0


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2438/3661233043_7f5139b062.jpg?v=0

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2467/3661248351_e5245a8bde.jpg?v=0

Considering that the 62% was the end of the Osprey's first active duty deployment, and it tends to match several years worth of experience for several major, mature combat aircraft, I think things aren't so bleak.

Of course, I don't have an ax to grind, and I do have data. That makes me ill equipped for this thread.

[usmc helo]

JohnDixson,
Since I'm not a V-22 pilot and don't have access to a NATOPS manual I can't answer that. However, as I've stated before I to have concerns about the aircrafts performance in Afghanistan. The Marine corps wanted and got a sea level machine. However, I'm willing to listen to the Marines and if they think it will be operationally beneficial than who am I, or for that matter anyone else on here to say otherwise?

FH1100,
Do you have any proof of that? Have you found the gunman on the grassy knoll yet?

OFBSLF,
Since I haven't been to New River in a few years I don't know. How many did you count and which hangar did you go to?

I made a statement about (what I feel) are the operational advantages of the V-22 compared to how the Marines do business today. It appears from the comments (with the exception of JohnDixson) made that no one here is capable of countering it so intstead we get more useless and unconfirmed dribble.

By the way...Apparently the 53D engines were only getting 200 hours on wing in Iraq. That came from the 53 PMA office.

[JohnDixson]

USMC Helo, you know I posted a question re V-22 payload at altitude in this forum a couple of months ago, and that time, no one answered. Thanks for your response. I think that you are trying to keep this discussion on a factual, and non-emotional basis.

You had mentioned the obvious advantages that a 250 kt machine provides in terms of the cargo tonnage and numbers of troops per unit time that such a machine can deliver to the troops on the ground. I am just theorizing that when the possibility of a tilt rotor became technically feasible USMC planners made basic mission assumptions and they included fairly long distances to the LZ and the standard 3000'/+90F USMC ambient condition.

Afghanistan presents different conditions: much shorter sortie distances and hotter/higher ambient conditions.Thus, depending on what the answer to my question is, it may be possible that a slower, but much higher payload pure helicopter may in fact deliver more tonnage/numbers of troops to the nearer LZ's, per unit time, than the V-22. In fact, I suspect that the posted comments about a change in the mix of USMC helos to V-22's may reflect that assessment. But its just a guess, and may be all wrong, again, depending on what the real V-22 Afghanistan mountain area payload is.

Thats where I was going with the question.

Thanks,
John Dixson

PS: Do those 53D's over there have the EAPS? I'd assume so.

[FH1100 Pilot]

I made a statement about (what I feel) are the operational advantages of the V-22 compared to how the Marines do business today. It appears from the comments (with the exception of JohnDixson) made that no one here is capable of countering it so intstead we get more useless and unconfirmed dribble.

Well. I guess he told us!

It must be nice, usmc helo, to know that yours are the only opinions that count...that everyone else's views are based on unfounded, emotional and irrational biases that have no basis in fact. You feel that the V-22 has certain operational advantages, so everyone else must therefore be wrong.

Got that right?

I do not deny that the V-22 has some very unique capabilities and that it does some things extremely well. I stay away from the "V-22 versus ____" arguments because they are pretty irrelevant.

My beefs with the V-22 are not emotional, irrational, nor unfounded. I believe it is a flawed, dangerous design that has already cost us far too much as a nation. To paraphrase something journalist Andy Rooney said about helicopters, the tilt-rotor hasn't been completely invented yet. Perhaps it never will be.

What if I told you that I was giving you an airplane? This airplane had two independant wings, left and right, one on each side of the cockpit. Those wings would stall at different speeds, suddenly and without warning. Additionally, I could not give you a reliable stall-warning system to alert you that this asymmetric stall was about to happen. But I would caution you that when one of those wings stalls, the plane will roll over and dive to earth and that you'd need around 2,000 vertical feet or so to recover. SO DON'T LET IT HAPPEN ON APPROACH!

That said, I would advise you to avoid certain risky rate-of-descent and airspeed combinations. These numbers would be very conservative, and I would add that "aggressive" and multi-axis control inputs on approach should also be avoided. However, this advice would come with the nudge-wink that you'll probably have to violate those "limitations" in the heat of battle, which we know can be fluid, changing and hectic.

What if I gave you such a plane? Would you fly it? I would not. At least not for anything other than easy Point A to Point B flights where nice, stable, conservative approaches could be made. You know, the opposite of combat. Yet pilots willingly jump into the V-22, then rave about what a wonderful aircraft it is because it's so...well, different. But of course! On the other hand, no one has flown one into battle before...never had to land one in a "hot" LZ. But no matter, because we all know that everything always goes according to plan during combat, right?

As I said, my other objection to the V-22 is what it's cost us so far. It is the hugest waste...yes, I said waste of money ever. I know this puts me at odds with the, "...at any cost-" group of tilt-rotor supporters who feel that it just doesn't matter how much money we have to spend on the concept, it's that good. Well, maybe not, judging by the evidence that the military is reluctantly letting out. The fact that the V-22 is not going to Afghanistan but yet helicopters are speaks volumes. We're paying so much money for an aircraft that only has any real advantage over a helicopter at sea level?? Dear Lord!

So you, usmc helo, and I have vastly different opinions on the V-22. It is interesting that you characterize those who disagree with you as spewing "dribble," confusing that word for the proper word, drivel. Tells us who you are.

[TukTuk BoomBoom]

......my god, its battle of the fan-boys!

How can you guys get so wound up about an aircraft you dont fly or have any association with.

Boring!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

[usmc helo]

John,

Agree with all you said. We should constantly be looking at the proper mix and that's probably what they are doing. I suspect that they may be considering increasing the buy for the UH-1Y to pick the lower end roles that the 46 will be vacating.

FH1100,

Can you tell us why it is you think a V-22 is more likely to get into VRS (or AVRS) than a traditional RW airframe? Is it because it's limited to "9.1mph"?

I do believe in the past you posted that you knew one of the pilots in the Marana crash yet you are not emotional about this. Face the facts, he was at over 2500 fpm rate of descent at what 300 or 400 feet? As SASLESS said re Mayaquez "pilot error....pure and simple"

Dribble- It's exactly the word I meant, look at all it's meanings and perhaps you can find the one I meant for you.

[FH1100 Pilot]

No, usmc helo, I did not know either Major Brow or Major Gruber, the two pilots who died (along with the other Marines) at Marana that night. But I feel that I've come to know them. And I am not ready to write them off, nor write the Marana accident off as "...pilot error, pure and simple." I am sympathetic to them, and defend them because they did not know that they were de facto test pilots for Bell-Boeing. They did not realize that they'd been given an aircraft that had defective, unexplored flying qualities.

I do not believe that the V-22 is any more or less susceptible to VRS than any helicopter; I just believe that the consequences of Asymmetrical-VRS are much more deadly.

People keep equating VRS in the V-22 to VRS in a helicopter, and this is a mistake. It is definitely *not* the case. When *one* proprotor goes into VRS, the tilt-rotor aircraft will roll over and dive to earth. If this happens up high, say around 2,000 or 3,000 feet, no problem! The pilot need only recognize what's happening, then beep the nacelles forward and voila!, instant escape. But VRS, or A-VRS does not happen up high.

Asymmetical-VRS will happen down low, at the bottom of an f'ed up approach, as happened to Majors Brow and Gruber. The start of the accident sequence will be subtle, just as it was in Marana. The crew will be in one of those "high gain" task situations, concentrating on getting into an LZ and dodging enemy fire. The ship will bank in one direction or other, and the pilot will "correct" by adding anti-roll control input. But he'll be doing exactly the wrong thing, making things worse, by increasing the pitch of the affected proprotor. Before he knows what's happening, the ship will be rolling uncontrollably.

This *will* happen.

Most people assume that the Marana V-22 crashed because the pilots initiated and held a rate of descent of 4,000 fpm, until the ship got into "VRS." This is not true. In point of fact, yes, the initial RoD had been very high as they maneuvered to stay in position on Lead, but the V-22 had actually decreased its rate of descent to 150 fpm where it stabilized for at least 6 seconds or longer (count it out if you must). The high rate of descent had been arrested. Or at least they were in a transition mode as they leveled off at 566 feet. They then increased their rate of descent again to 800 fpm at 500 feet, which is when the A-VRS got them.

There are now strict limitations on V-22's with regard to multiple-axis control inputs *and* yaw inputs when operating in helicopter mode. Why? Because the handling of the V-22 is still deficient in these areas. And the Navy knows it.

Pro-tiltrotor advocates gloss over A-VRS as inconsequential or insignificant. "Easily detectable! Easily escapable!" they claim. "Why, all the V-22 pilot has to do is keep his rate of descent below 800 feet per minute! ...And make no multiple-axis control inputs...and make no yaw inputs either. That's all! Easy as pie."

Uh-huh. In combat. Yeah.

I know I harp on this like a broken record. But the aerodynamic deficiencies that resulted in the Marana crash have not been corrected...can never be corrected. And thus, an accident of that same type will be repeated. If anyone can live with that, well, you are more callous and heartless than I am. I think our military pilots, crewmembers and servicemen who fly in these aircraft deserve better than that.

If that makes me an emotional dribbler, well, so be it.

[FOGII]

USMC helo and FH 1100,I am an USMC fixed wing pilot and knew Boot Brow for about 9 years prior to the Marana accident. I had some long conversations with him just a few weeks prior up at Pax involving asymmetric ring vortex (I understood the asymmetric part but he had to explain the ring vortex as I only had one hour of rotary aero). This was also the week that the NAVAIR and Bell engineers insisted that the -22 could tank with an engine out. Boot and the tanker pilot found out different despite proof the 1st two attempts that it was impossible. Boot and Mutant refused to go up again unless the engineers flew with them. After the flight they re-looked at their numbers and the requirement to AR engine out disappeared. According to Boot that week the engineers insisted there was absolutely zero chance of any asymmetric problems and rates of descent were good to 4,000 FPM. The numbers were changed post mishap when the reality hit the helo bubbas and engineers.Take a look at your hourly cost and how those numbers are derived. Notice that the flight hour cost does not include engine warranty, avionics under warranty, personnel costs (ala USA and USAF), and extra support equipment required. What is the real cost per flight hour? No one knows.Currently there are two former -22 drivers within 30' of me and neither wants anything to do with the platform. Using the Harriers off the boat for escort, what about the type 3 CAS and deck cycle? Long range stuff where it is actually a longer track than the -53E when you account for additional divert requirements due to no engine out AR ability. What is the actual transit time? With the additional hose factor times the additional aircraft required to carry whatever which brings more to the fight the quickest?2005 the -22 attempted to re-create Eagle Claw, Nellis to the East Coast. They had 8 KC-130s. With the hose factors they had no escorts and were down to 14,000' MSL while dodging some icing. Average cruise was only 230 and the tankers evidently had to slow to 210 to allow the -22 to tank down at 14,000' (a very bad altitude for both Herk and Osprey).Compare the movement of 6 Ch-53Es from Saipan along with 4 F/A-18s from Guam with 9 KC-130s. South to Yap, Palau, etc, to Southern Philippines and all landing at Clark. On FARP sites, remember Anaconda? More than a few USMC bulk fuel teams with bladders placed by CH-53Es. Two of those teams were mine (MWSS plus up to the MEU on short notice). I'm not a helo bubba but the only thing that could place as much fuel in place as fast was the -53E. For the smaller logistical footprint and actual transit time delta (include times into and out of the zone) which delivers more combat power? The one that requires less support while hauling more/higher and can utilize rotary assets for escort thus freeing fixed wing for other missions?S/F, FOG

[usmc helo]

FH1100,

I have a couple of questions based on two of your comments:

"Asymmetical-VRS will happen down low, at the bottom of an f'ed up approach"
"The crew will be in one of those "high gain" task situations, concentrating on getting into an LZ and dodging enemy fire."

What do you think a -22 tactical approach profile looks like, what do you think a -46, -53, -60 profile looks like, when do you think the enemy is most likely to fire and how much maneuverablity do you think a section or division of aircraft have to "dodge enemy fire" when on final to the LZ.

If an approach is 'f'ed up' it begs the question why not wave off as we are trained to do?

The majority of USMC operations are done as a 2 or 3 ship formation. Therefore the enemy would most likely wait until the formation was on short final and in a flare (low engery state) to open fire. In short, because you are in a formation and at a low airspeed there isn't much maneuvering to be done that will affect the accuracy of the gunners on the ground, accelerating away from the zone is your best option. It could be that the -22 can get out of this situation better than a helicopter. Since nacelles are use to control airspeed the -22 will have less pitch attitude required to decelerate (better FOV for the pilots) and can accererate to above 60 knots faster than a helicopter thus making it harder to track. I don't think that the -22 profile will make it as susceptible to A-VRS as you do. I think a bigger concern in your scenario is the lack of suppressive fire.

I don't know anyone who thinks that A-VRS is inconsequential or insignificant. I think most believe that it can be trained to by following the same techniques we use on other platforms. You left out one very important parameter of the 800 fpm, it' s the airspeed component which is airspeed below 40 kts (which is short final at less than 100 ft agl in a tactical approach). This whole 40kt/800fpm was taught to us at flight school in the TH-57 (well before Marana), is a warning in most every USMC RW NATOPS, and a condition that we constantly train to avoid by flying tactical profiles that keep us out of it. I'm sure they can do the same in the -22 which doesn't make me callous, I'm just going to trust the Marines who operate the aircraft to do what we've done before. You don't, there's the difference.

[Dan Reno]

Ospreys evacuate injured sailor from ship

June 30, 2009 - 9:03 PM
Sue Book ([email protected])
CHERRY POINT - The 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit and Marine Medium Tiltrotar Squadron VMM 263 conducted the first ship-to-shore emergency medical evacuation using Osprey aircraft, MCAS Cherry Point Public Affairs said on Tuesday.
Members of the unit used two MV-22B Ospreys on Thursday to evacuate a sailor from the USS Bataan.
At about 4:30 p.m., two Ospreys were returning to the Bataan after a routine mission when the pilots were notified of an emergency situation, the Marine Corps reported. It involved a sailor who had suffered head and hip injuries and was experiencing chest pains after falling.
"The aircraft were ordered to return to the ship at maximum speed," the report said. "After landing aboard Bataan, the patient and team of medical personnel were brought aboard the aircraft and lifted off at 4:50 p.m. from Bataan's flight deck. The aircraft traveled 147 nautical miles in 37 minutes to a regional airport where an ambulance was used to transfer the sailor to a hospital for further treatment. The sailor is in stable condition in the U.S. Central Command area awaiting further transfer."
Maj. Brett A. Hart, assistant operations officer for VMM 263 and one of the pilots on the mission, said, "Everybody from the ship made this very easy for us. It was an all-hands effort and everybody gave their utmost to ensure the safety of this sailor."
He said the biggest difference in this rescue and one using helicopters like the CH-46E Sea Knight is the rapid speed in which the mission was executed.
"By virtue of having this aircraft, we were able to do it much faster and farther," said Hart. "This is a fine example of why we have an aircraft like this."
After a sputtering start, the MV-22 Osprey is considered the Marine Corps' star battfield aircraft but is being closely scrutinized in Washington on cost and performance issues.
Aerospace DAILY reported on June 24 that the aircraft is again a target for some lawmakers and the Corps would be looking for whatever advantage they can find to keep it.
Aviation Week reported on Monday that an analysist for the Teal Group, which analyzes aerospace and defense industry matters, advised "don't bet against the Marines. They even beat Dick Cheney on this one," referring to several failed attempts by Cheney to quash the Osprey program while serving as George H.W. Bush's defense secretary.
The analyst concluded that the versatility highlighted by this kind mission will help make the Marines' case.
Reader Comments

georgia1 (http://www.newbernsj.com/share/profiles/?slid=3ed57ae3-fa84-7904-9df1-d27df4871292&plckUserId=3ed57ae3-fa84-7904-9df1-d27df4871292) wrote:
It would have only taken one, not two H-46s to get a medevac ashore.

Perhaps he was extra large which required two V-22s, unless of course their still trying to accumulate double the 'medevac' sorties/hours by having an 'extra' V-22 tag-along?7/1/2009 5:32 AM EDT on newbernsj.com
Recommended (1)

bohica570 (http://www.newbernsj.com/share/profiles/?slid=2d9d07b6-842c-37f4-3d6c-8302ad2fbe2c&plckUserId=2d9d07b6-842c-37f4-3d6c-8302ad2fbe2c) wrote:
A NEW "PEDRO" * IS BORN!!!

HOORAH!! 6/30/2009 9:43 PM EDT on newbernsj.com
SOURCE: Ospreys evacuate injured sailor from ship | aircraft, sailor, bataan - Sun Journal (http://www.newbernsj.com/news/aircraft-46255-sailor-bataan.html)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDITORIAL: Go slow with Osprey; keep helicopters

OUR VIEW: Sorry history, new report reason for caution


By the North County Times Opinion staff -- [email protected] ([email protected]) | Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:11 AM PDT ∞ (https://secure.townnews.com/nctimes.com/forms/link/linkform.php?des=EDITORIAL: Go slow with Osprey; keep helicopters)

The U.S. Marine Corps has a stellar reputation worldwide, but we do have to question the wisdom of its leadership's determination to push the Osprey V-22 program.

Questions about this combination plane-and-helicopter hybrid have existed since its inception, and the aircraft was never tested in real-world conditions before being deployed.

Now in service in the war in Iraq, the Osprey has repeatedly come up short. Those failings have been so severe that plans to deploy the craft to Afghanistan have been put on hold.

Last week, the Government Accountability Office issued a scathing report that found numerous deficiencies with the Osprey. Among them are that it cannot carry the number of troops and equipment it was originally built to handle, or fly above 10,000 feet. That is a problem in Afghanistan, where mountains soar above 12,000 feet.

Even more telling, research and development costs have ballooned from $4.2 billion to nearly $13 billion, despite the reduction in the number planned for purchase by the Marine Corps and Air Force.

To date, the Marine Corps has spent nearly $29 billion to develop the craft, which first flew 20 years ago. Twenty-seven Marines, including 18 from Camp Pendleton and Miramar, were killed in a series of crashes between 1992 and 2000.

The military brass still has high hopes for the Osprey to become its new combat workhorse and ultimately to replace its fleet of Vietnam War-era helicopters. And our local Marine bases are beginning the phase-out process.

Last week's report, however, is suggesting the Corps keep the older aircraft so the Marines can carry out their missions.

Given the Osprey's sorry history, we join the report in urging caution.

Our fighting men and women deserve the best equipment the nation can provide. And so far, the Osprey just doesn't seem to pass muster.

[FH1100 Pilot]

Well, you know...

The USS Bataan (LHD-5) just happens to be an amphibious assault ship that already carries (variously) Harriers, CH-46's, CH-53E's, UH-1N's, AH-1W's and (ta-da!) V-22's. As reported in the article, these two particular V-22's were on their way back to the ship when they got the call to put the pedal to the metal.

But...

What if the Bataan had just tasked one of their resident MH-53's to do the job? Had the injured sailor been put on a '53 at 4:30 instead of waiting for the V-22 to get back, he would've arrived that same airport at about the same time, negating any speed advantage that the V-22 has. But that wouldn't have made quite as good a news story, would it?

Okay, so they wanted to highlight the speed of the V-22 and use it for the job, and this was a pretty good opportunity. I get that.

But...

What if the V-22 could *not* have landed on the boat? Could the sailor have been winched aboard?

There is no doubt that a properly-equipped V-22 would make a kick-ass SAR aircraft. But this is not a case where the V-22 was the only aircraft that could do this job, or that the V-22 did the job "better" than anything else in the fleet, or that the V-22 "saved a life" that would otherwise have been lost had it not been available.

This little medevac run makes for a nice story, but by itself it hardly justifies the existence of the V-22 - especially when you know more of the story.

[usmc helo]

'This little medevac run makes for a nice story, but by itself it hardly justifies the existence of the V-22 - especially when you know more of the story.'

Really FH1100? Then please tell us 'more of the story' since you know so much. What was the status of the 53's? Were they on deck and spotted or were they in the slash? Had they just returned from a mission and in need of fuel or were they topped off? What missions had they performed earlier in the day? Did the crew still have crew day? Was there a crew assigned or would ops have to go cobble one together? Were they part of the same mission as the V-22's and in the same vicinity when this mission popped up? Who had been tasked during the planning to conduct such a mission if it cropped up? Whose aircraft was configured for a medevac? What was the maintenance status of the 53's? Were the daily and turn around inspections complete? Were the aircraft released from maintenance control? How long does it take to pull a 53 out of the slash, spread the blades and preflight it?

Please fill us in, since you know or are you just making a wild a$$ assumption based on a predetermined belief?

When a Marine or sailor needs a medevac the Air Boss doesn't care which platform does it. He turns to the tower flower (squadron ops rep) and asks "Whose the most ready", and that's who does it.

About the comment in Renos (that he highlighted) that it would have taken only one 46 to do this mission. Dan do you have any idea what the SOP is for over water flights beyond 25 nm from ship or shore? The fact that you highlighted that statement tells me you don't.

[Dan Reno]

usmc helo

Pedro (H-46), the Jayhawks (H-60) and the H-53s routinely go farther than 25 miles out to sea for rescues and OPs.

Call CP OPs and learn, not puff.

[FH1100 Pilot]

usmc helo, heh, you're a piece of work. Your staunch, unwavering, unobjective, unquestioning "support" of the V-22 is...well...admirable, I guess...in a way.

What you're saying is that the USS Bataan (pictured below)

http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/n206th/MDW09/MDW2009PNS/750px-USS_Bataan_LHD-510080504-1.jpg

...had absolutely *no* other assets they could have used for the medevac. Heh. Yeah, you're probably right.

But my questions remains: What if the V-22 had not been able to land on the ship?

[Dan Reno]

Darn it usmc helo, if you're right, I bet those aircraft are out there locating them thousand dollar tunas for their buddies who are in boats nearby…which is illegal. Worse yet, their using very expensive government property outside their flying limits while you and I foot their fuel bill! I'll be fishing the Gulf Stream off and on this summer and fall and I'll try and get a tail number of one of these scofflaws so I can call it in to the Fisheries enforcement boys and girls or Coast Guard. Thanks for the info usmc helo!!

BTW if you're every in eastern NC, here's a great outfit to fish in the Gulf Stream with: http://www.supervoyagerdeepseafishing.com/ (http://www.supervoyagerdeepseafishing.com/)

[SASless]

Hmmmmmm....wonder what the sailor's injuries were that could not be handled aboard Bataan? I wonder if there were any additional medical teams embarked as well in addition to the ship's medical staff?

It does make sense to get an injured person ashore for the best treatment possible.....but in the presence of expert care and top notch facilities it is more a transport mission than a life saving flight. Granted the PR effect is nowhere as good if you call it what it was.

The Wasp class also has more extensive hospital facilities than
earlier assault ships. In fact, its 600 bed hospital is second only in size
and capability to the Navy's hospital ships

LHAs and LHDs can carry nearly 2,000 Marines. After embarking the Marines ashore, these ships then serve as a primary casualty receiving station.

.LHDs have the largest medical capability of any amphibious ship currently in use. LHDs are capable of receiving casualties from helicopter and waterborne craft and are designed to function as primary CRTSs in amphibious operations.

In addition to the organic medical assets of the LHD/LHA, Fleet Surgical Teams are often deployed, enhancing the ship's medical capabilities.

LHD Organic Medical Assets

LHD Medical Facilities

6 Operating Rooms
17 ICU Beds
47 Ward Beds
60 Overflow beds
Ancillary:

Lab............ yes
X-ray......... yes
Blood Bank yes
LHD Medical Manning

2 Medical Corps
1 Dental Corps
0 Nurse Corps
0 Anesthesia Provider
1 Med. Service Corps
18 Hospital Corpsmen
4 Dental Technicians
0 Dental Operations

[usmc helo]

Svenestron,
You are correct, it would a moot point except that FH1100 made the following comment:

What if the Bataan had just tasked one of their resident MH-53's to do the job? Had the injured sailor been put on a '53 at 4:30 instead of waiting for the V-22 to get back, he would've arrived that same airport at about the same time, negating any speed advantage that the V-22 has. But that wouldn't have made quite as good a news story, would it?


which implies that this was strictly a PR stunt and that all they really had to do was put the patient on a 53. Therefore my question to him about his knowledge of the status and availability of the other aircraft on board is valid. He is making assumptions that he can't back up. He assumes that there was a deck full of aircraft and crews available that could jump on the mission. How does he not know that maybe the 53's were down for a planned maintenance day after a hard week of flying? Maybe harrier ops were being conducted in which case the 53's would have slashed (the starboard portion of the deck for and aft of the island) with blades folded.
He makes the assumption that they ignored other available assets at eh expense of an injured sailor to conduct a PR stunt which is shameful.

FH1100,

But my questions remains: What if the V-22 had not been able to land on the ship?

On what ship? The Bataan? Why wouldn't it? It did so what's your point?

Dan,

Pedro is a dedicated SAR asset so yes they do go single ship further than 25 nm. The Jayhawk? are you talking about the USCG? They have nothing to do with the MEU. It's not a matter of wether or not the aircraft can do , it's a question of SOP. I suggest you read the MAG 29, 26 and 39 SOPs. I not only had to read them but abide by all them at different times in my career. For safety reasons, Marine RW (and now tiltrotor) assets do not operate further than 25 nm from ship to shore unless they are in a section or larger. 53's will on occasion. I This provides on scene command and control in the event of ditching, a second set of radios and comms, etc. If you really want to know this stuff why don't you reenlilst and deploy on a MEU like I have.

Sasless,
Generally no matter how well staffed the medical facility is they try to get serious injuries off the boat ASAP. Which honestly concerned me. If they weren't confident enough to treat someone when we were only 40 miles from Balboa, what the heck were they going to do when we were in the middle of the Pacific.

[FH1100 Pilot]

Of course this little V-22 medevac was a PR "stunt." OF COURSE IT WAS, let's not be naive. It was a patient transfer, that's all. The sailor was complaining about chest pains. Uhh, what? That means he was conscious? Come on, people, this was no life or death situation.

I asked what would have happened if the V-22 could not have landed on the ship. usmc helo, missing my point entirely, wrote back:On what ship? The Bataan? Why wouldn't it? It did so what's your point?

My point is/was, what if it hadn't been an LHD? What if it had been a regular ol' boat...you know, the type that couldn't accommodate a tilt-rotor aircraft landing. Then what? I guess they would've had to use a regular ol' helicopter then...one with winching capability, like during the recent rescue of a crewmember of a cargo ship in the Atlantic of the Irish coast, which is detailed in another nearby PPRUNE thread which you can read here: http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/379779-u-s-rescue-over-atlantic.html

So the bottom line is that a sailor on an LHD got hurt. Of all the aircraft on the ship, they tasked a V-22 to run the guy into shore. And we're all supposed to stand and applaud the sheer usefulness and amazing capability of the V-22. Oh yeah, I'm sold!

But you know, it got me thinking (which is always dangerous). It was *only* 147 miles - about an hour by usmc helo. Perhaps if one of the r/w assets had been used, maybe they could've gone straight to the shore hospital instead of short-stopping at an airport for the transfer to a ground ambulance?

I still don't see this as a wonderful mandate for the V-22. Publicity stunt. A good one, but just a publicity stunt, that is all.

[SASless]

For safety reasons, Marine RW (and now tiltrotor) assets do not operate further than 25 nm from ship to shore unless they are in a section or larger. 53's will on occasion. I This provides on scene command and control in the event of ditching, a second set of radios and comms, etc. If you really want to know this stuff why don't you reenlilst and deploy on a MEU like I have.


As I read this I think back to my 58T days out of Teeside slogging it to the Ekofisk single pilot and only two channel SAS using DECCA.

Now....the military fly two ship formations at a minimum when going over 25nm out....hmmmmmm?

I reckon the GOM guys going way down south in their single engine helicopters day in and day out are really being reckless.

As to Harrier landings going on.....and the helicopters being "slashed". How hard is it to land the Harriers while you "unslash" a helicopter....surely all of them were not stood down? Don't you have a SAR Alert Helo ready in case one of the Harriers makes like a turbojet powered yard dart?

Cmon here USMC....you're really digging for an explanation that isn't there.

It is not the use of the Osprey itself but the "sheer hype" that was made of a simple patient transfer flight.

Helicopter EMS operators do these things every day and you don't read about them.

Does not the Osprey have the ability to Hoist from a ship deck? Or did I miss something while I had lunch?

[Ned-Air2Air]

SASless - Am going flying with the USAF V22s next week so will have a look at these aircraft first hand, and obviously get some nice photos as well. :ok:

Ned

[SASless]

Ned you Dog!

Are you going to Eglin or New Mexico?

I bet the photos will be great as always!

Get them to discuss the various differences between the MH-53's and the Osprey's performance...and suitability for the mission. Get them to detail what tasking they have swapped off to the Army and Marines when they got involved with the 22. It might be wise to wait till you have all your piccies first!

[Ned-Air2Air]

Sasless, going to be at the 71st SOS at Kirtland for a couple of days.

If anyone wants to PM me some questions to be included in what we ask in the interviews then please do so. But please make them legitimate questions and not just witch hunt questions.

Cheers

Ned

[SASless]

Marines making a big push in Afghanistan....and where is the miracle weapon these days?

http://www.foxnews.com/images/542819/4_62_c320.jpg

[Dan Reno]

SASless

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)!

[Jolly Green]

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.

[Ned-Air2Air]

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 :E

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.

Ned

[SASless]

Not quite accurate Jolly.....

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.

Or so it seems to me.

No Ospreys, for now, to Afghanistan - MarineCorpsTimes.com (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/03/marine_osprey_afghanistan_032809w/)

[FH1100 Pilot]

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?

[Ian Corrigible]

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... :hmm:

I/C

[SASless]

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?

Did I just miss something while taking a kip?

[Dan Reno]

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!"

Source: http://www.g2mil.com/V-22missing.htm (http://www.g2mil.com/V-22missing.htm)

[FH1100 Pilot]

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?

[SASless]

Funny thing ain't it!

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.

[Dan Reno]

Worried Murtha Checking MV-22

By Colin Clark Wednesday, June 24th, 2009 5:13 pm
Posted in Air (http://www.dodbuzz.com/category/air-warfare/), Naval (http://www.dodbuzz.com/category/naval-warfare/), Policy (http://www.dodbuzz.com/category/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.

[SASless]

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?:mad:

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.

[FH1100 Pilot]

Murtha: “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?

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?

[Ned-Air2Air]

Got to spend 2 and a bit hours in the V22 sim here at Kirtland AFB today. :ok:

Flying in it tomorrow for a two ship air to air shoot including desert landings and formation low level.

Ned

[wish2bflying]

Giovanni de Briganti at Rotor&Wing has an interesting opinion on this: V-22: It's Time to Move On (http://www.rotorandwing-digital.com/rotorandwing/200908/?pg=48)

[Dan Reno]

Gee, what a (yawn) surprise.

[SASless]

What of the Hangar Queen's little brother.....the 609?

[ShyTorque]

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.

[21stCen]

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.

[SASless]

Sorry mate but we are purely skint! Have you not read of our small problem with debt and deficit spending of late?:mad:

As to giving any credence whatsoever to the thought our Congress is capable of any kind of oversight would be simple lunacy.:rolleyes:

[wish2bflying]

Hmmm. Then the latest edition of Defence Helicopter has this rather glowing report (on page 29): A quiet triumph of American resolve (http://mags.shephard.co.uk/rotorhub/2009/DH/DH%20Jul-Aug%202009/pageflip.html)

[Dan Reno]

Yes, there's been a lot of this type of positive coverage going around. Guess it's just a matter of who is buttering your bread.

[Lonewolf_50]

#18 (http://www.pprune.org/1982883-post18.html)

Response to SASless: the USMC Osprey replaced the CH-46, and was never meant to replace CH-53, nor CH-47.

(That it may or may not be worth the dough is a matter I won't waste time on, as the Marines got what they wanted, in the end.)

[SASless]

Lonewolf,

You are new to the forum....welcome.

As to the Osprey not replacing the CH-53....you are incorrect. The Osprey by numerous official sources was/is to replace the CH-53D and the CH-46.

[gmachine]

I stumbled on your forum, and don't really intend to hang out here, but I was compelled to address at least one of the whacked out accusations.

SASless, Dan and FH101

I've read through many of your posts in this thread, and I don't really know where to begin. Not that it will matter, because you've already made up your minds and cannot be bothered with any facts that don't fit your predetermined world-view.

I can agree that our congress is not capable of any oversight, but that's probably as far as I can go.

Let me start by saying there are no "missing" V-22s, I'm pretty sure there are no aliens in a hangar in Ohio either, but if I find a link to an article that says otherwise, will you take that as gospel also?

Bell/Boeing began counting Ospreys with FSD a/c 1 (first flew in March '89). It was the first of 6 Full Scale Development aircraft. They were hand built prototypes to demonstrate the technology. All of these have been struck from the inventory. Remember the computer technology available in 1986 when they started development of the flight control and mission computers (did you even own a computer back then?) and you have to see the concept was way ahead of it's time.

Next came 4 Engineering Manufacturing and Development birds (a/c 7 thru 10). These were built using "production techniques" and share almost nothing in common with the previous FSD a/c except the general outward appearance. They too were just another stage in development.

Of the EMD a/c, only a/c 8 remains in the military inventory as a developmental test asset.

Then there was the Low Rate Initial Production aircraft 11 thru 33, (AKA pre Block A). Many of these have now been remanufactured as block B aircraft. 5 of these a/c ended up as test aircraft although only two are still flying. A few are in limbo as it's cheaper to just leave them in a hangar than to do anything else with them. To make tracking more difficult, a/c 25 was struck from the MC inventory and converted into a CV test asset and now resides in the AF inventory.

A/C 34 thru 69 were originally block A aircraft although some of these have also been converted into block Bs. The block A birds are all trainers. These were never intended to be combat operational and were not put through the OT required to go to war.

Block B production started with aircraft 70. These are the first combat operational a/c and are still in production. Since some of the LRIP and block A birds are now block Bs, you have to use a spreadsheet to track what's where as you can't just rely on a simple consecutive sequence and assume it's where it should be.

Every quarter a spreadsheet goes out with every B/B production number, the associated tail number (buno), and where it is assigned: whether to a test squadron, a training squadron, a combat squadron or if it has been struck. Aircraft are being received at 2 or 3 a month and squadrons rotate and trade a/c so it's very dynamic. If some general can't keep up with how many are in the inventory on any given day so what? Why should he bother with trivia like that? That's why we have databases.

Then some stupid uninformed columnist can't figure out the numbering system (and why should anyone bother to explain it to him anyway?) and he jumps to a ridiculous conclusion that V-22s are "missing"!! Totally absurd. Now it just so happens that this pulitzer prize piece of journalism perfectly supports your anti V-22 hysteria, so you quote it like it's fact, and insinuate there is evil intent by the MC to hide the truth from America. What total BULL****!!!

You guys are a riot. Perhaps you are here merely to create controversy.

I accept that not everyone will be a V-22 supporter. As a taxpayer you have the right to your opinion of how your money is spent. But you owe it to yourself to make a truly informed decision as you have previously stated. So far the evidence you have presented is lame at best and shows a basic laziness on your part to do your due diligence.

Your perverse conclusions are based on articles with bad/out of date information and a re-hash of baseless dribble. You have no first hand knowledge and yet you refute any favorable reports coming from the troops who actually use it.

Yes I too am biased, and I acknowledge it' not without faults. I've been an engineer on the V-22 since 1989 when it first flew. I've put my heart and soul into this aircraft. I'm proud of what we've built so far. Allow it do it's job for a few years. Then judge it on it's record, not your prejudice.

[Dan Reno]

Welcome aboard "GMACHINE"!

Very few of the folks here are actually connected to the V-22 as you are and so we are just basically messengers to one another. Your info certainly is interesting and I hope you get back to us after having 'discussed' it with the source at G2Mil's website as I'm sure we'd all like to hear his take on this since it got him national attention.

Not to be rude, but most here would consider you as part of the problem with the V-22 since the numbers you claim to have, SHOUT that, and were presented to Congress by the Navy at recent hearings.

I'm sure you take the V-22 seriously but this POS has already taken over top billing as the biggest military fraud ever, even if it should continue to stay funded and then DOUBLE the claims that sold it!

And as a FNG, I suggest you refrain from name-calling since it seriously takes away from your credibility, especially since your well connected to the V-22 and besides, its inmature of you.

Again, Welcome Aboard and PLEASE share any factual knowledge of the V-22 that you may have that contradicts what's been told to Congress. Perhaps we can all make enough $$ from the GAO's Fraud/Waste/Abuse REWARDS Program to be able to keep PPRuNe solvent forever. Whadya think?

Best.

Dan

[skiddriver]

GMACHINE,

Welcome aboard as well. We probably know each other as I was the senior H-1 TP and A/S department head at Pax in the 90's and was in Wingnut's TPS class (104) who you'll no doubt know.

I appreciate you providing an alternative voice on this, as there are a lot of folks who have based their opinions on media without much substance beyond that. I agree that the aircraft is coming into its own, and knowing some of the folks who fly it in earnest I also agree that the operators are generally positive about its performance.

I had some doubts of my own when I was sitting on test plan review boards for the V-22 (alternate member!), but not about its performance. My primary concerns were (and in some ways still are) around R&M. Improvements have been made in that area however, and it will have to develop more history before that story is finsished.

Anyway, welcome to the discussion and don't let the naysayers get you down. I'm sure there are folks who would throw spitballs at my baby (H-1 Y/Z program). That's why we have horse races.

[slgrossman]

gmachine,

Thanks for speaking up. Please don't let the one-sidedness of the debate on this issue discourage you from participating. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who lacks the current accurate information to refute the often ridiculous assertions of the V-22's detractors.

While I'm hopeful the aircraft will ultimately be successful, I've not bought into it "hook, line, and sinker," as some might suggest. I'm waiting for it to mature in service before I pass final judgement. It's refreshing to hear another side of the matter.

You may be new to this board and an FNG in Dan's eyes, but if you've been associated with the V-22 since 1989, you're certainly not new to the industry, I'd like to hear more of what you and, particularly, the operators and maintainers have to say.

And for the record, I thought your response was actually quite restrained.

-Stan-