What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey? [Archive] - Page 3

FH1100 Pilot

12th Aug 2009, 23:55

Ahh, another country heard from!

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.

Yes, here's yet one *more* anonymous guy who claims to have all the answers. It's so simple! Even an idiot can figure this out!

Why is it that any critics of the V-22 are always...always...portrayed as irrational, anti-progress, tin-foil-hat-wearing loonies just because we don't drink the tilt-rotor Kool-Aid?

gmachine:
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?

Look you nameless putz, nobody said anything about space aliens. If you're going to take that attitude, perhaps your first post on this forum should be your last!

The question arose as to how many V-22 the Marines have. This could not be answered clearly to Congress by the guy who is in charge of the program. Yet "gmachine" comes along and tells us how simple it is to figure out. Why, all we dimbulbs need is that mysterious spreadsheet! Well, okay, anyone care to publish it? Why is it so complicated? Sure, certain early airframes were modified to later specs...I get that. So just answer the question: HOW MANY DAMN V-22's HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO THE MARINES? Again, it's not like we're talking about thousands...or even hundreds of aircraft for that matter.

Not even the almighty "gmachine" did that. What "gmachine" is trying to make us believe is that one single V-22 can actually be counted two V-22's if it was remanufactured from Block A to Block B.
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.
Care to share some of that "trivia" with the public - you know, the ones who are footing the bill for this thing? Oh, and it's not like that general couldn't keep up with the number of V-22's "on any given day." Since they are only receiving "two or three per month," the general should have been able to give a count that is accurate down to two or three. Why couldn't he have said, "Well, we've received 110 aircraft, but some of them count more than once because they've gone back to the factory to be remanufactured and thus appear on the list twice. So it seems like we have more V-22's than we actually do."

Wouldn't that have been so easy? Even a congressman could've understood that.

The V-22 proponents are passionate about "their" aircraft. Unfortunately, most of their enthusiasm for the ship stems from the, Gee-whiz, it's-so-cool! factor. They think that the machine *is* vindicated simply because they've put their "heart and soul" into working on it. (It's not.) They think that "favorable reports from the troops that actually use it" justify the V-22's total existence. (They don't.)

I'm sure the V-22 is just super-duper coolio. I'm sure it's totally awesome, man...the neatest thing since sliced bread. I mean, look at the way the rotors and engines actually tilt!!! OMG!!!

I'm sure the V-22 does some things very well. I don't deny that. And I'm sure that the flight crews love flying it. I'm sure the engineers who've worked on it have a lot of themselves invested in it.

But none of that means anything. None of that matters.

What matters is: What can the V-22 do *better* than the helicopter(s) it is intended to replace?

Is it faster? Yes. Twice as fast? No. It's just...well..."somewhat faster." It can accellerate and decellerate faster!

Can it fly higher? Well, no. It is unpressurized. And it has no airframe and/or proprotor anti-ice.

Can it carry more than a CH-46? Well, no. Not really. Not inside the cabin.

Does it have a personnel hoist? Yes! Well, no. Well, it's supposed to. But...umm...no one has seen any pictures of a V-22 hoisting anybody yet, not even a crash-test dummy. Word is that this capability is "still being tested" or some such thing. (We'll have to leave the jury out on that one.)

Is it "cooler" than a CH-46? Yes!

Is it more expensive than a CH-46? OH HELLS YEAH!

Finally, we have to ask: Is it safer than a helicopter?

Here, the answer to that one is a resounding, "NO!"

When a helicopter gets into VRS it crashes straight down and hits upright, where the landing gear, structure and crash-attenuating seats can make the inevitable hard-landing survivable.

When a V-22 gets into A-VRS, it crashes inverted killing everybody onboard. It has already demonstrated this "unpleasant" characteristic.

V-22 proponents say this will NEVER happen again. EVER! We solved it! See, we know about this phenomenon now. And we've made up these rules that the pilots must fly by. (And pilots always fly by the rules in combat.) And that knowledge, combined with those rules will allow flight crews to forever avoid the dreaded A-VRS. No more "Maranas." Simple!

Heh.

I know I harp on this A-VRS thing like a broken record. But I consider it a fatal flaw in the design. It will kill more soldiers, guaranteed. It is why the civilian version will never see widespread acceptance and use (if it is indeed ever certified).

Tilt-rotor proponents such as "gmachine" like to claim that the V-22 is "only" about 23 years old, originating in 1986. Trouble is, Bell has actually been working on the tilt-rotor design since 1953. And they have not been able to perfect it. Bell even pawned-off the development of the civilian model 609 to the Italians. I'm sure that when they handed over the prototypes and drawings and 5.25" floppy disks and stuff, Bell management said, "Yeah, good luck with that!" with a sarcastic roll of the eyes, happy to be done with it.

Yet we taxpayers are told that we must continue to throw good money after bad...to keep funding this defective, deficient design called the Osprey. But the V-22 is not even close to being workable. Twenty-three years since the first one flew and we're still being given the lame excuse that the design is "not mature," and has "teething pains." And, oh yeah, if you land it out in the field it sometimes starts a brush fire...and might...you know...burn itself up too. Just one of those little..."teething pains" that we'll work out...eventually. (I know! Maybe they'll make a rule that no V-22 shall ever be landed within 100 feet of any vegetation.)

Uh-huh.

"gmachine," I'm sure you've put a lot of hard work into the V-22 over the years. I'm sure you'd hate to think that it was all for naught...that it was all wasted time. But sadly, I must tell you that...it was. So sorry. I hope they paid you well, at least.

I don't care how "cool" it is. I say, enough already! Kill the damn thing! Stomp on it like a fleeing cockroach. Kill it before it kills more Marines.

(Thank you for reading all the way down to here. You're a better man than I am. Even I don't read the crap I write.)

widgeon

13th Aug 2009, 10:08

Always entertaining FH , takes me back to the good old days of rec.aviation.rotorcraft.

If i am not mistaken the serial # ( BUNO) stays the same for the life of the airframe ( regardless of mod status ) so can someone list all the serial numbers and current status , as FH said it is not such a large list

and here is one list.
bell v-22 Osprey - Helicopter Database (http://www.helis.com/database/model/261/)

seems to stop at 2007 , the USAF numbers are easier to understand as the first 2 digits are year of manufacture.

tottigol

14th Aug 2009, 02:29

Bob, I mean FH, what's wrong with you?:ooh:
Has retirement taken a chunk out of your psiche? Funny how are getting so wrapped up about this V-22 issue, I always thought you a much more rational being than that.
With that aside, it seems that (since we are all speaking from information received from the latest liberal-anti military-pot smoking-Sunday rag-journalist) we can all say the same.
However, it amazes me that the only new "rotary wing" program that has continued its advance in the US arsenal is being the subject of such a rabid attack, even more so since you guys are just admittedly bashing the USMC for it.

As far as the development of the 609 Bob, Bell has not been able to develop SQUAT since that half ass job of the 407 (the 429 being just another attempt to a B level helicopter).
I bet AW shall get quite a bit out of the 609 when that gets certified, just like they have been building better helicopters than Bell for the last 15 years.
But the last helicopter you flew was the 105, so what would you know other than what you read in the papers.
Just like Mr. Reno here.

Gmachine welcome to this forum, it's a pleasure having individuals who can bring FACTUAL information to the large public, rather than some hearsay as some of those in this thread.

Madbob

14th Aug 2009, 08:55

Welcome gmmachine! As tottingol and others have said what is needed is factual data.

Answers to the following should be straightforward.....

1. What has the program (programme) cost so far?
2. How many aircraft has this bought the MC? (The ones that are still usable, excluding the pre-prod/test articles).
3. What is the cost per ac?

4. What was the original budgetted cost?
5. What additional cost is involved in completing the development to achieve the original peformance targets/specs?

This will then reveal whether the funds are being well spent and whether the taxpayer is getting good (ha, ha) value for its money.

Then a decision can be taken whether to continue buying more Ospreys or whether funds would be better spent buying something else that the MC might want instead. The arguement being that the MC doesn't want to end up with 2 squadrons of Ospreys for $xxxxBn when to get the mission done it needs 10 squadrons to maintain the spread of deployments across the world.

More "affordable" aircraft, and perhaps ones with less speed, range, sophistication and technical risk might be much, much better. My advice would be to re-open production on a proven aircraft, with "modern" engines, digital fuel computers, composite blades, a glass cockpit, and the latest self protection kit/armour would be one option.

This would give improved performance due to lighter materials, longer range due to improved sfc, less maintenance, greater reliability, lower risk, faster in-service date and (in these straightened times) a much lower unit cost of procurement. You could even call it "Superphrog"....

Just my $0.02.

MB

21stCen

15th Aug 2009, 16:01

Gmachine,
Your input is GREATLY appreciated by the silent majority. Those with 'the facts' like yourself are normally summarily dismissed by those on this forum with an agenda and personal prejudice for whatever reasons. Very few would not agree that the program is way too expensive, but the aircraft is here and the question is: 'now that the money has been invested, what is the best path forward.' Some outside of active duty military will try to convince you that the aircarft does not add valuable mission capability that no other aircraft in service can provide. It is not the best helicopter, and it is not the best aeroplane for a reason -- it was not designed to be either. The people operating the aircraft, particularly those in the US Special Operations role, swear by it for a reason...

Hope we hear from you again...

Dan Reno

17th Aug 2009, 00:23

http://www.g2mil.com/_derived/V-22finding.htm_cmp_expeditn110_bnr.gif
I received many questions and answers since publication of "40 MV-22s are Missing (http://www.g2mil.com/V-22missing.htm)!" in July. Some inside the program criticized "wild speculation in the media." This was caused by General Trautman's claim last May that only 91 MV-22s had been delivered to the Marine Corps, a comment that was never corrected or explained. In his testimony, he mouthed gibberish that if the V-22 had been in the force in the 1980s, we wouldn't have problems in Iran today. Not only was that comment insane, it is outright false. The cross-country attempt in 2005 to replicate "Eagle Claw", the failed Iran rescue mission, with V-22s failed (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/204936-whats-latest-news-v22-osprey-24.html) miserably, even when they cheated and flew at 14,000 ft rather than 300 ft.
His staff spent two weeks playing games with congressional staff, then finally provided a list of 105 MV-22s in June, with incomplete status information. The Marine public affairs officer said he would provide a list to the media, but never did. The CBO's June 2009 report said Congress had funded 156 MV-22s to the Marines through FY2009. Why not just provide Congress and the media with a complete list of the 156, to include those in production? Since the status of all Marine Corps aircraft is compiled daily, why the reluctance to share the "good" news about the V-22? This reluctance to provide data raised suspicions, especially for those who remember history:
CNN August 17, 2001
"Major General Dennis T. Krupp, commander of all Marine Corps aviation units in the eastern United States was "..charged with Dereliction of Duty in that he allegedly knew or should have known of the suspected false (Osprey) maintenance records", a Marine Corps release states. Also charged with offense are three colonels: Col. Lauren P. Eck; Col. James E. Schleining and Col. Phillip L. Newman.
Col. Eck is charged with Violating a Lawful Order for failing to report offenses committed by other Marines. Col. Schneining and Col. Newman are charged with Dereliction of Duty along with Lt. Col. Demetrice M. Babb.
The commander of the Mairine Corps' only Osprey squadron, Lt. Col. Oden Fred Leberman, was charged with Dereliction of Duty, Making False Official Statements and Conduct Unbecoming and Officer for ordering members of the squadron to falsify the maintenance records for the controversial airplane.
Leberman was captured by another Marine on audio tape instructing members of his squadron to falsify the records in an effort to save the foundering Osprey program which is among the Marine Corps' highest priorities."
If one reviews news reports about the V-22's performance in Iraq, Generals had nothing but praise. However, they refused to share many details with GAO investigators, and even tried to stiff arm Congress when asked for basic performance information. When Generals refused to release an full account of the V-22 inventory, one must suspect wrongdoing. Comments (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/204936-whats-latest-news-v22-osprey-7.html) in January 2006 by retired Marine Col. Jack Carson are also revealing:
"This is a twenty year old story. The V-22 has been and a will continue to be suspect as long as the USMC continues to champion it without regard for the truth. Technology has been pushed to and past the limits of reasonableness. Fatal accidents aside, the V-22 has never clearly met most of its design goals. Clear technical issues have been side stepped in favor of a public relations push. As a former Marine, Test Pilot and an H-53 pilot, I have witnessed this first hand over the past twenty years.
General Blot blocked a long range demonstration flight of a CH-53E in the 1990’s stating that he would not allow the CH-53E demonstrate anything that may compromise or make the V-22 look bad. The V-22 has always been compared to the CH-46. With 12,300 ESHP and a gross weight approaching 60,000, the V-22 actually exceeds the gross weight of the CH-53D and approaches that of the CH-53E. Comparing the V-22 to the CH-53 line would have closed the gap and made the program less viable, if not totally unworthy."
Production Backlogged
It is now apparent that Bell is far behind in V-22 production, despite assurances than it was ahead of schedule. It hasn't even produced half the aircraft funded in FY2008. Because it lacks capacity, it will onlydeliver 20 V-22s (http://www.amarillo.com/stories/080709/new_news3.shtml)this year as it expands production. Bell worries that Congress will learn of this backlog and not fund the full FY2010 request for 30 more MV-22s for the Marines.
Another problem is that many spare parts are failing after just a few dozens hours of use, which caused a parts shortage that reached all the way back to the production line. Meanwhile, Bell-Boeing is still getting contracts to design new parts for the V-22 and still tweaking the design. Finally, revelations about missing MV-22s prompted Marine Generals to drag broke down MV-22s out of hangars and send them to Bell for repair, if possible.
http://www.g2mil.com/V-22broke.jpgThis has swamped Bell, but that is not bad for them because Bell-Boeing is making billions more dollars to "fix" an aircraft they designed. Even though Bell-Boeing already has a couple years of unfinished work, they want to book more orders because the V-22's future is in doubt. If Congress cuts the FY2010 request to 12 MV-22s, it would have no effect on production since since Bell is over a year behind. This would eliminate the backlog of orders and annual funding could return to 30 MV-22s in FY2011, assuming Congress and Marines haven't chose other options by that time. The money saved could be used for unfunded aviation needs, like the Marine's desire to increase production of the Bell UH-1Y.
The other unanswered question is why the five-year contract has not lowered the unit price to $62 million as promised. Major Dent at HQMC quotes that price, while the FY2010 budget has a unit price of $78 million. Generals spout gibberish about "fly away" costs and "spreadsheets" but one can look at DoD budgets for FY2009 and FY2008 before the contract was signed, and the unit cost was around $80 million each. It is obvious that the five-year contract was not signed to save money, but a corrupt attempt by insiders to lock-in the V-22's future before Congress learned about its dismal performance in Iraq and the dozen new V-22s damaged beyond repair. 48 Extra V-22s?
Another example of games played by those profiting off the V-22 program is a covert attempt to buy 48 extra V-22s. The budget for Marine Corp aviation has doubled the past few years. The Marine Corps procurement objective for the V-22 program has always been 360 MV-22s. However, the Marine Corps requirement for MV-22s has inexplicitly jumped to 408 MV-22s. See page 11 of the CBO report. How did this occur?http://www.g2mil.com/CH-60Ss.jpg
The program always planned for a total of 458 V-22s, for the Marines, Air Force, and Navy. This helped sell it as a "joint" program. However, the Navy was never enthusiastic for 48 HV-22s. The Navy frequently uses helicopters for "vertical replenishment", and the V-22's intense downwash makes external load operations dangerous. In addition, the V-22 is too big to land safely on Navy cruisers and destroyers, and its engine heat warps the flight deck.
As a result, the Navy wisely chose the MH-60S (right) to replace its CH-46Ds for utility roles back in 1999. This aircraft is half the size and half the cost of a V-22, yet can lift the same payload vertically as the newer, heavier "Block C." Note that V-22s can never fly in tight formations lest they blow out one another's "good air" causing a V-22 to instantly snap roll. This required the adoption of assault tactics that are universally viewed as insane. V-22s must fly 250 ft apart as they approach a typical confined landing zone (LZ). They must land one at a time, after they retract their belly gun, and remain on the ground until all have landed, then take-off one at a time! Note; when V-22 spinmasters talk about how fast it can land, they are referring to how fast it can land on a runway like an airplane.
The V-22 program kept the canceled 48 Navy HV-22s on the order book. In 2005, the HV-22s were renamed MV-22s with hopes that Congress wouldn't notice, so that the Marines could get 48 extra MV-22s to compensate for their extremely high attrition rate. Generals may insist that the Navy is still "interested" in 48 MV-22s. Congressmen need only ask which Navy helicopters these MV-22s will replace, and which squadrons are they destine for, and why no Navy personnel are in the V-22 training pipeline. Confused Marine Generals will ask to "provide that later for the record." If Congress wants to save money or redirect funds to critical needs, it should tell Marine Generals that it will not buy 48 MV-22s for the Navy, since it doesn't want them and doesn't need them.
The Pre-Block A Myth
If an aircraft suffers over $1 million damage, a Class A mishap report must be filed with the Navy Safety Center and an independent JAG investigation conducted to determine the cause. Since the two crashes in 2000, only two other Class A mishaps were reported, a broke wing and an engine fire. However, over a dozen other production MV-22s have suffered damage and deemed unflyable. No Class A mishap reports were filed nor the required JAG investigation conducted. If these had been done, the V-22 may have been cancelled years ago. This is the heart of the criminal activity, which the Generals and their buddies at Bell want to hide.
The first six MV-22s were Full Scale Development (FSD) aircraft hand-made by Boeing. The next four were Engineering Manufacturing and Development (EMD) aircraft produced with factory equipment. In 1997, the MV-22 was declared ready for the production of aircraft for use by Marines, and MV-22 No. 11 was the first operational aircraft produced.. However, many problems remained that were highlighted by two crashes in 2000, which led to a 17-month grounding and review, although production continued at a rate of around one per month.
It was announced that a series of upgrades (Blocks A, B, C) were needed to fix all the V-22s problems. Block A was necessary to improve safety. This was simply a software upgrade and the rerouting of some hydraulic lines in the engine nacelles. This could be done quickly at little cost to allow pilot training to resume. Newer aircraft coming off the production line would be called Block As, while the 19 already produced for the Marines would receive this simple upgrade. (This did not include the first ten MV-22 (FSD/EMD) aircraft used for test and evaluation that were retired) Once the more extensive Block B design was tested, all the Block As would be upgraded to Block Bs.
It was then decided that the 20 pilot training aircraft with VMMT didn't need the Block B enhancements, so money could be saved. It was secretly decided that 19 of the first production aircraft would not be upgraded to Block A. Most had suffered damage that was never reported, or were poorly constructed and required extensive repairs. This decision to scrap $2 billion of production MV-22s wasn't exposed until the hearings last June..
The current spin is that these 19 "Pre-Block As" are old test and evaluation MV-22s not suitable for use by troops. This is partly true as continuing problems with the V-22 required more dedicated test aircraft, but these were production aircraft intended by use by Marine operational forces. These "pre-Block As" are not EMD/FSD aircraft. They were produced for use by the Marine Corps, yet were never upgraded. They were stashed in hangars because they reached the end or their usable service lift after just four years of flying around. These were not just $1 million Class A mishaps, but $100 million write offs that were never reported.
Even some Block A aircraft were secretly grounded due to damage, evidenced by the June 38.8% readiness level of the pilot training squadron, VMMT, which has several damaged MV-22s that can't be fixed, yet no Class A mishaps have been filed. There was also a case where a Class A mishap was reported by the Navy Safety Center, but when a reporter asked (http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,120865,00.html) why no JAG investigation had begun, the mishap was downgraded to Class B. In the two cases where Class A mishaps were reported after minor damage, the aircraft were never repaired.
The DoD IG exists to investigate such misconduct, but it is unclear if they have taken an interest. At the very least, Congress should demand that the Marine Corps file a Class A mishap report on every V-22 that is non-flyable, followed by an independent JAG investigation. In addition, any V-22 that has not flown in the past year obviously has serious damage, so those deserve Class A mishaps reports as well.
MV-22s Missing from Afghanistan

Meanwhile, the 8000-man Marine brigade in Afghanistan has complained that a lack of helicopter support hinders operations and medivacs. For the past three months, they relied on a small squadron of 40-year old CH-53Ds and a reserve squadron of CH-53Es. Since most of the Navy is underutilized, it could deploy a squadron of MH-60Ss to support Marines in Afghanistan today. Marine Generals would veto the idea because Marines would find these more valuable for most missions than MV-22s.

http://www.g2mil.com/CH-47F.jpgThere are three reasons MV-22s have yet to appear to support Marines in Afghanistan: 1) the concrete pads are not finished, which MV-22s need lest they choke their engines with dirt; 2) operations are at altitudes of 3000-6000 feet, where MV-22s with small proprotors can lift little vertically; 3) the MV-22s new complicated belly gun undergoing tests jams too much, is difficult to aim, and doesn't allow external loads; 4) Congress has yet to finalize the FY2010 request for 30 MV-22s for the Marines, and a crash could affect that. As a result, the U.S. Army is providing substantial helicopter support to Marines since no MV-22s are in Afghanistan or Iraq. Pictured is an Army CH-47F landing in a tight spot in Afghanistan, something a V-22 would never attempt. That modern helicopter is 50% smaller than the V-22, with half its rotor downwash, and far more LZ maneuverability. Moreover, it costs half as much, can carry twice the payload of the V-22, and has greater range. It can also descend and land in an LZ much faster. MV-22s can depart an LZ faster, and its cruise speed is 40% greater. Helicopter expert Nick Lappos, ironically now a Vice-President at Bell, once put this one advantage into perspective when he asked a V-22 advocate: "If only speed counts, why don't you own a Lamborghini?" Carlton Meyer

Dan Reno

17th Aug 2009, 00:30

Rotor & Wing - August 2009 (http://www.rotorandwing-digital.com/rotorandwing/200908/?pg=48)

Couldn't do a cut and paste but if this link doesn't pass muster, go to the Aug edition of R&W, Page 48 under Eurowatch.

More common sense suggestions from accross the pond on the V-22.

PS I'm just the messenger so if anyone has a beef with the content, email the writer and let us know what you learn. Thanks!

FH1100 Pilot

17th Aug 2009, 00:57

Careful, Dan. You don't want to get Ned on your case. He'll hand your ass to you!

Ned, I have no wish to attack you. The V-22 is my target.

I'm glad you spent so much time in the V-22 sim. We all know how well sims demonstrate things like tail rotor failures and regular ol' VRS, huh? I'm sure the V-22 is different though. I'm sure it can simulate A-VRS really, really, really well. Really!

The FACT is, the V-22 is not all that much faster/more capable/whatever than a helicopter. Pound for pound (or dollar for dollar if you prefer) it is a big waste of money. HUGE waste of money. GIGANTIC waste of money. We American taxpayers deserve better than that.

Another FACT is...a fact you seem to want to deny or downplay...is that Majors Brow and Gruber got into A-VRS that night in Marana. Their ship crashed. (Lead crashed too, but not as spectacularly.) Since A-VRS happened once, it can (and will!) happen again. Period.

If you can refute that "attack" on the V-22 with something you've learned, then I am, as Ross Perot once famously said, all ears.

It is curious to me how emotional the defenders of the V-22 get. It's quite irrational! Me, I have no emotional investment one way or the other. I just think (as I've always said) that it's a defective, deficient, dangerous piece of overpriced crap that should be cancelled before it bankrupts the U.S. of A.

Speaking of which...why hasn't any *other* nation ordered the V-22? Britain? Canadia? Italy?

::::::::crickets::::::::::

Germany? Japan? Venezuela?

::::::::more crickets::::::::

Anyone?

And the world stands around, hands in pockets, rolling eyes and whistling, not wanting to get pinned into buying this ridiculous, junky V-22.

(And don't even say it's because we won't sell them such "advanced technology." We do that all the time - always have. That's how Cheney knew there were WMD's in IRAQ: WE SOLD THEM TO SADDAM HUSSEIN!)

FH1100 Pilot

17th Aug 2009, 03:40

FOR THE RECORD: Someone came on here, guns a-blazin', making some wild claims about the magnificent V-22. They said some unpleasant things about me personally. Additionally, they told me that I had it wrong with respect to the cause of the Marana accident. Well I have read the accident report of Marana, and I do not "have it wrong." I challenged this person to reveal any facts of which he was in possession that did not make it into the official report.

I never go off half-cocked, and I keep *my* objections to the V-22 to certain very specific issues. When those issues are rectified or satisfied, I will be a V-22 Kool-Aid drinker. Until then, I remain skeptical that this machine will ever be successful in the role for which it was intended no matter how many more billions of U.S. dollars we throw at it. (Oh yeah, that was one of my comments to the other poster that got deleted. It's easy to be pro-V-22 when it's the money of some other country that's being spent on it. This other poster is not from the U.S., and so therefore does not see the waste of money from a Yank's point of view.)

The trouble is, the USMC has pretty much put all of their eggs in the V-22 basket. They see it as the only way they can continue to exist as a viable part of the U.S. Armed Forces. (They're probably not wrong.)

Because really. I mean, really, other than for its historic significance, do we really need the Marine Corps? Let's be honest - couldn't the job they do be done just as well by the Army and/or the Navy? And more cheaply...err, "efficiently" at that? The Army has the Rangers and the Navy has the Seals. Do we really need *four* branches of the service? Do we keep the Marine Corps just because of tradition?

This is what probably bothers the top dawgs of the USMC. Without the V-22, they see themselves as...well...redundant. So they defend the Osprey with a disproportionate vehemence that seems odd or at least irrational. They have probably communicated these fears to other members of government who are also former Marines and this is why nobody's been able to kill this albatross...this turkey of an aircraft yet.

Folks, let's keep the personal attacks out of this and keep the focus on the V-22, eh?

Ned-Air2Air

17th Aug 2009, 03:44

FH1100,

You would be surprised what they can replicate in the Sim they have at Kirtland, its a Level D sim and everyone I have spoken to outside of the V22 community says those sims are some of the best around. Am I an expert on sim, nope not at all. But from what I saw during the three hours I had in there with LtCol McKinney I have every reason to believe that they can replicate nearly all of the emergency procedures they need to.

He and I discussed a LOT of the comments on PPRuNe about VRS and autos etc and he showed me how you get into VRS, how to get out of it, and their measures to ensure a crew doesnt get into that situation again. I alluded to a theory that is pretty commonplace around the squadrons about what happened at Marana but I have no desire to post that here and have all those nay sayers attack it and pull it apart. Its a theory that has merit and who am I to doubt these guys, some of whom have been involved with the program since the start, and who have over 500 hours in the V22.

Yes the V22 has its drawbacks but so does every other type of helicopter. Would these guys go out and fly it every day if they thought they wouldnt see their families at the end of the day - I dont think so, but thats just my personal opinion. One of the guys mentioned that it would have been great to have the V22 technology in a slightly different airframe, without some of the compromises they had to make so the Marines could do what they do with it.

Anyway, I got to spend two and a half hours flying around in it, both in the back and in the jumpseat. Was I impressed, yep and who wouldnt be. I know there are a lot of people on this forum who knock the V22 and thats their right to do so. But for me, I had doubts about it before I visited the 71st SOS but after getting to know the aircraft, its capabilties, and its shortfalls, and meeting the guys and gals who are introducing it to the USAF I have a new respect for it. But again thats just my opinon.

As stated by a previous poster I am just a two bit photographer so what would I know, but you know what at least I got to flying in the V22 and not many people outside those who operate it can say that.

Will let you guys continue with your debate.

Ned

Senior Pilot

17th Aug 2009, 03:49

Folks, let's keep the personal attacks out of this and keep the focus on the V-22, eh?

Very good idea :ok:

All of the contributors to this thread, please note.

widgeon

17th Aug 2009, 09:07

http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/budget_justification/pdfs/02_Procurement/Vol_2_SOCOM_and_CBDP/SOCOM/SOCOM_Procurement_DW.pdf

P64 seems to show planned deliveries as follows:-
2008 24
2009 37
2010 40
2011 42
2012 42

Does anyone know what the actual deliveries were ?.

Dan Reno

17th Aug 2009, 12:02

The best ride most of us can ever experience is an "A" ticket (<$20) on some fantastically designed roller coaster at a theme park. We get off amazed, a little shaken but want to ride it again and again or at least untill our wallets yell Uncle.

So it doesn't surprise me when someone gets an "A" ticket, two and a half hour ride on a multi million dollar machine and is impressed. I think such a ride might turn the head of some of the most vocal V-22 naysayers around. But at the end of the day that thrill is diminished somewhat when you realize you enjoyed it because like the folks on the roller coaster, you knew you were SAFE.

Imagine a two and a half hour simulator ride in a F-22 Raptor! Now that's a real "A" ticket ride and something anyone would go to Congress to fight for! If Bell was to give every Congressman an "A" ticket V-22 ride the skies would be raining V-22 parts in appreciation but not common sense

FH1100 Pilot

17th Aug 2009, 15:03

But see Dan, that's the thing. People who get close to the V-22 develop this irrational emotional attachment to it. Then they get personally insulted when someone criticizes it.

As I've said, I'm sure the V-22 is an awesome aircraft. I'm sure that part of the feeling of awesomeness that people feel about it stem from the fact that it actually works! On one hand are these critics like me who think it's a big, flawed piece of junk. On the other hand is this huge, impressive aircraft that actually takes off and flies! And yes, I'm sure that the V-22 does some things very well, given the physics that it's up against.

People mistakenly believe that the V-22 is revolutionary. It is not. The fact is that the V-22 is evolutionary and not revolutionary. The helicopter... now that was revolutionary compared to the airplane. But the tilt-rotor? What "new" does it bring to the table? Speed? Okay, yeah, it's faster than a helicopter. But we can make fast helicopters - and we can make them cheaper.

The military (particularly the U.S.M.C.) has been enamored with the idea of a tilt-rotor/tilt-wing troop transport since the mid-1950’s. Look back through history at all of the previous attempts at such designs. We see names like Bell (XV-3, ATV, X-14, X-22A), Boeing-Vertol (VZ-2), Canadair (CL-84), Curtiss-Wright (X-19, X-100), Hiller (X-18), Kaman (K-16), Vought-Hiller-Ryan (XC-142), Lockheed (XV-4), Ryan (VZ-3)…

These were not individual inventors working out of their home garage but (many of them at least) large companies with sophisticated engineering staffs. But *NONE* of the designs worked. Some failed spectacularly. Everybody who was working on such a project eventually abandoned the idea. Why? Because the concept is flawed. You end up with a bastard design that’s neither fish nor fowl…one that doesn’t do either job particularly well. It flies, but that ain't enough to sell it. Or shouldn't be.

Getting a tiltrotor to fly is like teaching your dog to walk on his hind legs. At first you go, "Wow! That's cool!" But after the coolness of it wears off, you're forced to ask, "What good is this? He can pee standing up now? He can hand you the newspaper and you don't have to bend down to get it out of his mouth? (Assuming your dog is a German Shepherd and not a poodle, of course.) Oh boy!"

Not to mix too many metaphors, but at the end of the day, the V-22 is a one-trick pony. It does one thing really well: Take off vertically (maybe), then dash from place to place faster than a helicopter and land vertically (maybe) at the other end.

The V-22 also does some things much worse than a helicopter. Their small proprotors are a major impediment at high altitudes. Helicopters typically don't set themselves on fire when they land out in a field. There are all kinds of performance limitations on tilt-rotors. As Carlton Meyer has pointed out, a flight of V-22's cannot land or take-off in formation. They're not even allowed to hover in close proximity to one another! V-22's cannot maneuver sharply in helicopter mode. And Carlton didn't make this stuff up, it comes from NATOPS.

Yes, the V-22 is big and impressive. So was Howard Hughes' H-4 Hercules. So was Hughes' XH-17 "Flying Crane." But neither of them were practical. So too, we should banish the V-22 to the annals of history - a big experiment that failed.

To the staunch defenders of the V-22, it's nothing personal. I'm sure Hughes was just as offended by critics of his H-4 flying boat. But come on, face facts.

Gordy

17th Aug 2009, 16:14

Cool Picture:

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/helokat/Helo-general/8xV22s.jpg

Dan Reno

17th Aug 2009, 16:16

FH1100 I agree with you 100%.

But also missing, (though it means little to the upper ranks) is what it takes to maintain it. The enlisted who do not fly as a crewmember, but as wrench-turners literally HATE this thing as it's a marriage and liberty killer. And with most, perhaps 90% of a squadron supporting the aircraft directly and not flying in it, that's a lot of head and heartache associated with this flying junkpile.

It's mostly a pilot's flying machine. A couple pilots told a friend in NR that the most fantastic feeling they get is doing accelerations to max speed. They expereince what it must be like to be a fast-flyer since I suppose they weren't good enough to become one(?). They relate that feeling to the 'warm-fuzzy' we all occasionaly can get when becoming airborne for a sec at zero Gs. They report the ability to get that warm-fuzzy whenever they want by sudden decels in addition to a sharp decent. So I guess in addition to pilots having a love affair with the aircraft, we can now say it is a 'sexual' love affair of sorts. These pilots would NEVER be able to mimic what a H-46 or H-53 does in a real, bullets-flying atmosphere where going-in and leaving LZs fast like a pogo stick is what it takes to resupply and evac the wounded W/O becoming a statistic yourself. I've heard V-22 fanatics say those type of wars are over (let's all pray) and that the 'new battlefield' doesn't require such flying antics. I can understand these Desert Storm flyboys thinking that but let's hope all our future 'conflicts' are in deserts and on the plains or our marines are screwed and that no one cries into their headphones saying their being overrun and need an immediate emergency extraction. Until you hear that cry for help, you'll never truly understand the helicopter's true reason for being.

Back to this maintenance nightmare's ability to suck-up off-time; the Army demanded the Blackhawk have a 4 MMH to 1 FH ratio. It routinely, to this day, has a 1.5-3.0 MMH to 1 FH ratio! An H-60 is what the MC needs!

usmc helo

17th Aug 2009, 18:34

Dan Reno says:
They expereince what it must be like to be a fast-flyer since I suppose they weren't good enough to become one(?).

Dan, why would you make a derogatory post such as this? Especially since you aren't even a pilot? That statement is akin to me saying to you "since you weren't even good enough to become an officer". Neither statement is appropriate nor true. After FH1100 just asked that we not get personal you make a personal attack on every V-22 pilot by questioning their ability.

Just curious, do think that only applies to V-22 pilots or are all of us rotorheads "not good enough"?

FH1100 Pilot

17th Aug 2009, 18:48

Great picture, Gordy! Too bad Lead couldn't have beeped his rpm up (or down) a little to match the others and get that full Star Wars Effect.

Sloppy formation flying though.

I wonder how long it took to recover them all back onto the Bataan one at a time?

Dan Reno

17th Aug 2009, 19:32

It's not a derogatory statement, it's simply the truth.

All pilot candidates are screened for what they are BEST capable of flying. Those with better natural flying instincts, reaction times and a zillion other things are assigned to aircraft that 1) Match their abilities and 2) Match the MC's needs.

I'm sure you have enough common sense to realize you wouldn't put your worse driver in a race with your only car so I suspect your 'outrage' at how pilots are chosen is simply a childish rant or perhaps you are just one of many who wish they were a fighter pilot, but the goverment found you did better with something slower and more easy to keep ahead of.

Everyone has a place in the MC but it's not what the marine wants or how much $$ he can pay to get that job. That occurs once you're a civilian. But you already know that I bet.

Dan Reno

17th Aug 2009, 19:39

Jetpod Air Taxi Prototype's Crash Claims Inventor's Life

A British inventor died during a test flight of his "Jetpod" meant to revolutionize city commutes
By Jeremy Hsu (http://www.pprune.org/category/popsci-authors/jeremy-hsu) Posted 08.17.2009 at 12:45 pm 0 Comments (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-08/futuristic-air-taxis-crash-claims-inventors-life?page=#comments)

http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/files/articles/jetpod.png Jetpod's Dream Unfulfilled: Can a British inventor's dream outlive him? Avcen

Michael Robert Dacre, a 53-year-old aircraft entrepreneur, died when his Jetpod--a prototype "air taxi" twin-jet aircraft --crashed on take-off during a test flight in Malaysia. Dacre had hoped to revolutionize city commuting with the jetpod, an aircraft he invented with the ability to take off or land on very short stretches of road or grass for short-hop commuting.
The very quiet short take-off and landing (VQSTOL) aircraft used both horizontal and vertical thrust to get airborne in just 125 meters (410 ft), with the ability to reconfigure quickly into a jet capable of cruising at 310 mph. The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6798198.ece) reports that Dacre had been developing the concept with his UK-based company Avcen as a possible commuting alternative that might have charged £40 (65 USD) for a quick flight from Heathrow Airport to Central London.

Malaysian officials say that the Jetpod reached a height of about 200 meters (656 ft) before plummeting to the ground, where it was engulfed in flames, according to The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/16/british-pilot-killed-malaysia-crash).

Inventors and companies reaching for the dream of VQSTOL or vertical-takeoff-and-landing (VTOL) aircraft have met with their share of past troubles. The U.S. Marines' and Air Force's tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey managed to overcome a checkered developmental history and three fatal test-flight crashes to become the transport workhorse (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/space/item_26.html) for U.S. Marines.
We've previously covered other tilt-rotor aircraft (http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2008-10/personal-tilt-rotor) that typically used propellers rather than jet engines to achieve helicopter-like mobility. Such ventures have ranged from personal aircraft to the AeroTrain (http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2008-09/all-aboard-aerotrain) commercial plane concept.
Speculation on the cause behind the Jetpod's tragic crash remains difficult while the Malaysian Department of Civil Aviation investigates the possible causes.
[Times London (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6798198.ece), Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/16/british-pilot-killed-malaysia-crash)]

js0987

17th Aug 2009, 22:11

Dan,

I'm probably a bit out of date as I went through flight school 40 years ago, but assuming things haven't changed that much the system is not quite the way you think.

Everyone started off flying the same aircraft, in my case the T34. After that program and six weeks of strictly ground school, everyone made their selection on what they wanted to fly. Pretty much everyone chose jets over helicopters. Selection was made by grades and, above all, needs of the service at that moment. In my bunch a few went jets, but most of us ended up in the helicopter pipeline.

It wasn't 3 or 4 months later that everything changed and word came down that anyone who wanted jets could head to NAS Meridian. Surprisingly, only a couple took the offer, the rest of us had been around our second tour instuctor pilots to know that if you wanted to fly, helicopters was the way to go.

In jets you were lucky to get 20 hours a month, in helicopters 40 to 60 hours a month were pretty common. In fact, at one point those jet jocks who graduated flight school and reported to the RAG (replacement air group) at Cherry Point found themselves with a year wait as the training was horribly backlogged. Word went out once again that any jet jocks that wanted to start flying, there was a need at New River as a number of helicopter squadrons were short handed.

And, after your first tour, those pilots that were regulars or on unlimited active duty, had the opportunity to get transitioned from helicopters to jets and vice versa.

So, in short, who flew what, depended on where the seats were.

Dan Reno

18th Aug 2009, 00:31

jso0987

Thanks for the info! Those certainly must have been some memorable times!

From what I understand now, it's a whole new ballgame regarding who gets what to fly. I'm sure a number of factors include the complexity of the aircraft, weapons, costs and responsabilities of one guy being able to destroy acres of a city or more with a nuke makes it paramounnt that the candidate has the "Right Stuff"..

So only the proverbial 'brightest & best" get chosen these days for the fast fliers .

Yes, I knew of some enlisted types who flew helicopters who then were made WOs in the MC. Some went on to LDO but old man time caught up with most. These were colorful guys and always animated in every situation. CO's kinda/sorta put up with their antics but when the chips were down and they needed the very best to get an aircraft out of the swamp or off the beach before the next high tide, these were called upon. And yep, they could fly whatever was available to get them on a cross country if need be. They were picked for new aircraft development work at the manufacturers and at Pax and many were later hired by them when they got out as Field Service Reps but usually better for their leadership abilites (bigger $$ also).

So yes, the fighter pilots are the best. Wish I had been one. What they do routinely because of the first class training they get is indescribable. One key trait they all had and were tested for prior to selection as a fighter pilot was the ability to "Stay ahead of the machine" in each and every scenerio they would be tasked with. I recall the JAG report on the Tomcat female who crashed into the back of a carrier (?) at night which turned up the fact she wasn't all that good of a stick actuator and had not scored all that well on some of the advanced tests. She actually would have been passed over as a fighter pilot had she been a male. I don't need to tell you why she made the cut but will say her death caused the Navy to never again trade political favors for lowered standards for ANYONE again.

I've sat many a night watching F-14 and F-18 launches and recoveries and ya gotta hand it to those guys and gals, they are the best and I envy each one even though I was a helo guy.

Nuff said ! I'm begining to geezer-out!

js0987

18th Aug 2009, 14:00

Dan,

A couple of points. Marines had enlisted pilots in WW2 and Korea, but the last two retired in the early 70's. They were Master Gunnery Sergeants flying T39's out of Cherry Point.

Unlike the Army, Warrant Officer pilots in the Marine Corps are (or were - its been a while) rare as hens teeth.

The only actual testing that was done to determine whether you qualified for flight school.

I have to chuckle about wanting those who could "stay ahead of the machine." A couple of the jet jocks that transfered to New River, not wanting to wait of the RAG, came with the attitude that they had 400 knot minds and helicopter pilots had 40 knot minds. (Well doctrinated Air Force trained pilots) After a couple of embarrassing incidents, they quickly learned.

Also remember a funny story from a Captain who had flown Hueys in Viet Nam and went through the jet transition course at NAS Meridian. His instructor pilot asked him one day if he would like to do some low level flying. The instructor took him down to several hundred feet above the trees and asked what he thought. The Captain replied that he would like to try it and the instructor gave him the controls. Low level - you want to see low level. Next thing the instructor sees is his T2 at the tree tops. Careful for what you ask for.

With um..lifting's post I am heartened that the view of helicopters versus jets has changed. Perhaps I saw the genesis of that change back in 74. I was sent to PAX River along with other Navy and Marine pilots that had shipboard experience. The Navy Captain that chaired the meeting, started off by saying that, for the first time, he actually had money in his budget to work on operational problems facing ships and helicopters and he wanted ideas. For 30 years, he said, the call over the 1MC had been "flight operations secure - land the helicopter."

Dan Reno

18th Aug 2009, 14:34

js0987 Thanks for your comments.

A friend just back from VN sent this link. Perhaps some of you can remember the LZs and bases shown you may have flown out of.

htttp://www.usmcpress.com/heritage/currentvietnam/current50.htm (http://www.usmcpress.com/heritage/currentvietnam/current50.htm)

Dan Reno

18th Aug 2009, 20:24

Marines Struggle On High-Profile Programs

Aug 18, 2009

By Bettina H. Chavanne

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/images/defense_images/OriginalContext/CH53K-Sikorsky.jpg A virtual gag order is in place by order of the U.S. Marine Corps deputy commandant of aviation, Lt. Gen. George Trautman, on two of the service’s biggest programs: the new CH-53K heavy-lift helicopter and the V-22 Osprey.
The Marines have clamped down on news about the CH-53K program since June, when cost overruns were announced by the program manager, Capt. Rick Muldoon, and confirmed by Trautman. The irony is that the construction of the heavy lifter is reportedly going well. Sikorsky recently announced the arrival of the first set of 8,500 supplier parts that will go into building the three-engine aircraft. And General Electric initiated the first bench tests of the GE38 turboshaft engine in July. Five ground-test engines will be used for more than 5,000 hr. of testing. Another 20 flight-test engines will be used on the CH-53K developmental aircraft. Seven prototype aircraft will be delivered during system design and development—four for engine development vehicles. The remaining three will serve as a dedicated ground-test vehicle, a static test article and a fatigue test platform.
The CH-53K will be the newest, beefiest and first fly-by-wire helicopter in the Marines’ arsenal when it flies in 2011. The concern is how far the cost overruns will push the first flight date and squadron fielding date, scheduled for 2015. And the Marines may not know themselves.
Sources tell Aviation Week that Trautman has ordered Muldoon to hold off on any further schedule or budget updates until the budget is complete on Capitol Hill. Trautman could not be reached for comment.
The pressure to ensure the program goes well increases as demand for the heavy lifting—and high-altitude—talents of the CH-53K increase in Afghanistan. Potential international buyers are tracking the program’s progress as well. France and Germany have expressed interest in the CH-53K for their heavy-lift requirements, and Muldoon says he expects inquiries from Turkey, Singapore, Taiwan and Israel (AW&ST June 22, p. 54).
The V-22 Osprey has faced its share of problems over the years, but after three deployments in Iraq and a squadron fielded on the USS Bataan, the Marines seemed to have conquered most doubts. At least until a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report detailing the aircraft’s shortcomings in reliability and maintainability came out in June, followed closely by a hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in which Chairman Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) declared, “It’s time to put the Osprey out of its misery.” What happened? Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee and a former U.S. Navy officer, claims a lack of transparency on the part of the Marines has angered lawmakers. Detailed after-action reports were made available after the aircraft’s first deployment, but information on the subsequent deployments has been far more difficult to elicit from the service. “The Marines should have come forward with the data and we’d have had fewer problems,” says Sestak (AW&ST July 6, p. 21). A review of the V-22 program was conducted in late July by officials in the Pentagon’s acquisition directorate, but any issues that may have arisen from that conversation have not been made public either.
Reliability and maintainability issues on the V-22 are getting some attention, however. On July 15, Naval Air Systems Command (Navair) in Patuxent River, Md., awarded the Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office a $24.5-million time-and-material contract for delivery of “safety correction actions, reliability and maintainability improvements and quick reaction capability improvements.” A $6-million contract also went to Northrop Grumman for configuration upgrades to the V-22’s infrared countermeasures.
This may do little to appease Towns, however, who has said he will go to the House Appropriations Committee with his own assessment of the program. In an atmosphere of increased belt tightening and a Defense Secretary who has little patience with what he sees as bloated or unnecessary programs, the Marines would do well to throw some light not only on what is happening with CH-53K and V-22, but what they’re going to do about it.
Image: Sikorsky

riff_raff

22nd Aug 2009, 07:16

The Marines seem to love the V22, even with its shortcomings like high costs, high maintenance, low engine MTBR, limited payload capacity, and lack of an ECS and pressurized fuselage. These shortcomings are apparently outweighed by the speed and range that the V22 gives them versus a CH-47.

Frankly, most of the V22's problems were the result of design requirement changes piled on Bell-Boeing by the program office. Similar problems are also bogging down the F-35 program.

The next generation rotorcraft currently being studied by the DoD (ie. JHL/JFTL) may suffer from the same issues, and have the same problems, unless the program management (ie. the AFRL and AATD) learn from the V22's mistakes. An aircraft that tries to do everything well ends up doing nothing well. JHL started out as a 20 ton VTOL aircraft, and is now a 35 or 40 ton STOVL requirement. This means that tilt-rotors are now competing against heavy-lift fixed wing aircraft like the the C-17B.

Regardless, a pure VTOL, 300 knot, JFTL aircraft, that can operate at 40 KFT, with a 1500 mile range, combined with sea-basing, would completely revolutionize the way our Marines operate. An operational JFTL aircraft would mean that the US could close down most of our overseas bases.

A TD of JFTL could be built and flown for less than $500M, which is a fraction of the money Obama gave Bear-Stearns, AIG or GM. If only Congress showed some guts......

SASless

22nd Aug 2009, 10:26

Did not the Allies try to supply an invasion force across the beach at Normandy one time instead of relying on Port facilities?

Nice thought but we will always need land based logistics bases....even the Navy uses sea ports.

Obama and Congress show some cojones.....now there's a pipe dream sure 'nuff!:rolleyes::ugh::=:{

Dan Reno

24th Aug 2009, 00:47

Helo shortage thorny issue surrounding QDR

By John T. Bennett - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Aug 22, 2009 11:43:42 EDT

An Army helicopter shortage and the positioning of expeditionary forces are two issues Pentagon officials are hotly debating as part of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, according to sources and documents.
Defense Department officials have entered the second phase of the quadrennial study: merging findings of the study’s analytic products with the services’ 2011 spending plans. Most of that work will be completed by Dec. 9, when Pentagon brass want to finalize a draft of the strategic study, according to a Pentagon planning document obtained by Military Times.
Among the myriad issues being examined as part of the QDR is the “balance of forward-stationed and expeditionary forces,” according to the Pentagon document, dated July 10. That effort is primarily examining the kinds of naval and air forces the military will need over next 20 years — and where they will need to be positioned around the globe.
Pentagon officials and defense observers said the naval- and air-focused expeditionary study is unlikely to spawn new overseas bases for U.S. ground forces.
Mackenzie Eaglen of the Heritage Foundation said that if the Obama administration is serious about training allied forces and “building partnership capacity” across the globe, the military “will need presence to do those things — and the Navy and Air Force are less infrastructure-dependent than having ground forces in these places.”
Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute said Donald Rumsfeld, defense secretary for six years under President George W. Bush, “proposed to drastically scale back the overseas stationing of U.S. forces, saying that the Cold War conditions requiring such presence had disappeared.
“The Obama administration clearly thinks Rumsfeld overdid it, and wants to keep more troops in places like Europe,” Thompson said. “That could be costly, though, so the outlook is for the Air Force and Navy to take the lead in providing forward presence.”
The expeditionary examination portion of the QDR is part of a broader effort to align future threats with equipment and basing needs. Pentagon officials have made clear the quadrennial review will usher in a force-planning construct that no longer is based on fighting two major wars simultaneously.
In June, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright said at a Washington forum that the QDR will examine what future threats the U.S. military will face and how that will affect how American forces and gear are based, pre-positioned and deployed.
Some defense analysts have predicted Pentagon brass will use the quadrennial study to gird U.S. naval and air forces for major combat operations, leaving irregular fights to the Army and Marine Corps. That would mean more money for certain Navy and Air Force weapons programs and for Army and Marine personnel, operations, and maintenance, they say.
HELO SHORTAGE

The QDR analysts are looking at “a shortage of rotary-wing capacity,” according to “Guidance for Development of the Force,” a Pentagon document issued in April that helped shape the quadrennial study.
Defense officials have alluded to such a shortfall in recent weeks but have stopped short of disclosing options under consideration to address it.
For instance, David Ochmanek, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for force transformation and resources, told reporters July 28 that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is “very aware of persistent shortfalls that have existed in the ability to support forces in disbursed operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
He then ticked off a list: “rotary-wing, lift, civil affairs, persistent ISR, and the exploitation and dissemination that goes with that, [and] intratheater lift.”
Ochmanek said getting those things to Iraq and Afghanistan will likely mean more than simply buying new ones and rushing them to war.
“Some of these things aren’t about technology so much as better management of the force, or a rebalancing of the force so that the things we can access readily are readily accessible,” he said. “Whether we move things from the reserve component into the active, or change the rules and procedures under which we access things in the reserve component.”
The former appears to be a leading option the Army is leaning toward to fill its part of the military’s active component helicopter shortfall.
The Pentagon planning document says within the Army, the rotary-wing QDR debate “is focused on converting a reserve component aviation brigade to the active component.”
The Army’s strategy, plans and policy directorate has directed the service’s aviation director to study “all options to generate greater capacity,” the document said.
Thompson said the rotary-wing deficit “seems to be concentrated in heavy lift, such as the Sikorsky CH-53s,” flown by the Marines. Other aviation analysts added the Army’s CH-47 to that list.
Moving military gear and personnel by air is more important in an austere environment like Afghanistan.
Thompson said the military cannot simply devote more fixed-wing cargo planes to that region because Afghanistan lacks an ample number of suitable landing strips.
“So in some places like mountain outposts, troops and supplies need to be moved mainly be helicopters,” Thompson said. “The combination of speed and vertical agility afforded by helicopters is well-suited to the kind of operating environment Afghanistan presents. The V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, made by Boeing and Bell Helicopter for the Air Force and Marine Corps, could be ideal, given the fact that it has greater reach than conventional rotorcraft.”
Others say the military has plenty of rotary-wing aircraft. So how to explain the shortfall?
A Pentagon source said that one reason is the military has more chopper pilots than available helos.
“The availability rations for combat aircraft are much more acceptable,” the source said.
Eaglen said another reason is that only one of every six military choppers are deployed; Pentagon planners prefer a 1:3 ratio, but many of the U.S.-based helicopters are assigned to reserve units, which deploy less often.
For that reason, she said it is likely DoD will continue seeking to convert reserve aviation brigades to the active force, as the planning document suggests.
Action is needed, and soon. That’s because, as Gates signaled with his 2010 Pentagon budget request, in which he added funds to helicopter-related coffers, Eaglen said: “The Pentagon has made it clear that it sees no end in sight for the heavy-lift requirement.”

Dan Reno

24th Aug 2009, 00:50

Osprey deployment a learning experience

By Philip Ewing ([email protected]?subject=Question from NavyTimes.com reader) - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Aug 22, 2009 10:22:43 EDT

ABOARD THE AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SHIP BATAAN IN THE PERSIAN GULF — The crew of this gator and its Marine air wing have become the Navy’s premier experts at operating the MV-22 Osprey aboard ships, mostly by making it up as they go along.
“It’s always something new, different and unexpected,” said Cmdr. Dan Olson, the ship’s air boss. “We are constantly trying to figure out stuff we don’t have published guidance for, and we’re always writing notes, e-mails off to spread what we know.”
When the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group and the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit sailed in May, they became the first ARG and MEU to deploy with Ospreys only — and none of the Corps’ old-standby CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and his entourage climbed aboard one of Bataan’s 10 Ospreys on Aug. 7 in Kuwait to experience the rocket-ship liftoff and silky fixed-wing flight out to the underway Bataan.
Olson said the ships in the ARG have become good at working the Ospreys into air operations, but unexpected things still crop up.
“It can slow down operations, it’s cumbersome, it takes up more space on the flight deck than other aircraft,” he said.
Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 and the crew of the Bataan have added more safety observers to keep an eye on the Ospreys and the flight deck crew members who work under the cyclonic downwash from their massive rotors.
Managing Ospreys on Bataan is just one part of the challenge. The tiltrotors also must take off and land from the other ships in the ARG, both of which have much smaller flight decks than Bataan. Capt. Sara Faibisoff, an Osprey pilot with VMM-263, said the small-deck gators could accommodate two Ospreys comfortably.
“It’s not that bad at all,” she said. “You make a slow approach, put it down and there’s plenty of space.”
The main difference with landing on small-deck gators is the damage its engine exhaust does to flight decks. An Osprey’s twin nacelles blast heat downward when a V-22 is in helicopter mode. Crew members aboard the small-deck amphibs have taken to setting up metal pads, known as “hot plates,” underneath the nacelles while an Osprey’s engines are running on the flight deck.
“We touch down, they run them in, and then they take them away before we launch,” Faibisoff said.
The Osprey had many skeptics aboard this ship and in Iraq’s western Anbar province, where it deployed last year, because of the controversy surrounding the aircraft’s quarter-century of development, its high cost, and crashes that killed more than two dozen Marines.
“When we were first flying up there, people didn’t want to fly in them — they were scared,” Faibisoff said. “It takes getting used to.”

chuckolamofola

24th Aug 2009, 18:07

Watching this discussion is like listening to discussion about Health Care Reform...

If the V22 is so bad then why aren't we hearing the same diatribe from the Air Force? Or they just considered toys and therefore not to be taken serious? Seems the Air Force must be happy as we don't hear anyone complaining for them.

Chuck

SASless

24th Aug 2009, 19:55

Perhaps the Air Force mission suits the special abilities of the Osprey....and the Air Force has a slightly better approach to things aviation perhaps.

widgeon

24th Aug 2009, 21:14

Maybe you have something maybe the AF want something with FW performance that can take off and land like a Helicopter.( A)
The Marine Corps want something with Helicopter Performance that can fly like a fixed wing.(B)

Perhaps the V22 does A better than B.

Ian Corrigible

24th Aug 2009, 22:12

Keep in mind that given it's mission the AFSOC is going to be far less likely to comment on its equipment in public (whether good or bad). The Command will have also logged substantially less hours than the Corps and is likely to be less far along the experience curve (again wrt both pros & cons).

I/C

chuckolamofola

26th Aug 2009, 01:51

AFSOC is going to be far less likely to comment on its equipment in public

I don't think its that simple. If they are performing that badly and they were unhappy then the media would hype it up even more. Remember the F111's issues and C130 corroding spars? These are swoop and scoop operations and the same type of missions that all the naysayers currently point out about the USMC version. I would imagine that they are cheaper and lighter than the USMC version due to the fact they don't need wing fold and some of the other naval only req's. AFAIK, they don't have a gun and are subject to VRS same as the USMC and yet no shrill speeches being made either... Why isn't everyone that wants to kill the V22 not shouting the same for the USAF version? If its such a waste of taxpayers money why continue it too???

Ian Corrigible

26th Aug 2009, 02:13

If they are performing that badly and they were unhappy then the media would hype it up even more
You've missed the point. It's mission makes AFSOC a much tighter-lipped outfit than the 'regular' forces, and thus less likely to engage in debate on their equipment, period.

I would imagine that they are cheaper and lighter than the USMC version
It's actually the other way round: the CV-22's mission equipment makes it a much more expensive platform. I don't have the current figures to hand, but IIRC the difference is IRO $30M.

I/C

Ned-Air2Air

26th Aug 2009, 02:33

According to those at the 71st SOS who I flew with its basically the same airframe plus a few little bits added as per I/C's post.

Ned

3top

26th Aug 2009, 17:07

How much weight could be "saved" if one does not need all the folding/twisting/turning parafernalia of the bird?

Let's say as a land based SAR aircraft you do not need armor, guns and folding wings .....

3top:cool:

Dan Reno

8th Sep 2009, 21:50

Marines Are Satisfied With MV-22 (http://www.pprune.org/posts)
Aviation Week ^ (http://www.pprune.org/^http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/MV22-090809.xml&headline=Marines%20Are%20Satisfied%20With%20MV-22&channel=defense)| Sep 8, 2009 | Bettina H. Chavanne

Posted on Tuesday, September 08, 2009 5:05:43 PM by Yo-Yo (http://www.pprune.org/~yoyo/)

The U.S. Marine Corps is acting as the lead service on the Bell-Boeing MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor, with three deployments to Iraq under its belt and a squadron flying from the deck of the USS Bataan amphibious assault ship. Meanwhile, the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command (Afsoc) is growing its own fleet of CV-22s, steadily building hours and mission profiles.
The Marines have recently suffered critiques from Washington for cost and performance issues, most notably in a May Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that cited the aircraft’s “unresolved operational effectiveness and suitability issues.” But the service takes exception to several deficiencies in the report. “We worked with the GAO for months, showed them everything, and yet we still think that their report misses the mark,” says Lt. Gen. George Trautman, deputy commandant for Marine Corps aviation.
The report covers ground trodden by the program for more than two decades, listing problems Trautman says the service is addressing or has dealt with already. Support for the platform has not ebbed among certain lawmakers despite a June declaration from Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, that the aircraft should be “put out of its misery.” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, traveled to Camp Lejeune, N.C., in August to seek what he called the “ground truth” behind claims made against the MV-22. “I’ve found that if you want to know the truth and understand the facts, it’s imperative that you get out into the field and speak one-on-one with those operating these systems,” says Murtha. “The Marines are very satisfied with the MV-22’s operations.”
The Afsoc fleet has not been subjected to similar scrutiny. While the Marines struggle to raise mission capability rates on the MV-22 from 62% in Iraq, Afsoc officials reported a 74.2% rate from an overseas deployment last year. Afsoc’s numbers are based on 93 sorties over 314 flight hours during the multinational Flintlock exercise in Africa last year. For this mission the entire logistics capability was focused almost solely on executing operational sorties there. The MV-22s have flown 55,000 hr. in three deployments in Iraq. Reliability and maintainability “are not meeting my full expectations yet,” says Trautman. Murtha notes as well that during his conversations with Marines about the MV-22, “the only concern they raised was the availability of spare parts, which is not uncommon for new systems.”
There have also been problems, for example, with the MV-22’s pitch-control bearings, which were designed to last for the life of the system but have begun to wear out, according to Col. Matt Mulhern, former MV-22 program manager. Also, difficulties in the operation of the engine air-particle separator (EAPS) are driving officials to look for an electric system to replace the hydraulic one. A direct correlation has been found between problems with the EAPS and engine wear and tear. In the short term, vanes fitted into the inlet are expected to better control the flow of air into the EAPS.
Program officials are also working on a fix for 85 wiring bundles in the engine nacelles. Dirt mixed with moisture was found to be chafing the wires’ coating and eventually the wires themselves.
Another issue is the soaring cost per flight hour of the MV-22s. The prediction for Fiscal 2009 was $5,362 per flying hour, yet the actual cost is 119% higher, $11,748, according to a May 18 memorandum for the House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee. One factor driving the spike is the cost to repair the aircraft—without a depot facility, the service is forced to buy new parts. Mulhern has said the cost per flying hour is expected to go down by 20% within the coming year.
Afsoc has gained some hands-on experience training and operating with the CV-22’s specialized systems, including the Suite of Integrated Radio Frequency Countermeasures (Sirfc) that deployed with the aircraft during Flintlock. This complex defensive system was for a long time a watch item for the program because of development challenges. However, Maj. Dale Linafelter, Afsoc’s CV-22 requirements officer, says the system has operated well and officials have used it in various electronic warfare tests and for training in the U.S.
“Sirfc has been a success,” he says. “Because of its complexity, it was a challenge not only for the designers and engineers, but for the air crews.”
For the Flintlock deployment, the CV-22 also included the M240 ramp-mounted gun. Afsoc is training its crews to use a 50-cal. ramp-mounted gun on the CV‑22 as well, both for its superior range and its coverage of the backside of the aircraft.
A belly-mounted defensive weapon being designed by BAE Systems is still in testing and is “something we hope to get our hands on this year,” says Linafelter. It is desirable for 360-deg. defensive coverage, he adds.
While Afsoc is continuing to train crews for the young CV-22 fleet, the pacing item for the program is actually aircraft deliveries, Linafelter says. Five aircraft are expected in Fiscal 2010 and in 2011, and eight in Fiscal 2012. “They are producing crews fast enough that an accelerated delivery schedule . . . is what we are looking for,” he says.
The Marines have been able to celebrate several MV-22 successes; the most notable may be the aircraft’s first ship-to-shore medical evacuation mission. On June 29, the service announced it had used two MV-22B Ospreys to rescue a sailor who had sustained head, hip and chest injuries after falling. As the aircraft were returning to the USS Bataan June 25 after a routine mission, the pilots were notified of the emergency situation. The aircraft landed on the ship, loaded up the patient and medical personnel and traveled 147 naut. mi. in 37 min. to a regional airport, where an ambulance transferred the sailor to a hospital for treatment.
While the Ospreys were deployed and touted for their abilities to move Marines safely and quickly into combat zones, rescue missions figure strongly in the aircraft’s development heritage. The Ospreys were designed with combat, search-and-rescue (CSAR) missions in mind, and the tiltrotor was considered a frontrunner early on in the Air Force’s now-canceled CSAR-X replacement fleet competition.
The tiltrotor was ultimately ruled out because it was deemed too expensive. But now that the Pentagon has ordered a review of the whole CSAR mission, the V-22 may just find itself back in the running.
The maintenance piece is also garnering some attention. On July 15, Naval Air Systems Command of Patuxent River, Md., awarded the Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office a $24.5-million time-and-materiel contract for delivery of “safety correction actions, reliability and maintainability improvements and quick reaction capability improvements.” A $6-million contract also went to Northrop Grumman for configuration upgrades to the MV-22’s infrared countermeasures.
A new Maintenance Training Facility at New River, N.C., has been established to help the Marines learn how to tackle maintenance issues. The plant is a 40,000-sq.-ft. classroom, complete with a 26,900-sq.-ft. bay that can accommodate up to four MV-22s. The facility includes a sophisticated simulation environment that lets future Osprey technicians puzzle out real-world problems at their own pace.
Just down the road, at the Fleet Readiness Center East (FRC-East) in Cherry Point, the Marines now perform their real depot work. They schedule depot maintenance based on the calendar versus flight hours. Col. David Smith, FRC-East commanding officer, says MV-22s will begin to arrive at the facility after they’ve been operational for 60 months. He estimates the center will handle nine of the tiltrotor aircraft in the next couple of years, which should take approximately 3,500 man-hours over 90 days. All eyes are on the Osprey’s impending deployment to Afghanistan. Demand for a flexible platform that can perform at high altitudes in hot temperatures is on the increase—and most helicopters cannot meet the requirements. The Marines have little doubt, though, that their tiltrotor is up to the task. “Afghanistan , especially with the dispersed nature of the forces in the south, is tailor-made for the Osprey,” says Trautman. “We see the Osprey contributing in a manner that no other aircraft can.”

FH1100 Pilot

10th Sep 2009, 13:20

Oh maaaan, the V-22 bull just keeps on coming! Proponents will say anything to justify the aircraft, spinning every little detail in the most positive light, even if it makes no sense at all. Do they think we're stupid? Wait- I'll answer that: Yes, they must think we are.
A belly-mounted defensive weapon being designed by BAE Systems is still in testing and is “something we hope to get our hands on this year,” says Linafelter. It is desirable for 360-deg. defensive coverage, he adds.
...But only until the V-22 comes to a hover, because the gun must be retracted before the ship can land. Good plan!
While Afsoc is continuing to train crews for the young CV-22 fleet...
The first six prototype V-22s flew in 1989. Manufacturing of the V-22 began in 1999. Operational evaluations continued through 2005, and it's been in service ever since. When does an aircraft stop being referred to as "young?" Or, more correctly, when do we stop using "young" as an excuse for this aircraft?
The Marines have been able to celebrate several MV-22 successes; the most notable may be the aircraft’s first ship-to-shore medical evacuation mission. On June 29, the service announced it had used two MV-22B Ospreys to rescue a sailor who had sustained head, hip and chest injuries after falling. As the aircraft were returning to the USS Bataan June 25 after a routine mission, the pilots were notified of the emergency situation. The aircraft landed on the ship, loaded up the patient and medical personnel and traveled 147 naut. mi. in 37 min. to a regional airport, where an ambulance transferred the sailor to a hospital for treatment.
Ah yes, the famous ship-to-shore V-22 medevac from the Bataan to...wait...to an airport? Ohhhh, that's right, the mighty Osprey can't land at hospitals because the rotorwash would send Toyota Priuses in nearby parking lots scattering like toys.

What they're cleverly not including is how much time it took for the injured sailor to get from the regional airport to the hospital. Let's say it was 20 minutes from the time the Osprey touched down until arrival at the E.R. Say one-hour total time. Why, that's only an average block speed of 147 knots! And this...is...umm, how much better than a helicopter?

Yes, but you're missing the point, Bob. The POINT is that the Osprey accomplished a medevac! It did it! Nobody knew that this AIRCRAFT could take somebody on a stretcher from here to there, and it did! What does it matter that the total time en route for the injured person wasn't any quicker than if they'd used a helicopter? Why do you have to be so cynical and negative all the time? Are you a moron? The amazing Osprey did a medevac!!!

Perhaps I am a moron. Or maybe just immune to the effects of the Osprey Kool-Aid everyone else seems to be drinking and feeling.

And finally...
While the Ospreys were deployed and touted for their abilities to move Marines safely and quickly into combat zones, rescue missions figure strongly in the aircraft’s development heritage. The Ospreys were designed with combat, search-and-rescue (CSAR) missions in mind, and the tiltrotor was considered a frontrunner early on in the Air Force’s now-canceled CSAR-X replacement fleet competition.
The tiltrotor was ultimately ruled out because it was deemed too expensive. But now that the Pentagon has ordered a review of the whole CSAR mission, the V-22 may just find itself back in the running.
CSAR. Heh. That's a laugh. Has ANYBODY seen a photograph of a V-22 hoisting ANYTHING? I have not. And I'd love to stand corrected on this. We keep hearing about how the V-22 is undergoing hoisting "trials" and stuff, but I have never seen ONE photograph of a person on a stretcher being hoisted into a V-22. Why is that?

Perhaps it's because in a conventional helicopter the hoist is right under the MR grips, and in the V-22 the hoist is right under the MR tips. What kind of airflow is there at the tips and how does it effect hoisting operations? Oh, I'd love to see that! Again, correct me if I'm wrong because CSAR is one area where the tiltrotor might actually do well. If it can do it at all.

The more I see of the V-22 in real-world operations, the more convinced I am that it does not do anything so much better than a conventional helicopter that it justifies the enormous burden on U.S. taxpayers.

SASless

10th Sep 2009, 13:39

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

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

Ned-Air2Air

10th Sep 2009, 13:49

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

Ned

SASless

10th Sep 2009, 15:16

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

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

http://www.targetlock.org.uk/osprey/vmm-263-iraq-2.jpg

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

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

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

FH1100 Pilot

10th Sep 2009, 18:04

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

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

But still...

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

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

Dan Reno

11th Sep 2009, 00:32

'We're pinned down'
4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush
By Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Newspapers
GANJGAL, Afghanistan — We walked into a trap, a killing zone of relentless gunfire and rocket barrages from Afghan insurgents hidden in the mountainsides and in a fortress-like village where women and children were replenishing their ammunition.
"We will do to you what we did to the Russians," the insurgent's leader boasted over the radio, referring to the failure of Soviet troops to capture Ganjgal during the 1979-89 Soviet occupation.
Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away.
U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village.
"We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We've lost today," Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter's repeated demands for helicopters.
Four U.S. Marines were killed Tuesday, the most U.S. service members assigned as trainers to the Afghan National Army to be lost in a single incident since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. Eight Afghan troops and police and the Marine commander's Afghan interpreter also died in the ambush and the subsequent battle that raged from dawn until 2 p.m. around this remote hamlet in eastern Kunar province, close to the Pakistan border
Read more: 'We're pinned down:' 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush | McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/75036.html)

"We're Pinned Down"

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

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

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

zhishengji751

11th Sep 2009, 06:19

Ospreys might have saved these 4 Marines.

That's a stretch.

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

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

The rules of engagement need revision.

SASless

13th Sep 2009, 04:51

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

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

Dan Reno

13th Sep 2009, 11:54

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

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

Lt.Fubar

16th Sep 2009, 10:06

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

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

Senior Pilot

16th Sep 2009, 13:17

Off topic now but..

Yes.

Maybe time to get back to the V22 Osprey? :hmm:

Dan Reno

21st Sep 2009, 01:20

Tilt-rotor helicopter still looking for mission

By Andrew Tilghman ([email protected]?subject=Question from NavyTimes.com reader) - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Sep 20, 2009 9:09:37 EDT

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

stepwilk

21st Sep 2009, 01:24

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

Lt.Fubar

21st Sep 2009, 06:32

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

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

SASless

21st Sep 2009, 12:19

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

FH1100 Pilot

21st Sep 2009, 12:49

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

Jeez Louise. Not. Gonna. Happen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan Reno

1st Oct 2009, 01:47

Low-flying military aircraft leave street in disarray

By Paul Glasser
about 3 hours ago

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

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

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

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

Dan Reno

2nd Oct 2009, 19:57

Study: Air Force CSAR should grow, not shrink

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

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

riff_raff

7th Oct 2009, 06:30

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

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

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

birrddog

7th Oct 2009, 13:57

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

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

Ian Corrigible

7th Oct 2009, 14:14

These are 1000 hour MTBR engines that likely cost over 1.5 million dollars each.
$1.9M a pop according to the latest contract award (http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=3698) ($128M for 66 donks).

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

I/C

FH1100 Pilot

7th Oct 2009, 17:09

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

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

Oh dear. Birddog, would you undo the 50 years of development Bell has put into this design? How complicated do you want to make it? You think the engineers at Bell just casually said, "Hey, let's put the engines out under the proprotors, whaddya say?" and then did it without trying anything else? In fact, the original XV-3 had a big, honkin' radial engine in the fuselage, with a gearbox here and a couple of shafts that ran out to a couple of more gearboxes there... It was a gearbox nightmare!

Good God, there have been so many different designs for tilt-rotor/tilt-thrust/tilt-wing aircraft over the years. NONE of them proved satisfactory. The only one that has come close is the one that Bell has doggedly been pursuing.

In our dreams, it's a great aircraft. Best of both worlds! Blah blah blah. Only...it's not...because practical realities interfere with theoretical fantasies. For instance, the V-22 still cannot manuever abruptly in the helicopter mode. Ouch. Once you convert the proprotors back to vertical, you're very limited in what you can do. It ain't no Loach! In fact, it ain't no CH-53 either.

Speaking of which, did you guys ever see the re-enactment of the rescue of that downed F-16, Scott O'Grady in Bosnia back in 1995? Did you see the way those CH-53 pilots were honking that big monster around? Heh. Try to do *THAT* with a V-22. NOT!

Oh, but the V-22 would never need to do that! It can zoom in and zoom out much faster than a helicopter! It can be in and gone before the opposing ground forces even know it was there!

Uh-huh. Sure.

Yeah, and it can do that because the V-22 is sooooo much quieter than a helicopter! NOT! Hey, I live in Pensacola. We see V-22's flying around all the time. You can hear them babies coming from MILES away. And by "miles" I mean "minutes." Very distinctive sound, too.

Every time I see a V-22 hover it always seems so unstable in roll...so twitchy. And then I think of those early model 24 Learjets. Remember all the trouble they had because of their short wings and the weight of all that fuel out in the tiptanks? It was something pilots really had to be careful of. The polar moment could get you. The V-22 just boggles my feeble mind with all the weight of the engines and proprotors out on the ends of those short, stubby wings. And nevermind the hover! Get a good roll rate going in the high-speed-airplane mode and how would you stop it? Don't tell me it's got some super-powerful ailerons.

I know, I know...the magic of computers!

I'm still waiting for someone to point me to a picture/video of a V-22 doing a stretcher hoist job. I mean, you'd think by now...

grizzled

7th Oct 2009, 17:28

FH1100pilot . . . .

Re: " . . . there have been so many different designs for tilt-rotor/tilt-thrust/tilt-wing aircraft over the years. NONE of them proved satisfactory. The only one that has come close is the one that Bell has doggedly been pursuing.”

Maybe you’re too young to have been around for this – we even brought it to Florida so you guys could try it: ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CL-84 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CL-84)

FH1100 Pilot

7th Oct 2009, 19:25

grizzled, I assure you that at age 54, and having studied rotorcraft all my life, I'm well aware of the CL-84.

While the design of the -84 is neat...how is it relevant? Four were built, two crashed, and two ended up in museums. The ship remains just a footnote, another one of many interesting designs that never caught on. Proponents blame this or that. I'm sure if the design had serious merit, Canadair could have interested a U.S. partner. That Howie Hughes fellow was always looking at unconventional solutions to stealing money from Bell.

Ultimately, the '84 would've had to grow to V-22-size proportions. Even in the prototype stage, it was already a 14,500 pound MAUW airframe powered by two 1500 hp engines (limited to 12,600 if you actually wanted to hover). With armor, self-sealing fuel tanks and all the other crap that the military requires, one can easily imagine...well...a V-22 with a tilting wing.

CL-84: Interesting design, yes. Viable? Not so much.

mckpave

7th Oct 2009, 21:02

FH1100 wrote: "For instance, the V-22 still cannot manuever abruptly in the helicopter mode. Ouch. Once you convert the proprotors back to vertical, you're very limited in what you can do."

Really?? And tell me just how do you know that oh wise and all-knowing one?

grizzled

7th Oct 2009, 22:35

FH1100

"How is it relevant?"

It's relevant because you said that no tilt-rotor/tilt-thrust/tilt-wing desgn had proved satisfactory. The design (and engineering) of the "84" was, by ALL accounts (including the US military), completely satisfactory. Most of the all-wise all-knowing (to borrow a phrase) decision makers of the time thought there was no need nor use for a "tilt-rotor/tilt-thrust/tilt-wing" aircraft. Perhaps others believed that US designers / engineers could do a better job.

Chill . . . :)

grizz

Dan Reno

8th Oct 2009, 00:03

http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt80/DanReno2/104.jpg

Newcomers to this thread should read back about 100 pages before coming up with 'new' thoughts/ideas. (Pretty please) and perhaps this statement may be of use also:

3. Lack of Combat Maneuvering Capability
The V-22 is flown by a flight control computer – not the pilot. The pilot merely asks the computer for a given change of flight path, and the computer obliges by applying the necessary aerodynamic inputs to generate the requested change. Under near-equilibrium flight conditions, i.e., straight and level flight, steady turns, climbs, and descents, etc., the pilot’s request and the computer’s response are nearly simultaneous and the delivered inputs are exactly those requested by the pilot. However, under non-steady state conditions such as during evasive maneuvering, entry into autorotation, or unusual flight conditions such as vortex ring state, the flight control computer will attempt to protect the aircraft from structural overloads and other dynamical limits such as the flapping of the rotors (rotor disk not perpendicular to spindle shaft) by not producing the commands requested by the pilot’s controls positions. This tends to significantly reduce the severity of any hard maneuver commanded by the pilot - the goal of evasive maneuvering.
The fact that the pilot has enough control authority to damage the aircraft during hard maneuvering is the reason why the flight manual places restrictions on how much flight control inputs can be used during evasive maneuvering. That a pilot actually has enough control authority to “break” the aircraft is unique to V-22. Concerns over this issue in V-22 have resulted in a significant decrease in the amount of control authority given to the pilot, making the aircraft less and less maneuverable. Key tests of combat evasive maneuvering scheduled in 2002 remain, to my knowledge, to be completed. Sending V-22 into real combat situations without the completion of these critical tests is, in my opinion, irresponsible.
Proponents argue that V-22 has been “combat proven” given its operational experience in Iraq. I cannot agree with this position as the mission in Iraq was largely one of “combat circulation”, a euphemism for the logistical support of carrying passengers and cargo from one base to next in bus-route fashion. Combat assault, the mission for which V-22 was designed, remains unproven under realistic conditions. A deployment to Afghanistan would certainly serve that purpose but the risks associated with such a mission and the lack of lift capability in the Afghanistan Theater would seem to preclude such a deployment. Indeed, despite the rhetoric heard over the past five years about how V-22 is the ideally suited aircraft for combat operations in Afghanistan, the aircraft has not been deployed into that Theater to date. One could speculate on the reasons for this. I believe the principal reason is that operators and decision makers fully understand the risks involved both operationally and politically. http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20090623104701.pdf

mckpave

9th Oct 2009, 02:05

Gosh Dan Reno, that's a great read, you did an excellent job of cutting and pasting, thanks for putting me in my place. :ok:

Please accept my sincerest apologies for not going back myself and reading all of the other cut and paste articles, it's obvious to me now that you guys know more about this scandal than anyone else. :D

I say let's see some more!

Dan Reno

9th Oct 2009, 10:51

Good Morning mckpave!

The purpose of my post was twofold, not to have to rehash old problems (over 2 decades old in some cases) and, report back on what the flight control system was designed to do, and not to do. Believe me, that one simple paragraph has settled some long, drawn out ‘discussions’ here in rather simple terms. I apologize for a ‘cut & paste’ but the Investigator’s input at the Hearings would have looked the same had I just copied it off the report. if you perceived the information I posted to have “put you in your place” please know, that was not the intent. Again, a lot of issues have been covered and settled here by prior posts and we just like to keep things moving forward by not stopping to rehash them over and over (and over) again.

No need to apologize for not reading all prior posts. You’re like most who come to just vent over the V-22’s terrible record as found during House Hearings and Investigations (and RUMOR) to be false. Actually, some of the best comments come from individuals such as yourself who have flown or maintained the A/C. Most here only know what the people we elected tell us, and what we read, and the rest is all RUMOR. Replacing RUMOR with facts is a lot of what tries to occur here. Like you, we’re kinda tired of hearing all the lies, false RUMORS and cover-ups.

I also agree with your statement; “Let’s see some more” . Yes! Lets! As long as it’s new, relevant and not any of the usual personal attacks by those experiencing a sort of symbiotic, V-22 relationship. Please enlighten us (if you can) Sir.

PS Here’s something you may be able to comment on(?); Are engine compressor stalls still occurring and/or are they still being considered as ‘just normal’? Thanks for any input!

21stCen

9th Oct 2009, 13:11

mckpave,
It must be interesting from your perspective to see "reports" and opinions repeatedly being shown on this thread that are presented as 'facts' that say it is not possible to do things in a V-22 that you and others do on a routine basis. It would be nice if those with first hand knowledge and experience like yourself were not ridiculed and chased away while trying to tell others what the a/c truly can and cannot do. Unfortunately I don't see that changing here any time soon...

Dan Reno

13th Oct 2009, 21:50

V-22 Ready for Action: Boeing

http://www.dodbuzz.com/wp-content/themes/dodbuzz/thumb.php?src=http://www.dodbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/osprey_afghan.jpg&w=300&h=200&zc=1&q=80
By Colin Clark Monday, September 14th, 2009 10:47 am
Posted in Air (http://www.dodbuzz.com/category/air-warfare/), Land (http://www.dodbuzz.com/category/land-warfare/), Naval (http://www.dodbuzz.com/category/naval-warfare/)
After calls for a V-22 production halt from a House committee (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/23/shut-down-osprey-production/) because of problems with parts and logistics, and with the Marines planning to deploy about a dozen planes to Afghanistan, Boeing and the Marines came under intense pressure to prove they could fly the aircraft and maintain it at reasonable cost.
Boeing says the aircraft are ready for Afghanistan and other deployments, and the logistics issues are under control, although readiness rates and parts management will not soar immediately as the maintenance and logistics changes the company has made will work their way through the program over the next few years.
“Obviously, we want to hit the availability requirements that the Navy and Air Force has for all its systems out there. We think we’ll reach those targets in a couple of years as the component changes work their way through the system, Gene Cunningham, Bell Boeing’s VP for the V-22 program, said in an exclusive interview with DoD Buzz before the start of the Air Force Association’s annual conference. “I believe we have taken a very aggressive posture on moving ahead on readiness improvements in a way that I don’t think any other program has done in the past.”
Bell Boeing has completely reworked its logistics planning based on data gathered during the V-22 deployment to Iraq, Cunningham said. Most of the logistics and maintenance snafus for the planes in Iraq were caused by the fact that the company based its planning on fixed wing and rotorcraft performance — and not on actual V-22 performance — since the V-22 had never deployed for combat before.
“We went out and projected what we thought would be the issues with the airplane. Some we got right, and some we got wrong,” he said in a bit of understatement. To fix things, the company poured through the Iraq deployment data to see what how long parts really last under the intense pressure of bad conditions and combat and has rebuilt its logistics model to take that into account.
He said they also “have identified low or no cost items that can improve reliability” to help keep costs down as the aircraft is deployed aboard both Marine ships and on the front lines of Afghanistan.
Also, Cunningham said that one crucial concern that recently resurfaced — the effects of downwash from the V-22s engines on troops as they deploy from the aircraft and as the plane lands on Marine ships — does not pose any new problems to using the aircraft.
“Obviously, some folks weren’t satisfied with the answers or would like to see different answers from us,” he said. “The downwash is what the downwash is. We believe the downwash concerns are addressable and can be mitigated. We are not convinced there is a downwash problem

Dan Reno

13th Oct 2009, 22:25

21stCentury

You are right to question these Congressional Investigations especially if mckpave is seeing opposite data and his aircraft are actually doing things contrary that the Flight manual says it can't! This would once and for all show all that the Osprey can do better than what's being reported in print and this news would go a long way in bettering the PR for this much malighned aircraft! Perhaps we are all a little guilty in bad-mouthing the V-22 but if you squadron folks have data that is different than what these investigators and "expert" witnesses are swearing to at the hearings, then there is Government Fraud going on and by being a good citizen and reporting it to the Committee on Oversight & Government Reform perhaps we can get some FACTS straightened out on the V-22! Please contact them at: Contact the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (http://oversight.house.gov/contact.asp)
'Rewards based on cost savings can be gotten should wanton fraud be uncovered by your information.'

21stCen

14th Oct 2009, 16:38

Hi Dan,
Thanks for the contact details for the "Government Fraud" website. You may have just made me a billionaire!!
:)

Dan Reno

14th Oct 2009, 16:43

21stCentury

I hope so and please remember to make a large donation to PPRuNe.

Thanks !

21stCen

14th Oct 2009, 17:33

Sorry Dan, paying PPRuNe might be considered as a 'conflict of interest.' But I did get your bank account details via the PM you sent, and will be sure to give you your 'share.'
:)

Dan Reno

14th Oct 2009, 17:54

21stCentury

Boy, you certainly pulled the wool over my eyes on that one Sir!

Kinda, sorta like the V-22 salesmen did with the Marines and Air Force.

Best.

Dan

21stCen

14th Oct 2009, 18:10

Dan,
From the perspective of those who actually fly and support the aircraft, nobody has 'pulled the wool over your eyes.' You have 'pulled the wool' over your own eyes and do not want to hear what the aircraft can or cannot do.

Don't feel bad, your 'government fraud' payments are in the mail...
:)

Dan Reno

14th Oct 2009, 20:39

21stCentury

Lots of people come here claiming "Their" aircraft can do this or that which is contrary to what the government investigators find when they gather the data and visit the Units. A Congressional Oversight Hearing is held and the data is brought forth and entered into record. Simple. Now comes others who say differant. Where were they when the Investigators were there gathering the data? It sounds like the folks living anf breathing with the V-22 don't like their pride and joy bad-mouthed but the Government has determined they didn't get what they paid for. It sounds like incompetent engineering to me and you should be happy that someone's looking out for your tax dollars and the ftroops forced to ride in the back. But, if these folks can produce data contray to what the Investigators gathered then there's a chance FRAUD has taken place. Do you get it now? Like I said before, if you have a bone to pick, tell the GAO and pick up a few bucks since you apparently believe your data is more factual. There's no one here to help you do that and like we've said in the past, it gets very boring having to listen to the same whining about this or that when you won't at least bring it to the proper authority. If all you want to do is vent your frustrations about the V-22 and have everyone agree with you then go to the military.com V-22 thread. There are plenty of lonely V-22 folks there wanting to flap their gums with you.

21stCen

15th Oct 2009, 11:14

Now Dan, relax and calm down -- you're getting a bit over emotional. Go back and read what I said. The first point I was making is that those with first hand experience with the aircraft do in fact know better what the aircraft can or cannot do than somebody with third hand opinions testifying in front of Congress or anywhere else. Secondly, I defend the right of anyone with that first hand information to come onto this forum and pass on that information to those of us that would like to hear it. I stand by those points.

Dan Reno

15th Oct 2009, 12:55

Then I guess we'll never know the truth if their unwilling to repute the data through official channels because it's only RUMOR at this point. The Government data or some mystery person's data.

SASless

16th Oct 2009, 01:08

I am anchored at Mile Hammock Bay on the Camp LeJeune Marine Base here in eastern North Carolina.....listening to the thump of things going bang....and the rattle of small arms and the occasional drum beat of .50 caliber MG's. All around the boat, the Recon guys are doing their swim ops and a CH-53D (remember the Osprey was to replace those) is practicing landings at a field site about a quarter a mile away. As I am typing this post....an Osprey is doing night landings a bit closer than the 53D did.

Observations....

The 53D is a classic!

The 22 is fast, quiet approaching, but noiser than the 53D at a hover.

The 22 is huge compared to the 53D.....function of the prop rotors being on the wings and the downwash (and all the stuff being blown into the air) is much more noticeable during the 22's hovering.

I just pray these aircraft go home early....as there will be no sleep with either of them operating right next door!

mckpave

16th Oct 2009, 01:30

Gosh Dan I just don't get it, I've finally come to realize that you guys are much more intelligent and insightful than all of us, and yet you still don't seem appreciative. Just the other day we heard a rumor that a Congressman, (or maybe it was Carlton Meyer), was coming to visit so I was helping move an aircraft into another hangar, (you know what I'm talking about, the ones that are broken and can't fly anymore so we're hiding them), and I was thinking, "Those guys are right, this is so wrong!"

Then, last night I was looking through my flight manual trying to find that "combat maneuvering restriction" and couldn't find it!! That's a cover-up and scandal if I've never seen one, THEY are actually hiding it from us!! Good on you boys, great detective work. :ok:

Like I said before, I bow down to you, FH1100 and SASless; your wisdom, experience, intelligence, and omnipotence are superior to all of us "in the program", there is absolutely no credibility to that. You win, I'm sorry for doubting you guys all these years. :ouch:

FH1100 Pilot

16th Oct 2009, 04:06

Periodically, we get new people coming into this forum who are staunch defenders of the V-22. This "mcpave" is just the latest in a long line. They claim to be vague and various things (e.g. pilots or people "associated" with the program) and they never fully identify themselves. However, they tell us we're dead-wrong about the V-22. And they insult and make fun of those of us who haven't drank the Osprey Kool-Aid, telling us that we don't know what we're talking about because we haven't flown the damn thing. Or we haven't been with the program for as long as they. They don't give us any details; they just say we're wrong, wrong, wrong.

Well.

It is true that most of us get our news from third-hand sources - government reports, testimony-under-oath and such. For the most part, we consider these sources to be good and reliable. If we are told by someone associated with the V-22 that the aircraft can or cannot do X, then we believe it. Sometimes it's hard to get through the sugar-coating though.

Let's take the infamous NATOPS. Go read an excerpt from them here:
http://www.g2mil.com/Natops%20Extracts.PDF

Yes, it's from Carlton Meyer's g2mil site, but the link takes you to what is apparently a direct copy of the V-22 NATOPS manual.

In mcpave's defense, perhaps the Air Force isn't bound by the NATOPS restrictions. But look what the Navy manual says!

4.13 MANEUVERING LIMITATIONS
Air combat maneuvering and aerobatics are prohibited
Abrupt multi-axis control inputs are prohibitedNOTE

During maneuvering at low airpspeed, accelerated stall can be acheived at moderate bank angles and/or load factor.

"Abrupt, multi-axis control inputs are prohibited." Geez-Louise! Is that still applicable? How does one come into a "hot" LZ and expect to *not* have to make abrupt, multi-axis control inputs if necessary? I don't get it. Do people really think that the V-22 will ALWAYS be landed in nice, big, quiet, undefended LZ's? In which war and on what planet has this ever happened?

You can read the whole thing if you open the .pdf file. It's very interesting, and sheds some light on the V-22's basic flight characteristics that can probably never be changed due to the twin proprotor design. I particularly liked this one:

12.4.23 STALL RECOVERY

WARNING

Rapid forward TCL (full throw in 1 second or less) may result in uncontrollable nose down pitch tumble departure exhibited during flight simulations.

Wow, don't be pushing forward on that stick too quickly, boys!

Okay, so this is what we're going by. If these NATOPS restrictions have been reduced, modified or rescinded, then let's hear about it! I'll certainly keep my big mouth shut if that's the case. But if they are still in place, then certain other people need to just shut up.

The V-22 is a HUGE mistake...a HUGE waste of money. That it can do certain things well is undeniable. But that does not justify the high cost in terms of hard money and soldiers' lives.

Dan Reno

16th Oct 2009, 13:21

Well said FH1100 Pilot. These days, whenever Carlton gets bad-mouthed by the Osprey Kool-Aid Kids you can bet he's hit close to home. It really is a shame to learn of so many closed minds these days.

SASless I'm told all the CH-53Ds went to K'Bay and have been feeding the mideast from there. The best way I've found to recognize a "D" from an "E" from afar is to see if the horizontal stabilizer is canted and/or has a support strut running to it from the pylon. BTW, if you like clams, I found the stream/canal accross from LZ Bluebird a great place though you may need to go up it 100 yards towards the inlet to a sandbar for the easy pickings w/o a rake!

mckpave

16th Oct 2009, 13:37

Hi FH1100, how is your morning going?? Thanks for the timely reply. First off, I'm not "new", a little research on your part would have proven that. Second, I've countered your claims on another board before so you're familiar with me. Lastly, it's spelled "mckpave", with a "k", I spelled your handle correctly so please give me the same courtesy......pretty please?

It's funny but once again the documentation you produce for your argument has absolutely no date on it, wonder how old it is? :confused: Is it quite possible that things change? Hhhmmm, especially in the aviation world? :confused: (Don't ya love those little smilies?) Hhhmm, even so, your interpretation of "air combat maneuvering" is not what you think it is.

But you know what? You're right FH1100, I really shouldn't argue with someone of your high caliber and experience, you definitely have a grasp of the demands of combat, I'd love to hear those war stories sometime. And I must apologize that while I'd love to provide the videos, documents, publications, performance charts, etc. that you ask for this is afterall a public message board and it's against my professional judgement, (psst, that means I'm being told to hide it from the critics :oh:) But, I wonder again, would it really matter? Would it really change your mind?? Probably not.

Hey I know, maybe when I'm down in your area again we can get together and I'll give ya all the gouge you want. Heck, how about we trade it for some FH1100 time?? If you think I'm worthy of course. ;)

Be safe, take care.

The dark, suspicious, and anonymous.....mckpave

FH1100 Pilot

16th Oct 2009, 14:44

Yes, mcpave, I well saw that you joined this site in 2001 and you had a whopping 14 posts to your credit. What a wonderful asset to PPRUNE you are!

But instead of being condescending, insulting, sarcastic and trivial, how's about next time you try adding some value to this forum? The NATOPS were published whenever they were, and nobody has come along from "your side" to gleefully announce that they've been modified/rescinded. And so as my young friends say, WTF?

Has more testing been done to expand the V-22's flight envelope?
Do they allow abrupt multi-axis control inputs now?
Is the V-22 *not* susceptible to accelerated stall at "moderate" bank angles and load factors anymore?
Have they figured out how to *not* get the brakes to damage the tires if the ship the V-22 is parked on rolls more than a measly FIVE DEGREES? (Wow, let's hope *that* never happens!)
Can the V-22 survive a single-engine failure in a high hover without crashing?
Have they solved the hydraulic problems?
Any sign of a personnel hoist for litter patients yet?
What are the TBO's on the engines now?Again I challenge you: Instead of just coming on here and saying, "YOU'RE WRONG!" how's about providing us with some hard evidence to the contrary? Personally (I can't speak for Dan or SAS on this point but...), I love being proven wrong. I love learning new things- especially if they contradict what I have previously convinced myself in my mind is "correct." My mind is open, believe it or not.

But if you think that I, or Dan, or SASless should jump onboard the V-22 train just because...because...*you* say so, well, you know what you can do.

My objections to the V-22 are not merely that it is prohibited from doing any kind of ACM or abrupt multi-axis control inputs. That's just part of it. When you look at the entire platform, anyone can see that it is flawed. Fatally flawed. Its capabilities fall far short of what was advertised. It failed to meet several key performance parameters. The cost per aircraft has ballooned to literally unbelievable levels.

Yes, it's "neat," "cool," and all those other adolescent adjectives. But the V-22's "somewhat faster than a helicopter" capability just comes at too high a cost. It is not what we need.

And in fact, evidently it's not what anybody *else* needs either. The Russians cancelled development of their tilt-rotor. And we have not been able to get even *one* other country (certainly not the Brits, not our "good friends" the Saudis and not even Israel!) to buy the thing. Why is that? Are we hoarding that secret technology for ourselves? Heh.

No. The simple fact is that no other country can afford such a platform. They know they'll go broke. As will we if we keep dumping money down into this black hole called the V-22 Osprey.

P.S. I was involved with the FH1100 program for a long time, and know the ship pretty intimately from the rivets outward. It certainly had its weaknesses, but I quite liked the clever design. I no longer fly it but have kept the SN for purely sentimental reasons. I'm not interested in hearing your unofficial "gouge." If you have valuable, pertinent information, then share it here so we all may learn from your vast knowledge.

21stCen

16th Oct 2009, 16:40

So to sum up the 'new news' for today:
(all those presenting 'direct' information are considered innocent until proven guilty on both sides)

In a comparison of the CH53D and MV-22 -- the MV-22 is faster and quieter on the approach to an LZ, but makes more noise and has much greater downwash in the hover and has a greater size profile.

In a comparison of Flight Manual restrictions -- the current USAF CV-22 does not have much in the way of limitations on 'abrubt maneuvering,' while the NATOPS Flight Manual did at least at one time have those restrictions in place.

There are still many interesting questions posed, but we understand that those in the military are often not at liberty to divulge that information, and those on the civilian side do not have direct access to much of that information.

The only thing I could add is that on 'interest from foreign governments,' there are supposedly four countries that are actively pursuing potential future purchases, but have not yet been approved by the US government to do so (that's only 'third hand RUMOR info' at this point, and as such should NOT be considered as 'direct information').

So all in all, some interesting information exhanges... Thanks!!!

Hopefully we can agree that there are people who support the technology, and there are people who do not. But let's agree also that both sides have rights to post their opinions without being attacked, and hopefully all will try to make their posts as 'fact based' as possible while still adding to the 'rumor side' without trying to declare 'rumor as fact' (after all this is a "Rumor Network Forum").

mckpave

16th Oct 2009, 17:10

Lot's of emotion in there FH1100 Pilot, sounds like you have some spunk!!

"Condescending, insulting, sarcastic and trivial"!!??? Wow, did I really do that?? :ouch: Hhhmm, guess all I can say is what goes around comes around. Yes I know my post count isn't nearly up to the astounding levels of others on this fine message board, guess that lowers my credibility even more in your eyes, I'll try to do better, promise. Guess I don't like posting if it's made up of conjecture, rumor, false information, or just plain stupidity.....whoops, there I go again being mean. :O

Now FH1100 you said in your last post that you like being proved wrong. Well, like I said, I spent considerable effort on another message board countering your claims some time ago and yet you wouldn't accept any of my contradictions even though I put a lot of effort in my responses. That hurt my feelings. :{ But more than that it proved to me that despite your assertions, you refuse to be proven wrong....come on, admit to that little fib, come on now.

The truth is that you guys simply won't listen to our counter-arguments. No matter what information we present to you it's not enough, you'll simply find some other angle or attack us personally. Been there, done that. That has happened more than a few times on this thread alone, not to mention other threads. It's become your standard operating procedure, you call us liars, crooks, cheaters, all of that unsavory stuff........don't try to deny it boys because there's plenty of evidence of it on here. :p

And by the way, yes I could give you responses to the points you made in your last post but once again......IT'S A PUBLIC MESSAGE BOARD. :ugh: Didn't they have OPSEC when you were in the military FH1100??

Well anyway, can't we all just get along? :sad:

FH1100 Pilot

16th Oct 2009, 21:40

Ohhhhhh, I see! Now it's classified, hush-hush stuff. Okay, I won't ask any more dumb questions about things that have been discussed, published, and testified to IN PUBLIC for years and years now. I'll just have to take your anonymous word there, mcpave.

Sorry I asked.

Oh yeah, it's not about credibility. My comment about your post count was merely to note that with 14 posts in 8 years (and those in only about three threads), you are not really a participant on this rumor board. You are in effect what we used to call a "lurker."

For the record, none of us claims to be a V-22 expert.

SASless

16th Oct 2009, 23:59

McRave.....hold on a second.....how did I get dragged into this latest diatribe?

All I have done is hoist sails, beers, and the odd slushy lime flavored Rum based drink and politely trapsed past some of our uniformed mafia going about their business of training to make this country safe from external tyranny.

In the past I have pointed out issues of concern about the Marine Version of the Osprey....and unlike FH-1100....hate to be proved wrong (unless I am just doing some plain old fashioned pprune fishing...). Please point out where I have erred if you will.....assuming you can.

Your personal opinon falls short of any credible source thus try to use some sort of public reference such as the rest of us do.

Where's the beef in asking questions about the Osprey particularly when there appears to be some validity to the issues extant?

Jolly Green

17th Oct 2009, 02:22

Don't worry SASless, Mckpave isn't getting personsal. It's like taking some tracers in the MH-53 PAVE LOW--you spray it all with 7.62 or .50 cal suppressive fire and go on about your business. In fact I flew with him years ago in the MH-53 (a HH-53 Super Jolly Green with lots of ballast, um, err, avionics and mission equipment) and know for a fact he isn't a poser or wannabe.

It must be irritating to actually fly the V-22 and have people constantly challenge your veracity based on reports that are outdated or erroneous. I happen to know that Mckpave has a thick skin and is just dealing with naysayerss the best he can. I also happen to know that he's honest and is far removed from whatever shennanigans the Marine Corps may be playing.

I note that he started hitting the message boards about the time he became retirement eligible -- just like I did a few years before him. If you don't want the truth on the CV-22, then just ignor his posts.

mckpave

17th Oct 2009, 02:29

(BANG!, SLAP!, CRASH!) :ouch: :{ Okay FH1100 I give up, your punches have me on the ropes. :uhoh: Geez, a "lurker", now that's really below the belt. But hey, I guess I'd rather be a "lurker" than a "poser". :ooh:

And just for the record, I never said the information was classified but OPSEC doesn't just apply to classified information, thought you'd know that 'ole buddy.

Well, I'll actually try to give you a bit of insight into your inquiries from before. I realize it won't be good enough for you but I'll give it a shot, here goes:

•Has more testing been done to expand the V-22's flight envelope?
-- You betcha and still continues to this day. Guess you'd like me to provide the actual test reports now right? :ugh:

•Do they allow abrupt multi-axis control inputs now?
-- Yes and no. Always could do it but have to be smooth and careful. The why has more to do with the fact that it's an FBW system with Flight Control Computers rather than any design deficiency. FCCs try to keep you in coordinated flight in all aircraft like that, they get a wee bit, shall we say, "freaky" if you start messing with that. Just ask Airbus.

•Is the V-22 *not* susceptible to accelerated stall at "moderate" bank angles and load factors anymore?
-- Just like any fixed wing aircraft, accelerated stalls can occur at varying degrees of bank and load, pretty standard airplane stuff there. Get too slow and keep cranking any FW into a bank and sooner or later she'll reach a combination of airspeed and bank angle that stops her from flying. The Osprey actually has some pretty darn low stall speeds, this really is more of a blanket CYA statement than a restriction. It could just as easily read, "If you're stupid and get too slow, then wrap this beastie into a hard bank, she's gonna stop flying!"

•Have they figured out how to *not* get the brakes to damage the tires if the ship the V-22 is parked on rolls more than a measly FIVE DEGREES? (Wow, let's hope *that* never happens!)
-- Haven't heard this one before so you got me there ya 'ole fox!! :ooh: Me thinks that once again if it were a major issue we'd hear about it on a grander scale. I know it's hard for you to believe but they are very good, (sometimes too much so), at giving us information we need.

•Can the V-22 survive a single-engine failure in a high hover without crashing?
-- As anyone who has flown dual-engined helos knows....it depends. How high, what's the gross weight, density altitude, etc. More importantly, what's your definition of "crashing"? Exceeding gear limitations? There are a ton of twin-engine helos that will "crash" by your definition depending on the conditions. Actually, the higher the hover the better because that gives me altitude to trade for airspeed. Soooooo, I'm gonna answer YES on that one.

•Have they solved the hydraulic problems?
-- What hydraulic problems? :confused:

•Any sign of a personnel hoist for litter patients yet?
-- A "hoist for litter patients"?? :confused: I'm assuming that you're referring to a stokes litter and a rescue hoist. Why yes indeedy, every Osprey off the line has a shining new hoist installed above the ramp. And once again, (I know you won't believe me without a video), we use it all the time. :ok:

•What are the TBO's on the engines now?
-- Same as they've always been. A better question would have been: Have you changed some engines earlier than the TBO? Yeppers, but there are also quite a bunch that "go the distance" too. Sorry, don't have the documents to provide but I'd give it an educated guess and say it's probably even-steven over the entire program.

Okay now go ahead, call me names, tell me I'm wrong, tell me my word ain't worth a :mad: without giving you the videos and publications. I really don't care to change your mind, or anyone else's for that matter, just trying to raise my post count so I can fit in. ;)

Oh, and SASless, you're right, other than calling me "mcrave" for the second time now, you've shown a bit more class than the others.....but I still didn't resort to calling you names. := You're off the hook.

V/R
The lying, cheating, stealing....but hopefully entertaining......mcpave (damnit, now you got me doing it!!) :}

Ned-Air2Air

17th Oct 2009, 03:08

Sasless (and whoever else),

When it comes to McPave I can vouch he knows what he is talking about. Wont give much away other than to say he is one of the higher time CV22 guys there and has been around for a while. I have met him and spent numerous hours chatting with him when visiting the Squadron.

He is very well respected by those he works with and works for. Bottom line when it comes to the CV22 he does know what is what.

Just my two cents worth.

21stCen

17th Oct 2009, 06:00

mckpave,
Great update, much appreciated. Thanks for the info where you can provide it. You are right, there are one or two without any first hand experience here who will not accept the facts you presented, and will continue to believe their own self made theories (i.e., BS), and third hand opinions of others. Don't worry, the silent majority (guess they'd be called 'lurkers' by some) can easily spot who is providing valid info, and who is not.
All the Best...

SASless

17th Oct 2009, 13:59

As it appears McPave wears blue, and has had to endure Ned's presence, I shall stipulate to his credibility.....McP's not Ned's!

One has to accept the fact one service tends to appear to being polishing a turd whenever their well known PR capabilities are put into action....as in the wake of any kind of incident involving an Osprey. Living close to their main base and thus having access to "local" news outlets, the official PR reports oft times are contradicted by other sources.

One example....remember the small grass fire that was caused by an Osprey after landing out about six months ago.....put out by the Flight Engineer they said. The NC Forest Service fought the fire for several days after that and involved many fire units from around the area.

Are we skeptical after numerous events like that? Sure....and rightfully so!

The Air Force has remained very quiet and thus we have heard little from their perspective.

Ah.....MH-53 days....and all those Fifty Cal bottle openers made from spent casings!

Dan Reno

17th Oct 2009, 19:30

mckpave There, now that wasn't so hard was it.

Unfortunetley, most here still have no way to verify anything you say regarding the AF V-22 as we only have what the Navy investigators tell us in official report format what the airframe was contracted to do. And as you know, a lot of what you bring to this discussion table contradicts what the government reports.

Since we can usually get V-22 particulars from the Navy in writting via a FOIA request but only heresay from the AF, what if anything, would you suggest the college student/reader do if wanting to, say; write a college thesis on the V-22? Stick with the government line or rely on rumor or heresay?

Thanks!

SASless

17th Oct 2009, 23:12

Sven you dawg!

Cut to the chase here will ya....and quit beating around the bush!

Very succinctly said Sir!

One cannot compare the 22 to an Air Bus....as the Air Bus returns a profit despite its sometimes very expensive one time cost when it comes apart in the air.

The Sultan

18th Oct 2009, 02:18

At $400 a gallon for fuel in Afghanistan the Osprey is going to reduce the deficit by a significant amount as compared to the ancient technology of the 46 and 53.

The Sultan

Jolly Green

19th Oct 2009, 00:31

MckPave may be writing with less specificity than we'd like because of what happened to the active duty F-22 pilot that posted unclassified (but somewhat sensitive stuff) about the F-22. Or maybe he actually payed attention during the OPSEC class.

Some links about the hoist below. Apparently it's on only the CV, not the MV.

U.S. Air Force AIM Points: Boeing rotorcraft takes delivery of first Goodrich V-22 electric rescue hoist (http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=4274)

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/070628-F-4684K-939.jpg

AF.mil - Media Search (http://www.af.mil/photos/media_search.asp?q=CV-22) hoist&page=6

And for Dan Reno, I would suggest sending your FOIA request to the Air Force for the CV-22. Maybe comparing the documents to the ones you get from the truthiness-challenged naval aviation folks might be enlightening. I remember many hours sitting in the vault redacting the truth from various USAF documents. In the end the journos usually figured it out anyway. Good for them!

SASless

19th Oct 2009, 02:01

Am I being obnoxious here by suggesting the angle of the dangle suggests the aircraft is in forward flight? The prop rotors and pitch attitude of the aircraft seems to suggest it is at a steady state hover but the meat on the string sure is lagging behind the ramp at a noticeable angle.

Can it be Rotor Wash that provides the push that swings them PJ's out where they will not hit the ramp on the way up?

If so....what a novel idea!

Them Bell-Boeing Engineers are pretty swift folks aren't they!

Huge image file (http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.af.mil%2Fshared%2Fmedia%2Fphotodb%2Fpho tos%2F070628-F-4684K-939.jpg)

FH1100 Pilot

19th Oct 2009, 03:52

:ugh:

Stokes litter. STOKES litter. STOKES litter!

Yes, yes, we've all seen pictures and video of V-22's doing hoist and fast-rope work. Can we PLEASE see a picture or video of an injured person being hoisted aboard a V-22 in a STOKES litter? Or are they all going to be hoisted like a PJ?

Here's what Wikipedia (the source of all knowledge in the universe) says about helicopters and Stokes litters:
These baskets have been notorious for spinning under the downdraft from the rotating helicopter blades.
I'm sure we've all seen the videos of that happening.

The Joint Personnel Recovery Agency is the Executive Agent for policy regarding rescue of all DoD (Department of Defense) personnel. It seems that they don’t like the V-22 very much. Here's what they said in a recent report:
The V-22’s “excessive” rotor downwash makes it impractical to use a hoist to lift people onboard, ruling out the Osprey for rescues at high altitudes where it couldn’t land…
So, on one hand we have the JPRA, and on the other we have mcpave.

SASless

19th Oct 2009, 04:24

I will not bore you with the details....but this document sums up the situation pretty nicely. The Marines say the machine is a treat. Non-Marines freely discuss and document their criticisms. Read it and form your own opinions!

I say it is still a Turkey!

Read the Casevac example for the US Embassy in Kabul.....that alone shows you the fallacy of the Marine Corps argument about how capable this thing is. The GAO and several other US Government Agencies tasked to review the Osprey Program pointed out other glaring problems in the anticipated replacement of CH-53D and CH-46 Helicopters by the Osprey.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL31384.pdf

Dan Reno

19th Oct 2009, 11:16

SASless

That's a GOVERNMENT report and not actually how the V-22 does when out of sight of the public. It's all Hush-Hush you know, which makes it all very convienent when trying to do a cover-up.

SASless

19th Oct 2009, 12:33

The interesting part of the report to me was the concern shown to the USMC decision to do away with Medium Helicopters and replace them in total with MV-22's at a much greater cost per aircraft but without a real ability to duplicate the missions the Medium Helicopters do so much better and cheaper. My take is the better solution would have been to have fewer 22's but retain a fleet of medium helicopters. The report also cites a concern that the MV-22 is being compared only to the "old tech" CH-53D and CH-46 airframes rather than to "New Tech" aircraft like the EH-101, UH-60 and similar aircraft. Add in the poor performance of the MV-22 in high elevation operations (landing and takeoff in the helicopter mode) and it appears to become a very limited aircraft for such a huge cost.

I also like the comments about how the NBC and other spec's had to be rescinded due to weight issues and when the new all aspect gun is installed the aircraft loses yet more payload. If the spec is re-written to accurately portray the actual capability of the aircraft......how would that sound to the critics?

Better yet....how does one defend the new...reduced weights?

Dan Reno

19th Oct 2009, 14:40

Commanders are taught that the absolute best way to improve morale is to formally chair an all-squadron, enlisted meeting with guards conspicuously posted at all doors and tell everyone that ‘this or that’ has now been deemed ‘Classified’ and then read off the penalties authorized should anyone discuss or divulge ‘this or that’ to anyone outside the squadron, including family.

So, when you let them in on a little secret like: ‘there are civilians spies who would die and/or are paid BIG bucks to know how the V-22 is doing’ or: ‘the enemy is all around this base and they look and dress like us’, and then you top it off with the BIGGIE (for Air Force or Navy enlisted) and order: “All enlisted personnel will requalify within 10 days with weapons” (cameras authorized at the range for the John Wayne photos).

Almost immediately, morale, production, military appearance and bearing improves.

The Air Force is notorious for this type of motivation especially when it comes to ‘this or that’ piece of aircraft equipment that’s been declassified by other services for years. (civilians use cash or job loss as a motivator) Yep, all show, no go. It’s in their mindset, so it is no surprise when you ask an airman particulars about the V-22 that they stick their chest out blowing the “it’s classified” smokescreen.Besides, asking such silly questions might make them late for a photo op alongside some weapon system they can say proves “they’re in the fight” to the hand-wringing folks back home.

Seen it, heard it and participated in this type scam but I can’t give you any more info because it’s, well, you know…

mckpave

19th Oct 2009, 16:19

And there it is, more attempts on your part to discredit us by making bull**** comments and accusations, great job guys, your true colors come out again. :ok:

That was exactly my point in coming back here, to play to your ignorance and arrogance and let everyone on this thread see how you react. You boys did a bang up job, when confronted with counter claims you decide to sling **** at the poster, it's become your standard operating procedure.

Thanks Dan for your ridiculous comments about the military and especially the USAF, you've obviously shown us your true personality. I just love how you make these comments and personal attacks. By the way, since we are in the "cutting and pasting" game again, here are some comments directed at me in the past for everyone so that all of you can see the type of "professionals" these men really are.

From FH1100 on another board:

]"To claim that this known design deficiency is inconsequential is the height of irresponsibility and ignorance. Mike, if you say that you are "routinely" flying the V-22 in flight regimes that are known to be dangerous (and I'm sure you've studied the Marana crash), then God be with you for you are extremely uncautious."[/COLOR]

...and again,
]"Mike, that was a very well-thought-out reply. But you're not being completely honest."[/COLOR]

From Dan Reno on this board:

"MCKPAVE's identity is known in the unit where he's assigned therefore he's actually commenting to them and telling them that he's a team player regardless of all the facts, PR and BS"

...and again,

"Kissing up to superiors is a favorite amongst the AF types and some in the MC who usually just keep quiet about this flying pork rind or do their time quietly in fear of the UCMJ and get out. Your comments are damaged goods and DOA here because everyone knows you are simply singing to your superiors Sir. Sullied data is of little use when lives are at stake and lets hope you're not whistling in the dark over your personal doubts about this beast without gonads.."

....and thrice,

"You asked Pave for more insight and he's done that already by parroting Bell and customer gibberish so I thought you should go directly to the source rather than what we've already heard from him."

I'm sure the mods won't like my tactics but it should stand as a testament to the lack of professionalism exhibited by these idiots. It bares justice to them to illustrate the credibility of their claims. If this post is removed, or myself banned, then these posts and many others, should serve as evidence to have them removed as well.

I take these attacks on my integrity and credibility VERY personal gentlemen, and I don't forget! They are completely rude and unfounded. I'll be glad to discuss your accusations against me in person anywhere, anytime!! I'm quite sure you won't like my response. :mad:

Dan Reno

19th Oct 2009, 16:55

mckpave

Sounds like you have a lot of time on your hands for someone on active duty with the V-22. Perhaps you're just lonely and need someone to listen to you, I won't anymore: Talk to Me - I WIll Listen (http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/we_listen/)

21stCen

19th Oct 2009, 17:50

mckpave,
My hat's off to you Colonel. I know it's frustrating, and you feel like you are hitting your head against a brick wall when presenting 'facts against fiction and opinions' of those without first hand experience. But trust me, the silent majority (i.e., the 'Lurkers') are getting a clearer picture instead of the one-sided biased opinions of those not flying the aircraft that have been the only source of information on this forum for a long time. There are a handful of people that you will never convince no matter what you say and they will always need to engage in endless non-stop whining and venting (some of it justified).

You know as well or better than the rest of us that there are some VERY big negatives about the V-22 with cost on the top of the list, and lack of hot and high capabilities close behind, as well as lift capability/payload limitations when compared to some available helicopters. Nobody will deny these truths, but the fact that there is a vital mission role for the a/c particularly on the Spec Ops side is undeniable to anyone who understands the unique mission capability of high speed, deep penetration/extraction in low to medium intensity environments that no other a/c in the inventory can provide other than the CV-22. As has been said many times before, the tiltrotor is not the best helicopter, and it is not the best airplane (just as helicopters and airplanes are not the best tiltrotors). The tiltrotor is a very small percentage of vertical lift aircraft in the US military inventory as most would agree is appropritate, but it also has the capacity to offer an unequealed capability which would otherwise not be available to Spec Ops commanders and the Marines.

It is interesting to note that you have never presented the V-22 as an "incredible/awesome aircraft." You have only descibed the realities that you have experienced working with the aircraft. When I hear those describing the ugly/boxy V-22 as 'sexy,' I can only wonder how they choose their (oops, never mind...)

SASless

19th Oct 2009, 17:58

Absence of opposition can be perceived to be support.

I know for a fact the proposed replacement of MH-53's by CV-22's gave rise to questions about some of the Air Force's mission set being transferred to the Army 160th SOAR. As voiced to me by then currently serving MH-53 folks.

21stCen

19th Oct 2009, 19:28

So then absence of approval can be perceived to be non-support?

Questions of whether mission reassignments were the right decision should now be posed to the MH-53 and CV-22 drivers that have gone through the transition to gauge whether or not wise decisions were made in the past (for instance, you might ask mckpave who had 12 years in the MH-53 before moving to the CV-22)? It is understandable that there would be apprehension to mission reassignments in the early stages of any transition.

SASless

19th Oct 2009, 19:44

It is a public forum....I reckoned anyone could post a response without having need of a personal invitation. As you recall....I have stipulated to McPave's credibility based upon Ned's support. Thus, McP and anyone else with access to such information would be welcome to hold forth as they wish.

21stCen

19th Oct 2009, 19:47

Now you have said something that I can agree with!
:)

Jolly Green

20th Oct 2009, 01:45

SASless is absolutely correct about the MH-53 crew force dislike of moving all helicopter special operations to the Army. The Air Force Chief of Staff agreed to it in 1987 and it finally happened in 2008. A lot of us don't like it, but thats the way it is.

The CV-22 certainly has less cube than the MH-53M, but it really doesn't haul much less (if any) weight due to the increase in empty weight of the 53 over the years. It will be interesting to follow the V-22 variants to see how much weight gain throughout various modifications affects the capability.

FH1100 Pilot

20th Oct 2009, 03:48

mcpave (quoting me):To claim that this known design deficiency is inconsequential is the height of irresponsibility and ignorance. Mike, if you say that you are "routinely" flying the V-22 in flight regimes that are known to be dangerous (and I'm sure you've studied the Marana crash), then God be with you for you are extremely uncautious.

...and again,
Mike, that was a very well-thought-out reply. But you're not being completely honest.

Well mcpave, if you are the "Mike" to whom I was referring, I stand by those statements. I still hope God is with you, and I still think you're not being completely honest.

So what's the problem?

Dan Reno

20th Oct 2009, 11:43

(Perhaps they can fix those pesky compressor stalls Bell reports as normal and low hour replacements)

Rolls-Royce could employ up to 500 in Prince George

http://media.timesdispatch.com/timesdispatch/img-story/images/uploads/rolls2.jpg P. KEVIN MORLEY/TIMES-DISPATCH

Guests at the Rolls-Royce groundbreaking checked out a Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey that uses engines manufactured by the company.

JOHN REID BLACKWELL TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Published: October 20, 2009

One of Virginia's most lauded and long-awaited industrial projects is getting under way, with its priorities shuffled somewhat because of the economic recession.
About 200 people turned out yesterday for a groundbreaking ceremony at the site of Rolls-Royce Plc's planned aircraft-engine components plant in Prince George County, first announced nearly two years ago.
"The world has changed since we launched this project," Rolls-Royce North America President and Chief Executive Officer James M. Guyette said in an interview after the ceremony. "The macroeconomic circumstances are much different than anyone envisioned."
Rolls-Royce, a British company with its North American headquarters in Reston, initially is planning to invest $170 million and hire 140 people at the plant in the Crosspointe Centre Industrial Park. Eventually, it could employ 500 people, and the investment could reach $500 million.
When Rolls-Royce announced in November 2007 that it intended to build the plant, the company said it would use it to test and assemble components for mid-size corporate jets. Since then, the economic recession has hurt the market for corporate jets, Guyette said.
"That market was very hard hit, but we do much more than that," he said.
Rolls-Royce reordered it priorities and now is focusing the first phase of the project on components for commercial aviation engines, Guyette said. The first phase, a 140,000-square-foot building to make disc components for aviation engines such as the Airbus A380 and Boeing 787, is expected to be operating by early 2011. A second, 130,000-square-foot phase will produce blisks, engine components for military aircraft.
The crowd at yesterday's groundbreaking got a look at the type of technology that Rolls-Royce produces for the military, as a V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, piloted by Marines from the Marine Corps Air Station New River in North Carolina, soared over the trees and made a vertical landing in the open field. The aircraft's components include two Rolls-Royce 1107C turboshaft engines.
The Marines then assisted Guyette and Gov. Timothy M. Kaine in raising the Virginia flag and the Rolls-Royce flag at the site.
Kaine called the start of construction at Crosspointe good news in challenging economic times.
"This investment means a lot of things," Kaine said. "For those who wonder about whether manufacturing in the United States is dead or being offshored, this is a strong investment on the ground to say, 'No, manufacturing is not only alive, manufacturing is thriving with innovation and technology and educational partnerships.'"
To lure the Rolls-Royce investment, the state provided an incentives package worth $56.8 million, most of it linked to employment and investment targets that the company must meet over 16 years. The incentives package included a $35 million performance grant, to be paid in installments from 2014 to 2023.
Kaine also pledged $6 million from the Governor's Opportunity Fund to help pay for roads, water and sewer service, and utilities. The state also committed $8.7 million to assist in employee training.
The University of Virginia, Virginia Tech and the Virginia Community College System also are developing a research and training partnership with Rolls-Royce and plan to open a center for advanced manufacturing at the site.
State and local economic-development officials said they are continuing to work on recruiting suppliers and vendors to locate operations near the Rolls-Royce site, but no major announcements have been made.
The Rolls-Royce investment, along with a $363 million investment by Northrop Grumman and Areva in Newport News to manufacture large components used in the nuclear-power industry, represent two of the most significant industrial investments in the state in a generation, said Hugh Keogh, president of the Virginia Chamber of Commerce.
"No question there will be suppliers coming in," he said.
The projects should attract global investments, Keogh said, comparing them to Japanese-owned Canon Inc.'s announcement in 1985 that it would open a copier plant employing 1,000 people in Newport News.
Since then, the state has attracted investments from about 100 other Japanese companies, he said.
"About 20 percent or even a quarter of those are linked to Canon or came here because of Canon," he said

usmc helo

20th Oct 2009, 19:13

“Periodically, we get new people coming into this forum who are staunch defenders of the V-22.”

-Perhaps another way of looking at is that us “lurkers” really don’t have the desire or time to post but sometimes see something so outlandish that we feel the need to post.

“They claim to be vague and various things (e.g. pilots or people "associated" with the program) and they never fully identify themselves.”

-Or maybe us “lurkers” are not nearly as narcissistic as yourself and don’t feel the need to have a blog ( http://www.fh1100-pilot.*************/ (http://www.fh1100-pilot.*************/) ) to tell the world our opinion and inform them about our lifestyle as a “raconteur and lover of life and all things spiritual” or whatever.

“If we are told by someone associated with the V-22 that the aircraft can or cannot do X, then we believe it.”

-Then why do you question everything Mckpave, most likely the only ppruner who operates the aircraft in question, tells us and accuse him of being dishonest?

“Let's take the infamous NATOPS. Go read an excerpt from them here:
http://www.g2mil.com/Natops%20Extracts.PDF (http://www.g2mil.com/Natops%20Extracts.PDF)

Yes, it's from Carlton Meyer's g2mil site, but the link takes you to what is apparently a direct copy of the V-22 NATOPS manual”

4.13 MANEUVERING LIMITATIONS

Air combat maneuvering and aerobatics are prohibited
Abrupt multi-axis control inputs are prohibitedNOTE

During maneuvering at low airpspeed, accelerated stall can be acheived at moderate bank angles and/or load factor.”

- Apparently your source is out of date, those have been removed or modified and that NATOPS is at least 5 years old which means it’s gone thru at least one if not two updates (as have all NATOPS manuals).

"Abrupt, multi-axis control inputs are prohibited." Geez-Louise! Is that still applicable? How does one come into a "hot" LZ and expect to *not* have to make abrupt, multi-axis control inputs if necessary? I don't get it. Do people really think that the V-22 will ALWAYS be landed in nice, big, quiet, undefended LZ's? In which war and on what planet has this ever happened?”

-Apparently your source is out of date, those have been removed or modified and that NATOPS is at least 5 years old which means it’s gone thru at least one if not two updates (as have all NATOPS manuals). And rest assured that Mckpave is operating his aircraft safely and within the limits of the FM. Unlike some he is a professional.

I looked up several NATOPS manuals of helicopters currently operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here’s what I found:

- Prohibited maneuvers: Abrupt movement of the flight controls (control movement through full throw in 2 seconds or less)
- ACM/EVM flying or abrupt or extremely aggressive maneuvers are prohibited except in emergency or actual combat conditions
- Warning: During steep approaches at less than 40 kts, do not exceed 800 fpm descent rate.

o I think that works out to 9.1mph. Where have I heard this before? Hmm? I know...it was that CDI group, here’s what they had to say about approaching a LZ at 9.1 mph:
“This performance limitation is lethal to the aircraft as well as its crew and human cargo. Equally bad, combat pilots trying to insert troops urgently into a “hot” landing zone, where the enemy is shooting, may try to descend more quickly, thus encountering VRS, which will likely roll the aircraft into an inverted dive toward the ground and lose everyone on board in the process. So should a pilot choose to descend at 9.1 mph? If he does, he’ll get shot out of the sky. Should the pilot go in fast instead? If he does, a crash is imminent. It’s a Catch-22.”

I always loved this classic from the H-1s:
Low g maneuvers and abrupt or rapid control movements may cause mast bumping.
Which was accompanied by the following warning:

If mast bumping occurs in flight, catastrophic results are highly probable.

It sounds to me like helicopters are dangerous beast and shouldn’t be flown in combat, if at all! Death could be imminent. But what do I know? Let me ask an expert:
Geez-Louise FH1100! Is that still applicable? How does one come into a "hot" LZ and expect to *not* have to make abrupt control inputs if necessary? How can one make an approach at 9.1 MPH and survive? I don't get it. Do people really think that helicopters will ALWAYS be landed in nice, big, quiet, undefended LZ's? In which war and on what planet has this ever happened? I guess we’re fortunate that there isn’t a shooting war going on now.

Or maybe, just maybe the aircrew were able to train to these deficiencies? Maybe they were able to develop tactics that exploited the helicopters strengths and minimized it’s weaknesses?

Dan Reno

20th Oct 2009, 23:55

usmc helo said:

"Or maybe, just maybe the aircrew were able to train to these deficiencies? Maybe they were able to develop tactics that exploited the helicopters strengths and minimized it’s weaknesses?"

I think the only way for that to work is for the enemy to agree to whatever TACTICS the V-22 developes !!

Comfy, hard, dirt free LZs are scarce in the real battlefield.

My limited experience found us entering HOT LZs that were all different in regard to how they needed to be entered and exited due mostly to hostile gunfire and not some airframe or flight control limitation a bunch of incompetant engineers designed in. The only TACTIC that was universal was to simply yank & bank any which way possible to get the hell out alive and hope that the airframe held together.

It sounds like the V-22 is incapable of this type combat and therefore will be forced to go into HOT LZs with that proverbial "hand tied behind its back" that it never had!

We owe our armed forces something a lot better than this.

FH1100 Pilot

21st Oct 2009, 00:51

Hey usmc_helo, just a few corrections.

If NATOPS has removed the aforementioned prohibitions, then the V-22 community is extremely lax for not publicizing it. Because as of Congressional hearings that were held earlier this very year, this "myth" was again perpetuated and was unchallenged. Then again, the V-22 community has been typically poor at defending and generating support for the aircraft.

But wait...'ang on a tick! Even if those limitations have been removed from NATOPS (which I highly doubt), the prohibition against ACM, DCM, EVM and aerobatics is still in the Air Force V-22 flight manual! Perhaps mcpave should study it a little more closely. Likewise, "abrupt, large amplitude" control inputs are still prohibited, and no exception is made for actual combat conditions, as is the case for the helicopters.

BZZZZZT! Sorry, try again.

You bring up the H-1. Uhh, why compare the V-22 to a helicopter design that dates back to the 1950's? Oh, right, LOL...because the V-22 does also! But seriously, aren't we trying to field improved aircraft? Don't we all know about the ability of the UH-1 to get into mast bumping? Aren't we trying to produce better designs than the ones that came before?

And no, the V-22 ain't one of them.

So don't be silly. We don't fly troops around in UH-1H's anymore. We put them in more-crashworthy Blackhawks...and more-crashable V-22's. In fact, with the advent of the AH-1Z and UH-1Y, the two-blade system will be a thing of the past. Manuevre as necessary, lads!

It will be interesting to see when mcpave has to fly his V-22 into an actual combat zone...you know, where he might need to make some abrupt, large amplitude and/or multi-axis control movements to avoid ground fire but cannot because of the prohibition in the AFM. He will in all likelihood make them anyway. He will do whatever is necessary to get the ship down and the troops out and the mission accomplished. And if - God forbid - he crashes and kills himself (along with everyone else onboard), it will go down as "pilot error." Bell-Boeing will wash their hands of it with a swift, "Hey, we warned you! This thing can't maneuver like a '53."

Finally, if you think I am narcissistic for having a blog...something you manly men wouldn't even consider...then so be it. I don't care. Lots of my friends have blogs - many of them ex-military guys just like you, usmc_helo. I like to fly, I like to read, and I like to write, and I don't make excuses for any of that. If I put out a magazine, would you call me similarly narcissistic? If I wrote a monthly column for a magazine, would you call me narcissistic? Grow up.

If you don't like my blog, then you're welcome to not read it. And I most heartily suggest you do just that. (Apparently, PPRUNE's programming doesn't allow links to blogs, but if you're masochistic enough to want to see mine, it's in my profile (as is my name, and what city I live in). Be warned, I am unbearably narcissistic!

Now, can we please get back to the V-22? Can someone...ANYONE...show me a picture or (preferably) a video of a V-22 hoisting someone on a Stokes litter? I mean, what if that famous "injured sailor" had been on something other than the Bataan - you know, what if he'd been on a ship that wasn't big enough to allow the V-22 to land?

Still waiting....

:zzz:

Dan Reno

21st Oct 2009, 12:22

Texas-built Osprey tilt-rotors heading to Afghanistan

12:00 AM CDT on Wednesday, October 21, 2009
By RICHARD WHITTLE / Special Contributor to The Dallas Morning News

WASHINGTON The Texas-built V-22 Osprey, a helicopter-airplane hybrid military transport whose reputation still suffers from its troubled 25-year development, is on its way to its toughest test yet – the war in Afghanistan, the Pentagon announced Tuesday.

VMM-261, a Marine Corps V-22 squadron based in North Carolina, will take 10 to 12 Ospreys to Afghanistan in November, the announcement said. Marine spokesman Lt. Col. Matt Morgan said the Osprey would carry troops and supplies and evacuate casualties in Helmand province, where Marines have been fighting insurgents regularly.
The Osprey, a "tilt-rotor" that swivels two large rotors on its wingtips upward to fly like a helicopter and forward to fly like an airplane, is built partly in Fort Worth and Amarillo by Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. and partly by Boeing Co. in Pennsylvania.
The program provides more than 500 jobs in Fort Worth and a similar number in Amarillo, Bell spokesman Tom Dolney said.
The Marines previously used the Osprey in Iraq, where it defied predictions by critics who said it would suffer crashes akin to three that killed 30 people during the aircraft's lengthy development.
Afghanistan's high altitudes and hot climate – problems for any rotorcraft – and the ferocity of Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents there figure to make this deployment far more strenuous.
The Osprey was rarely shot at in Iraq, which is barely above sea level.
"Afghanistan is certainly a unique operating environment, but we do feel the aircraft has unique capabilities and is uniquely capable of operating in that environment," Morgan said. The Osprey's ability to fly like an airplane gives it a cruising speed of around 275 mph, more than twice the top speed of most military helicopters.

mckpave

23rd Oct 2009, 01:14

Oh FH1100 you've tried once again to discredit me but failed. Here is exactly what the CURRENT flight manual states on page 5-11. BTW, it's dated Oct 2008, so you should either check your sources or make correct statements. :=

"ACM and aerobatics are prohibited" Do you see "DCM" or "EVM" anywhere in that sentence?? And, just so you and everyone else understands, ACM stands for Air Combat Maneuvers which specifically pertains to air-to-air combat maneuvers. Also, aerobatics refers to bank angles greater than 60 degrees. Yes, we cannot do either one of these.....yet, for two reasons. 1. Testing has not been accomplished on air-to-air maneuvers and 2. 60 degrees of bank is a standard restricition to non-fighter aircraft in the USAF, I've lived with that restriction on every aircraft I've flown.

"Abrupt large amplitude control inputs are prohibited". Do you see "multi-axis" in that sentence?? I'll give you credit at least you got some of it correct so I'm not sure why you added the "multi-axis" bit in your argument. And once again, don't know about your background, but it's been a standard procedure not to abruptly move the controls over their range of motion in every aircraft I've flown. That's pretty much basic flying knowledge. What's "abrupt" or "large"? Well, that's the question, and why this statement is so vague because it's included more as a CYA issue than a flying qualities issue. I'm sure others on this thread will be happy to back me up on these two points.

So FH1100, why don't you post the date of your flight manual source because it will either a) prove what I've been saying all along that most of your arguments and those like you come from outdated or blantantly incorrect material or b) you've decided to add a little "literary license" to your comments which we all know now is incorrect as well. Which one is it 'ole boy? :hmm:

Finally, since you've now twice alluded to my imminent doom as a V-22 pilot, I will warn you that I consider those statements as threats, and will act accordingly. :mad: But, what I'm most impressed with is your intimate knowledge of helicopter combat tactics. So, once and for all, why don't you share to the wonderful people on this board how you became such a diety on the subject?? I can only assume it's from your military aviation background right? Please enlighten us.

There, that post has both some REAL V-22 data and some ball-breaking, entertainment for all those involved. :D

SASless

23rd Oct 2009, 02:29

Are you both quoting the same manual.....NATOPS being Navy/USMC and the USAF being not NATOPS?

FH1100 Pilot

23rd Oct 2009, 02:44

mcpave, you *should* take those statements as threats! Threats issued to you by your aircraft! But if you are so paranoid as to think some well-known-by-name internet poster (me - check my profile) is "threatening" some other anonymous internet weenie (you - check your profile), then you have some serious...I say SERIOUS issues. You, like your buddy usmc_helo need to grow up, just focus on the facts and not make this personal.

But hey, sincerely, thanks for posting the current AFM info for the Air Force V-22. Err, but why did it take an act of Congress to get it? Like I said, the V-22 community is horrible at promoting their aircraft.

Oh, and if you run across a video of a V-22 hoisting a Stokes litter, be sure and let me know, huh? I mean, if the V-22 is going to be doing all this search-and-rescue stuff...

P.S. If you were trying to bust my balls, you'll have to try a lot harder than that.

mckpave

23rd Oct 2009, 03:25

You called me a "weenie", naughty boy. Actually those threats (BY YOU) are personal. :rolleyes:

By the way, when are you going to get around informing us of your military experience?? Because that's when the real fun begins.

I'm not one bit afraid of your stokes litter comment, we carry them on each aircraft and use them all the time. Kinda hard to shoot video from the front seats but when I do post a video of the stokes being employed what will be your next ridiculous comment? I know, here's one for you, we don't use the rescue strop, that can be your next bandwagon to jump on, how's that? I know, I know, I'm obviously lying about our stokes litters as well, you got me again. :(

SASless

23rd Oct 2009, 12:54

Gentlemen....pray silence please!

Play the ball....not the player how about it!

Use that other forum or blog for the bickering and make your points about the Osprey on this one can you?

Enough already!

usmc helo

23rd Oct 2009, 14:28

FH1100,

You asked that we not make personal attacks. I would make the same request of you.

I have one simple question. You stated the following:
“If we are told by someone associated with the V-22 that the aircraft can or cannot do X, then we believe it.”

If this is true, then why do you continue to accuse mckpave of being dishonest and disregard everything he tells us when two other users(Ned and Jollygreen) have vouched for his credibility? Also remember that Sasless has vouched for Ned. If you standby you assertion that Mckpave is dishonest does that imply that all of them are dishonest?

FH1100 Pilot

23rd Oct 2009, 14:37

You're right, SAS. It's not about personalities, it's about the V-22. Or should be. mcpave makes a big deal about people pretending to be experts at this or that - he claims that nobody who hasn't flown the V-22 could possibly know anything about it. He denies what's been written, published and testified about the machine without (until his most recent post) providing ANY substantive information at all. Just a screeching, "YOU GUYS ARE WRONG!"

Well, who the hell is "mcpave?" Let's find out, shall we? Take my hand as we stroll down memory lane. mcpave joined PPRUNE in 2001. However, his first post was not until 2002. In a thread about formation flying, the very first line of mcpave's very first PPRUNE post reads:
I've flown a ton of formation, pretty much standard operations for my line of work.
Oh? And what line of work would that be? Hard to tell, for his profile is blank and he does not give us any information as to who he is or what he does. We're just supposed to take him at his word that he's done a "ton" of formation flying.

mcpave's second appearance on PPRUNE comes in 2003 in a thread about helicopter air-to-air refueling. The very first line of his very first post in the thread reads:
I've done quite a bit of helo air refueling, it's a unique capability pretty much monopolized by the US right now.

Gee, for someone who doesn't like people acting all expert and stuff, mcpave sure does exactly that!

Now he's an expert on the V-22.

Look, this is an anonymous internet forum - one of thousands. Anybody can be anyone they want here. If mcpave wants us to think he's a V-22 driver now, fine. Maybe he is, maybe he ain't. But it's kind of...I don't know...stupid(?) for some anonymous internet weenie to righteously claim credibility while attacking the credibility of those who actually put their identitites up for all to see.

Me? My real name is in my profile. I began flying in 1973, cutting school to hike out to Zahn's Airport on Long Island to take lessons in a beat-up Piper Cherokee. I've been flying commercially since 1982. I've got 11,000 hours, most all of that in helicopters, most all of that in Bell 206's (or it's ugly cousin, the overweight, skinny-blade, underpowered BO105). If there's ONE thing I'm expert at, it's coaxing every ounce of lift out of a rotor system of a helicopter that is at or over MGW. I am who I am. You want my cell phone number? 850-512-2663. (I've published my phone number before in case anyone wanted to discuss something I've written. No one has ever called.)

I don't attack the V-22 simply to attack guys like mcpave. For a whole bunch of reasons I think it's the wrong aircraft at the wrong time for the very wrong price. But the V-22 community takes criticism of "their" aircraft very, very personally. Then they "go underground" and refuse to provide information that might counter some of the confusing, outdated information that's out there. Then they blame guys like me for not knowing the "truth" because I haven't flown the thing. Uhhh....yeah.

Case in point, why did it take so long for someone to publish a current copy of the V-22 AFM with respect to maneuvering limitations? Obviously they have changed, as things do in aviation. But instead of providing them, the "V-22 community" merely shouted, "YOU'RE WRONG!" and wanted us to take them at their dubious, anonymous word. Yeah, right. Or they try to cloud the issue by making it personal and attacking the critics. "You've never flown the V-22, Bob. How would you know ANYTHING about it??" I might turn that question around and ask it of mcpave: Have YOU ever flown it in combat?

I suspect that the USMC needs the V-22 in a very profound way. I suspect that without it and the capability it gives that particular branch of the armed forces, the American people might legitimately question why we need the Marine Corps at all! Do we really need FOUR branches of the service? Even SASless alluded to it recently - we won't be storming anymore beaches like in WWII. So what does the Marine Corps do? Can't their job be done just as effectively by the Army and Navy?

Not as long as the Marine Corps has the V-22!

The Marines must think that money is unlimited - that there is an unending supply for ridiculous programs like the V-22 *and* every other thing that the USMC needs. Heh. The military should keep in mind that the U.S. is...still...a country run by civilians. And ironically, what may ultimately kill the V-22 is not the inherent deficiency of the design but the overall cost.

helonorth

23rd Oct 2009, 14:38

Enough already? Why? I, for one, am enjoying the hell out of this. I suppose I need to "grow up". The irony is dripping!

21stCen

23rd Oct 2009, 17:17

Bob,
No offense, but do you take drugs? If you do, then that explains it. If not, then maybe you should talk to a doctor about starting...
:rolleyes:
(OK, I admit it, I am now adding about as much 'worthwhile information' to this thread as you do...)

Sas and others are right in that it is time to leave the personal attacks behind, and concentrate on the aircraft...

SASless

23rd Oct 2009, 17:54

Good Lord....Balloons on Sticks at five paces.....let's get a real duel going!

Gregg

23rd Oct 2009, 18:50

On a non-personal note, many people seem to be confusing flight manual limits and aircraft capabilities. Many very capable and proven combat aircraft have the same sort of limits in their manuals that the V-22 does.

Here are some limits I have pulled from various manuals, many of which were available online here. Most are out of date, so wording may have changed.

I have always looked to the CH-53E as a very capable workhorse- If its limits have not changed I wonder how it manages to succeed in Afghanistan with a g limit of 1.5 and an angle of bank limit of 45 degrees (since the whole country is above 3000 ft DA). I have not heard that it is unable to perform its missions over there.

How can the CH-46 or the SH-60 succeed with 45° angle of bank limits?

Somehow they do- and just maybe we should wait and see if the V-22 can succeed as well.

Here are some limits that resemble the oft quoted limits that "prevent" the V-22 from safe and efficient combat operations:

CH-46 (Rev 21- 1998)
1. No acrobatic maneuvers are approved.
2. Coordinated turns.-
a. For all gross weights and density altitudes, 45°
or the CGI limit. whichever is lower

SH-60B (Rev 50, 2000)
4.5.3 Bank Angles Limitation. Bank angles
shall be limited to a maximum of 45° in normal operations
4.5.6 Prohibited Maneuvers. The following
maneuvers are prohibited:
1. Aerobatic ight (e.g., rolls, loops, inverted ight)
2. Abrupt movement of the ight controls
3. Bank angles greater than 45°

CH-53E (Rev 21, 1990)
4.4.2 Angle of Bank Limitations
GW<56,000 lbs and DA <3000 or <130 KIAS- 60 degrees
GW<56,000 lbs and DA>3000 or >130 KIAS- 45 degrees
GW > 56,000 lbs – 30 degrees
4.4.3 Acceleration Limitations
GW<56,000 lbs and DA <3000 – 2.0 g
GW>56,000 lbs OR DA >3000 – 1.5 g
4.4.4 Maneuvering Limitations
Warning
Rapid forward cyclic and reduced collective setting may cause blade/fuselage contact.
Aerobatics such as loops, rolls, etc. are prohibited. Evasive maneuvering training and air combat maneuvering training are prohibited.

UH-1Y (May 2008)
4.11.3 Prohibited Maneuvers
The following maneuvers are prohibited:
1. Aerobatic maneuvers as defined by OPNAVINST 3710.7 series.
7. Abrupt, simultaneous collective and cyclic inputs while maneuvering are prohibited.
15.9 Vortex Ring State
Increasing collective has no effect toward recovery and will aggravate
power settling. During approaches at less than 40 knots, avoid descent rates
exceeding 800 fpm.

(Same limits in AH-1Z manual of same date)

OH-58 A (Chg 9, 1997)
5-22- Aerobatic maneuvers are prohibited.
5-23 Abrupt control movements are prohibited. This in no way prohibits normal control application.

TH-57C (April 1989)
4.18 Prohibited Maneuvers
1. No aerobatic maneuvers are permitted.
2. Angles of bank exceeding 60 degrees are prohibited.

11.6 Power Settling (Vortex Ring State)
Helicopter rotor theory indicates that it is most likely to occur when descent rates exceed 800 feet per minute during (1) vertical descents from a hover and (2) steep approaches at less than 40 KIAS.

Warning:
During approaches less than 40 KIAS, do not exceed 800 feet per minute descent rate.

US Army AH-1S (1991)
5-14 Prohibited Maneuvers
b. No aerobatic maneuvers permitted or intentional maneuvers beyond attitudes of +/- 30 degrees in pitch or +/- 60 degrees in roll are prohibited.

Ned-Air2Air

23rd Oct 2009, 19:46

If mcpave wants us to think he's a V-22 driver now, fine. Maybe he is, maybe he ain't.

Actually Bob he is, I have met him in person and flown the CV22 sim with him and even seen him taxi a Cv22 out, and shock horror, take off and fly away in it.

So yes I would say he is a CV22 driver :ok:

FH1100 Pilot

24th Oct 2009, 01:22

Ned sez: So yes I would say he is a CV22 driver.
Oh, I don't doubt that about *him*, Ned, as you've already vouched for him specifically. The point I was making was about internet anonymity, and how anyone can *claim* to be anything. I was just using mcpave as an easy example.

But you have to admit, look at his current profile, then look at some of his pompous claims from back in 2002 and 2003 and tell me why you'd give any of them the credibility he demands? Same with that usmc_helo guy. Absolutely blank profiles, but YOU VILL LISSSTEN TO MEEEE! Uh-huh. Right you are, General.

It's just silly internet stuff that some take way too seriously.

The V-22 will continue to be a controversial aircraft. But I think that once everyone gets past the "gee-whiz" aspect of it, we'll start to evaluate it more objectively.

In testimony to Congress, Lt. General George Trautman said this about the V-22 swashplate actuator.
Failed at 149 hours actual, versus 195 predicted.

How's that again? The swashplate acuator was only predicted to last 195 hours?? And it didn't?! I think we need to find out just what this swashplate actuator is, and how much it costs? And why it's not even making it to TBO? Is it replaceable in the field?

widgeon

24th Oct 2009, 12:54

Well it is not a problem as the interval between major inspections is probably only 10 hrs :). What is the latest on the 609 , is the minimum crew one pilot and one mechanic ?.

SASless

24th Oct 2009, 13:09

How does one predict a TBO or MTBF of 195 hours?

Better yet....why would we want to accept a 195 hour TBO or MTBF on a combat aircraft designed with the latest in technology.

If it was a B-17 flying into Germany....with their loss rate....maybe no problem but nowadays?

21stCen

26th Oct 2009, 18:38

Hi Gregg,
VERY good post that really puts things into perspective. Perhaps others could update the restrictions for various aircraft as some of the dates you have access to are not current.

The famous quote "During approaches at less than 40 knots, avoid descent rates exceeding 800 fpm" that those who do not support tiltrotor technology continuously point to as a reason why the V-22 is not "combat capable" is actually a restriction that applies to other service helicopters is a real "eye opener." Add to that all the other restrictions and we appear to see some parity across the board. Wow...
Incoming!!!:eek:

Dan Reno

26th Oct 2009, 21:20

21stCentury

Actually, it was Nick who brought that to this forum's attention over 2 years ago which is another reason why I always suggest folks new here read through all the back posts so that there would be no reason for "Incoming";
but primarily so we don't have to re-hash the same BS from both sides.

21stCen

27th Oct 2009, 05:06

Dan,
It appears obvious that it needs to rehashed, as seen by comments made by some since the first posting. It is clear that some either missed it the first time around, or simply don't want to acknowledge that flight manual limitations on maneuvering are not unique to the V-22.

Dan Reno

27th Oct 2009, 09:31

Now that its been established that the V-22 is just as combat capable as ALL other helicopters, it looks like it's sorely need NOW. It will be interesting to see how much Bang for the Buck it brings to the Afghanistan War as I'd bet someone is saying somewhere that the incidents below might have been avoided had the V-22 been there to Go-Faster & Farther:

Copter Crashes Reveal Achilles’ Heel of Afghan War

By Noah Shachtman (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/author/noah_shachtman/) http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/wp-content/themes/wired/images/envelope.gif ([email protected])
October 26, 2009 |
1:57 pm |http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2009/10/090902-a-6365w-085.jpg (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/10/helicopters-achilles-heel-of-the-afghanistan-war/090902-a-6365w-085/)
Afghanistan is a country the size of Texas, with only a handful of major roads. So when the U.S. military wants to haul gear, supply isolated outposts, reposition forces, or evacuate wounded troops, the first, best and sometimes only option is to do so by helicopter.
Which means that the demand for helos at most U.S. bases far outstrips the supply. And the helicopters that do fly operate under unforgiving and often dangerous conditions, as we saw in Monday’s twin copter calamities, which killed 14 Americans (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/10/deadly-day-in-afghanistan-3-copters-crash-14-us-lives-lost/). In short, helicopters are the irreplaceable connective tissue of the Afghanistan war effort — and its potential Achilles’ heel. “It’s our strategic weak point,” a defense official told Danger Room.
In the 1980s, the U.S. famously supplied Afghan militants with Stinger missiles that began to threaten the Soviets’ helo fleet at risk. It drove up the cost of operating in Afghanistan, and contributed to the Red Army’s eventual defeat.
For years, commanders have complained (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/contracted-heli/) that helicopters were the one thing they couldn’t get enough of, and coalition forces in Afghanistan have often had to rely on outsourcing to fill in the gaps. “We definitely don’t have enough helicopters (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/five-reasons-why-half-of-britain-wants-troops-out-of-afghanistan/),” British Foreign Office Minister Lord Maloch Brown recently said, before issuing a quick “clarification.”
NATO decided to lease civilian helicopters (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=ac8CsntO2nOI&refer=canada) in late 2007. In some cases, that has meant relying on contracted Soviet-bloc helicopters that might have less-than-stellar maintenance records. Back in July, 16 civilians working under contract to Western forces were killed (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/20/world/fg-afghan-crash20) when their Russian-made helicopter plunged to the ground just after takeoff at Kandahar airfield. That incident came just days after a Moldovan-owned Mi-26 helicopter was downed in Helmand Province (http://www.javno.com/en-world/six-ukrainians-die-on-chopper-in-afghanistan_270327); six Ukrainian contractors were killed.
Even if more military helicopters are sent to Afghanistan, there’s a much bigger issue: Operating rotary aircraft in Afghanistan can be extremely difficult.

Earlier this year, Popular Mechanics reporter Joe Pappalardo spent some time with the wrench-turners who keep the helicopters flying in Afghanistan. “Afghanistan,” he concluded, “is hell on helicopters (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4314354.html).” Here’s a list of just a few of the things he noted that can go wrong: Temperature extremes that destroy seals and gaskets; “high/hot” flying conditions that reduce engine performance; dust and sand that ruin rotor blades and clog up hydraulics. And, of course, there’s the enemy. (Soviet helicopter operations were also vulnerable, albeit for a different reason: The delivery of the Stinger missile, courtesy of the United States.)
Those tough conditions are not unique to Afghanistan: In the run-up to the Iraq war, Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, then-commander of the 101st Airborne Division, ordered thousands of cans of spray paint to help slow the shredding of rotor blades. But Iraq now has a well-established network of bases with paved airstrips, sparing helicopters from having to do a lot of extreme dust landings. In Afghanistan, that’s not the case.
A former Army Apache pilot told Danger Room that these austere flying conditions might have been a factor in the collision of two coalition helicopters earlier today.
“These guys are operating from fairly austere forward bases — even the larger ones, and generally under ‘Visual Flying Conditions’ and Visual Flying Rules (VFR),” the aviator said. “In the tactical environment, if weather goes bad quickly, the pilots have to adjust to an IFR [Instrument Flying Rules] flight plan and landing approach. This usually means that tactical operations cease; Individual aircraft on planned instrument flights from point to point will continue, but there are no instrument formation flights.”
In such cases, pilots flying in formation have rules to separate from each other when they inadvertently go into IFR: The lead aircraft might go straight and climb to a certain altitude, and the second might turn right 15 degrees and fly to a higher altitude. But if there are multiple formations in the air, they might not be able to de-conflict their flight paths when they scatter. “I don’t know what the ATC [air traffic control] capability is there, but if several aircraft went inadvertent IFR at the same time or close to the same time, it would take a bit to sort them out, assign transponder codes, and prioritize them for a controlled (radar) approaches in,” the aviator said.
Add to that a number of other factors — low-light conditions, flying under night-vision goggles, sudden dust swirls, enemy ground fire — and you’ve put one of the centerpieces of this war at even greater risk.
– Nathan Hodge and Noah Shachtman

usmc helo

28th Oct 2009, 14:47

Dan,

I'll assume that by 'folks new here' you are speaking of FH1100 since myself, mckpave and Gregg have post on this thread much older than his. In fact while you assume that many of us are new just because we are not prolific posters does not mean we haven't been following this thread since it's inception. Just to refresh my memory I have reviewed this thread from start to finish, particlarly looking at Nicks post and found no reference to the topic of control inputs and the similarity of limitations between platforms. I fully admit that I may have missed it. Could you please point me specifically to which post you are referring? Could you also clarify why a warning/limitation that some deem as a deficiency in combat operations for th V-22 is not viewed as a deficiency in other RW paltforms? i.e. the 40kts/800fpm and abrupt/rapid control inputs.

Dan Reno

28th Oct 2009, 17:50

usmc helo

Actually, after I wrote the reply to 21st Century I said to myself I better see if I can find that statement. I looked quick and couldn't but noticed there were a bunch of Nick's posts missing and I couldn't get his reference to some posts to work. Perhaps some of this is due to his hiring on with Bell..don't know. I recall he said (paraphrasing) "The 40kts/800fpm pertains to ALL helos." As far as the "abrupt/rapid control inputs" I 'think' I recall him saying the V-22's airframe isn't able to tolerate this type actuation whereas 'regular helos' are more forgiving due to their type rotor system and somewhat flexible airframes.

I'm hoping Nick is reading this and can comment again and, due to all the past grief that's come about on 'particulars' involving the V-22, I'm going to look through each V-22 post and will hopefully be able to get back with you today.

Dan Reno

28th Oct 2009, 19:34

usmc helo

You're right! I went through every V-22 post that Nick and others wrote and could not find that specific post. Until/if Nick responds to this I can only apologize for leading you on a wild goose chase.

Please check this reference out as it does touch upon this a little:
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/116124-vortex-ring-settling-power-merged.html

JohnDixson

29th Oct 2009, 01:02

I think most of you are aware that Nick is now a VP at Bell and thus a Company Officer from the legal point of view. My guess is that his present situation prevents him from engaging in comment in a forum like this on a matter of some controversy relating to a current product of his company.

Thanks,
John Dixson

TheVelvetGlove

29th Oct 2009, 17:01

There is a pretty good article on the V-22 in this month's AOPA magazine. :ok:

zhishengji751

29th Oct 2009, 18:52

Hi Dan,

Regarding the article you posted..

The unprepared sites, conditions and maintenance issues mentioned in the article make it seem less suited to V-22 operations.

I don't see how those 'might' have been avoided.

FH1100 Pilot

31st Oct 2009, 01:15

There is a pretty decent article on the V-22 in the new AOPA PILOT Magazine. (They "scooped" FLYING Magazine!) It's written by the retired airline pilot, Barry Schiff. I began reading with low expectations, him being a fixed-wing type and all, but the article was actually pretty good. Nothing we "insiders" (rotary-wing types, I mean) don't already know but just a nice overview of the aircraft and how it operates. Wait- I take that back, there were a few tidbits I wasn't aware of.

The article has some nice photos, too - some from Bell, some from staff photographer Mike Fizer, who evidently went along with Schiff to Kirtland AFB, as Ned did too. The USAF must have been doing some deal with the press, letting photographers and pilot/reporters get to know the V-22 up close and personal, and fly not only the sim but the actual aircraft. Pretty pictures are great, but nothing beats a good first-person pilot report. Great PR for the V-22.

I wonder why the Marines haven't done that?

Ned-Air2Air

31st Oct 2009, 03:30

Bob,

Just to give you a heads up on how the AOPA feature came about and no he didnt fly the CV22.

We had started the ball rolling some time ago with higher ups at USAF HQ to go and visit the unit, after a suggestion from a friend of mine who is also a pilot at the squadron, and no its not McPave (although he and SB are friends) after he transferred there from Pavelows.

Once we had got all the approvals done the PAO folks at the base asked us if we would mind if they combined our visit, since we were doing air to air pics, with some folks from aopa who wanted to come and look at the CV22, sort of making the most of the one training sortie - the unit is VERY busy when it comes to training so obviously if we could kill two birds with one stone then why not.

It wasnt an issue with us so along they came and we all spent the day alternating between the sim and the squadron so we didnt overlap, apart from the flying part. When I was in the sim with McPave they were with Capt Millet and then vice versa. On the day of the flight we were all in one a/c and I spent most of the time sitting on the back ramp shooting the other a/c while Barry was sitting on the jumpseat between the two crew. Then for the last ten or so mins of the flight I sat there and shot some pics.

Overall it was a great day and gave us an insight into the program that not many have seen. We are now working with the folks at Hurlburt to go and see the next phase of training once the guys head back to the squadrons. :ok::ok:

And his pilot report as you put it was only gained from flying the sim and sitting in the jump seat, same as myself, no one apart from CV22 rates guys are allowed in the front seat. Believe me if we were I would have insisted :eek:

Anyway thats the heads up for you, hope it clarifies things.

Ned

FH1100 Pilot

31st Oct 2009, 05:18

I still think it was a good story.

But thanks for filling in the details, Ned.

Dan Reno

31st Oct 2009, 14:20

A college student at a recent football game challenged a senior citizen
sitting next to him, saying it was impossible for their generation to
understand his.

"You grew up in a different world," the student said ... loud enough
for the whole crowd to hear.

"Today we have television, jet planes, space travel, man has walked on
the moon, our spaceships have visited Mars, we even have nuclear
energy, electric and hydrogen cars, the Osprey, computers with light-speed
processing, and, uh ..."

Taking advantage of a pause in the student's litany, the geezer said:

"You're right. I’ll apologize for the Osprey but we didn't have those other things
when we were young; so we invented them, you little ****! Now what the hell
are you doing for the next generation besides getting idiots for president elected?"

21stCen

31st Oct 2009, 15:39

Dan,
Good try. I'm sure that was a funny joke the first time around. What was it before you inserted "Osprey"? (We still want to laugh with you)
:)

Dan Reno

31st Oct 2009, 18:10

21stCentury

I seen it without the 'Osprey' years back and just got it from a retired Marine working throuigh NADEP at NR on CH-53E refurb with the 'Osprey' in it. He says he got it from an E-something at the Osprey squadron.

21stCen

31st Oct 2009, 18:28

Yes Dan,
I had seen that one some time back also, and it made sense then as the reference was quite humorous. I just can't remember the 'punch line' that made it good. If you can remember the part that made it funny, please remind us.
thanks...

Dan Reno

31st Oct 2009, 19:37

It should read like this (?):

A college student at a recent football game challenged a senior citizen
sitting next to him, saying it was impossible for their generation to
understand his.

"You grew up in a different world," the student said ... loud enough
for the whole crowd to hear.

"Today we have television, jet planes, space travel, man has walked on
the moon, our spaceships have visited Mars, we even have nuclear
energy, electric and hydrogen cars, computers with light-speed
processing, and, uh ..."

Taking advantage of a pause in the student's litany, the geezer said:

"You're right, we didn't have those other things
when we were young so we invented them you little ****!

heli1

1st Nov 2009, 09:03

Unusual to see an elderly Cockney at an American Football game !

21stCen

1st Nov 2009, 14:51

Hi Dan,
I do remember that one now. Thanks...
:)

Dan Reno

3rd Nov 2009, 12:33

Osprey gears up for deployment

November 03, 2009 1:16 AM

HOPE HODGE ([email protected])

With October named the deadliest month of the year for troops after two unrelated helicopter crashes resulted in the deaths of 14 Americans last week, the military is sending a new kind of aircraft into Afghanistan.
Earlier in October, Department of Defense officials announced Marine Medium Tiltrotor 261, based at New River Air Station, would be the first MV-22 Osprey squadron to deploy to Afghanistan sometime in November.
New River is home to all four operational Osprey squadrons, with two more expected to become operational over the next year or so. One squadron, VMM-263, was near Alexandria, Egypt, with the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, working on amphibious assault demonstrations with the U.S.S. Bataan earlier this month.
A spokesman with Marine Corps Forces Command, Lt. Col. Matt Morgan, said that the VMM-261 also known as “The Raging Bulls,” had become fully operational Oct. 1, after transitioning to the Osprey from the CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters in early 2008.
Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, has called the Osprey, with its agility and speed, an aircraft that’s “made for Afghanistan.” Its unique tiltrotors allow it to lift off vertically like a helicopter but fly like an airplane.
The Osprey “can fly faster, farther than any rotary wing aircraft,” Morgan said.
Its versatile construction also means the Osprey operates well in austere environments such as the deserts of Afghanistan, where landing strips and support structures might be scarce.
“We are able to operate in places where there is not otherwise a robust infrastructure,” Morgan said. “The Osprey was designed from the ground up to be able to operate in that.”
This will assist in performing operations such as casualty evacuations, he said.
The squadron will consist of 10 to 12 aircraft, accompanied by about 200 Marines, according to the DoD.
Richard Whittle, an independent author and journalist from Chevy Chase, Md., whose book “The Dream Machine: The Untold History of the Notorious V-22Osprey,” will be published in April, said the Osprey has another advantage over helicopters: The higher altitudes at which it tends to fly can put it beyond the range of ground fire. Helicopters tend to fly low, using the element of surprise as a defense.
“Riding in the Osprey in Afghanistan may be safer than riding in a helicopter,” he said.
Whittle flew with a New River-based Osprey squadron in Iraq while working on his book in 2007 and said the cruising altitude averaged about 8,000 feet.
“That gets you well above the threat of small arms and rocket-propelled grenades,” he said.
Some concerns that persist about the Osprey’s first venture into Afghanistan pertain to its ability to operate in the higher altitudes, 6,500 feet or more above sea level across most of the country, as a rotor aircraft. And after recent successful deployments to Iraq, the Osprey may now be tested in an environment with a greater amount of combat situations and harsher conditions.
“The idea of having an aircraft that can take off vertically and fly fast has been a holy grail in the history of aviation,” Whittle said.

FH1100 Pilot

3rd Nov 2009, 14:12

So this guy Whittle is working on a book about the Osprey, eh? The untold history, eh? That ought to be good. Can't wait!
“Riding in the Osprey in Afghanistan may be safer than riding in a helicopter,” he said.
Whittle flew with a New River-based Osprey squadron in Iraq while working on his book in 2007 and said the cruising altitude averaged about 8,000 feet.
“That gets you well above the threat of small arms and rocket-propelled grenades,” he said.

Eight-thousand feet? Hmm. I've taken my "lowly" 206B up to 9,500 to take advantage of good tailwinds. I wonder how high you have to be to get out of range of "small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades?" Can an H-53 even go that high?

The other day, I had put my helicopter away after a flight and was driving home. I got to thinking about the V-22. Not the V-22 of today, but the V-22 of twenty years from now. I'm not a moron, I'm not crazy, and I'm not on drugs. But I've been a helicopter pilot all my life, and know a thing or two about how rotors work. And among a very few others, I've been a big critic of the tilt-rotor. So I got to wondering what will happen? Will the Osprey turn out to be a huge success, or a big failure? Will I look like more of a complete idiot than I do now? Or will I have the chance to say, "I knew it." I think I know the answer to that...but I've been wrong about stuff before.

I personally believe the tilt-rotor design has many flaws, some of which that make the V-22 an unsuitable aircraft - even more incompletely invented (to paraphrase newsman Andy Rooney) than the helicopter. But others think it is just the neatest thing since sliced bread. Maybe they're seeing something I'm not. Time will tell, of course.

We know that, despite all of the hoopla to the contrary, Afghanistan is *not* the ideal place for the Osprey. I'm sure there are plenty of generals in the Pentagon who are holding their breath and crossing their fingers right now, hoping nothing goes wrong. One bad accident could put the program in even more jeopardy. I've had private emails from military pilots who've told me that the Osprey was used *very* selectively in Iraq, and was deliberately kept from high-threat areas or missions. So it's not exactly a "battle-tested" design, let's be honest.

I'll be curious to read Whittle's "untold history" of the V-22, especially since it is not completely written yet. Maybe that's why the publication date is so far off. Afghanistan could very well be do-or-die for the Osprey.

21stCen

3rd Nov 2009, 14:58

The USS New York whose structure includes 7.5 tons of steel salvaged from the World Trade Center site visited Ground Zero to Honor those lost on 9/11.
http://media.bfm.ru/news/currentnew/2009/11/03/ship1.jpg

YouTube - USS New York WTC Steel Built Ship - Close up view (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdl9ZioQVBM&feature=player_embedded)

On a particularly gray day, the type of gray only achievable in New York City, the USS New York (http://www.ussny.org) arrived in grand style, made a brief appearance in Lower Manhattan to offer a twenty one gun salute in honor of the fallen on 9-11, then glided easily upstream to come about near the George Washington Bridge, and then slide into a berth at Pier 88 just across from the Intrepid (http://www.intrepidmuseum.org/) Air, Sea, Space museum. The City's NYC.gov (http://www.nyc.gov) page warned lower-Manhattanites that there would be repetitive loud sounds and not to be alarmed. The ship's construction is a tribute to modern Naval architecture and technology, in terms of amphibious tactical vehicles, it boasts a wide range of impressive structural cues, as well as armaments that make it a formidable opponent. It's maiden voyage in the nautical footsteps of Henry Hudson is also significant for the fact that a section of its nearly 700 foot length is forged partly from 7.5 tons of steel salvaged from the World Trade Center site.
In an unprecedented show of hospitality, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg was welcomed aboard to watch the Yankees (http://www.yankees.com) trounce the Phillies again last night. Further festivities this morning included an honor guard including pipers and drums from the NYPD, and members from the NY Guard, NY National Guard, and several other branches that all had first responders that rushed to the WTC disaster. Mayor Bloomberg officially welcomed the crew and commanders to NYC this morning after the ship docked.
Veterans and civilians alike showed up en masse to view and take photos of the Navy's newest addition. Police presence and security was tight, with armed guards at the gates preventing anyone from getting in. On the greenway bike path however, it was clear that a stream of Vietnam era and younger veterans - proudly displaying caps with their theater and ship - were on their way to view the New York.
The ship is capable of carrying a buffet of operational delights, including (but not limited to) MV-22 Ospreys, AH1 SuperCobras, CH-46E Sea Knights, and CH-53 Super Stallion helicopters, along with men and supplies. The aerial vehicles are accompanied by spaces below decks for Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles, and other amphibious assault craft. The sight of the ship is truly one to behold as an advance in the military technology of today: what appear to be smoke stacks are in fact arrays of sensors, with a separate helicopter control deck in the aft portion.

http://www.devicemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/USSNewyork_02-480x193.jpg

SASless

3rd Nov 2009, 16:22

Out of range of RPG's???

So much for landing at other than secure airfields then!:ugh:

Dan Reno

4th Nov 2009, 09:11

Some Sense on Defense Spending

Presidents, and those aspiring to be presidents, routinely promise to reform the defense procurement process. And defense contractors, their lobbyists and the military services routinely ensure that never happens.

This year has been refreshingly different. President Obama and his defense secretary, Robert Gates, have made a compelling case for ending weapons programs that significantly exceed their budgets or use limited tax dollars to buy more capability than the nation needs. And Congress has agreed — somewhat.
The $680 billion defense authorization bill signed into law by President Obama last week pares back or cancels billions of dollars in expensive weapons systems that are either anachronistic, redundant, poorly performing or exceed the military’s real requirements. Even with these reductions, the defense bill is one of the biggest in history, in part because of the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it sets an important base line for future cuts that need to be far more ambitious.
The new law ends production of the C-17 transport plane (military planners say they have enough to meet current and future needs) and cancels the airborne laser (a favorite of missile defense dreamers) as well as the heart of the Army’s Future Combat System (an overly high-tech approach to war-fighting that was overbudget and ill suited to fighting today’s counterinsurgencies).
The biggest political win was ending production of the Air Force’s F-22 stealth fighter jet after 187 aircraft. Several previous presidents, including President George W. Bush, tried and failed to end the program. The decision by Lockheed Martin and its partners to put plants and other facilities in dozens of states ensured that it had a lot of powerful friends on Capitol Hill.
This time, strategic reality finally trumped high-priced lobbyists. The F-22 was designed for combat against the former Soviet Union and has not been used in Iraq or Afghanistan. The Air Force’s new high-performance F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a Lockheed Martin weapon that begins production in 2012, should be sufficient.
Mr. Obama did not get everything he wanted. Congress defied a veto threat and insisted on authorizing $560 million for research and procurement of an alternate engine for the F-35 that the Pentagon says is unnecessary. Lawmakers authorized an extra $1.8 billion to buy 18 F-18 fighter jets — twice as many as the administration sought.
President Obama and Mr. Gates are going to have to work hard to make sure that their hard-won victories stay won. The House and Senate are negotiating a defense spending bill that experts predict will include money for the C-17 transport plane. They should also continue to press lawmakers not to finance the alternate F-35 engine.
And they are going to have to be even bolder next year: pressing Congress to halt production of the V-22 Osprey and the Virginia class submarine and make deeper trims in the still unproven missile defense program.
The administration has also begun to make progress toward changing the defense procurement culture. Mr. Obama has wisely ended no-bid contracts and signed bipartisan legislation to improve how weapons are bought. It will take political courage and persistence to keep all those reforms going especially next year when many members of Congress are up for re-election.

Dan Reno

5th Nov 2009, 09:44

New York Times Suddenly Defense Procurement Experts

After advocating massive influxes of taxpayer money into blackholes like stimulus, bailouts for failed corporations, and universal health care, the New York Times editorial board is suddenly on a big fiscal responsibility kick (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/opinion/04wed1.html):

Presidents, and those aspiring to be presidents, routinely promise to reform the defense procurement process. And defense contractors, their lobbyists and the military services routinely ensure that never happens. This year has been refreshingly different. President Obama and his defense secretary, Robert Gates, have made a compelling case for ending weapons programs that significantly exceed their budgets or use limited tax dollars to buy more capability than the nation needs. Russia simulates nuclear attacks against a key NATO ally, China declares their intention to weaponize space, Iran holds massive rallies outside the US embassy threatening to annihilate the Great Satan, North Korea announces that they'll be constructing more nuclear bombs, while the Taliban continue to make strong gains in rural Afghanistan. "More capability than the nation needs" indeed.
The fact is, the Times editorial board has little idea of how much defensive capability we need, as they've never been a credible or knowledgeable exponent of national security matters. In one breath they argue that cutting the F-22 was justified because the plane hasn't seen combat in Iraq or Afghanistan, in the next, they can barely contain their giddiness at the prospect of killing the V-22 Osprey, a valuable tilt-rotor aircraft that has been absolutely indispensable to quick-reaction Marine forces in both theaters of war. They say that military planners don't want more C-17 cargo jets, a mere month after Air Force officials laid out a very clear and convincing case for additional military airlift resources to support landlocked Afghanistan. They even go so far as to bring out the big guns, plucking lines directly from Obama's stump speeches in their support of killing "unproven" missile defense technologies.
This isn't a serious editorial. It's a dogmatic reiteration of the President's damaging proposals to drastically cut the military. Taking strategic cues from the New York Times would be like General Petraeus giving the Old Grey Lady journalistic advice . . . with the caveat that Petraeus is actually good at his craft.

Dan Reno

6th Nov 2009, 22:45

V-22s Arrive in Afghanistan (With video) (http://www.pprune.org/posts)
Aviation Week Ares Blog ^ (http://www.pprune.org/^http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a3ef2e5eb-4378-4a7b-9536-76be5c764c6f)| 11/6/2009 | Bettina Chavanne

Posted on Friday, November 06, 2009 5:03:39 PM by Yo-Yo (http://www.pprune.org/~yoyo/)

The U.S. Marine Corps today released video of its V-22 Ospreys arriving in Afghanistan. Ten MV-22s flew from the USS Bataan and are now operating in southern Afghanistan.

The video is of MV-22Bs with the Marine Medium tiltrotor Squadron 263, 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit taking off in three waves (http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=video/video_show.php&id=72229) from the flight deck of the Bataan.
And here is video (http://www.dvidshub.net/units/2MEB) of the arrival and flight of the first Osprey to be use in Afghanistan.

Video: http://www.dvidshub.net/units/2MEB

atakacs

7th Nov 2009, 20:19

good luck guys in operatimg the V-22B un such harsh conditions...

The Sultan

8th Nov 2009, 01:23

Dan,

Thanks for the video link. This is pretty good as well YouTube - Combat Camera Video: CV-22 Osprey Film Shoots Footage, Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAASYddu3Cg).

I thought from posts on this thread that no one could stand near a V-22 in hover or fast rope from it. These videos make those posters look like fools!

The Sultan

riff_raff

8th Nov 2009, 05:28

Good to see that the Marines are willing to deploy the V22's to Afghanistan. It shows they have faith in the aircraft.

Of course, those videos show them taking off from a stable deck at low gross weights in fair weather conditions, and then performing relaxed STOL landings on tarmac.

Nice, precision formations during final approach, landing, and ground movements though. Way to go Marines.

mckpave

8th Nov 2009, 14:30

Hey, I know those guys!!! :ok:

Dan Reno

10th Nov 2009, 12:37

Happy Birthday Marines !

https://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/holiday/usmc2009/default.asp?isc=gdr1162a (https://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/holiday/usmc2009/default.asp?isc=gdr1162a)

Gregg

10th Nov 2009, 14:15

Here is another related link to videos of the V-22 in action. Same host site as above, but for the MEU.

Digital Video & Imagery Distribution System (http://www.dvidshub.net/index.php?script=general/general_search.php&table=video&query=unit:16)

FH1100 Pilot

10th Nov 2009, 15:59

The Sultan sez:I thought from posts on this thread that no one could stand near a V-22 in hover or fast rope from it. These videos make those posters look like fools!

I don't remember anyone saying that it was impossible to fast-rope from it, or impossible to stand near it - only that the undeniably increased downwash from the V-22 would make these things more difficult. And as we saw in that video, you can indeed fast-rope from an Osprey down to a nice flat, moderately dusty surface. Let us hope and pray that all such fast-rope operations take place in such predictably good areas.

But I guess the bigger question is why some people feel the need to have others look like fools? It's not about that. On another discussion forum, some anonymous poster (you know how I love them!) said that I had been laying low lately and not posting much because I'd gotten my "ass handed to me on PPRUNE." As if that actually happened (it didn't), and as if that was important to him. He seemed gladdened by the idea that I get a good beat-down because of my views or because I think I'm such a big friggin' expert on everything (I don't).

Strange. But it is what it is.

The V-22 proponents surely do seem to have a lot of personal investment in the aircraft. They absolutely take any criticism of it personally, and they often respond in kind, lashing out at those who aren't rabid fans. I've merely been critical (okay, highly critical) of the aircraft, and I've been called things publicly (and privately!) that you would not imagine. You'd think I was trying to stop aviation.

I watched the video of those Ospreys making their nice, slow approaches, and I thought to myself in my Billy Bob Thornton/Slingblade voice, "Those things sure make mighty fine targets, mm-hmm." And it made me wonder...

Much is made of the V-22's extra, humongous speed, and its ability to "swoop" or "zoom" into an area to insert or extract troops, faster than a helicopter!! And yep, the Osprey can surely get there more quickly.

At some point the V-22 is going to have to convert back to helicopter mode. This will happen at some predetermined distance from the LZ, on a carefully-planned approach profile. And so my question is: From that point, if the Osprey and a CH-53 were side-by-side, which aircraft can get into the LZ faster? We all know that the V-22 can "get out of Dodge" really fast, and that could be a big advantage if someone is shooting at you. But who gets in quicker when someone is shooting at you? That's the important bit, yes? It's not like the V-22 is so stealthy that the bad guys aren't going to hear it coming until it's touching down or hovering while pooping soldiers out the back end (sorry, but that's what it looks like).

The helicopter pilot part of me knows that I could take *any* helicopter and get into an LZ damn quickly. But I'm no Osprey pilot, as has often been pointed out. So are they the same? Has anyone ever compared this? I am curious (Bob).

There are a lot of assumptions about the V-22 - conclusions to which we are expected to leap about how much "better" than a helicopter it is. I'm still not convinced.

21stCen

10th Nov 2009, 17:29

FH1100 asks:
And so my question is: From that point, if the Osprey and a CH-53 were side-by-side, which aircraft can get into the LZ faster? We all know that the V-22 can "get out of Dodge" really fast, and that could be a big advantage if someone is shooting at you. But who gets in quicker when someone is shooting at you? That's the important bit, yes? It's not like the V-22 is so stealthy that the bad guys aren't going to hear it coming until it's touching down or hovering while pooping soldiers out the back end (sorry, but that's what it looks like).

Bob,
There was a recent account on this thread of an observation that appears to answer your question given by Sasless:

....an Osprey is doing night landings a bit closer than the 53D did.
Observations....
The 53D is a classic!
The 22 is fast, quiet approaching, but noiser than the 53D at a hover.

FH1100 Pilot

10th Nov 2009, 18:44

21stCentury, I guess that gets to the crux of my question: What happens *after* the V-22 gets back in helicopter mode? And where does that occur in the approach process? How soon before landing does the V-22 have to be reconfigured? And from that point on what is its airspeed and rate of descent? Can a '53 beat it in - guns a-blazing - from there? Or are they the same? As much as I admire and trust SASless's observations, in this case they're hardly scientific, and he wasn't in the LZ but out on a boat, no?

The fact that the V-22 is "quieter" as it approaches does not mean that it is completely silent or that it'll blend into the cacaphonous desert background noises or that it won't echo off the mountains. Even a caveman is going to be able to hear it coming at some point - maybe soon enough to pick up his AK-47 or RPG and go meet it?

I was at a Naval Air Station on the U.S. east coast some time ago when a CH-53 was doing autorotations. I stopped and watched because I could not believe what I was seeing. CH-53 autorotations! (No, not touchdowns.) I remember thinking, "That is one agile, manoeuvreable bastard for being as big as it is! I'll betcha you could ROLL that thing!"

SASless

11th Nov 2009, 00:13

As much as I admire and trust SASless's observations, in this case they're hardly scientific, and he wasn't in the LZ but out on a boat, no?

How many LZ's and rotorcraft landings have I seen with my MK 1 eyes and ears FH? Reckon I might be able to speak to what I saw that day with some basis of experience and knowledge even if not scientific methods were not used? Recall I was very close to the LZ....and anchored sailboats are very quiet save the gurgling of the Rum Bottle emptying.

FH1100 Pilot

11th Nov 2009, 00:38

Oh, for the love of God...

Look, it was a simple question. During an approach to an LZ, which aircraft can get in faster from the point that the V-22 becomes a helicopter again?

busdriver02

11th Nov 2009, 02:56

FH1100, you seem to have your mind stuck in the Vietnam method of rotary wing employment. If you're planning on landing in an LZ where the enemy is actively engaging the LZ itself, your plan sucks. If you survive the mission, it's because you are lucky not because of your skill or how aggressive you flew the approach. Fly like you're in Vietnam, expect to get shot down like you're in Vietnam.

Also, if you sit in an LZ with clear line of sight around said LZ, ALL helo approaches look slow.

FH1100 Pilot

11th Nov 2009, 05:05

Thank you, busdriver for not answering the question...even though I agree with you. Let us just hope that the V-22 is always used in peacetime, where there is no chance that it might be shot at as it goes about its business. Sounds like a good plan! "Bad guys" never shoot at helicopters anymore, eh?

Meantime, I'll just wait form someone to chime in with a real answer.

21stCen

11th Nov 2009, 05:33

Bob,
There is one person posting on this thread who is uniquely qualifed to accurately answer your question. He has years of experience on the CH-53 and years of experience on the V-22 with countless approaches into LZs in both aircraft. He has been verified as credible by all the regulars here. So why don't you just ask your friend Mckpave!!
:ok:

heli1

11th Nov 2009, 10:27

Having watched and experienced both Chinooks and the V-22 going in and out of Lzs my impression is that an experienced pilot in the V-22 does have the advantage.It seems to be a question of how quickly the pilot goes though the transition,how late he leaves it on the way in and how quickly he accelerates on departure.

SASless

11th Nov 2009, 12:10

If you're planning on landing in an LZ where the enemy is actively engaging the LZ itself, your plan sucks.

As Murphy states....."The best made plan only lasts until contact with the enemy."

Ask the folks who fought at Robert's Ridge!

Sometimes you find yourself nose to nose with the bad guys.....and that is when all this becomes an issue.

Are you saying we now value airframes more than we do wounded guys on the ground?

21stCen

11th Nov 2009, 16:02

SAS,
I think what busdriver02 was referring to was an 'insertion' where enemy fire was expected or encountered, not 'an extraction of troops under fire.'

Of course you are right that if there are those on the ground needing help, the a/c commander will make the decision to lay ground fire (if capable) and/or go in whether it is a helicopter or a tiltrotor.

usmc helo

11th Nov 2009, 18:55

Oh, for the love of God...

Look, it was a simple question. During an approach to an LZ, which aircraft can get in faster from the point that the V-22 becomes a helicopter again?

FH, if you checked out the above links and watched the one of the 53s and 22s landing in Iraq than you've seen it with your own eyes. Having seen 53s land from all different perspectives (in the air as an escort, in the back as a pax, and from the ground) what you see on that link is pretty representative as to how 'fast' a 53 lands in that type of environment, which was about the same as the V-22. I'm not sure what exactly you are looking for. By no means have I ever heard anyone (other than you) characterize a 53 approaching an LZ as agile and maneuverable.

Gregg

12th Nov 2009, 12:36

I doubt that FH1100 will get the answer he is looking for because he is asking the wrong question.

Once the V-22 is in helicopter mode, it generally flies at the same rates coming into a zone as a comparable sized helicopter. As noted above, many helicopters have the same published restrictions as the V-22 for rate of descent- and they are not a factor for them in tactical approaches.

The entry rate and approach path into the zone is a tactical decision based on factors such as threat level and zone size.

However, what is missing from FH-1100's question is how fast a V-22 can get in and out of a zone from a somewhat farther distance and how it is able to enter the zone.

The V-22 can come in with a lower nacelle angle at a faster speed and convert as it approaches the zone. If you consider a maneuver such as the standard helicopter quick stop, the tilt-rotor can use nacelle angle tilt (nacelles go aft of 90 degrees) to reduce speed as well as using pitch attitude like a helicopter does. The V-22 is able to convert and decelerate very rapidly if necessary.

On takeoff, the V-22 can lift rapidly and clear the zone at speed, reducing its time in the critical area of vulnerability.

More important than pure speed for safety/success in many zones, particularly at night, is field of view. In this respect the V-22 has great advantages. By use of nacelles, the pilot can keep the pitch attitude level while decelerating and approach the zone without needing the typical nose high attitude of a helicopter. This way the pilots can keep a better sight picture of the zone and actually come in with less risk, and potentially faster. In smaller zones that require steep approaches, the tilt-rotor can actually come in with the nose lowered and full aft nacelle to maintain a constant clear sight picture of the landing spot.

So-
Yes- an FH-1100 can probably get into a landing zone quite nicely carrying one sack lunch for the pilot. A UH-1Y can get to and into that same zone faster than the FH-1100 and with greater payload. From any significant distance the V-22 can go to and from the zone multiple times while the FH-1100 is putting along. The CH-53E can get into the same zone as well, probably while externally carrying several FH-1100s. All of them will adjust their rate and type of approach to the threat in the zone.

And the fine warriors of the US Marines and US Air Force will probably get their mission completed with the tools they have chosen to do their jobs so we can all be safe to sit here and pontificate about their aircraft.....

Dan Reno

12th Nov 2009, 16:47

Israel drops interest in V-22, eyes CH-53K evaluation
By Arie Egozi

The Israeli air force has abandoned its evaluation of the Bell Boeing (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/boeing.html) V-22 Osprey (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/v-22%20osprey.html) and is instead showing interest in the capabilities of Sikorsky's developmental CH-53K.
Israel confirmed in 2007 that it was evaluating the V-22 tiltrotor, but an air force source says its interest has now been terminated. "The V-22 is not on our current list," the source adds.
The need for a new vertical take-off and landing aircraft became more acute following a decision to phase out some of the air force's legacy CH-53s. As an interim measure, it is prolonging the service lives of some of these aircraft by upgrading them to the CH-53 2025 configuration.
"We will wait for the CH-53K and evaluate it when it flies," says the air force source. The new type will maintain almost all the basic capabilities of Sikorsky's previous CH-53E, but will be capable of lifting a much heavier payload.
The US Marine Corps is expected to begin operating the new K-model transport from around the middle of the next decade

Dan Reno

17th Nov 2009, 11:29

SOCOM Takes Osprey To War

November 17, 2009: The first six CV-22 tilt-rotor ("Osprey") transports have returned from three months of SOCOM operations in Iraq. The marines have had MV-22s in Iraq for two years, and just sent the first squadron to Afghanistan. The U.S. Air Forcehttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsf/articles/20091117.aspx#) component of SOCOM is using the CV-22 to replace the current MH-53J special operations helicopters. Unlike the U.S. Marinehttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsf/articles/20091117.aspx#) Corps version, the SOCOM CV-22B have lots more expensive electronics on board. This will help the CV-22 when traveling into hostile territory. The CV-22 also carries a terrain avoidance radar, an additional 3500 liters (900 gallons) of fuel and more gadgets in general. The 25 ton CV-22 is a major improvement on the MH-53J, with three times the range, and a higher cruising speed (at 410 kilometers an hour, twice that of the helicopter). The CV-22 can travel about nearly a thousand kilometers, in any weather, and land or pick up 18 fully equipped commandoes. The SOCOM CV-22 won't ready for combat for another two years.
SOCOM has had a GAU-2B machine-gun fitted to the bottom of a V-22, to test the practicality of arming the aircraft. This V-22 installation is a remote control turret using a six-barrel 7.62mm machine-gun. This system has a rate of fire of 3,000 rounds per minute (50 per second), and max range of 1,500 meters. The system weighs a few hundred pounds and includes 4,000 rounds of ammo. A member of the crew uses a video game (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsf/articles/20091117.aspx#) like interface to operate the gun. This weapon is part of the Universal Turret System (UTS) for Helicopters. Plans for arming the V-22 have been discussed for nearly a decade. The original proposal was for a UTS equipped with a 12.7mm machine-gun. That has a longer range (about 2,000 meters), but the 7.62mm GAU-2B could lay down more bullets more quickly. Experience in Iraq and Afghanistan indicated this would be a more useful defensive measure. The UTS will be mounted on CV-22s as needed. The armed SOCOM V-22 provides an option that the other users can easily adopt. The machine-gun turret is mainly there for protection from local threats, not for turning the V-22 into an assault aircraft.
The V-22 is the first application of the tilt-rotor technology in active service. The air force is already working on improvements (to make the V-22 more reliable and easier to maintain), but these won't be installed for another few years. The V-22 gives the marines and SOCOM a lot more capability, but, as it often the case, this is a lot more expensive. The initial production models of the CV-22 cost over $60 million each. SOCOM insists on a high degree of reliability for its aircraft. Commando operations cannot tolerate too many mistakes without getting fatally derailed.

Dan Reno

17th Nov 2009, 16:56

V-22 Osprey, stealth jumpjet 'need
refrigerated landing pads'

It's now official. The new generation of high-tech hovering aircraft - namely the famous V-22 "Osprey" tiltrotor and the upcoming F-35B supersonic stealth jump-jet - have an unforeseen flaw. Their exhaust downwash is so hot as to melt the flight decks of US warships, leading Pentagon boffins to look into refrigerated landing pads.

Talk about a hot ship
Stories of buckled flight decks caused by Osprey exhaust have been circulating for a while, but confirmation that the issue is seen as serious comes with the issue of a military request for proposals yesterday for "thermal management systems (TMS) for aircraft landing decks".
The proposal makes it clear that the Osprey - which is now in active combat service with the US Marines following a painful twenty-year gestation - has already been fingered as a deck-damaging craft. The F-35B stealth jumpjet, which has just commenced hover flight testing, is also expected to be fielded soon by the Marines, and could be an even worse pad-melter.

According to the request:The deployment of the MV-22 Osprey has resulted in ship flight deck buckling that has been attributed to the excessive heat impact from engine exhaust plumes. Navy studies have indicated that repeated deck buckling will likely cause deck failure before planned ship life. With the upcoming deployment of the F-35B Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), it is anticipated that the engine exhaust plumes may have a more severe thermo-mechanical impact on the non-skid surface and flight deck structure of ships. Currently, there are no available strategies to mitigate deck buckling and thermal-mechanical deck failure other than heavy structural modifications.The jarheads* will want to operate their new machines from their existing helicopter-carrier amphibious assault vessels, which can't practically be torn apart and refitted with massively reinforced upper decks as this would be likely to make them capsize. Similarly it would be extremely difficult to refrigerate the whole deck from beneath.
Hence the Marines would like someone to invent "a system that can be installed on top of the existing decks", capable of resisting the hot breath of the F-35B and less than one inch thick. It should also, of course, be tough enough not to suffer any damage from the aircraft landing on it. This miracle fridge-sheet assembly should be covered with "thermally stable non-skid" finish - this latter perhaps incorporating "amorphous metal coatings".
For help in the project, the Marines have of course turned to DARPA - really the only people to call when the exhaust of your super-advanced hovership requires a refrigerated landing pad, we'd suggest.
The full solicitation can be read in pdf here (https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=2edeadbf3996eebd7c51240c4db16f67). ®
* US Marines are so called owing to their dislike of having any visible hair on the sides of their heads, or any longer than about 1mm on the top. The Marines aren't as tough as they think they are - frankly, nobody could be that tough - but even so, jocular commentary on their coiffure is normally offered only from a safe distance.
Source: V-22 Osprey, stealth jumpjet 'need refrigerated landing pads' ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/17/darpa_chilled_landing_pads_for_osprey_f_35b/)

Dan Reno

17th Nov 2009, 23:56

V-22s In Af-Pak: Faster, Higher, Longer (http://www.pprune.org/posts)

DoD Buzz ^ (http://www.pprune.org/^http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/11/16/v-22s-in-af-pak-faster-higher-longer/)| November 16th, 2009 | Colin Clark

Posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 5:14:36 PM by Yo-Yo (http://www.pprune.org/~yoyo/)

Now that the V-22s have landed in Afghanistan, it’s time to take a look at how they will be used. Robbin Laird, a defense consultant who works for the Marines — among other clients — got a chance to interview the flight crews of VMM-261, headed by Lt. Col. A. J. Bianca, about the concepts of operations they expected to follow. We’ve got links to the interviews (http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=1906), an interview with Laird and links to video of the V-22 teams undergoing deployment (http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=1934) to Afghanistan and some of their training.

The top benefit of the V-22 in Afghanistan is a simple one, Laird said. It is not a helicopter. “Rotorcraft have been used for a long time in Afghanistan and the bad guys know how to target them,” he noted. Of course, that experience for many of the older Afghans includes using Stinger missiles against the Soviet’s helicopters.

The V-22 “gives the Marines a lot of advantages,” Laird said. The exact operating ceiling is classified but these Ospreys are operating at more than 20,000 feet.

In one of the interviews Laird did, he quoted a Marine pilot who noted that the Osprey does have limitations when it flies at its highest altitudes. “Now obviously, we can’t carry passengers at our highest altitudes. We can certainly carry cargo. We can go to get passengers and we can carry passengers down at lower altitudes. But flying at higher altitudes makes you a whole lot faster.

“And I see that really glossed over when this airplane is briefed, you know. The average ground person, or someone who’s not a pilot, or even a rotary pilot, may not fully understand it. At higher altitudes, you’re about a hundred knots faster than you are on the surface, in any airplane, Tiltrotor or otherwise,” the Marine told Laird.

Second, the Ospreys afford the Marines much greater range than do helicopters. Helos have to land much more frequently to refuel and Laird says the V-22s in Afghanistan “have been able to avoid many attacks because of their mobility.”

Also, the V-22 can provide the Marines with a more effective envelopment tool. Suppose a UAV identifies a target that is not susceptible to a precision strike and a helo can’t get there in time. A CH-46 or a 53 needs two FARPs to travel the distance an Osprey can cover without landing.

“I’ve got to bring the helo up one or two times and refuel it, and that’s a lot of hours,” Laird noted. “The Osprey is there in 90 minutes or, at least, much more quickly than any helo could arrive.” In some cases, the FARP for a helo mission will have to be established, eating up valuable time and increasing the vulnerability of both the helos and the ground crews supporting them.

“If you think back to Vietnam, that was one of our biggest vulnerabilities — having all these huge fuel dumps scattered around the country,” Laird said.

The other benefit of the Osprey’s extended range and speed, compared to a helo in terrain like Afghanistan’s, is that a smaller number of Ospreys “can support several combat groups at once.”

Jolly Green

20th Nov 2009, 01:16

"SOCOM Takes Osprey To War

November 17, 2009: The first six CV-22 tilt-rotor ("Osprey") transports have returned from three months of SOCOM operations in Iraq. . . . The SOCOM CV-22 won't ready for combat for another two years."

Huh? Hey guys, it's train LIKE you fight, not WHERE you fight.

Dan Reno

29th Nov 2009, 14:34

Why Helicopters Are Critical to Afghanistan War Success

Choppers Play More Important Role to US and NATO Forces in Afghanistan Than in Iraq

By Jay Price, McClatchy Newspapers
Nov 29, 2009

Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan - In one of the worst chapters of their casualty-marred deployment in Afghanistan, (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/11/2009112501946557804.html)Canadian forces (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/President44/story?id=6915400&page=1) earlier this year lost 10 soldiers in 90 days to improvised bombs (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/International/pakistanis-blame-us-taliban-terror-bombs/story?id=9062793)on one stretch of highway in Kandahar province. (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=9171344)Then a US Army helicopter crew stalking Taliban (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/exclusive-video-shows-taliban-attack-killed-us-soldiers/story?id=9068156) insurgents who plant bombs at night spotted a five-man team, watched the insurgents through sophisticated optical gear until it was certain that's what the men were doing and got permission to kill them.
After that, no bombs exploded on that section of road for two months, says Col. Paul W. Bricker, a Michigan native who commands the Fort Bragg, N.C., based 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, the Army helicopter unit for southern and western Afghanistan.
"There are stretches of these roads we have almost shut down to bomb activity, but it requires constant pressure to do that because even though we have a lot of aircraft, we also have a lot of territory to cover," Bricker says.
Choppers are critical to the counterinsurgency campaign that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and NATO troops in Afghanistan, is waging, but until spring there weren't enough of them, and even limited road surveillance gobbles time for choppers.
When Bricker's unit arrived in April, it had five times the number of helicopters of the unit it replaced. Now it's getting dozens more, some of them shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan.
By December, the US-led coalition will likely have nearly 10 times more choppers in the volatile south than it did nine months ago. That's still not nearly enough to patrol all the roads that US, Afghan and allied troops use, but it's a big improvement
The 68,000 US and 42,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan are spread across vast distances. The terrain is some of the harshest on the planet, and insurgents are planting increasingly powerful bombs, some of them capable of disabling even the massive MRAP, or Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle.
More than Iraq or any other recent conflict, Afghanistan is a helicopter war, according to ground troops, whose reinforcements, ambulance service, air cover and in some cases even food and water, arrive by chopper.
The additional Army helicopters will be used mainly in the western provinces, where there've been few.
The Marine Corps, beginning in late spring, brought in more of its own choppers as it built up a force of 11,000 troops in Helmand, the most dangerous province for NATO troops. This month, it added a squadron – usually about 10 – of the new MV-22 Osprey tilt rotors, which take off like helicopters but fly like airplanes.
Last week, the first of six British Merlin helicopters, which can carry 20 troops, arrived in Helmand. There's been a public outcry in Britain because of a belief that troops have been killed and wounded because British units had only a handful of helicopters.
The 82nd CAB has been rapidly building hangars, landing zones and other facilities across the region to be used by the units that will replace it, and setting up new satellite bases to put medical evacuation helicopters closer to troops.
Choppers save lives
There's no question that the choppers are saving lives daily.
In six months, the 82nd CAB has flown nearly 2,100 wounded troops to a medical facility within an hour, missing its goal only a half dozen times out of 1,400 missions, mainly because of mechanical problems, says Lt. Col. Ed Brouse, of Pennsylvania, the deputy commander.
Until this year, no wounded double amputees had survived because there were so few helicopters in Afghanistan and that the average medevac flight took two hours, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has said.
Bricker says that he's requested a few more crews to get more use out of his helicopters, but he said he has enough aircraft.
Well, maybe.
"If you ask any ground maneuver commander, they'll tell you we can never have enough helicopters in this environment," Bricker says.
In Iraq, roadside bombs also were the main threat, but distances were shorter, there were more roads and the terrain was flatter.
"In Iraq, helicopters were effective as well, but we had 150,000 troops there," Bricker says.
"This area is much more expansive, much more remote, and the conditions are austere, to say the least, in many areas, particularly where we work," he said. "The terrain here just swallows the infantry, and the aircraft enable us to cross all that ground rapidly, and with great agility and flexibility."
Crucial supply line
"Helicopters are an absolutely critical asset here," says Lt. Col. David Oclander, of Chicago, the commander of an 82nd Airborne Division infantry battalion that's spread across several small bases in southern Afghanistan.
He's standing on the dusty landing pad of a tiny Afghan Army post, Forward Operating Base Nawbahar, in Zabul province's high desert moonscape, where he has a small unit mentoring Afghan soldiers and police officers. The base was hours by ground from large US outposts, but minutes by air.
"Pretty much everything is brought here by helicopter," he says.
US and Afghan troops at the base get supplies via Chinooks and Black Hawks, and close air support from Apache and Kiowa attack helicopters. If they're wounded, they can expect to be airlifted by chopper to a medical facility within an hour. When it's time for R&R, they take choppers out.
It's not unusual for Black Hawks and Chinooks to fly half a million pounds of supplies and almost 2,000 people in a week, and when Special Operations troops need to be moved quickly to a fight, say when a high value target has been found, they need choppers, too.
Stalking roadside bombers
In population centers such as Kandahar, Apaches, with their sophisticated optical and weapons systems, and light, maneuverable Kiowa armed reconnaissance helicopters watch key roads at night, stalking insurgent bomb placement teams.
Their crews are trained to identify insurgents, and case studies and audio and video recordings are made from the helicopters as crews decide whether to attack suspected insurgents. They're also taught to speak as clearly as possible in the recordings about their thinking as they make decisions, in part so they can better defend their actions if insurgents later claim that a helicopter crew killed civilians.
Some of the 82nd Brigade's units are flying five times more than they do back at Fort Bragg.
Chief Warrant Officer 3 Lucas Whittington, of Lillington, N.C., a Kiowa pilot, says his troop is flying 1,200 to 1,300 hours a month, versus 800 to 900 hours a year back home, escorting convoys, providing close air support for the infantry and scouting for people planting bombs.
Maintenance is going 24 hours a day, with maintenance crews working 12-hour shifts, seven days a week.
(Jay Price reports for the Raleigh News & Observer. Nancy A. Youssef contributed to this article from Washington.)

The V-22 will show Army Aviation what "Faster, Higher, Longer really means !

21stCen

5th Dec 2009, 07:17

U.S. Marines Launch First Major Afghan Operation Since Surge Announced
Friday, December 04, 2009

http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_ap_36.gif

KABUL — U.S. Marines and Afghan troops on Friday launched the first offensive since President Obama announced an American troop surge, striking against Taliban communications and supply lines in a southern insurgent stronghold, a military spokesman said.

Hundreds of troops from the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines and the Marine reconnaissance unit Task Force Raider were dropped by helicopter and MV-22 Osprey aircraft behind Taliban lines in the northern end of the Now Zad Valley of Helmand province, scene of heavy fighting last summer, according to Marine spokesman Maj. William Pelletier.

A U.S. military official in Washington said it was the first use of Ospreys, aircrafts that combine features of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, in an offensive involving units larger than platoons.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to detail the operation, said that Ospreys have previously been used for intelligence and patrol operations.

A second, larger force pushed northward from the Marines' Forward Operating Base in the town of Now Zad, Pelletier said. Combat engineers were forcing a corridor through Taliban minefields with armored steamrollers and explosives, Pelletier said.

In all, about 1,000 Marines as well as Afghan troops were taking part in the operation, known as "Cobra's Anger," he said.

There were no reports of NATO casualties. The spokesman for the Afghan governor of Helmand province, Daood Ahmadi, said the bodies of four slain Taliban had been recovered. Ahmadi said 150 Afghan troops were taking part in the operation, which had located more than 300 mines and roadside bombs by Friday evening.

The operation began three days after Obama announced that he was sending 30,000 reinforcements to Afghanistan to help turn the tide against the Taliban. America's European allies will send an estimated 7,000 more troops to Afghanistan next year "with more to come," NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced Friday.

Most of the new troops are expected to be sent to southern Afghanistan, including Helmand, where Taliban influence is strongest.

The new offensive aims to cut off the Taliban communication routes through Helmand and disrupt their supply lines, especially those providing explosives for the numerous lethal roadside bombs, or improvised explosive devices, that litter the area, known by Marines as "IED Alley."

Pelletier said several arms caches and at least 400 pounds of explosive materials had been found so far Friday.

"Right now, the enemy is confused and disorganized," Pelletier said by telephone from Camp Leatherneck, the main Marine base in Helmand. "They're fighting, but not too effectively."[/B]

Pelletier said insurgents were caught off guard by the early morning air assault.

http://media2.foxnews.com/thumbnails/i/120409/120409_centanni_afghanistan_90x70.jpg

Fox News Video reports MV-22s flew in from the North, a direction that took the Taliban by surprise:
Cobra's Anger - Video - FOXNews.com (http://video.foxnews.com/12213487/cobras-anger)

21stCen

5th Dec 2009, 14:31

Ospreys enter Afghanistan with more firepower

By Amy McCullough - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Dec 5, 2009 8:54:59 EST

The MV-22 Osprey is in Afghanistan and ready to fight.
Ten aircraft from Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 arrived at Camp Bastion in November and were promptly transferred to VMM-261 out of Marine Corps Air Station New River, N.C., the first-ever Osprey squadron deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. They were flown into Helmand province from the amphibious assault ship Bataan, which along with the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit was afloat about 600 miles away in the Gulf of Oman. The trip took about two hours. Reports also state that the Osprey saw action Friday as Marines and Afghan forces began a major assault in Helmand province, one of their first — if not the first — operational uses in Afghanistan.
The Corps is quick to tout the Osprey’s impressive range and speed, but critics have long argued that the MV-22, armed only with a 7.62mm M240 machine gun pointed out its rear ramp, can’t sufficiently defend itself in a hot landing zone. That’s no longer a concern, officials say, as these birds pack significantly more firepower.
Ospreys in Afghanistan will be armed with a 7.62mm belly-mounted turret gun, known as the Interim Defense Weapon System, capable of shooting 360 degrees around the aircraft. Additionally, the ramp-mounted M240 was upgraded to a .50-cal. They’ll need that extra potency to counter threats on the ground, which range in sophistication from advanced surface-to-air defense systems to crude shoulder-fired rockets.
The Corps has only eight belly guns. Five are in Afghanistan, and three will remain stateside for training and testing. Maintainers can load and unload the 800-pound system in eight hours, though it is likely to remain on the same aircraft for the duration of the time it is in theater, said Capt. Craig Thomas, a Marine spokesman.
To operate the weapon, a Marine gunner will use a controller, similar to one used to play a video game. He’ll acquire targets using a monitor that is fed color images from a forward-looking infrared sensor mounted beneath the aircraft.
During its 19-month deployment to Iraq, which ended earlier this year, the Osprey was frequently accompanied in missions by AH-1 Cobra gunships and UH-1N Hueys, which provided fire support when necessary. Despite the addition of a belly gun, it’s unlikely the Osprey will be making many solo flights in Afghanistan, said Col. Kevin Vest, who commands Marine Aircraft Group 40, the Corps’ aviation element in Afghanistan.
“There are times when the Osprey will fly solo, just like the C-130 does, but generally no aircraft flies alone,” he said. “When we are going someplace where we perceive there is going to be a threat, I will use everything at my disposal. The AV-8B [Harriers] will provide overhead surveillance, the C-130 will be used to fuel and for command and control, and the Cobra and [new UH-1Y Huey] will provide fire support.”
The Corps considers the IDWS belly gun an interim solution. It will be closely scrutinized throughout the Osprey’s deployment and may evolve in the long run, said Col. Greg Masiello, the MV-22 program manager at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.

SASless

5th Dec 2009, 15:19

I bought a "Welcome Home!" round of Guinness for a dozen Marine Infantry and an Exchange Officer from the Dutch Marines last night....as they have arrived home from the 'Stan a mere two days ago and were in town on a bit of well deserved recreation.

They spoke very highly of the support they received from US Army Chinook units and bragged on the Chinook.....saying they loaded 33 combat loaded troops on the birds and went off on their missions.

Their praise of the Chinook and Army Helicopter crews made an ol' Hooker proud as the tradition carries on!

The Sultan

5th Dec 2009, 15:24

Sas

What does that have to do with the V-22. Maybe I should bring up "Roberts Ridge", Desert One, the Mayguez etc.. to say that transformation has arrived.

The Sultan

FH1100 Pilot

5th Dec 2009, 16:08

Let's see...
Ospreys in Afghanistan will be armed with a 7.62mm belly-mounted turret gun, known as the Interim Defense Weapon System, capable of shooting 360 degrees around the aircraft.
So far, so good. To operate the weapon, a Marine gunner will use a controller, similar to one used to play a video game. He’ll acquire targets using a monitor that is fed color images from a forward-looking infrared sensor mounted beneath the aircraft.
A gun that can fire 360 degrees which the gunner will aim by looking at a screen showing him images from the forward-looking infra-red camera?

Ooooookay...

It'll be interesting to see how effectively and accurately a gunner can aim and shoot that weapon while in a aircraft that may be maneuvering in reaction to hostile fire! Now, will this be a dedicated gunner onboard (dropping the troop-carrying capability by one)? Or will it be the Crew Chief (wait- won't the Crew Chief be on the rear gun)? And let us not forget, we've heard that the belly gun must be stowed before the V-22 can actually land. How long does that process take? So...will they come to a low hover and wait while the gun is stowed? Or will that happen at some point during the approach? Oh, the more I think about this system, the more I'm loving it! The Corps has only eight belly guns. Five are in Afghanistan, and three will remain stateside for training and testing. Maintainers can load and unload the 800-pound system in eight hours...
800 pounds! Dang, what does that do to the useful load? (Well, lowers it by 800 pounds, obviously.)
Additionally, the ramp-mounted M240 was upgraded to a .50-cal. They’ll need that extra potency to counter threats on the ground, which range in sophistication from advanced surface-to-air defense systems to crude shoulder-fired rockets.
So. They switch the rear gun from 7.62 to 50 cal. How much heavier is the .50 cal ammo? And what does this do to the useful load? Or have they merely reduced the amount of ammo carried?

In the book I'm writing on the V-22, this belly gun fiasco will probably have its own chapter!

MightyGem

5th Dec 2009, 16:24

A gun that can fire 360 degrees which the gunner will aim by looking at a screen showing him images from the forward-looking infra-red camera?

Ooooookay...

I think you know, FH, that forward looking infra red is actually a 360 degree mount. :rolleyes:

I've often wondered why they are called forward looking when, infact, they can look anywhere.

21stCen

5th Dec 2009, 16:47

I think you know, FH, that forward looking infra red is actually a 360 degree mount.

MightyGem,
If you look back at previous posts from FH1100 Pilot, one thing that will become very obvious is that he does not have any knowledge whatsoever about forward-looking infra-red systems, tiltrotor technology, military operations, armament, or the V-22. However, he does have a lot of strong opinions on those subjects of which he has no knowledge, and he will not accept any input from those that have first hand experience with the technology or the current ongoing operations.

But at least he is not shy...

JohnDixson

5th Dec 2009, 17:22

Sultan,

Just a guess, but perhaps SAS was wondering at what altitude a mission fueled V-22 with 33 combat loaded troops could hover OGE ( compared to his old technology CH-47 )?

Thanks,
John Dixson

Jolly Green

5th Dec 2009, 17:41

Quick point on the weight of the ramp gun issue. The .50 cal is acually much lighter because it doesn't need an electrical system and it's rate of fire is much lower at about 200 rounds per minute if I remember correctly. The minigun fires at a rate of 2000/4000 rpm (low rate/high rate) or 3000/6000 rpm depending on the model.

FLIR used to be only forward looking, but as they advanced many organizations didn't change the acronym. In some communities the same piece of equipment is called the IDS or infra-red detection system.

The V-22 is replacing the H-46, not the H-47 in the Marine Corps. 33 combat troops probably wouldn't fit. And when looking at hot or high HOGE you only need to carry more than zero to beat the current phrog. That's why the USMC pulled a bunc of 53's from the boneyard while waiting for enough V-22's to come on line.

FH1100 Pilot

5th Dec 2009, 19:23

(Sigh) I guess I should know better than to try and even make a joke with this crowd. We've all (hopefully) seen pictures of the V-22 with the gun installed. It uses its own sighting system, not the one at the front of the plane under the nose. Maybe I should start using smilies. I hate smilies.

http://www.defensereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/MV-22_Osprey_with_RGS_1.jpg

In a way, the kids operating it will probably find it as easy as playing a video game (well, if they were playing while living in California during an earthquake maybe). Only in this "game" they get to make real people die. Every teenager's dream!

Quick point on the weight of the ramp gun issue. The .50 cal is acually much lighter because it doesn't need an electrical system and it's rate of fire is much lower at about 200 rounds per minute if I remember correctly. The minigun fires at a rate of 2000/4000 rpm (low rate/high rate) or 3000/6000 rpm depending on the model.
See? There is a lot of useful information that can be had when offered by people who know, rather than by those who hoard such information and then criticize others for *not* knowing.
The V-22 is replacing the H-46, not the H-47 in the Marine Corps. 33 combat troops probably wouldn't fit. And when looking at hot or high HOGE you only need to carry more than zero to beat the current phrog. That's why the USMC pulled a bunc of 53's from the boneyard while waiting for enough V-22's to come on line.
Kinda makes you wonder why the USMC didn't replace the 46's with '53's, eh? How many '53's can you buy for the price of one V-22?

I suspect we're going to find out. And soon. :ok: (Wait, I said I hated those. Damn!)

SASless

5th Dec 2009, 20:34

Sultan,

I will pose this reply to others that are present here....knowing it is a fool's errand to respond to you individually and actually think it serves any constructive purpose. You might want to read up on personal self defense as those kinds of books might pay you much more benefit than those you refer to. Then on another hand....they talk about brave men that fought face to face against a much superior force....something you know nothing about.

In time the "new" tactics are going to face reality on the battlefield and V-22's are going to be caught in hostile fire from close range and prove themselves every bit as vulnerable as any helicopter. What will you say then? Will you trash the Marines who are flying them as you have done to other combat veterans?

The fact the US Marines have to rely upon US Army helicopter support....that being Chinook CH-47's...is what this has to do with the issue.

Perhaps it might have escaped you but the Marines have poured Billions of dollars into the V-22 program that could have been spent buying helicopters that have similar capability to that of the Chinook.

That being helicopters they very badly need if they are going to operate in situations that the V-22 is not suited for....and is outside the concepts that brought the V-22 into existence. That being Littoral combat....which has turned out to be a very small part of their real life mission as evidenced by Iraq and Afghanistan.

The question that is begged is simple. Why have the Marines put so much of their budget, prestige, and effort into the V-22 when it has such a limited capability as compared to CH-53 helicopters which it is too replace?

Dan Reno

5th Dec 2009, 20:58

Ineptitude, greed, false pride.

21stCen

6th Dec 2009, 16:16

Dan Reno says:

Ineptitude, greed, false pride.

Now Dan, I thought we agreed that we would not talk about FH1100 Pilot like that anymore!!

Oops, sorry, I missed the previous post! :O :)
(I like smiley faces)

FH1100 Pilot

6th Dec 2009, 16:39

All I have to say about that is...:ouch: ouch!

sikrosky

8th Dec 2009, 13:26

FH1000, That turret you highlight is not used for targeting the gun. It is used for jamming of IR missiles. See: Howstuffworks "How the Guardian Anti-missile System Works" (http://science.howstuffworks.com/guardian.htm/printable)

mckpave

8th Dec 2009, 17:12

Let me shed a bit more light here.

1. The turret under the belly actually is for targeting the gun.
2. The 7.62 option is not a minigun but an M240.
3. Let's just say the belly gun is thankfully not the final option, can't really discuss details but I'm not a fan.
4. There are other options out there for much better fire support.

SASless

8th Dec 2009, 19:23

One M-240 7.62mm single barreled....rat a tat a tat a tat a tat....machine gun spitting out perhaps 800 rounds per minute.....ah mine dear that is just AWESOME!:D

Crapsakes....three M-60's on the Chinook were a darn joke!:{

How many directions can the remote controlled whiz bang look in one time?:uhoh:

What options are out there that are handy, available, and on-scene/on site instantly? Are you referrring to armed aircraft flying very close support for the Osprey McPave?

mckpave

8th Dec 2009, 19:52

What options are out there that are handy, available, and on-scene/on site instantly? Are you referrring to armed aircraft flying very close support for the Osprey McPave?

Now come on SASSY, that would involve discussing tactics and you know that's not appropriate on here, shame on you. :=:=

UNCTUOUS

8th Dec 2009, 23:32

Ospreys in Afghanistan will be armed with a 7.62mm belly-mounted turret gun, known as the Interim Defense Weapon System, capable of shooting 360 degrees around the aircraft.
To operate the weapon, a Marine gunner will use a controller, similar to one used to play a video game. He’ll acquire targets using a monitor that is fed color images from a ""forward-looking""[?] infrared sensor mounted beneath the aircraft.
FH1100 Pilot said:
In the book I'm writing on the V-22, this belly gun fiasco will probably have its own chapter!

I'd have to agree.
I wonder what device is in play to stop the gunner accidentally shooting the prop-rotors off as they tilt for transition from fwd flight to hover (and hover to forward flight) and bank and pitch.
Any bet that there’ll be a loss in the future because there’s no interlocking mechanism to prevent it? (apart from the gunner’s eyesight and alertness).

SASless

9th Dec 2009, 04:34

McPave,

How many technical papers have been written and published that discuss such matters....guess I will have to do a google search or hit up some of the military web sites....perhaps download the Manuals such as the Army FM series that pertain.

I suppose it would come as a rude shock and surprise to everyone if we mentioned Spectre, Warthog, Jet Powered Lawn Darts, and even the Marine equivalents of Cobra, Harrier, Hornet.

The question is not the resources/assets but availability and response time required to counter the hostile fire. Fast movers don't meet that requirement. The Warthog could if it were in exactly the right position....and the Cobra/Apache could if flying on the wing....but we know that is a matter of timing as they cannot keep up the speedy Osprey.

Reckon the door mounted mini-gun on the old fashioned Sikorsky comes close to being the right answer to the question?

sikrosky

9th Dec 2009, 13:21

Mckpave, You said that the belly turret is used to target the gun. Is it also used for missile jamming? The designation "Guardian" is pretty well established as being the missile jam turret which looks very much like what's in the picture. If it is, it would bring up several concerns. 1) What happens on missile warning indication if the gun is in active use? 2) The IR sensor in the turret is very narrow field of view so that it can track incoming missiles at long range. Is the same camera appropriate for both uses? 3) The MTBF of this type of system has been worryingly low to date and it is very expensive. Perhaps Northrop just repurposed the turret and put in a different IR camera, but it seems odd that they wouldn't change the name. If it is perfectly suitable for both purposes simultaneously, they should add that to their marketing material.

Lt.Fubar

9th Dec 2009, 14:12

UNCTUOUS, mechanical and electrical stops were already used during WW2 on bombers preventing shooting own plane. And if I remember correctly either British or German were working on a system preventing shooting other bombers in formation as well. So no problem there as the system, even without mechanical stops, will have specified movement envelope, and either will not let a gun fire at certain angles, or won't allow to point the gun where the props are. The system is stabilized and have some neat features as IIR, magnification, ranging and ballistic computer, so accuracy wise, even in shaky environment the system will beat any door gunner any day.

But some problems are still there:
- no peripheral vision
- only one gun - only one side covered at the time
- mounted there won't work when on the ground
- weight (800pounds !?! You have to be joking)

In a nutshell, Osprey still need gunships protection in hostile environment. Either USAF AC-130 Spectre, Army Apache, or USMC Cobra will do, but both later are helicopters, those will slow Osprey down.

Jolly Green, wouldn't the Marines mount .50cal GAU-21 instead of classic M2 today ? Those shoot at 1000RPM, so will still need a lot of ammo... not to say slow-firing M2 didn't need a lot of lead in storage - the SeaWolves in SEA were hauling 2000 rounds for their .50cal on those small Bravo-Hueys, and still were able to run out of bullets, few times during single mission.

mckpave

9th Dec 2009, 15:46

mckpave

9th Dec 2009, 15:53

How many technical papers have been written and published that discuss such matters....guess I will have to do a google search or hit up some of the military web sites....perhaps download the Manuals such as the Army FM series that pertain.

I suppose it would come as a rude shock and surprise to everyone if we mentioned Spectre, Warthog, Jet Powered Lawn Darts, and even the Marine equivalents of Cobra, Harrier, Hornet.

The question is not the resources/assets but availability and response time required to counter the hostile fire. Fast movers don't meet that requirement. The Warthog could if it were in exactly the right position....and the Cobra/Apache could if flying on the wing....but we know that is a matter of timing as they cannot keep up the speedy Osprey.

Maybe, maybe not. It may be the case that tactics development is an on-going and dynamic community and it can take years for open-source documents to be published, if ever. I'm sure that was the same when you served as well.

I will not in anyway discuss tactical issues on this, or any public forum, maybe that's a "rude shock and surprise" to some on here but it's pretty plain and simple.

SASless

9th Dec 2009, 16:53

USAF Recce Motto...."Unarmed and Unafraid!"

Osprey Motto...."Poorly Armed and Whistling in the Dark!"

mckpave

9th Dec 2009, 17:46

USAF Recce Motto...."Unarmed and Unafraid!"

Osprey Motto...."Poorly Armed and Whistling in the Dark!"

By this comparison, it sounds like you're challenging my courage Sassy. :=

I guess it's the same ole' story from this board that once again, it's you armchair warfighters who know more than those of us in uniform.

I bow to your omniscience and post count. :D

SASless

9th Dec 2009, 18:11

Quite the contrary McPave....I stand strongly with anyone that wears the uniform and carries the fight to the enemy. Read back over the thread and you will find that proved without any doubt. You must have me confused with "Sultan"....he's the one that denigrates the Brave.

I refer to the old idea of whistling as you walk in the dark in hopes of warding off danger.

The very worst thing we can do is believe our own propaganda and ignore the fact that the bad guys sometimes have a good day too. It is when our "tactics" have to meet the test when the "plan" ends upon contact with the enemy. The problem is we rarely brief in the bad guys....and they have to improvise which sometimes leads to unpleasant surprises. When they do get briefed in....then they really wreck the apple cart at much cost to us.

We have been lectured that we know not of what we speak by the likes of Sultan and a few others....but I will suggest in the coming months there shall be a "Vietnam Flashback" that occurs to end users of the Osprey in Afghanistan. When that happens the Whistlers shall have a reminder of what happens when things go ugly. That is when the "Brave" have to stand up and deal with tactical failures and being in a nose to nose gunfight where the Bad Guys hold the upper hand. It happens in every war!

Besides....McPave....due to my seniority it is now a Rocking Chair....and not an Arm Chair.

SASless

11th Dec 2009, 22:27

A reminder why helicopters and Osprey's which are prone to be used as helicopters, need effective defensive armament.

Notice the comment about the recent addition of a second machinegun on the SeaKing.

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Military Operations | Royal Navy Sea King crew battle with Taliban (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/RoyalNavySeaKingCrewBattleWithTaliban.htm)

Royal Navy Sea King crew battle with Taliban

A Military Operations (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/) news article

10 Dec 09

In the two years that the Royal Navy Sea Kings have been flying over Afghanistan the crews have taken their helicopters into treacherous environments and have often encountered stiff resistance from insurgents.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/GenerateThumbnail.aspx?imageURL=/NR/rdonlyres/11E5F68D-DB86-4242-9F2D-11739DD49813/0/Dsc1567.jpg&maxSize=210 (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/LargeImageTemplate.aspx?img=/NR/rdonlyres/11E5F68D-DB86-4242-9F2D-11739DD49813/0/Dsc1567.jpg&alt=A%20Royal%20Navy%20Sea%20King%20assists%20troops%20on%20 the%20ground%20in%20Afghanistan) A Royal Navy Sea King assists troops on the ground in Afghanistan with a resupply mission
[Picture: Crown Copyright/MOD 2009]

In January 2009, Lieutenant Commander Gavin Simmonite and his crew were tasked to fly their Sea King with an underslung load of equipment for ground forces.
As Lt Cdr Simmonite was approaching the drop zone his Sea King was hit by sustained and accurate Taliban fire. Bullets pierced the fuselage and ricocheted in the cabin.
In the ensuing mêlée, Door Gunner Naval Airman Thomas Saunders returned fire and pinned down the Taliban attackers.
His quick reactions provided the vital seconds of respite needed for him and his fellow crew members to escape.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/GenerateThumbnail.aspx?imageURL=/NR/rdonlyres/8981D652-504D-4C27-9918-11DB0A2D5C84/0/AfghanNov08082.jpg&maxSize=210 (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/LargeImageTemplate.aspx?img=/NR/rdonlyres/8981D652-504D-4C27-9918-11DB0A2D5C84/0/AfghanNov08082.jpg&alt=Naval%20Airman%20Thomas%20Saunders) Naval Airman Thomas Saunders sits near his gun position in the Sea King Mk4
[Picture: Crown Copyright/MOD 2008]

Likewise, Lt Cdr Simmonite's airmanship and handling skills enabled him to get the aircraft out of the danger zone without loss of life.
His aircraft was so severely damaged by enemy fire that under normal circumstances it should have been landed immediately.

Whilst this would normally have been the end of the incident, when the damaged aircraft was inspected it was noted that the control cable for the tail rotor had been hit by a bullet, slicing all but one of the strands.
Once again, the aircrew were extremely fortunate as the cable was close to breaking, which would have had a catastrophic effect.
Lt Cdr Simmonite was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his exceptional airmanship and handling skills that enabled him to nurse the aircraft back to a safe location and in doing so saved the aircraft and his crew.

Naval Airman Saunders also received an award from the Commander Joint Helicopter Command.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/GenerateThumbnail.aspx?imageURL=/NR/rdonlyres/4ADCB63A-C58B-4A9B-A97F-B250AC3327C1/0/DSCN2510.jpg&maxSize=210 (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/LargeImageTemplate.aspx?img=/NR/rdonlyres/4ADCB63A-C58B-4A9B-A97F-B250AC3327C1/0/DSCN2510.jpg&alt=The%20damage%20to%20the%20Sea%20King) On return to base the damage to the Sea King from the encounter with the Taliban was clear to see
[Picture: Crown Copyright/MOD 2009]

When informed of his award Lt Cdr Simmonite said:
"Flying in Afghanistan is an extremely challenging experience. As a naval force we would normally be flying at sea level from the decks of large ships.

"In Afghanistan it is a totally different environment; we have had to adapt to the high altitude, excessive heat and a desert sand that is as fine as talcum powder that permeates throughout the aircraft.
"The incident with the Taliban was very challenging, but I must mention the other members of my crew whose professionalism and skill contributed greatly to the safe and successful outcome of this event."

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/GenerateThumbnail.aspx?imageURL=/NR/rdonlyres/8B17B4C6-9A69-4698-BA8B-C82199A9D8F3/0/gavin.jpg&maxSize=210 (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/LargeImageTemplate.aspx?img=/NR/rdonlyres/8B17B4C6-9A69-4698-BA8B-C82199A9D8F3/0/gavin.jpg&alt=Lieutenant%20Commander%20Gavin%20Simmonite) Lieutenant Commander Gavin Simmonite
[Picture: Crown Copyright/MOD 2009]

On returning to the UK, Naval Airman Saunders, who volunteered to become an Air Door Gunner, also praised the skills and courage of the aircrew, adding:
"The recent fitment of an additional gun to the port side of the aircraft was extremely fortuitous as we were extremely vulnerable to attack.

"The incident seemed to be over in minutes and my reactions to the attack were down to the excellent training provided by the squadron."
After two years of successful service in Afghanistan the Sea Kings and their crews are proving to be a valuable asset to British forces in the country and look set to be deployed on many more vital sorties before they return home.

Dan Reno

11th Dec 2009, 23:57

Haven't you heard SASless ? "Faster, Higher, Longer" means never having to get into those type of predicaments in the first place ! Zoom down from way up high and get the job done with superior speed and then zoom up high at superior speed ! Every hot LZ is a cakewalk for the Osprey !

mckpave

12th Dec 2009, 02:01

You're right Danny and Sassy, there's absolutely no way we could figure all this defensive fire stuff out, we're such idiots!! :uhoh:

"You're smart, we're stupid" How's that? Make you guys feel better now?

SASless

12th Dec 2009, 02:06

Tender corns have you there McPave? Seems we are stepping on them for you!

Are you trying to tell us there is no chance of an Osprey getting hosed down by the bad guys in an LZ.....ever?

21stCen

12th Dec 2009, 16:43

Are you trying to tell us there is no chance of an Osprey getting hosed down by the bad guys in an LZ.....ever?

Come on Sas, it is completely obvious that mckpave is not saying that. It is also obvious that the sarcasm in his response comes from the fact that the Spec Ops guys routinely train for the mission described (hot LZ).

He has already described that he is not completely happy with the current armament systems, but has mentioned that there are mods and better alternatives that are being considered. And of course anyone who has been in the military understands that he would not be able to discuss those for obvious reasons...

As mckpave is the only person on this thread with first-hand operational experience with the Osprey, perhaps a better approach to receive responsive and relevant answers would be to ask non-confrontational questions that he would be able to answer considering the security restraints placed on him.

In other words, it is better to discuss the facts that can be discussed in an open forum rather than 'step on tender corns.' After all, I'm sure that you are looking for the truth, and not simply trying to chase the people who have the answers off this forum.

FH1100 Pilot

12th Dec 2009, 17:40

As mckpave is the only person on this thread with first-hand operational experience with the Osprey...
Granted and acknowledged. But nobody...and that's NOBODY...has any experience with what happens when real bad guys shoot at an Osprey. Not even mcpave has that answer.

And that's what we're concerned about...well, "some" of us are, anyway. And it's what..."others"...seem distressingly cavalier and/or unconcerned about.

If you shoot down a helicopter, it has a reasonable chance of landing with the cabin intact, or at least in a survivable manner. Just look at that other PPRUNE thread with the '53 that pranged itself in from a high hover.

But the V-22 is simply too vulnerable. Nevermind its own (albeit arguably) inherent aerodynamic flaws, there are too many ways for the bad guys to do things that would/will cause the Osprey to roll over onto its back before hitting the ground.

You put a V-22 into real combat, it's gonna be ugly.

The book is not yet written on the effectiveness of the V-22 out in the real world. Well, it's being written. The final chapters will probably be finished soon.

mckpave

12th Dec 2009, 19:45

But the V-22 is simply too vulnerable. Nevermind its own (albeit arguably) inherent aerodynamic flaws, there are too many ways for the bad guys to do things that would/will cause the Osprey to roll over onto its back before hitting the ground.

WRONG!!!!!! You are completely and utterly incapable of making a statement like that. What training or experience do you have in survivability and vulnerability disciplines?? What training or experience do you have in our tactics, techniques, or procedures??? What makes you so much more knowledgeable about these topics than those who are working on this program on a day-to-day basis??

Oh, that's right, I forgot..........it's your post count. :rolleyes:

Ned-Air2Air

12th Dec 2009, 20:19

McPave - Good to see you still here :ok::ok:

Maybe get some of the other boys in the squadron to come and post on pprune and even up the odds a bit. Maybe the certain person who gave us our briefings there and was our pilot on the flight, he would be a good one to pour some oil on various comments here as well. :ok::ok:

Just warn the boys of the vast amounts of experience here on the forum so they can come prepared :D:D

Oh Hey I have more posts than him, does that mean I know more about the V22 than FH1100 :eek::eek:

FH1100 Pilot

12th Dec 2009, 20:46

Calm down there, mcpave! SIMMA DOWN, soldier! Unbunch those panties. Just because you happen to fly a V-22 doesn't make you an expert on all things rotorcraft. In fact, I'd say your opinions are HIGHLY unobjective, biased, and suspect.

In a hover, the V-22 is just two helicopters flying in very close formation and connected by a stick. Deny *that*. If a "lucky" shot manages to take out one of the proprotors, and/or perhaps one of the critical gearboxes and compromises the drive to that rotor, umm, what will happen?

Or are you telling us that your "tactics, techniques and procedures" will prevent this from happening?

Yeah, and next you'll be trying to sell me a bridge in NYC.

Perhaps you are right about one thing: Has a V-22 ever been shot at by real, live bad guys in a real combat situation? Did I miss that?

V-22 in combat = disaster in making.

You'll see. Sadly, unfortunately, we'll all see. People are gonna die. Let's hope it's not you, mcpave. But then, we don't expect to see the U.S. Air Force V-22's in Afghanistan, do we? I mean, there are no golf courses in Afghanistan...

Ned-Air2Air

12th Dec 2009, 21:08

You'll see. Sadly, unfortunately, we'll all see. People are gonna die. Let's hope it's not you, mcpave. But then, we don't expect to see the U.S. Air Force V-22's in Afghanistan, do we? I mean, there are no golf courses in Afghanistan...

Bob - You need to do some research, where do you think the USAF operated all their Pavehawks and Pavelows. I have photos of CSAR and Special Ops USAF helos in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

With comments like that no wonder you get people offside at times. Why not leave out the sarcastic comments and just post the facts and your opinions in a post. :D

SASless

12th Dec 2009, 21:18

21st.....

Not trying to run anyone off the forum....but asking questions and getting something other than a straight forward answer does not help the matter. As anyone who has seen the Dragon knows...at some point combat degenerates into a gunfight at close quarters. It does pay to have lots of ammo, guns, and help when that happens.

Every helicopter in our inventory has a pair or more door guns with gunners whose job is throw hate and discontent back at the bad guys. The Osprey has a ramp gun....and now perhaps a belly mounted gun that is operated by remote control using a souped up X-Box and a video monitor.

When I opined that seemed a very poor alternate to the conventional way of door gunning....I was informed by at least two different sources that "tactics" and "procedures" negated the need for guns at all.

Just because I feel that position is a bit optimistic....does not mean I lack respect for those telling me that....but I do question the corporate mentality that would find that to be an appropriate view.

I equated thinking that to "whistling in the dark"....meaning I see it as ignoring reality that there shall be times "tactics and procedures" will fail to safeguard the aircraft and thus the crews.

We should at be honest with ourselves....as much as it scares us to do so....to admit there is some grave risk taking going on when making such assumptions that we can outsmart our enemies all of the time by use of our tactics and procedures.

Harken back to Somalia and the slight hiccup that occurred there when we used those "tactics and procedures" one too many times, did so in the daylight, and were not prepared for the results. A lot of very brave men were wounded and killed as the direct result of that failure by commanders.

The question is what happens when the tactics and procedures go egg shape and the bad guys start popping caps on yer butt and you have nothing but a ramp gun and some sidearms to fight back with?

Squeaks

12th Dec 2009, 21:21

In a hover, the V-22 is just two helicopters flying in very close formation and connected by a stick. Deny *that*. If a "lucky" shot manages to take out one of the proprotors, and/or perhaps one of the critical gearboxes and compromises the drive to that rotor, umm, what will happen?

Bob,

How much different to your description would be that of the Chinook? Yet there is much defence and postulation about how the Chook would be a better spend than the V22 :hmm:

It would behoove you to take a rational look at some of your posts, and compare them to the reasonable responses of mckpave. Who at least has experience of what he speaks when it comes to the V22, unlike yourself and some others here :sad:

Lt.Fubar

12th Dec 2009, 21:40

Chinook can be brought down as easily as Osprey, there's no point denying that. As a matter of fact, everything that have to stop before landing is risky in two way shooting range. But at least CH-47 can defend itself... yet still this and "tactics, techniques and procedures" fail.

June 28th 2005 - ringing a bell ? Would using Osprey in that mission instead of the Chinook saved those lives ? Well, sorry but I believe the outcome would be the same, and I personally would expect more from a newer machine.

FH1100 Pilot

12th Dec 2009, 22:18

First of all, Squeaks, Ned, and Lt. Fubar, I don't give a *** how many bazillions of hours the mighty mcpave has in the R-22 or V-22. Got that? It's not important or relevant.

What I see is the physical deficiency of the machine: those two widely-spaced, side-by-side rotors. Good targets, eh?

As Fubar says, anything that has to stop before it can land is vulnerable. Yes, even a Chinook can be brought down by hostile fire, no doubt about that and I'm not even saying it isn't possible.

What I'm saying is that the V-22 is *more* vulnerable because of its configuration...I contend even more vulnerable than a Chinook! Take out one of those proprotors and even the best pilot in the Air Force...even the God-like mcpave himself!...isn't going to be able to save it.

mcpave hints and alludes to certain "tactics, techniques and procedures." We can assume by that mysterious statement that the USAF will ensure that *all* threats will be neutralized before the Osprey comes in to safely deliver its payload.

Let's hope the bad guys go by that plan and don't figure out a way to get around it.

Oh, but they'd never do that. Right, SAS?

Ned-Air2Air

12th Dec 2009, 22:22

You've lost the plot Bob with posts like that. But hey each to his own.

Good luck with this thread McPave, you are wasting your time and if I was you I wouldnt even bother reading this one each more. Obviously FH1100 is on some sort of vendetta so no matter what you say he will know more because remember even if you have over 100,000 hours in the V22 its irrelevant.

Enjoy this thread everyone, seems like its turned into a witch hunt.

Cheers Sasless, see you on FB :ok:

FH1100 Pilot

12th Dec 2009, 22:35

Well, Neddy! You take some mighty fine pictures of helicopters, but please tell us all about your rotary-wing experience as a pilot, hmm? Tell us what makes YOU such an authority on the V-22...or what makes you think you know ANY more than I do with my...how much was that again?...11,000 hours of flight time.

I may not have ever flown a V-22. I may not ever get to fly a V-22! But I do know one thing: When the V-22 is in helicopter-mode, it is...(drumroll, please)...A HELICOPTER! Well, actually it is *two* helicopters flying in close formation (but not even overlapping blades like the '46 or '47 or two brave Kiowa pilots). So I think I know just a teensy little bit about how the V-22 will fly in the HELICOPTER mode.

Do you, Ned?

And while we're at it, what makes you think that mcpave knows ANYTHING about taking a V-22 into combat, other than what they've planned and trained for? mcpave blusters that he knows everything...that he's some big expert. But he's not. When it comes to flying the V-22 into actual combat, he's no more experienced than...well...than you, Ned.

No, I haven't lost the plot, Ned. People have been so blinded and bamboozled by the incredible V-22 that they think it's going to magically rewrite the rules of combat. Or aerodynamics. Or reality.

Dan Reno

12th Dec 2009, 22:40

Most here in the helo community have worked with AF types around the world and perhaps like me still have some as friends. And so the following "secret' talk amongst the V22 folks is a perfect example of why Army & Marine helo jocks, officer & enlisted crew alike, chuckle under their breaths over some of the boisterous claims made here and afield about the V-22. As we all well know, the F-117 is a bomber and not a fighter but the designation of fighter was given them to 'soothe and placate' their pilots so as to 'UP' their morale and therefore 'lean into' some of those very hairy, nightime missions like we saw them perform over Bagdad. Anyway, it's rumored that Osprey folks actually feel that their aircrews deserve the title of "Fighter" more than the F-117 pilots do because the V-22 will actually have a gun capable of 'fighting off' airborne or ground resistance whereas the F-117 does not !!!! I gotta hand to these V-22 guys though, dare I say it but they actually DO have a better case for being called fighter pilots than the F-117 folks !! But ya know guys, it's silly, piddly things like this and your classifying of 'everything' connected to your aircraft that makes you-all look less than serious at times. All ya gotta do is look no further than to your own SAR crews who in RVN stood fast in a hover trading lead....for the truth. It isn't any wonder that charts such as the one below were created to reflect sillyness such as this and I bet the AF's newest fighter pilots will get to add to it also, whadya bet:

http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt80/DanReno2/06.jpg

Ned-Air2Air

12th Dec 2009, 22:46

Bob,

Never said I fly helicopters for a living and never promoted myself as such so thats not even something I need to defend. I got my PPL many years ago and let it lapse because I was busy on my magazines so I do have a slight idea about how helicopters operate and being around and in them allows me to learn more than the average person would. Congrats on your 11,000 hours flight time, what do you want, a medal or a chest to pin it on. I know people with many more hours than that, but so what.

And never said I was an authority on the V22, MV22 or CV22, check all my posts and you will find that I have never said I knew more than anyone else on the subject. I have however sat down and interviewed many of those who have flown it, both in the United States and outside the United States, and yes the CV22 has been outside of the USA already.

What amazes me is I never said I was an expert in any of the fields that you just attacked me on but you seem to have read it somehow into the post, but hey again each to his own. But hey if it makes you feel better bashing me and also McPave on his qualifications etc then feel free to go for it.

All I am saying is do some research on the facts before making comments such as there wouldnt be any USAF in combat zones because there are no golf courses there. For christs sake the USAF has CSAR and Special Ops helos operating in all the major theatres so why do those men and women a disservice by making comments like that.

Anyway you do what you want, and you will. Good luck on your V22 vendetta. Do I think its the be all and end all of the helo/fixed wing community, nope I dont, but I dont get out here and bash the crap out of it every post. There are plenty of others that will do that. I just appreciate the technology it does bring to the warfighter.

Enjoy your day.

Ned (55hrs of helo time and proud of it.)

bandit19

13th Dec 2009, 02:51

My two cents:

Ned I've flown with you and you've taken great pics of machines over the
years. Thanks for capturing such great images.

I will tell that, over here, speed range and payload are what it is all about.

The rules of war have not changed since the first pissed off homonid smacked another one on the head with a stick.

You could make a VTOL M1 flying tank/helicopter hybrid and eventually someone would figure out a way to kill it.

As I make my runs (usually whistling, it makes me feel better) in my unarmored, unarmed, "please shoot me" color scheme helo, I would gladly trade for a V22 any day.

The truth is anyone can die here at any second, in any flight profile and the Taliban don't care if you have 300 or 10,000 hours.

I would also say that as I watched a flight of V22's land the other day followed by a Predator on short final, I thought to myself, "Has the future arrived?" It may not be the perfect solution but it is certainly progress.

Mckpave give 'em hell in the valley for me.

Cheers

21stCen

13th Dec 2009, 15:57

Dan Reno says:
Most here in the helo community have worked with AF types around the world and perhaps like me still have some as friends. And so the following "secret' talk amongst the V22 folks is a perfect example of why Army & Marine helo jocks, officer & enlisted crew alike, chuckle under their breaths over some of the boisterous claims made here and afield about the V-22.

Dan,
The 'secret' talk you refer to has nothing to do with Air Force versus Army/Marines as you have made it out to be. The difference is that the guys working in Special Operations regardless of whether they come from the AF, Army, Marines/Navy are forced by the government to be held to a higher standard of OPSEC accountability due to the nature of their mission profiles. They have no choice but to maintain a much higher degree of security than the 'regular forces.'

It is obvious that you have not worked on the other side of the fence (although I'm 'sure' you have many friends who do/have). Additional binding contracts for those working in special job categories have to be signed by those given higher clearances that have requirements and strict legal consequences that are over and above those agreed to by service members not involved in Spec Ops. They include mandatory agreements to be held liable for 'treason against the United States' for ANY information released that is of a classified nature even if it has been circulated in the public domain. They can neither 'confirm nor deny' because with their proprietary knowledge doing so turns rumor into 'official' information.

Those who make claims of having to hold back information are NOT being 'boisterous,' they are doing what the United States government requires them to do. This holds true for All the Services.

SASless

13th Dec 2009, 18:33

Robert,

Enough already!

Ned never claimed anything beyond being a photographer....and probably the best there is in my estimation.

He said he knew McPave and that he was a very experienced V-22 Pilot and had lots of experience in Sikorsky Helicopters as well.

Any rotor equipped aircraft....V-22 and Helicopter....are all dead ducks if the bad guys take out any one of the rotors on them.

McPave is limited on what he can say. His posts may lack details but they are not in way seen as being boastful.

If you separate your satirical comments about the Air Farce (which all other services make) from the critical comments you wish to make about the V-22 and its operators then others would be able to see when you are being satirical and when you are being crass.

At least they now have an aircraft they can land near their Officers Club which is the first thing they usually build....before the runway....but that is progress!

You have some valid points.....stick to them, make your jokes carefully, and ease up a bit otherwise.

You did leave out the "Battle of Gedunk" campaign ribbon however.

21stCen

14th Dec 2009, 16:22

Sas,

Oops, you may have had a couple of those rum drinks before your previous post.

When you cautioned Robert (Bob/FH1100 Pilot) that it was 'Enough already!' on his unfounded attacks against Ned, Mckpave, and helo vs. tiltrotor vulnerabiliaty, you also included several items that were actually posted by Dan and not Bob (boastfulness not true, satirical commments about the AF, missing Gedunk ribbon).

Anyway, poor Bob is doing the best he can. But of course he has been the most effective person on this thread for converting undecided readers to move to the 'pro-tiltrotor side'!
:D

SASless

14th Dec 2009, 16:30

My apologies to anyone falsely maligned....perhaps the truth is I am just going blind and senile....or was in an altered state...that being sober!

I do recall we considered a visit to an Air Force Base to be an in-country R & R as we enjoyed the Pizza, Hamburgers, Clubs, Baths (both kinds) and ice cream....heaven forbid I should mention the Air Con, massage parlors, and shopping!:rolleyes:

The down side was explaining to Air Force Security Police side arms, rifles, grenade launchers, and machine guns were standard uniform items for us who lived and worked in some rather tough neighborhoods.:ugh:

Dan Reno

14th Dec 2009, 17:24

21stCentury

The secret talk was about AF V-22 guys rating the Fighter Pilot moniker more than the F-117 guys.

Boisterous was related to all the things the AF says the V-22 is capable of doing as an airframe and NOT their tactics used to prosecute their missions. Most people could care less how or what you do to do what you do..GET-IT?!
Anyone listening to you folks would think there's a spy hiding behing each shadow. It's no wonder you guys are so paranoid! Having to fly an accident about to happen and worrying about shadows. No wonder you get that X-Tra pay huh!

21stCen

14th Dec 2009, 18:56

Dan,
Please calm down. There is no reason to get upset. Your 'new interpretative version' of statements you made earlier do not match the original post you made, but I'm sure that in your mind you believe them.

Don't worry Dan, there is not 'a spy hiding behind each shadow.' But there are additional signed agreements required of any U.S. military member with access to classified information above the 'Secret' level, particularly those who are involved in activities that are required to engage in covert activities that you and I will never hear about.

Funny that YOU should mention "paranoid." No offense, but are you related to Bob? (sorry, certain similarities...)
:)

Dan Reno

14th Dec 2009, 21:29

21stCentury

You're right. Only someone who continually spouts chapter/verse of what it takes to be in a V-22 closet would know what I and others 'really' mean.

SASless

15th Dec 2009, 00:32

Signed statements of Non-Disclosure.....that is a fact but "Top Secret" is way down the list from information that really demands care but then that kind of information is very compartmentalized to prevent a leak causing grave damage.

Also...anything that is visible to the public, found in the public domain by legal means, cannot be classified.

I have flown aircraft with classified equipment to non-secure locations but the exterior of the aircraft alone was not considered "classified". The fact we had a downlink antenna hung on the skid....identified we had the ability to downlink information but that in itself was not classified. The information we downlinked was not encrypted thus it could be interecepted easily....although one would think we would have liked to have it done in a secure manner....but DOE could not think that far out of their cozy little box. If asked....I could talk about the downlinking capability and even mention it was the FLIR camera that provided the information being downlinked. Seemed silly to me....as then one only had to surmise what capability the FLIR had (easily gleaned from the manufactuer's web site) and our use of the equipment had been "compromised". But that in itself, was not a compromise of security rules. If we had removed the FLIR and Downlink antenna prior to going off site....then talked about the systems...although not classified in themselves....the discussion of capabilities not visible on the aircraft would have been an OpSec violation.

We could talk about the door mounted machine gun...but not how much ammo we carrried or how we used it....but it was in clear view to anyone that could see the aircraft.

I could not take photos of the aircraft at the heliport....but I could at most locations on site if outside any fenced facility.

There are some very silly rules that oft times defy logic. My FAR Part 135 Training Records were considered "Classified Documents"....of all things! Mind you there were other training documents that pertained to non-Part 135 training that was mission oriented that rightfully could be considered sensitive.

One can discuss most issues without getting into any detail that would constitute a breach of security or a violation of Operational Security....and should be careful to avoid such breaches. In the days of the SR-71....watching one takeoff over one's head did not mean you could not look up and watch it. Likewise....taking a photograph would not have been improper unless you were in an area posted as being off limits to cameras or photography being forbidden.

21stCen

15th Dec 2009, 05:49

Sasless,
You are correct, the level of security increase dramatically when you get into TS/SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) where even the codewords used to describe the program can be classified (i.e, if you mention the name in public you risk jail time)!!

While it is true that information in the public domain cannot be classified after the fact, you have to be careful when previously classified information is leaked to the public domain through the press, publications, or even an open forum like this. If someone with clearance and access to that information confirms it in public, they can be charged with violating security restrictions.

Anyway, I think we are getting a bit 'off thread' here!!

Dan Reno

19th Dec 2009, 21:36

Miramar welcomes whisper-quiet Osprey

By Jeanette Steele (http://www.signonsandiego.com/staff/jeanette-steele/), UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER Friday, December 18, 2009 at 5:35 p.m.
http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/photos/2009/12/18/091218osprey_t352.jpg?980751187beea6fc26a3a9e93795d379f58af1 c4 (http://www.signonsandiego.com/photos/2009/dec/18/89675/) K.C. Alfred / Union-Tribune
Marines keep an eye on a new MV-22 Osprey, which was displayed during a news conference at MCAS Miramar on Friday.

The Marine Corps’ new helicopter-airplane combo, the MV-22 Osprey, has landed in San Diego. And to hear Marine officials tell the story, it did so with a whisper.
“If you are worried about noise, the MV-22 ought to be very welcome,” Osprey squadron commander Lt. Col. Evan LeBlanc said during a Friday news conference at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station.
An F/A-18 Hornet fighter jet roared by as LeBlanc stood on the flight line. “It’s not even close to that,” he said.
The Osprey is six times quieter than the helicopter it replaces, the dual-rotored CH-46, according to the Marine Corps.
Miramar has received one Osprey, the much-touted but also much-derided aircraft that takes off like a helicopter and flies like a plane. It could eventually get up to eight squadrons, while Camp Pendleton could get two. Both bases will need to build or renovate some hangars to accommodate the arrivals.
Ospreys were first sent to a war zone — Iraq — in September 2007. Now it’s also being used in Afghanistan, piloted by Marine squadrons from the East Coast.
Marine commanders tout the Osprey, which took nearly three decades to develop, as revolutionary. They credit its speediness with “shrinking” the battlefield in Iraq, its first real test. The aircraft also puts troops above the reach of ground rockets with its high-altitude flying.
But critics and skeptics continue to point out that Ospreys haven’t lived up to the military’s hype. The aircraft also has cost more than double the budgeted amount.
In a May report, the U.S. Government Accountability Office raised a list of concerns. The authors questioned the Marine Corps’ decision to stick to the MV-22 as its future prime method for transporting troops by air.
“Identified challenges could limit the ability to conduct worldwide operations,” the GAO report said. “Efforts are underway to address these deficiencies, but some are inherent in the MV-22’s design.”
The Osprey is marketed as a fast bird.
It’s rated for carrying 24 fully equipped Marines at a cruising speed of about 288 mph, compared with 155 mph for the CH-46.
But that advantage, and other features, have straind the Pentagon budget much more than expected. Initial estimates pegged the Osprey’s cost at $37.7 million each based on an order of 1,000 aircraft. Instead, the Pentagon is paying $93.4 million each for an overall order of 500.
In all, the Osprey has cost taxpayers $54.8 billion, including about $12.5 billion for research and development and roughly $42 billion for procurement.
There’s been another cost: lives. Four Osprey crashes — all during test flights — have killed 30 people.
President George W. Bush proposed ending the MV-22 program in 1989 and continued to seek cancellation through 1992. Congress rejected these proposals, mostly because of the Marine Corps’ strong support of the aircraft.
Miramar pilots who have flown the Osprey give it high marks.
“I feel perfectly comfortable in this aircraft,” said LeBlanc, who flew the Osprey on raiding missions in Iraq. “I wouldn’t fly it if I didn’t think it was safe.”
His squadron’s pilots and crews are undergoing Osprey training. They won’t be certified as combat-ready for up to two years, LeBlanc said.

SASless

20th Dec 2009, 02:23

[They won’t be certified as combat-ready for up to two years, LeBlanc said.

Just how long does it take to train up a squadron now days?

21stCen

20th Dec 2009, 15:32

Well, it's about time they finally got approval to install the "whisper kit" option, after all that was available decades ago on 'Airwolf'!!
(tiltrotors may be 'less noisy,' but they have not quite reached the 'whisper mode' yet)
:)

Dan Reno

3rd Jan 2010, 11:08

Enter the Osprey

January 3, 2010 12:36 am

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/012010/01032010/517264/edosprey.jpg An MV-22 Osprey spreads its wings over Yuma, Ariz., in 2009. The controversial aircraft has now entered the war in Afghanistan.

WHO CAN BLAME the Osprey for having a military-indus- trial complex? Since the abysmal failure in 1980 of the Iranian hostage-rescue attempt (aka, Jimmy Carter's Desert Classic), efforts to develop an aircraft that can fly long distances like a transport plane, yet hover, take off, and land like a helicopter, have been failure-fraught and hugely expensive. But the ungainly bird, used mainly by the Marines, may now prove its worth in Afghanistan
If so, it's high time--because tragedy and fiscal folly have long haunted the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey, as the tilt-rotor craft is officially known.
Between 1992 and 2000, three test crashes of the hard-to-fly, technically troubled hybrid killed 30 people. The first crash occurred in Fredericksburg's backyard when, to the horror of congressmen and others watching from Quantico Marine Corps Base, an Osprey plummeted into the Potomac River, killing all seven aboard. An even more terrible accident took place in Arizona in April 2000 when, during a simulated rescue mission, an Osprey loaded with Marines dropped out of the sky, killing all 19 on board. Eight months later a V-22 mechanical glitch in Jacksonville, N.C., claimed a four-man crew, including Lt. Col. Keith Sweaney of Stafford County, who was to have led the Corps' first Osprey squadron.
The Osprey's cost overruns form a parallel disaster. In 1988, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney tried to kill the whole program after its development budget had ballooned from $2.5 billion to $30 billion, but Congress blocked him. Now, some $54.2 billion will have been spent on the bird before its evolution is complete--an inflation caused by re-engineering requirements and unforeseen maintenance demands.
Moreover, in Iraq, where 12 Ospreys flew from 2007-09, the craft's performance drew jeers from the Government Accounting Office for mediocre performance. This isn't what one wants to hear about a craft that costs $120 million each to put into battle.
But the Marines, who stand by their awkward transport, believe that in sprawling, rugged Afghanistan the Osprey will show its mettle. It may. The aircraft is so fast, notes military.com, that it can make two round trips for every one a helicopter can complete, dropping up to 32 troops or 71/2 tons of material in a combat zone--say, the Now Zad Valley of Helmand Province.
There, in the first big offensive since President Obama's Dec. 1 speech, 10 Ospreys are dodging Taliban bullets while supplying over 1,000 Marines and allied troops that they earlier helped ferry to the valley during "Operation Cobra's Anger." (Iraq's Ospreys arrived in Anbar Province just as the "Sunni Awakening" was cooling that place, so the craft's combat-effectiveness was hard to judge.) Lt. Gen. George Trautman III, the Marines' deputy commandant for aviation, says that the swift Osprey has turned the Afghan battle space "from Texas into Rhode Island."
In ancient times, people believed that the mere sight of the bird of prey from which the Marine aircraft takes its name caused fish to go belly-up. One doubts that the V-22 will have the same effect on Taliban fighters. But if the Osprey crucially helps the U.S. prevail in that difficult war, the plane will have earned its exceedingly costly wings.

FH1100 Pilot

13th Jan 2010, 16:38

USMC V-22 Osprey Finds Groove In Afghanistan
Jan 12, 2010
By Bettina H. Chavanne

Washington
The V-22 Osprey’s range and speed, the twin talents of the aircraft most heavily promoted by the U.S. Marine Corps, are revealing themselves in Afghanistan, as readiness and reliability numbers begin to climb steadily throughout the fleet.

Lt. Gen. George Trautman, deputy commandant for aviation, says the level of hostile action experienced by the V-22s in Afghanistan is slightly higher than in Iraq. He calls Afghanistan “a different fight. There’s more kinetic work to be done.” Yet he takes exception to those who criticized the aircraft’s performance in Iraq. “Uninformed critics said we babied the aircraft [there],” he says, noting that the V-22 primarily ferried passengers and cargo, the primary mission of assault-support aircraft. “Because peace broke out, it didn’t do much in the way of [flying] into the heart of enemy assaults."

In Afghanistan however, the Osprey has flown several combat missions, one in support of Special Operations Command. “Just a couple of aircraft in the middle of the night, [flew directly] into the enemy stronghold,” says Trautman. “It was a complete mission success.”

Additionally, during major operations in Now Zad, in the Helmand Province, Marine Corps’ Ospreys arrived from different directions at 3 a.m. “with speed and range the enemy didn’t expect,” Trautman says. “The Osprey was the most important participant in getting a reinforced company into that town in short order.” More important, the Osprey flew “two loads in the time it took the CH-53 to do one.”

The aircraft has also been beefed up recently with an all-quadrant gun, which rolls on and off. There are five guns in theater for 10 V-22s, and Trautman anticipates more in the future.
Marine Corps senior leadership has been building its case against V-22 critics for decades. With operations in Afghanistan clearly demonstrating the flexibility of the aircraft in combat, the task stateside is to continue doggedly chipping away at low reliability and readiness numbers
These efforts are starting to yield results. The Osprey’s readiness rate has hovered at about 62% for months, but operations in Afghanistan have seen that number rising steadily, according to Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway, who cites numbers in the 70-80% range. “It’s on that trajectory” to 90%, he claimed enthusiastically at the Pentagon last month Trautman, who is tracking V-22 readiness rates across the entire fleet, says Block B aircraft are at 65%. “We can trend up to the 70s [percent range] with aggressive sparing."

The goal for the Marines is “to drive home operational readiness and mission dependability,” says V-22 program manager Col. Greg Masiello. “My top three initiatives are simple: availability, affordability and execution.”

Both Trautman and Masiello push constantly for improvement, leaning on the Bell-Boeing manufacturing team to drive more efficiency into the maintenance process and support increased depot-level work by the Marines. Masiello calls it “a full-court press on readiness and reduction in cost,” with a focus on the overall fleet, not just operational aircraft. We spend lots of time putting plans in place,” Masiello says. “It takes discipline and tenacity to make sure we’re executing to plan.” He is looking beyond the current contract to a second multi-year contract. “The time to do that is now,” he insists, noting that thinking strategically, and garnering support for future efforts will pay off down the road. “I need to continue to purchase [the V-22] and provide stability in the industrial base and in fielding the aircraft.”

Topping Masiello’s wish list is a new, fully instrumented test aircraft—an unusual, and unusually urgent, request.

People ask why I’m prioritizing a developmental test aircraft” for an aircraft that has already been fielded, says Masiello. The program office, based at NAS Patuxent River, Md., already has one structural test aircraft in the hangar, but it is the No. 8 airplane. “It’s the oldest aircraft we have flying,” Masiello says. “And it’s exorbitant to operate,” costing about 330 maintenance man-hours per flight hour.

Why is a test aircraft so important at this stage in the V-22’s service life? Block C modifications are already underway, several new squadrons are being stood up stateside—MV-22s at Miramar, Calif., and CV-22s at Cannon AFB, N.M.—and the aircraft is flying at high tempo in Afghanistan. “We’re broadening the footprint of the program operationally,” Masiello says. “That brings some challenges to make sure we have the right support across the nation and the globe.”

Masiello’s primary focus for today’s fleet is building “a robust capability throughout our operating bases” and for deployed aircraft.
An up-to-date test article would provide the opportunity to field future aircraft with properly tested advanced capabilities. The services should know how best to exploit all the V-22’s capabilities today, Masiello says. Sometimes, he notes, “we don’t make huge changes on the aircraft, we tweak the software. Testing [software] on an instrumented aircraft tells me” if there are going to be any second-order effects that might require changes before being sent out to the fleet.

Looking much further down the road, a modernized test aircraft would eventually prove helpful in mapping out a service life-extension program (SLEP) for the V-22, Masiello says. “We need structural testing done . . . and envelope expansion” for high-altitude operations.

A new instrumented aircraft package costs $65 million, according to Masiello. He has put in a request for an Osprey test platform, but recognizes that a tight budget may limit his options, and says he hopes not to feel an “adverse impact” from the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review. Despite that, Masiello says an instrumented test aircraft is essential. “I believe it has to be done, and we’ll continue to champion the case.”

Throughout the fleet, Masiello says, he wants to ensure “we’re not addressing only new capabilities, but [examining] other inherent benefits to retrofitting [new capabilities] and prioritizing” which aircraft will receive the upgrade. As the fleet grows, so does the bill to maintain and upgrade it. Masiello says he has met with Bell-Boeing on reducing costs. “We’re making sure we set goals,” he continues. “We don’t target specific things like [operations in] Iraq or Afghanistan. It’s about the fleet in general.” The entire fleet, he adds, should always be “ready for combatant commanders to use where and when they need it.”

Trautman has had his own conversations with Bell-Boeing, with an eye to building aircraft readiness directly into the contract. “The key is getting contractual arrangements exactly right,” he says, “and allowing the contracts to catch up to the way the V-22 is actually performing.” One result of his efforts: in January, Bell-Boeing will sign a firm, fixed-price contract for performance-based logistics with the Marines.

“This is a very long program in development, but a very new aircraft in operational use,” Masiello says. “We’re learning every day what will help us mature it.”

Dan, you should attribute these articles so we know where they're coming from.

Dan Reno

14th Jan 2010, 00:11

Many thanks FH1100 Pilot !

I did a "Drive-By" cut & paste and didn't get a chance to preview.

It was from today's Aviation Week.com

USMC V-22 Osprey Finds Groove In Afghanistan | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/01/11/AW_01_11_2010_p44-193636.xml&headline=USMC%20V-22%20Osprey%20Finds%20Groove%20In%20Afghanistan)

Again, 1,000 pardons all!

Dan Reno

19th Jan 2010, 20:35

Moderator

What happened to both mine and SASless posts? I think this happened before also. I take it posts are removed w/o reason so they can be removed again for the same reason?

They were moved to the appropriate thread about Haiti, as were three other posts. As discussed before, and part of the T & C's, if you have an issue over where your posts are and can't look them up, then deal with it via PM, not in the thread.

Senior Pilot

SASless

19th Jan 2010, 20:56

I shall post this article....which comes from the US Naval Institute.

It is not my opinon but one that comes from a well respected source of information concerning Naval Strategy and current issues of the US Navy.

The Bold print is my doing.....but sets forth clearly what is at stake for the Marine Osprey units.

Five years ago, in days after the Indian Ocean Tsunami, I wrote an op-ed for the Boston Globe–a piece that, with the Haiti disaster, remains a relevant cautionary tale today:

The tsunami response, being hailed as one of the biggest U.S. military disaster relief missions in history, has been less effective than portrayed.

(snip)

With the Haiti earthquake, we’ll discover that a lot has changed in the space of five years.

Today, in the aftermath of this earthquake, the initial response will be enormous. Unlike the Indonesian Tsunami, our initial aid may end up becoming a long-term commitment–lest we wish to see a desperate human tsunami start out for the U.S. from a shattered Haiti. Help sent to Haiti, however, may also pull assets from Afghanistan, forcing policymakers into an ugly debate over the relative importance of the Western Hemisphere vs. Afghanistan and Iraq.

At present, prior commitments are taking a backseat to lending a needed hand. A whole raft of ships are heading to help. The USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) may stop off at Mayport to become, largely, a helicopter carrier (populated with Army helicopters, perhaps?). Not only will this highlight the importance of having a second carrier-ready port on the East Coast (and, in the process, hand ADM John Harvey’s call for strategic homeportingsome extra “omph!”), this will give the Carl Vinson crew a chance to grab extra gear for the task ahead.

The USS Bataan (LHD-5), USS Fort McHenry (LSD 43) and USS Carter Hall (LSD 50) are going to sea, and will likely prep for Haiti duties. Amphibs are the poor bloody infantry of disaster-response operations, and this deployment should be expected. That said, the USS Bataan is familiar with MV-22 “Osprey” operations, suggesting that the 24th MEU’s attached combat-ready MV-22 squadron may get it’s first real humanitarian/support to civil authorities mission. The ships with the 24th MEU may go as well, but we’ll see.

An Osprey deployment to Haiti will be high-profile test–an unexpected tasking, done under a full-bore media glare. It will likely not have the maintenance padding (the extra spare parts and private maintainers to allow for “aggressive sparing“) Ospreys enjoy on their overseas junkets. This is a real test. Now, to the Osprey’s benefit, this is low-altitude work in almost ideal conditions–and, as I’ve said before, a perfect way to demonstrate this platform’s effectiveness. If they go, expect to see the Osprey pressed into moving critically-injured foreign nationals from Haiti to Guantanamo for staging/stabilization and evacuation–a high-profile mission where speed is of the essence. (Might we see some of the first MV-22 operational landings on a U.S. aircraft carrier? I mean, in an emergency, anything might happen…)

Aviation, however, will be a sideshow (OK, an important sideshow). But the ports–and all the aid that will need to flow through them–are key. And the Coast Guard is already reporting that they’re damaged.

The earthquake’s havoc was challenging the ability to move supplies into the hardest hit areas, U.S. officials said. The damage threatened supply lines to the impoverished city and country, which relies in large part on ship-borne deliveries…

“The initial reports we are getting, it [the sea port] is very heavily damaged,” U.S. Coast Guard Rear Adm. James A. “Jim” Watson IV, director of Atlantic area operations, said in an interview from Portsmouth, Va. “If the port is severely damaged, that makes it very, very difficult” to get relief supplies in.

This situation offers amphibious vessels–the ones with well decks–an opportunity to really strut their stuff–giving the Marines another high-profile means to demonstrate why their next-generation big-deck amphibs need their well-decks returned.

As far as harbor exploitation goes, the USNS Comfort (T-AH-20) will likely have a hard time approaching a pier–meaning that her value as a large hospital will be reduced.

It’d be nice if the shallow-draft JHSVs were in service right now, but instead we’ll see if the former Hawaiian Superferries will be utilized or if the PCU Independence (LCS-2) gets orders to forgo commissioning and get underway for a mission. If the LCS-2 were sent, that’d be one heck of a familiarization cruise–but why not? Even if it just was to serve as a shuttle, what’s there to loose? Isn’t the LCS meant to be expendable? But, then again, the LCS-2 program office shouldn’t feel too bad…with the newly commissioned USS New York (LPD 21) stuck pier-side, the LCS-2 folks have some room to maneuver.

Will the local harbors need salvage expertise and resources? Will this disaster demonstrate our relative shortcomings in salvage assets? ADM Harvey may be right to worry about the utility of harbor infrastructure to blockade a port–but having a second port available won’t solve the problem. How would we be able to open a blocked U.S. port quickly–if we had to? Are we ready to do what we need to do–if we needed to do it? I don’t think so–and Norfolk isn’t the only problem, either.

We’re in the early stages of this thing–and we’re only looking at some initial signs and indications with this blogpost. I mean, in a few days we’ll probably be cheering as Navy Seabees start clearing blocked roads. There are a lot of ways this post-disaster situation may evolve. But, right here, right now, we’ve got an eerie warning of the future world–full of weak states crumbling under the blows of an unexpected natural disaster