What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?

[Lonewolf_50]

For Dan Reno: an aircraft not being "perfect" does not mean it should be scrapped. Otherwise, there would have been no space program, and the F-14 would never have been built, nor the F-18.

For SASless:

Target desig via L-word does not require a SoF team on the ground. Agree with your point on infiltrating teams to bolster the backbone of the various anti Gadhaffi forces ... if we have a clue what tribal groupings are matched with what others.

A very nice link over at JB to an article on the clans and tribes of Libya:

Libyan People & Ethnic Tribes (http://www.temehu.com/Libyan-People.htm)

Interesting, though a bit confusing to me.

[Dan Reno]

Lonewolf

When did I say it was perfect?

[Lonewolf_50]

Dan, what are you talking about? Of course you didn't say it was perfect, you imply, by your apparent endorsement of that lame brained article, that it needs to be scrapped.
It's bad enough that U.S. taxpayers have to continue to support the care and feeding of this particular Osprey. Worse, we're inflicting the bird on others.
...
The V-22 is one animal well worth driving toward extinction.
I am not sure if you are old enought to recall the violent objections to the F/A-18 (A model in particular), which while a decent aircraft, had some non trivial range/fuel limitations, had the infamous tail cracks, and a variety of other problems as it was fielded. (Blue Angel number five crashed back in 1987, flame out, low altitude. Seems there was a problem with fuel pumps not working when aircraft is inverted ... which is the kind of stuff Mescherschmidts and Spitfires had resolved back in WW II ...)

Anyhow, the bitter hyperbole against the V-22 at this point is nothing more than noise for the sake of noise. The CH-46 ISN'T coming back and USMC must have medium lift capability. Osprey fufills that requirement well enough, whether you like the price per copy or not.

[Dan Reno]

I've posted the pro & con about the V-22 so no need to get hysterical about some nuts & bolts...carelessly fastened together.

"Osprey fufills that requirement well enough,"

BTW, 'well enough' is quite a stretch when describing the V-22's abilty to replace the H-46...it simply cannot in a real Combat Situation.

[SansAnhedral]

US jet crashes in Libya, both crew are safe - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110322/ap_on_re_eu/libya_us_jet)


BERLIN – A U.S. fighter jet crashed in Libya after an apparent equipment malfunction but both crewmembers were able to eject and were back in American hands with only minor injuries, U.S. officials said Tuesday.
The F-15E Strike Eagle jet was conducting a mission Monday night against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's air defenses when it crashed at 2130 GMT (5:30 p.m. EDT), said Lt. Cmdr. Karin Burzynski, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Africa Command.
A spokesman for the Libyan opposition, Mohammed Ali, said the U.S. plane went down about 25 miles (40 kilometers) outside of the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi, Libya's second-largest city.
Britain's Telegraph newspaper published a series of photographs it said was the wreckage of the plane, showing people milling around the burned-out aircraft in a Libyan field.
One of the jet's airmen landed in a field of sheep after ejecting from the plane, then raised his hands and called out "OK, OK" to a crowd who had gathered, the Telegraph cited witness Younis Amruni, 27, as saying.
"I hugged him and said: 'Don't be scared, we are your friends,'" Amruni told the newspaper, adding that people then lined up to shake the airman's hand.
"We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies," he said. "We gave him juice and then the revolutionary military people took him away."
A Marine Corps Osprey search and rescue aircraft retrieved the main pilot, while the second crew member, a weapon systems officer who is also a pilot, was recovered by rebel forces and is now in American hands, a U.S. official said in Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
Amruni said

[21stCen]

The Osprey was chosen for recovering the downed pilots not because it could do the job "well enough," but because it was the "best" choice for the rescue mission where speed, range, and quiteness were mission critical capabilities.


Both pilots were rescued by V-22s:

US jet crashes in Libya due to apparent equipment malfunction, both crew safe and in US hands


By Associated Press, Tuesday, March 22, 10:03 AM
BERLIN — A U.S. fighter jet crashed in Libya after an apparent equipment malfunction but both crewmembers were able to eject and were back in American hands with only minor injuries, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

The F-15E Strike Eagle jet was conducting a mission Monday night against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s air defenses when it crashed at 2130 GMT (5:30 p.m. EDT), said Lt. Cmdr. Karin Burzynski, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Africa Command.
A spokesman for the Libyan opposition, Mohammed Ali, said the U.S. plane went down about 25 miles (40 kilometers) outside of the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city.
Britain’s Telegraph newspaper published a series of photographs it said was the wreckage of the plane, showing people milling around the burned-out aircraft in a Libyan field.
One of the jet’s airmen landed in a field of sheep after ejecting from the plane, then raised his hands and called out “OK, OK” to a crowd who had gathered, the Telegraph cited witness Younis Amruni, 27, as saying.


“I hugged him and said: ‘Don’t be scared, we are your friends,’” Amruni told the newspaper, adding that people then lined up to shake the airman’s hand.
“We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies,” he said. “We gave him juice and then the revolutionary military people took him away.”
A Marine Corps Osprey search and rescue aircraft retrieved the main pilot, while the second crew member, a weapon systems officer who is also a pilot, was recovered by rebel forces and is now in American hands, a U.S. official said in Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
Amruni said the Osprey fired shots to keep locals away, then swooped in and rescued the second crew member.
The two were separated after ejecting from the crippled jet at high altitude and drifting down to different locations, Africa Command spokesman Vince Crawley said, adding they sustained minor injuries.
The aircraft, based out of Royal Air Force Lakenheath, England, was flying out of Italy’s Aviano Air Base in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn. The cause of the crash is being investigated.
The Air Force has said only that B-2, F-15 and F-16 fighters are participating in operations over Libya. The U.S. involvement in Libya is being run by Africa Command, which is based in Stuttgart, Germany.
The air campaign by U.S. and European militaries that began Saturday has rearranged the map in Libya and rescued rebels from what had appeared to be imminent defeat.
On Monday night, Libyan state TV said a new round of strikes had begun in the capital, Tripoli, marking the third night of bombardment.
But while the airstrikes can stop Gadhafi’s troops from attacking rebel cities — in line with the U.N. mandate to protect civilians — the United States, at least, has appeared deeply reluctant to go beyond that toward actively helping the rebel cause to oust the Libyan leader.


US jet crashes in Libya due to apparent equipment malfunction, both crew safe and in US hands - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-official-says-both-crew-of-f-15-jet-that-crashed-in-libya-safe-and-in-american-handsy/2011/03/22/ABebFlBB_story.html)
(not sure if they needed to 'shoot' before they swooped in as it sounds like one of Sas's 'non-hot LZs'!)

[Lonewolf_50]

BTW, 'well enough' is quite a stretch when describing the V-22's abilty to replace the H-46...it simply cannot in a real Combat Situation.

The Osprey operations in Afghanistan in the past few years suggest the above statement is false.

The Frog is and was a great bird, but like any aircraft, had some limitations. To pretend that the Osprey can't perform its mission strikes me as another case of ongoing Ostrich operations ...

21st century: I think that you slightly overstate the case
The Osprey was chosen for recovering the downed pilots not because it could do the job "well enough," but because it was the "best" choice for the rescue mission where speed, range, and quiteness were mission critical capabilities.
Speed? OK, I'll buy that. CSAR mission "quick is good" works for me.

Range? Mission Critical? In this case?

Funny, when I was playing around in the Gulf of Sidra in 80's, a Navy Reserve unit had a CSAR H-3 on board one of the small boys ... for about the same area you are talking about here, which is Littoral Libya. I don't buy your overstatement.

Quietness is mission critical for this CSAR mission?

Where do you come up with that, and how is an Osprey "quiet" in some mission critical way?

Hyperbole ain't selling well, though I am sure the aircrew were happy to be picked up and carried with some haste to where they needed to go. :ok: Yay, Osprey! :)

[21stCen]

Lonewolf_50:
The Osprey does offer better range particularly compared to the a/c it is replacing as has been shown in previous posts. However, in this case I agree with you that range was probably not a factor dependent upon where the ship was located when they launched.

Regarding other issues, it sounds like you may have been "out of the business" for a while. The water rescues you observed did not require 'quiet operations,' but talk to the Spec Ops and CSAR guys who operate in a potentially hostile land rescue environment where gov't troops are looking to shoot down anything they can and you will be told that getting in and out 'fast and quiet' are the highest priorities.

Lonewolf_50 says:
Quietness is mission critical for this CSAR mission?
Where do you come up with that, and how is an Osprey "quiet" in some mission critical way?


Because the Osprey is so much quieter in the airplane mode it can travel en route with a minimal sound footprint, and those on the ground don't hear it until it is almost on top of you. See standard approach profile and note the noise level compared to other vertical lift a/c:
9dtdoiR-NRA&feature=player_embedded#at=13

Lonewolf_50 says:
Hyperbole ain't selling well,
You ain't buyin, and I ain't sellin!
Just the facts, ma'am...
:)

[Lonewolf_50]

Lonewolf_50:
Regarding other issues, it sounds like you may have been "out of the business" for a while. The water rescues you observed did not require 'quiet operations,'
I have indeed been out of the business for a few years, but you might wish to re-read what I posted. Perhaps I was using too much brevity.

I was not talking about water rescues. I was specifically talking about assigning the CSAR trained air crews who, in the 80's, were mostly in the Reserve Helicopter squadrons.
EDIT: I now recall the squadron. HC-9. I think it got folded into one of the HCS squadrons in CA when it turned in its H-3's and got HH-60H's. (Early 90's). Paul (forget last name) was one of the det that showed up for that OP. Ran into him some years later in the Seahawk community, West Coast.

Anyway, when Dorado Canyon went into play, most of the AD helo crews were in either cargo, or ASW, specialists and the Overland CSAR was not in most Naval Helicopter Squadron ROC/POE except in VERY permissive environments. (I seem to recall that USMC helicopters had CSAR tasks in less permissive environments ... We had no Gators with us on that OP. I was speaking purely from a Naval PoV, as it was a purely Naval operation ... with a few nice Aardvarks tossed in to keep the USAF happy. :P )

Had we only needed water rescues, the destroyer's organic helo would have sufficed. What was predicted as a necessity for the raids on Libya in that operation were Overland CSAR. So, the CSAR specialists were summoned.

I became accutely aware of the internal bun fight within the Navy in re Roles and Missions, and where CSAR fit in, during the 90's. We were fighting for hours and missions in the FRS/RAG syllabus, and the TREAD matrices, and running into the Clinton era "you'll get no money and like it" response. :p Things have changed a bit since, as has the required NVG training we got no funding for back then ... and more.

Because the Osprey is so much quieter in the airplane mode it can travel en route with a minimal sound footprint, and those on the ground don't hear it until it is almost on top of you. See standard approach profile and note the noise level compared to other vertical lift a/c:

What the Osprey can do is fly, but it can't fly silently.

I don't see this particular CSAR mission as having to require "silence" though it is wonderful that the Osprey can
a. get there faster'
b. provide a lower acoustic signature while ingressing and egressing

Can you show me that this mission was up against acoustic sensors that would render that difference significant? If so, I'll accept your argument that this lower sound profile (a good thing in its own right!) was 'mission critical' for this CSAR mission.

Given the tactical template, I'd say this wasn't the sort of non-permissive CSAR that calls for that feature in a mission critical sense. Of course, I wasn't in the OPS brief on Kearsage, so there might have been factors I am blissfully unaware of that made that feature more important.

All in all, I are an Osprey fan, and have been of the tilt rotor capability since the XV-15 flew in the early 80's. Glad it's finally here and doing its thing.

[21stCen]

Lonewolf_50,
Thanks for a 'non-brevity' version of your experience in that neck of the woods. Sounds like you had some interesting experiences. I was in the USAF at that time and the Aardvarks performance did keep us happy!
:)

Lonewolf_50 says:
What the Osprey can do is fly, but it can't fly silently.
Can you show me that this mission was up against acoustic sensors that would render that difference significant?

No powered-aircraft in existence can fly silently, but in the airplane mode the Osprey is the quietest of any vertical lift aircraft in it's class.
The only 'acoustic sensors' I am aware of are the ears on the guys manning the anti-aircraft guns.

Lonewolf_50 says:
All in all, I are an Osprey fan, and have been of the tilt rotor capability since the XV-15 flew in the early 80's.
I too became interested in tiltrotor technology with the intro of the XV-15 and was fortunate enough to get to fly it a couple of times (it actually first flew in '77). Tiltrotors will never be the perfect airplane and will never be the perfect helicopter -- but they can do things that no other aircraft can do and certainly have their place in today's military.

[SansAnhedral]

The Much-Maligned V-22 Osprey Is Confounding Critics - Business in The Beltway - Money & Politics - Forbes (http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2011/04/04/the-much-maligned-v-22-osprey-is-confounding-critics/)

[SASless]

Osprey fufills that requirement well enough, whether you like the price per copy or not.

We know....We know....it is only tax money we're talking about here!

[SansAnhedral]

C'mon sas, thats out of context and you know it :=

Half of Mr Thompson's article was arguing the merits of comparing up front airframe cost versus lifetime costs, wherein cost per seat mile the V22 excels.

[Dan Reno]

Thursday, Apr. 07, 2011

WASHINGTON -- Today, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) issued its weekly spending cut alert aimed at the United States Marine Corps’ V-22 Osprey, a tilt-rotor aircraft designed to fly as fast as a turboprop airplane while retaining the ability to take off and land vertically. Between 1993 and 2007, taxpayers spent $22 billion on the V-22; 30 Marines lost their lives due to equipment malfunctions, all before the aircraft ever entered combat.

Richard Whittle’s book “The Dream Machine” called the project a “poster child for what’s wrong with the defense acquisition system.” Despite numerous attempts to kill the aircraft, including one by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1989, the project kept getting funded. Politicians and lobbyists from Texas and Pennsylvania, where the aircraft is produced by Bell Helicopter and Boeing, respectively, formed (http://cts.businesswire.com/ct/CT?id=smartlink&url=http%3A%2F%2Farticles.philly.com%2F1990-02-22%2Fbusiness%2F25881260_1_low-intensity-conflicts-revolutionary-tilt-rotor-aircraft-v-22&esheet=6676467&lan=en-US&anchor=formed&index=1&md5=f9d0cb1fe0fee1c858a1032c45a28e73) the Tiltrotor Technology Coalition in 1990, and by 2008 the Department of Defense had approved a $10.8 billion procurement program.

The V-22 has repeatedly proven itself to be dangerous and expensive while failing to meet the performance objectives set out in the original project. It was designed to be an assault aircraft, but has been used almost exclusively for transport, and its ability to fly aggressively under duress has not been proven. A 2009 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report (http://cts.businesswire.com/ct/CT?id=smartlink&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gao.gov%2Fnew.items%2Fd09692t.pdf&esheet=6676467&lan=en-US&anchor=report&index=2&md5=2ee051744accf710d1c21e9b7b5dc57c) stated that the V-22 “can complete missions assigned in low-threat environments,” but that “challenges may limit its ability to accomplish the full repertoire of missions of the legacy helicopters it is replacing.” In other words, despite operations and support costs that have been estimated at $75 billion for the completion of the program, the V-22 is in some ways worse than its predecessors. The GAO concluded that “alternatives should be re-considered.”

“Marines receive roughly 5 percent of the country’s defense budget and are an integral part of nearly all combat and aid missions,” said CAGW President Tom Schatz. “However, the V-22 project is among the most egregious illustrations of the Defense Department’s inefficient procurement process, which on average results in research and development cost overruns of 42 percent and 22 month delays, according to a GAO report (http://cts.businesswire.com/ct/CT?id=smartlink&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gao.gov%2Fnew.items%2Fd09326sp.pdf&esheet=6676467&lan=en-US&anchor=report&index=3&md5=f51d3504eade24f1edee12cb77a0aed4) from March of 2009. As Congress wages fiscal war over a few billion dollars in cuts to $3.8 trillion budget, these albatrosses – at $122 million apiece – should be scrapped.”
The V-22 Osprey has been included since 2005 in CAGW’s Prime Cuts database (http://cts.businesswire.com/ct/CT?id=smartlink&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cagw.org%2Freports%2Fprime-cuts%2F2010%2F2010-prime-cuts.html&esheet=6676467&lan=en-US&anchor=database&index=4&md5=3cc4e67ee2d8ea0f5a53b88d2aa59695), a compendium of 763 waste-cutting recommendations that would save taxpayers $350 billion in the first year and $2.2 trillion over five years.
Citizens Against Government Waste (http://cts.businesswire.com/ct/CT?id=smartlink&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cagw.org%2F&esheet=6676467&lan=en-US&anchor=Citizens+Against+Government+Waste&index=5&md5=9d2f191faa5548a01f4c2f1656b761cc) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, mismanagement and abuse in government. The Spending Cut of the Week calls attention to a federal program that is wasteful or duplicative.

Read more: CAGW Issues Spending Cut of the Week: USMC’s V-22 Osprey - Business Wire - SunHerald.com (http://www.sunherald.com/2011/04/07/3009572/cagw-issues-spending-cut-of-the.html#ixzz1J1xBwVtp)

[SASless]

Sans.....how does the 22 rate against the 53D for Ton Mile of cargo carried?

[SansAnhedral]

Not sure of the numbers, but youre getting into mission creep there, are you not? The V22 is not a heavy lift asset, so I gather its never been optimized for cost-per-tonne metrics.

The 53(K) will be serving alongside the V22, so there is your "efficient" heavy hauler.

[Lonewolf_50]

The V-22 has repeatedly proven itself to be dangerous and expensive while failing to meet the performance objectives set out in the original project.
This statement is a grand case of cherry picking, with the intent to deceive. The Osprey's operational record is being mixed in with its Test and Development record, to arrive at that dishonest statement. To focus on its operational record is a more intelligent way to evaluate the aircraft.

Once again, this technology is new.

Go back to the 1950's when supersonic jets were new, and look at the death and accident rate. You'd see, of course, that supersonic jet aircraft have repeatedly proven themselves to be dangerous and expensive, so we therefore should never have kept them around, but looked for "alternatives" which were ... WHAT?

Gimme a freakin' break.
It was designed to be an assault aircraft, but has been used almost exclusively for transport, and its ability to fly aggressively under duress has not been proven.
Does the person who wrote this understand that "assault helicopters" in Viet Nam were lost in the thousands? They were flown aggressively under duress, eh?

That is yet another attempted argument from a picked cherry, and a deliberate piece of spin.


A 2009 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report (http://cts.businesswire.com/ct/CT?id=smartlink&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gao.gov%2Fnew.items%2Fd09692t.pdf&esheet=6676467&lan=en-US&anchor=report&index=2&md5=2ee051744accf710d1c21e9b7b5dc57c) stated that the V-22 “can complete missions assigned in low-threat environments, ...”

True for most Helicopters in the the year 2011, thanks to things like a ZSU-23, machine guns, hand held SAMS, RPG's, and more.
... but that “challenges may limit its ability to accomplish the full repertoire of missions of the legacy helicopters it is replacing.”
I see, other helicopters don't get shot down, right? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

See the Blackhawks of Mogadishu ... oh, wait, maybe helicopters do get shot down in other than low threat environments. F:mad: me, do any of the people who write this crap recall the Frogs falling from the sky due (in part) to crap parts support and the T-58 getting long in the tooth? Mid to late 90's? THAT is the legacy aircraft that the :mad: who write and summarize this "report" insinuate "does a better job" at what the Marines want to do.

Speaking of legacy aircraft, the Seahawk ran into uncommanded enging shutdowns in the early 90's (T-700's) that cost us at least one SH-60F. Obviously, Seahawks were expensive and dangerous, we should have looked for alternatives ... :p oh, and we lost a few SH-60B Seahawks to tail rotor failures ... should have looked for alternatives. Oh, and a few to engine failures ... should have looked for alternatives ...

Where were these silly people when Boeing was asking for nine figures to restart the Frog production line? Nowhere to be found, eh?
In other words, despite operations and support costs that have been estimated at $75 billion for the completion of the program, the V-22 is in some ways worse than its predecessors. The GAO concluded that “alternatives should be re-considered.”
In some ways worse? Gee, there is a definitive statement. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

More expensive? Yes. Hell yes. That problem is endemic in DoD acquisition thanks to requirements creep leaping into programs with mind numbing regularity.

Now, please tell me, WHAT ALTERNATIVES?

You have already spent the money, you don't get your money back to explore "other alternatives." New program? You'll get your IOC (maybe) in ten years.

Maybe.

And until then, you do what? Toss out your baby with the dirty puddle of bathwater? As presented in that excerpt, the GAO report would have us go back 15 years and go with the all CH-53E (or K, now) program, eh?

Sorry, but there is a thing called opportunity cost that comes with any major decision. The opportunity cost of not going all Stallion is every cent spent on V-22 since then. Too bad, decision made, you can't turn back the clock. (On a side note, at least A-12 got canned before it got out of hand ... )

More BS, thanks Dan.

Really appreciate the FOD in the thread. :p

From the Forbes Article:
The staffers probably also didn’t realize that for all its technological sophistication, the V-22 is actually the cheapest rotorcraft that the Marines operate when measured in terms of the cost per seat mile.

The reason these facts are not widely known is that arcane warfighting systems like the V-22 seldom get covered in the general media unless something really bad happens, and that usually means either loss of life or a big hike in expected costs. The Osprey has suffered both kinds of setbacks during its history, but not lately so the views many “experts” have of the program are outdated. With production progressing smoothly and few operational problems being encountered, there isn’t much about the V-22 program today that an enterprising reporter can sink his or her teeth into.

[Dan Reno]

I'm just the messenger. If you have a beef with the content, write the author and tell us all what you learned since you obviously know more about it than him.

[SASless]

Sans,

Mission creep....not at all. The Osprey was billed by the USMC as being a replacement for the CH-53D and CH-46 aircraft. That changed for some reason....ask the Marines to explain the shift.

By Craig Hooper
Defense Tech Naval Warfare Analyst

In a little-noticed deployment shift, deputy commandant for aviation, Lt. General Trautman told Inside the Navy that the 40-year old CH-53D choppers are retiring before their previously reported FY18 and FY19 sundown dates. Fine. But then Trautman used his July 28 interview to quietly change policy, claiming that MV-22s–not Sikorsky’s new heavy-lift CH-53Ks–were going to replace the CH-53D helos!

What’s with that? What does it mean for the Post-Afghanistan Marine Corps?

Ospreys were originally slated to replace CH-53D “medium lift” helicopters, but at some point in 2007–8, the Marine Corps formally decided replace their aging CH-53Ds with CH-53Ks.

[SansAnhedral]

Someone high up the food chain probably got a copy of http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG649.sum.pdf

right about that time and the USMC began to weigh sustainment for seabasing in the decision to acquire more 53Ks for the 53Ds.

Not a knock on the Osprey (sustainment doesnt stress speed as much as capacity), just a shift in priority. I wouldnt argue the V22 is a good 53D replacement for heavy lift either way.

[Lonewolf_50]

Sure, Dan, sure. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I wouldn't argue the V22 is a good 53D replacement for heavy lift either way.
Did anyone in the USMC, at NAVAIR, or in DoD, ever posit the V-22 as a heavy lift asset, or as a 53D follow on? :confused:
But then Trautman used his July 28 interview to quietly change policy, claiming that MV-22s–not Sikorsky’s new heavy-lift CH-53Ks–were going to replace the CH-53D helos!

That makes little to no sense, as the medium lift was Frogs, was it not?

When did the 53D become "Medium Lift" helicopters? :confused::confused:

(Was this like the Navy reclassifying the Spruance class as "destroyers" rather than "cruisers" (it was a cruiser sized hull) in order to get around some acquisition language in the mid 70's and get the program funded/running?) If what he says is true, it seems a shame that they won't replace the 53D with the 53E, but then, there is nothing in the force structure that requires the Marines to always have the same number of heavy lift squadrons. The choice to go to more medium lift may have to do with mission requirements and changing ROC and POE. Still confusing. :confused:

The 53E was already in place long before Osprey got into its early development cycle. As I recall, the Super Stallion was dubbed "crowd killer" by no few of my colleagues who flew them. (A pretty infamous wreck, 30+ dead, mid 80's, the tail disconnect coming loose out in FMFPAC somewhere ... )

Aside: some of the Marines called the 53E the "S_h_i_t_t_e_r" for reasons that are unclear to me.

[Dan Reno]

Lonewolf_50

I figured since you were able to rebuke everything the author reported to the world, surely your information would have been earth-shattering to his ego and reputation !

So, who is right? You or him?

The world awaits your rebuttal.

[SASless]

CH-53D a Medium Lift helicopter....yep indeedy! Ever since the 53E and now 53K came into being.

As the artilcle confirms....the Osprey is to replace BOTH the 53D and 46.

Since Vertrep is being done by Evergreen Helicopters using Civilian Puma's...I guess Osprey's don't get involved in much sling loading. If it does....how does it cope with Hi-Drag Aerodynamic loads?


The US Navy -- Fact File: CH-53D Sea Stallion helicopter (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1200&tid=200&ct=1)



CH-53D Sea Stallion | NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation (http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.displayPlatform&key=8F1AC977-7DFC-4C0E-846D-93E88411A8D7)

[Lonewolf_50]

Dan, every weapons system seems to have growing pains. Were you around for the Pentagon Paradox and the F-18? If you were the gullible person you present yourself as, why, we should never have bought the F-18! Well, we did anyway, and it pretty much works.

Oddly enough, the F-111 came in for the same sort of criticism when it first arrived, with much complaint and mockery of its being designed to fit numerous roles, doing neither particularly well, but turning into a decent strike aircraft anyway, and a fine fast E jamming platform.

You ought to take what the media puts out with a more critical eye, as I did up there, because this is simply more of the same.

Whatever complaint you, or the author have, with V-22, is about fifteen years late. The opportunity cost has been paid, the decision taken.

You don't get the money back, the Frogs aren't coming back, and the Marines still need medium lift.

Beyond that, it's all about the whining, which you FOD the thread with.

How's that bridge working out, Dan?

[Lonewolf_50]

SASless, I don't find the assertion that 53D is medium lift to make sense. It was the original heavy lift, and the 53E "more and better" heavy lift.

That said, thanks for the link.
Description
The CH-53D is a medium lift helicopter designed to transport personnel, supplies and equipment in support of amphibious and shore operations.

Background
The CH-53D was ordered in the early 1960s to satisfy a Marine Corps requirement for a heavy lift helicopter. It has since been replaced in the heavy lift mission by the CH-53E Super Stallion. All Marine Corps CH-53D helicopters are currently assigned to Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay. The CH-53D, along with the CH-46E, is slated for replacement by the MV-22 Osprey.



I see what they did there. "The Spruance is no longer a cruiser, it is a destroyer." Thanks. :)

They could just as well have chosen to replace the 53D's with K's but probably didn't want to wait. 53D is a bit long in the tooth, yes? But what they chose to do was, in order to support the size of the desired buy, reclassify 53D as Med Lift in order to replace it with more of their favorite medium lift new plane.

Reminds me of the old F-20 and F-16 shell game ...

[SASless]

I don't find the assertion that 53D is medium lift to make sense. It was the original heavy lift, and the 53E "more and better" heavy lift.



Spinning words are you....the 53D was downgraded to the Medium Lift catagory occupied by the 46 upon the 53E joining the fleet.

The Osprey was sold as a replacement for both.

The Osprey Program's problems resulted in the 53D being retained and some drawn from storage to keep the combat capability of the USMC where it needed to be.....and are being retained long after their "retirement date" despite the growing numbers of the Osprey fleet.

When the 53K arrives adding to 53E numbers....then perhaps the 53D might be allowed to fade away.

Don't count on it however!

A Dress and some lipstick doesn't stop the Pig from showing through.....which the 22 Program is.

[Lonewolf_50]

The Osprey Program's problems resulted in the 53D being retained and some drawn from storage to keep the combat capability of the USMC where it needed to be.....and are being retained long after their "retirement date" despite the growing numbers of the Osprey fleet.

No disagreement there. I'll point out that the 53E's last production bird (back when decisions like this were being made) was in 1999 (2000?), in Stratford CT. The tooling was all then moved to Troy AL.
(I'd have to research whether or not any new E's were produced there. I heard some talk about selling E's to Turkey, made in Alabama due to cost per labor hour being a lot less, but that was years ago, not idea how that turned out. Apparently, the sale based on FMS credits never got finalized.)

OK, SAS, I'll bite.

Did the USMC not have any Frogs in Hawaii? ;) Any Medium Lift? Maybe in the past, they did, but at present, no, they don't have any Medium Lift Squadrons in MAG 24.

Marine Aircraft Group 24 (http://www.marines.mil/unit/1stairwing/mag24/Pages/default.aspx)

They do have three Heavy Lift Squadrons at MAG 24 in Kanahoe Bay.
Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadrons 362, 363, and 463

Funny, I don't find any Medium Lift Anywhere that the CH-53D is assigned and operating, do you? :confused: All very confusing, isn't it?

I am not spinning anything here, SAS. :p

It is very possible that the USMC has been playing a bit of a shell game, however.

"The Spruance is a Destroyer, Mister Senator, not a Cruiser." :ok:

So you complain that the Osprey Program is a pig. I quite agree that this combat transport is insanely expensive. See also the cost of a B-2, some of this silly "littoral combat ships" the surface Navy wants to buy, the Virginia Class submarine, and the F-22. All incredibly expensive on a per unit basis, and I'll grant you on a program basis as well.

Got an aviation major acquisition program in the last ten to fifteen years that isn't a pig? :confused: We should raise a glass to that program, given the company it's in.

[Jack Carson]

In June 1962 the Marines developed a requirement for a 33,000 lb machine that would carry 33 troops at 200 mph. The competition came down to the CH-53A and the CH-47A both medium lift machines in the eyes of the US Army, who at the time was developing the HLH a true Heavy lifter. Each machine had the capability to dash at 170 kts (196 mph) while carrying 33 troops. The first flight followed 2 years and 4 months later in Oct 1964. The first CH-53As were introduced to the fleet in June 1966, fours years from the program inception. (Pretty amazing by todays standards) The D was just a growth version of the A. The E was conceived as an improved D being developed as an ECP to the D. Initially, only 16 were to be built as an interim heavy lift machine. The program then grew to a full production of new machines built from the ground up. A total of 152 CH-53Es were built followed by 31, MH-53Es for the Navy and 11, S-80M-1s built for the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces. It is my belief that the CH-53A/Ds were medium lifters while the E was an interim quasi- heavy lifter. With an empty weight of 35,000 lbs and a gross weight of more than 50,000 lbs, the V-22 is more suited for comparison the 53 series. As a side not the CH-53As were purchased for approximately $300,000, a staggering figure at the time as it was compared to purchasing a C-130 for the same price. :ok:

[Ian Corrigible]

A further 'aside,' but since Jack mentions the CH-53's 196 mph dash speed: it was a shame that the CH-53E's maximum (as opposed to cruise) speed seems to have been deliberately understated in the recent GAO report (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11332.pdf#page=13) on the Kilo program, presumably in order to make the CH-53K look good. There was no need to do this, given that the K's lifting capabilities speak for themselves.

I/C

[Dan Reno]

Gee Lonewolf_50, I cut and paste an article, you say it's wrong, I point out it's available worldwide and state your beef is with the author and you go hysterical. Why? If you have facts contrary to the authors' the world wants to know about it. He stuck his pee-pee out there and you resort to calling me names because you don't want to stick yours out there and prove him wrong.

How juvenile is that!

If you have better, more accurate data send it to him and share his reply please or zip your lips.

Got it?

[Jack Carson]

I/C

Sikorsky actually demonstrated the dash speed capability of the E as part of a medium lift helicopter study project for NAVAIRSYSCOM. A CH-53E at approximately 40,000 lbs with the aux tanks removed demonstrated a Vh of 194 kts at maximum continuous power. There are many facets of the 53 that went on with little or no recognition.:ok:

JLC

[Dan Reno]

ry

<1|2>

http://khnl.images.worldnow.com/images/5709334_vt.jpg (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14346761#)One dead, 3 hospitalized after military helicopter crash (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14346761#)

5:00http://khnl.images.worldnow.com/images/5707056_vt.jpg (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14346761#)UPDATE: 1 dead, 3 hospitalized after military helicopter crash (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14346761#)

3:25
http://khnl.images.worldnow.com/images/5705869_vt.jpg (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14346761#)Military helicopter crashes in Kaneohe Bay (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14346761#)

1:33

http://khnl.images.worldnow.com/images/14346761_BG6.jpg (http://khnl.images.worldnow.com/images/14346761_BG6.jpg)



http://khnl.images.worldnow.com/images/14346761_BG3.jpg (http://khnl.images.worldnow.com/images/14346761_BG3.jpg) A Honolulu Fire Department copter is used to search for the downed copter



http://khnl.images.worldnow.com/images/14346761_BG2.jpg (http://khnl.images.worldnow.com/images/14346761_BG2.jpg) The site of the accident



http://khnl.images.worldnow.com/images/14346761_BG5.jpg (http://khnl.images.worldnow.com/images/14346761_BG5.jpg)

KANEOHE (HawaiiNewsNow) - One Marine is dead after a CH-53D Sea Stallion helicopter carrying four crew members crashed in Kaneohe Bay. The aircraft issued a mayday call shortly after it left Marine Corps Base Hawaii.

One crew member was removed from the helicopter, pronounced dead by the state medical examiner and later taken to Tripler Army Medical Center. The name of the deceased will be released 24 hours after next of kin notification.
The other three crew members were transported from Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay to Queens Medical Center. At last check, two were listed in critical condition and one in stable condition.
The aircraft made an emergency landing in shallow water on the Kaneohe Bay sandbar around 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, approximately two miles from the air station. The downed helicopter remains on its side in Kaneohe Bay and the salvage operation is being planned.
The emergency startled residents who live near the bay.
"One big boom like thunder, and then about 10, 15 minutes after that I noticed military helicopters was unusually circling around," said Kaneohe resident Glenn Pang.
"We're working with the Kaneohe Marine Base waterfront ops, working with US Coast Guard. Fed fire is on the base, and HFD, Coast Guard and waterfront ops are in the ocean with the patients," said Capt. Terry Seelig of the Honolulu Fire Department.
Containment booms have been placed around the wreckage as a precaution. The Coast Guard is enforcing a temporary safety zone extending 500 yards around the aircraft.
Rescue responders included the Marine Corps Base Hawaii Waterfront Operations, aircraft from the U.S. Coast Guard and Army and the Honolulu Fire Department as well as another CH53D from HMH363.
This incident is under investigation by the Marine Corps.
Copyright Hawaii News Now 2011. All rights reserved.
One dead, 3 hospitalized after military helicopter crash - Hawaii News Now - KGMB and KHNL Home (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14346761)

[Lonewolf_50]

Dan, no, I will not zip much of anything, thanks so much for asking.

EDIT: Upon further review, I was rude to you for no reason, and for that I apologize, Dan. Won't do it again.

If you take what he writes at face value, then I'll repeat my advice to use critical thinking. Beyond that, read the Pentagon Paradox and tell me why we still fly the F-18. We do, despite a veritable Greek Chorus of sniping and complaining about both the aircraft and the program when it was in similar stages to the V-22. (I'll leave to those who flew it to explain how to screw up the Vector Grid in the Coral Sea Battlegroup (86) thanks to F-18's comparatively short legs ... )

The decision to continue with V-22 program has been reviewed and reaffirmed frequently since the program's inception. When you consider which states, and which senators, and which congressmen had a stake in where high priced defense contracts were to arrive, you may find an even more worthwhile context for the actual decisions taken.

What are the alternatives, Dan? Were you around for those decisions?

Take for example the Blackhawk alternative (which does not hold a squad if you are the Marines). Consider the deck multiple of a CH-46 on an amphib, to get 25 Marines from point A to point B. Your Blackhawk gets 11 there, so you have to use 2.2 Blackhawks to replace 1 CH-46. You also have to house more pilots and crew to fly said Blackhawks. If you operate on an amphib where space is at a premium, that is an easily defeated option. It was doubtless defeated for that and other reasons.

Take the All CH-53E alternative. (Which I personally thought was a better idea, based on how it would fit into the infamous 90's era Helo Master Plan). Depending on configuration, you might be able to carry 37 Marines (don't know if the Marines typically used "50+ with centerline seats installed") which you balance against the deck multiple on an amphib and see if you come out ahead. I suspect there were pros and cons considered for that option within the USMC, but you still run into the speed limitation of rotary wing aircraft. And at that time in the program, the belief was that the technical issues (and associated risks) were solvable in the near term.

But politically, <--- and that's very important -- if you had gone with the all 53 option, that would move the manufacture of Marine helicopters out of PA and into CT ... or AL ... so you get a grand battle that has little to nothing to do with aerodynamics, payload, or mission effectiveness, or even unit cost.

With Boeing in the mix in the V-22, their influence on "where and what" becomes a non-trivial program approval factor ... as does the location in Texas of the proposed production facility, in Amarillo (can't recall when that became final, sometime in the 90's).

That has little to nothing to do with cost, mission effectiveness, airworthiness, or mods and options (guns or no guns?) and everything to do with how you actually get your hands on a new aircraft: it requires dancing the Congressional dance.

When the GAO puts a costs on that political skullduggery -- it creates a real cost -- I'll be less cynical when reading their reports and assessments of weapons acquisition programs. For journalists with axes to grind, the cynicism remains.
From the GAO report:
A month after the first flight, the Secretary of Defense stopped requesting funds for the program due to affordability concerns. In December 1989, the Department of Defense (DOD) directed the Navy to terminate all V-22 contracts because, according to DOD, the V-22 was not affordable when compared to helicopter alternatives, and production ceased. Congress disagreed with this decision, however, and continued to fund the project. In October of 1992 the Navy ordered development to continue and awarded a contract to a Bell Helicopter Textron and Boeing Helicopters joint venture to begin producing production-representative aircraft.

Between 1990 and LRIP, the "alternatives" were indeed considered, and abandoned. I'll leave to you, the reader, to figure out why.

Cheers

[SansAnhedral]

http://defensetech.org/2011/04/13/v-22s-taking-hits-in-combat/

So, a couple of years ago some V-22 critics were saying that the Osprey was only being used as a sort of VIP ferry in Iraq during its initial combat deployments. Well, it turns out that the V-22 has been shot at, and hit, quite a bit in subsequent combat deployments around the world with the Air Force and Marines, the Osprey’s program manager revealed this week.
“The aircraft, as I mentioned, has been engaged, it has been hit and every time it’s been hit by enemy fire the aircraft has returned safely to base,” said Marine Corps Col. Greg Masiello, NAVAIR’s V-22 program manager during a press conference at the Navy League’s annual Sea, Air, Space conference held just outside Washington.
While the colonel wouldn’t give too many details about what kinds of weapons have hit the Ospreys, he repeatedly said that a “spectrum” of munitions had been fired at, and hit, the birds when asked point-blank if it was just small arms fire or heavier weapons such as Rocket Propelled Grenades.
“I think it’s safe for me to say that it’s been engaged by a spectrum of different weapons systems and in each case we’ve seen success as far as I would term the aircraft’s ability to perform, fly safely and return back to the fight after it’s been hit,” said the colonel.
Interestingly, the relatively low-tech RPG is one of the deadliest threats to low flying rotor-wing aircraft due to the fact that the rounds have no guidance system to confuse with countermeasures.
He also said the birds are used for a range of operations from troop transport to search and rescue ops.
Furthermore, the Osprey’s composite skin has proven to be tough and flexible enough to absorb hits better than metal, according to Masiello.
“Traditional steel, you hit that and you might hit the structural integrity but composite kind of goes throughout the fibers so if you hit that you’re able to maintain that strength in that area,” said Masiello. “We’ve been able to repair composites and we’re able to effectively go out and repair the damage that was incurred and return to the fight; that’s over a spectrum of different types of engagements.”
Still the V-22’s relative quiet, its speed and flight tactics used by its crews also play a big role in keeping the tiltrotor safe from enemy fire, said Masiello.
“What makes survivability? It’s the vulnerability, its susceptibility [or lack of those] it’s the speed of the aircraft and the tactics they’re able to employ in remaining above the small arms fire,” said Masiello. “It’s also as simple as things like acoustics. … This is a quiet aircraft, it’s able to come in at a speed and at altitude in airplane mode, and we have plenty of footage of very surprised people in a target area as the aircraft comes in out of nowhere, seemingly to them.”
The Marines and their MV-22s deployed to Afghanistan recently logged more than 100,000 flying hours all without the loss of an aircraft. Meanwhile, Air Force Special Operations Command has used its fleet of CV-22s for classified missions around the world. While the missions frequently put the tiltrotors in harm’s way, not one has been lost to enemy fire. One CV-22 did crash-land in Afghanistan, killing four, due to what may have been a case of mechanical failure, pilot error or some combination of those (http://defensetech.org/2010/12/20/air-force-failed-to-recover-cv-22-flight-info-recorder/). The service’s investigation into that incident failed to recover the flight data recorder, meaning the cause of the first combat loss of a V-22 may never be fully understood.

[SansAnhedral]

DoD Buzz | New V-22 Multiyear Could be Near (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/04/12/new-v-22-multiyear-could-be-near/)

The Navy hopes to hear back from Bell-Boeing on a proposal for a second multi-year contract for 122 V-22 Ospreys on May 26, such a deal would round out the Air Force and Marine Corps buy of 50 and 360 aircraft, respectively.
If the five-year deal is approved, it means that the Pentagon will save a minimum of ten-percent over a one year buy of the tiltrotors, according to Col. Greg Masiello, NAVAIR’s V-22 program manager. The flyaway cost for each bird is roughly $65 million.
“At this point we’re confident of ten-percent savings over a single year price,” is all John Rader, Bell Boeing’s executive in charge of the V-22 program, would say when asked if the deal will save more than ten-percent.


Congress must approve the deal before it can go forward.
Meanwhile, the Air Force variant of the tiltrotor is seeing readiness rates pushing 80-percent for deployed units while Marine MV-22 squadrons operating in the field are up to around 70 percent, according to Masiello. Stateside units are still a little lower than that.
And in a very interesting piece of Osprey news, HMX-1, the Marine chopper squadron that flies Marine One presidential helicopters will receive 14 MV-22 Ospreys to haul the president’s gear starting in 2013, said Masiello. The tiltrotors will replace the VH-53D Sea Stallions used to carry the president’s gear (not the president) that are being pulled out of VIP duty and back into regular cargo hauling squadrons. Last year, Boeing announced that it was offering up the V-22 in response to a NAVAIR request for information on a new Marine One replacement chopper.

[Ian Corrigible]

HMX-1, the Marine chopper squadron that flies Marine One presidential helicopters, will receive 14 MV-22 Ospreys to haul the president’s gear starting in 2013

As part of Corps' FY-2011 aviation campaign plan in support of the operational needs of the warfighter, HMX-1 (http://www.marines.mil/unit/mcbquantico/Pages/2011/HMX-1%E2%80%98BigIrons%E2%80%99reassignedtooperatingforces.aspx) is having to give up its CH-53Es and transition to CH-46Es for two years prior to the MV-22s arriving.

Surreal.

I/C

[Lonewolf_50]

It would be interesting to see another GAO report, similar to the 2008-2009 based report cited earlier (linked in Dan's post up there) and compare program goals (80% mission capable) with achieved readiness goals. (The above post cites the USMC getting about 70% and the USAF 80%) as the fleets grow and mature. Collecting data based on over a hundred aircraft gives a little more depth to the analysis than analysis of 12, yes?

Also of interest would be the MTBF analysis, on systems and subsystems, and whether or not the same "13 items" are flagged as the critical readiness degraders in the next analysis. If other parts/systems began to crop up as the long poles in the Mission Capable metric tent, how fast has either service been able to react to that? (Logistics question as much as anything else ... )

Let's see, if one takes at face value the "it's 112 million a copy" criticism, and apply this whopping :p ten percent discount for a multi-year buy (which has the added political/economic incentive of keeping more subcontractors alive and well for a five year program) then you are "only" paying 101 million per copy.

Still a very expensive bird.

The price of speed, and breaking new technological ground.

As to using Frogs for the President ... why not? They used the H-3 for decades as the VIP bird ... old, but pretty dependable.
EDIT: don't they still use the VH-3D? :confused: IIRC, the 101 replacement was nixed.

[Ian Corrigible]

No criticism of the Phrog, or of the prioritization of lift assets. But if 30 years ago you'd have predicted that HMX-1 would be transitioning to CH-46s in 2011, you'd have been section 8'd.

I/C

[Lonewolf_50]

Good point, Ian, which is perhaps a caution to us all if we wish to become seers and fortune tellers. :}

Since Vertrep is being done by Evergreen Helicopters using Civilian Puma's...I guess Osprey's don't get involved in much sling loading. If it does....how does it cope with Hi-Drag Aerodynamic loads?
SASless, I had understood that the Navy's Vertrep bird (to replace the CH-46) is the CH-60S (Now MH-60S) Seaknight.

Has this changed? :confused:

[SansAnhedral]

You guys do realize there are already CH-46 assets in HMX-1, do you not?

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2552/1576839839527lr7.jpg

I imagine existing ships will simply be taking over the 53s duties in the interim.

Lone, yes the VH-3D fleet is still current. The completed VH-71s are gathering dust in a hanger somewhere on the east coast with rumors of a possible sale to canada as spare parts for the Cormorants.

[SASless]

It would seem to me the Osprey would be the perfect VH aircraft....fast...can land vertically....safest machine in the Marine Inventory....wonder why they cannot replace the VH-3's with VH-22's?

Granted they might have to do without the Nuke proof dunny or whatever made the 71's unusable in the role.:rolleyes:

[Aser]

http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2011/04/04/the-much-maligned-v-22-osprey-is-confounding-critics (http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2011/04/04/the-much-maligned-v-22-osprey-is-confounding-critics/?partner=yahootix)

Regards
Aser

[Lonewolf_50]

Um lifting, then I am indeed in deep regret. I should have worked on getting that commercial helicopter ticket before I left the Navy, and tried to get on with a commercial vertrep crew. It may have put stress back on the marriage, but I think it's a job I'd have enjoyed quite a bit more than I do now. I really liked flying at sea ...

Glad to see the Kmax (non IFR certified) idea was scotched.

I was against contracting out the VERTREP mission. I guess it's working out well enough. Onward we march, into the future.

In re the Forbes article, again:

The Osprey has suffered both kinds of setbacks during its history, but not lately so the views many “experts” have of the program are outdated. With production progressing smoothly and few operational problems being encountered, there isn’t much about the V-22 program today that an enterprising reporter can sink his or her teeth into.
Why report good news? Any reporter can still write a story based on cost, since (as is admitted later in the article) the bird is very expensive.
Except maybe this: if the Osprey is performing so much better than legacy aircraft, then why are military services other than the Marine Corps continuing to sink money into traditional solutions to military needs that cannot meet requirements as effectively?
I reject this conclusion. The Army has a fleet of something like 2000 Blackhawks. IF we go back to my analysis above, in terms of how many people you can move per aircraft, divide 2000 aircraft by 2.2 and you get about 910 Osprey equivalents. That's six times as many as the Marines Have, at about five times the price per (100 million or so versus 20 million or so for a Blackhawk) to get 2.2 times the volume of lift ... and while all performance metrics don't scale evenly up and down, the magnitude of the replacement cost with the newer capability, versus the more modestly priced and very reliable Blackhawk, puts you into the following dollar range ... (and don't forget the cited $11,000 dollars per flight hour figure from the GAO).

910 x 100,000,000 = $91,000,000,000

At some point, you run out of money. (I have no inside information, but I suspect that the decision to axe the new amphib vehicle was in part a strategic move to keep funding lines open for Osprey ... not sure).

The Army has a lot of other stuff to buy and maintain, and have chosen not to put speed at as high a priority in their requirements as the Marines have.
The answer, unfortunately, is that the military doesn’t have a rigorous methodology for capturing and comparing all the costs associated with different approaches to performing missions.
Does anyone? :confused:

The whole article seems to have been written by someone wearing rose tinted glasses.

[21stCen]

It would seem to me the Osprey would be the perfect VH aircraft....fast...can land vertically....safest machine in the Marine Inventory....wonder why they cannot replace the VH-3's with VH-22's?


You never know -- the current President had no problem with being flown around Iraq in V-22s at a time when active military engagements were occurring:

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/tiltrotors/ObamainIraq2.jpg

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

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

[Lonewolf_50]

Why V-22 may not be the VIP bird any time soon.

As I understand some of the requirements and constraints for the VIP bird(s)

1) The aircraft has to have been in service for a number of years (10? don't know why that number comes to mind) so that a track record for reliability is already established

2) The issue of how big a storm/rotorwash vortex gets kicked up by the aircraft on the White House Lawn factors into whether or not it is suitable for that part of the mission ... which may be PR intensive, but is still part of how the Presidential transport fits into the President's routine.

I think the second point was a factor in H-53 not being eligible? (Not sure where I heard that, it's been a few years). 53E kicks up roughly hurricane force winds in a hover ... and I understand that V-22 kickes up a healthy storm as well.

[Jack Carson]

The CH-53D was considered for Presidential missions in the 1970s. Rotor down wash was cited as one of the main reasons for rejecting it. One aircraft was actually painted in the traditional white top paint scheme and traveled around with the VH-3s as a support bird. The CH-53E’s disk loading is considerably higher than the D. This issue was obviously over looked when the EH-101 was recently selected by the Navy. The EH-101 at 32500 lbs and the CH-53D at 42000 lbs have approximately the same disk loading and resulting down wash velocities.

[LowObservable]

Anyone aware (in detail) of what the supposed 14 VH-53Ds haul around?

[SASless]

Continuing my rant about the Over-The-Horizion (OTH) Amphibious Assault strategy of the USMC....and what appears to be a contradiction between "Talking the Talk and Walking the Walk!" when reality is compared to the Smoke and Mirrors emanating from Henderson Hall.

The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle Program was axed....so no new amtrac for that capability of OTH.

The Osprey does not shine in the hauling of external loads when compared to helicopters.

Now we find the new amphib ships are doing away with well decks to accomodate "aviation" assets. That makes sense in a left handed way re the termination of the EFV program.

The question I ask....why do we have an "Aviation Only" LHA with no way to carry/launch/retrieve Amtracs, LCM's LCU's, Seal Assault Craft? Is that not just a Mini-CV (aircraft carrier without catapult capability)?

Can some of you Leathernecks explain where all this is going to take us....especially if the VTOL version of the F-35 fails to live up to the promises made by the builder?

the future USS America (LHA 6), the first ship in the LHA Replacement program. LHA 6 was placed under contract in June 2007 with NGSB. LHA 6 will be an aviation-centric modified repeat of the LHD 8 and is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in 2013. Key differences between LHA 6 and the LHD class ships include an enlarged hangar deck, enhanced aviation maintenance facilities, increased aviation fuel capacity, additional aviation storerooms, removal of the well deck, and an electronically reconfigurable C4ISR suite. Three of the original five Tarawa-class LHAs were recently decommissioned: USS Belleau Wood (LHA 3) in October 2005, USS Saipan (LHA 2) in April 2007 and USS Tarawa (LHA 1) in March 2009.

Although Marines are enthusiastic about the new ship, many of them question the decision to build a $3 billion ship without a well deck. It’s been a point of contention between the Navy and Marine Corps for some time.

The aviation-centric design of the LHA replacement — or LHA(R) — also has raised questions about its long term usefulness. Considering that Marines require heavy trucks and armored vehicles once they reach the shore, most of that equipment can only be transported by hovercraft, not by helicopters.

“It’s been a long-running debate, and it’s still not settled,” says Robert Work, a naval analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, D.C. “There are a lot of questions on LHA(R). Will it become the standard, or will it become only a niche capability?”

There are five Tarawa-class amphibious assault ships, with three still in service. Two were decommissioned in recent years: USS Belleau Wood (LHA-3) retired in October 2005 and USS Saipan (LHA-2) in April 2006.

The USS America, designated as LHA-6, will be part of the Marine Corps’ amphibious assault echelon — a group of warships that would deploy along with Navy cruisers and destroyers for major contingencies. The next two LHA ships, to be funded in 2010 and 2014, are intended for the maritime pre-positioning force squadron — a logistics sea base for troops. The fourth and final ship, currently funded in the 2017 to 2018
timeframe, would also be part of the assault echelon.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway pressed for an increase in
the amphibious fleet and succeeded. The plan now is to build up to 11 “big deck” amphibious assault ships — eight LHDs and three LHA(R)s — and dedicate them all to the assault echelon.

There’s no clear plan yet on whether to put big decks in the logistics squadron — that decision will be deferred until after the fiscal 2010 budget, says Work. The Marines lately have been trying to make a case that they need three additional amphibious assault vessels, for a total of 14. “The chances of that happening, I think, are zero,” he says.

The LHA-6 hull is based on the design used in the USS Makin Island (LHD-8), which is the first gas-turbine ship in the Wasp class of amphibious assault ships. Both are under construction at Northrop Grumman Ship Systems in Pascagoula, Miss. The LHD-8 is expected to be completed in May.

An aviation-centric amphibious ship is not a new concept. In the late 1950s, the Navy built a class of amphibious assault ships called Landing Platform Helicopters, or LPH. These vessels carried Marines and rotory-wing aircraft. The only way to leave the ship was by air.

“That turned out to be largely a failed experiment,” says Work. In operations off the coast of Lebanon in the late 1970s, the ships’ helicopters encountered a significant air threat that resulted in the Marines being transferred to another amphibious ship to go ashore by sea.

“What we learned about the LPH is that we needed a well deck,” says Marine Col. Robert Coates, director of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force’s training and exercise group.

The United States in 1975 began building amphibious ships with both well decks and flight decks. The well decks on the Tarawa-class allowed watercraft and hovercraft, such as landing craft utility (LCU) and landing craft, air cushioned (LCAC), to float into the ship to load or unload Marines and cargo and transport them ashore.

“It was a tremendous success. The ship was extremely flexible. The Marines could get off either by sea or by air,” says Work.

The LHD Wasp-class ships are an improved version of the Tarawa-class. Aboard the sixth ship of the class, the USS Bonhomme Richard, Marine Lt. Col. Robert Rice comments on its versatility. “When you have a ship like the Bonhomme Richard that can do simultaneous well deck and flight deck operations, I think it represents a significant threat that can never be discounted,” he says.

With a wide flight deck that resembles that of an aircraft carrier, the LHD traditionally deploys in a trio of warships called an amphibious task force. The other two vessels commonly are the transport dock ship (LSD-class) and the dock landing ship (LPD-class). Collectively, the ships carry a Marine expeditionary unit and a wide range of aircraft, vehicles and watercraft. The total force is called an amphibious ready
group, or ARG. Depending on the missions that crop up, the units can stay together or operate separately.

Without a well deck, the LHA(R) might be more limited, Marines say. “If you’re tasked with a situation where there’s multiple tasks going on simultaneously, you have to split the ARGs up,” points out Rice. “That’s going to be tough to decide which ship goes where. If ships are limited in capabilities, then we’re limiting our options.”

During the early 2000s, the Navy adopted a position that future amphibious operations would be achieved through aerial maneuver. They feared future enemies would mine waters near shores and threaten ships sailing in coastal areas with missiles and other defenses to prevent Marines from coming ashore by sea.

This position was buttressed by the Marines’ pursuit of the tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey, an aircraft that can take off and land like a helicopter, and also rotate its propellers to fly like a conventional aircraft. The tilt rotors on the V-22 must be locked in a vertical position in order for mechanics to work on it. That requires more hangar space than is available in the older LHD-class and LHA-class ships.

Though the Marines still insisted on maintaining the well deck capability, the Navy built LHA(R) as an aviation-focused vessel. “We’re still an amphibious assault ship, but we’re focusing on the aviation aspects,” says Michael Arnold, manager of the LHA-6 class at Naval Sea Systems Command.

Critics can’t help but associate the LHA(R) with the old LPH-class ships.

“There is some superficial resemblance because neither one of us has a well deck,” Arnold says. But the Marines abandoned the LPH-2 class because the ships were too small to be able to operate the airplanes that they wanted. “They couldn’t fit all of their airplanes on that ship,” he says.

The V-22 is significantly larger than the helicopter it replaces and the short take-off and vertical landing F-35B Joint Strike Fighter also is larger than the AV-8B Harrier that it will replace. They require larger flight decks and hangar space and more fuel and storage capacity, all of which are found on the LHA(R) — a much larger vessel than the LPHs. “It’s that kind of thinking that drove us to LHA-6,” says Arnold.

[Lonewolf_50]

SASless: I share your dismay at the lack of a well deck. (What, LCAC's not available to move ship to shore? ???)

That said, I don't think the Marines have posited the airwing as being solely V-22. You'd expect a MAW to deploy with Heavy Lift (53's) and Med lift (22's) and the usual Light Attack (hueys and snakes) elements.

That leaves the concerns in re moving heavy stuff via V-22 answered ... but it doesn't answer the mail on how you move the typical load out of trucks and such ship to shore.

Doing it all by sling load under a 53???

Seems a bit confusing. I'd need to understand the requirements document that went into the LHA-6 (sample) to grasp why the folks at Henderson Hall chose to go that way. (Once again the Navy seems to be building ships for specialty reasons, not the multi purpose platforms ... see also that littoral combat DD thingy ...)

Put another way, why not just build more LHD's rather than a stripped down LHA? Cheaper?

[Modern Elmo]

Is that not just a Mini-CV (aircraft carrier without catapult capability)?

Yes. Just as a Burke-class ship isn't a cruiser, and the F-18E/F is merely an upgraded C/D.

Put Amtracs, LCM's, LCU's, Seal Assault Craft, etc. on ships with well decks.

[SASless]

LCM's, LCU's, and the current Amtrac are useless in O-T-H amphib operations. They are too slow and thus too vulnerable. The argument here is whether the O-T-H concept is fatally flawed as it was based upon the Osprey, LCAC, and EFV.

The EFV program died after Tens of Billions of Dollars being wasted.

That knocked the third leg out from under the stool as I see it.

If the main justification for the Osprey was O-T-H , then how does the USMC use that argument now?

The Navy does not want to expose its ships to shore based anti-ship missile or gunfire.

How does removing the well deck from an Amphib ship enhance Amphibious capability? If you want an "escort carrier" for the Amphib Group....design build that particular ship and not modify an existing design that at best is only a compromise!

Some body is spending a pot full of taxpayer's money on a flawed concept!

[Modern Elmo]

If you want an "escort carrier" for the Amphib Group....design build that particular ship and not modify an existing design that at best is only a compromise!

The Navy Dept. and tis subset, the USMC, did prefer a larger, all new desing for the America ships class. They had to compromise for budgetary reasons.

...and also to dodge friction with people opposed to changes in military technology and concepts of operation. That's not an escort carrier, Senator. It's an LHA(R)!

Now Senator, ah, moving on to your questions about 8 inch and 16 inch gun naval fire support ...

[SASless]

What gun support? What does the USN have that can provide Naval Gunfire support from 20-25 miles offshore?

This whole thing is a myth!

[Modern Elmo]

It's Easter Sunday. Bye for now, we're going to church.

You-all should go to church too.

[Dan Reno]

The Osprey’s never-ending P.R. problem

http://www.dodbuzz.com/wp-content/themes/dodbuzz/thumb.php?src=http://www.dodbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Osprey-Dom.jpeg&w=300&h=200&zc=1&q=80
By Philip Ewing (http://www.dodbuzz.com/author/philewing/) Thursday, April 21st, 2011 10:24 am
Posted in Air (http://www.dodbuzz.com/category/air-warfare/)
On Wednesday, as it does like clockwork every few weeks, the New York Times editorial page called for DoD to eliminate the V-22 Osprey (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/opinion/20wed1.html?_r=1). In a get-tough writeup about how the Obama administration must make big cuts to the defense budget, the editors wrote this: “Eliminating the Marine Corps’ costly and accident-prone V-22 Osprey vertical take off and landing aircraft would save another $10 billion to $12 billion.” The Times editorial board has been far from the only voice to target the Osprey this year; it has been in the crosshairs of white paper after white paper on the budget situation.
But as commentators and opinion-makers have continued to despise what they call an unsafe aircraft, military officials say the Osprey is meeting or exceeding all their needs. The Marine Corps and Air Force hit 100,000 hours of Osprey flight (http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1644) last month, and according to safety records quoted by Boeing, the Osprey has the lowest rate of Class A mishaps of any Marine rotary-wing aircraft in the past 10 years. (But beware: As we’ve learned, DoD statistics can mean anything you want (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/04/18/twilight-of-the-bone-revisited/).) This month, Marine Corps Ospreys made their longest-ever flights, covering some 2,800 miles (http://www.wcti12.com/news/27518464/detail.html) from Afghanistan to Souda Bay, Crete, where they went on to rejoin the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit aboard the amphibious assault ship Kearsarge. Anecdotally, many troops love the Osprey — it has become just another airplane in the war zone.
And yet the V-22 still carries a stigma from the decades it took to develop, as well as the infamous 2000 crash that killed 19 Marines. A decade later, many people prefer to continue viewing the Osprey as a dangerous experiment, rather than an operational aircraft that has flown thousands of missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti and elsewhere. Compared to the aircraft it replaced — the Marines’ legendary, leaky old CH-46 Sea Knight — the Osprey may have to serve decades more before it can be accepted in its own right.


What do you think — is all the skepticism justified given the Osprey’s checkered past and unconventional nature? Or should people start cutting the big birds some slack?



Read more: DoD Buzz | The Osprey’s never-ending P.R. problem (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/04/21/the-ospreys-never-ending-p-r-problem/#ixzz1KS4QV8UD)
DoDBuzz.com

[The Sultan]

The V-22 looks a bargain against against the now $50M apiece UH-60 that Sweden bought. I guess it is half the cost of the $120M or so S-92 the Canadians have not received.

The Sultan

[SASless]

The Government of Sweden has requested a possible sale of 15 UH-60M BLACKHAWK Helicopters, 34 T700-GE-701D General Electric Engines (30 installed and 4 spares), 15 AN/AAR-57(V)3 Common Missile Warning Systems, AN/APR-39 Radar Signal Detecting Sets, AN/AVR-2B Laser Warning Sets, Aviation Mission Planning Station, transportable operations simulator, communications equipment, spare and repair parts, tools and support equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, logistics, and technical support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $546M.



546/15 = 36.4 (includes the aircraft, 1/15th of all the spares, training, mainteance, toos, special tools, simulator, publications.....etc...etc...etc.....).

Read the GAO report about the Osprey....way too long to post the pertinent sections re cost, cost over run, under peformance, un-suitability for tasks, comparative costs for the aircraft being replaced......and on and on.

GAO-09-482, Defense Acquisitions: Assessments Needed to Address V-22 Aircraft Operational and Cost Concerns to Define Future Investments (http://www.gao.gov/htext/d09482.html)

Is that Texas or Marine Math you are using there Pard?

[SansAnhedral]

Well played, SAS, referencing a 2 year old document, itself referencing 3 year old data to come to its conclusions regarding the suitability of the V-22 in theater.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the V22 essentially "flew in the face" of the GAOs conclusions in its deployments since 2008, with 50,000 of the 100,000 fleet flight hours occuring in the last two years. So, I suppose lowest cost per seat mile, safest rotorcraft in Marine inventory, increased readiness rates, etc etc dont mean a thing if you want to continue to set up the historical strawman of past issues.

Might as well have thrown the baby out with the bathwater on the Blackhawk too, eh? As you may or may not recall, the first S-70 prototype 73-21650 crashed in 1976 with 14 people on board who luckily survived, only for the exact same airframe to crash again in 1978 in Stratford killing 4 sikorsky employees. That was an entirely conventional helicopter. And can we even count how many TR failures and horrific crashes there have been with the CH53 series? Just ask the Israelis.

And suppose you do eliminate the V22. Whats your alternative? The 53K? Which now has a unit cost of $55-65 million, itself already delayed? Its barely out of (a rather suspect) CDR. How is its success such a foregone conclusion?

[SASless]

Awlright Sans....

What is the per unit cost of the MV-22, CV-22? Tell us your numbers.

How do you respond to the GAO's questions about Out Year funding costs in the current Fiscal situation we find our Country confronting?

Expound on just why we need the Osprey in light of the now defunct EFV and removal of Well Decks from several of the new LHA's....both of which shoot the Over the Horizon Amphib Assault concept squarely in the ass...if you would please?

The Navy has zero capability to provide Naval Gunfire in the support of Marines engaged in an OTH beach assault....does that also not show the OTH to be a darn myth and a bullcorn way to justify many Billions of tax payers money for something that just plain don't exist....that being the ability of the USMC and the US Navy to perform OTH Amphibious Assault DESPITE all the money spent so far....and that which is going to be spent in this pursuit of a way to justify a Marine Corps based upon Amphibious Assault.

Take a step back....and look at the "big" picture....not just the Osprey all by itself....the whole OTH thing reeks of something that ain't Rosewater and Flowers does it not?

If one accepts the fact there is no OTH Capability in the cards (remember the lack of amtracs that can get to the beach in a timely safe manner from over the horizion) then CONVENTIONAL aircraft nicely fit the ACTUAL need.

Or do they not in your view?

Outside OTH capability....we are still using a variant of the techiques used in the days of the whaleboat and Ship's landing forces with the additon of Vertical Envelopment techiques which the USMC pioneered and the Army perfected.

At what costs to the Nation do we continue with this mythological OTH concept? If we bin the OTH effort....what is actually lost that we cannot live without?

Tell us please.....I am sure lots of folks would participate in an honest debate on this.

[SansAnhedral]

We all know that "per unit cost" talk can be skewed by however you slice up the pie due to R&D, maintenance, build quantity, and the myriad costs associated with production. The current usually-agreed-upon values for the V22 are typically around $65-70 million a piece, but if you use the GAO calculations from 2007 then it looks like $93 million.

Im not totally qualified to speak about the Marine's ideas about the OTH philosophy. I suppose I trust that the Marines understand their own evolving requirements enough to ask for the capabilities, and that the requirements are fluid and evolutionary over time. What isnt in question is that the capability provided by the Osprey is highly valued within the Marines and AFSOC. Does that jive with OTH, and are they mutually dependent? I dont think its as relevent as you do.

btw EFV is not dead, it has changed names to MPC/ACV and the new program is being fast tracked (no pun intended) for 2014 at last mention.

Even IF OTH were completely abandoned, my original question remains. What are your alternatives for the V22? Should we just piss away the investment (like VXX times 10) made over the last 2 decades just when the aircraft is hitting its stride as evidenced by repeated good performances in the field and the capability it provides AFSOC and Marine commanders? Do we reopen the CH46 lines or what?

To me, it looks like the argument against the Osprey has shifted with the winds of its successes. No longer can people just hammer away on it being unsafe or unsuccessful in the field. The criticism has turned into attacking the tactical philosophy behind the Marines original requirement for the V22 in the first place.

[SASless]

Yeah....all we need is a folding wheeled...water jet powered...armored amphibious Humvee!:ugh:

It will nicely complement the Hundred Thousand Dollar Osprey custom M-151 Jeep and French Mortar!:rolleyes:

Is there no end to this silliness?:=

[The Sultan]

Sas,

I use better math than you.

The Sultan

Sweden in final negotiations for Black Hawk fleet (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/04/21/355863/sweden-in-final-negotiations-for-black-hawk-fleet.html)

[SASless]

Just your President's devaluing of the US Dollar in effect....what a difference a few days makes!

It seems the Swedish guvmint is just like any other in the World considering why they are buying Blackhawks....smacks of the Osprey, F-35 Alternate Enginer, VH, Air Force Tanker, EFV, Obama Care, and a long host of other US Government programs.

[Hilife]

Sweden's government says the Black Hawk acquisition is expected to value up to SKr4.7 billion ($772 million), including training services, through-life operating costs and maintenance support.

As acquisition costs only make up around 25 to 30% of total through life costs, that would make them around $17m each or less would it not?

[Jack Carson]

I guess the question that requires asking is: What is going on with the Nordic new and improved larger cabin NH-90s acquired in 2002? At the time there was no way that the Blackhawk (small cabin) would fit their requirements. Back then, the international Blackhawks were $12.9 million per copy plus logistic support.:rolleyes:

[SansAnhedral]

Well for one thing, I do recall the NH90s having a nasty habit of buckling the floors when loaded internally

[SASless]

Where were the "Cat's Ass" of SpecOps aviation recently......seems it were obselete Blackhawks and Chinooks carrying the Lads on their house call at the Bin Laden hacienda!

Nightstalkers and all those who participated....Congratulations on a very successful OP!

[Dan Reno]

Possible Reasons for V-22 Absence


The Air Force still hasn't worked out all of the V-22's bugs, not their type of point A to point B mission, too much hovering, they were circling overhead waiting to save the day, got there so early, (due to their incredible speed) that they declared themselves fastest of all the air vehicles and went back to base playing "We are the champions" on their loudspeakers.

[21stCen]

The operation to finally take out bin Laden is the perfect example of "balance" in aircraft types to fulfill all mission profiles. The V-22 is fast, quiet en route, and has very good range for a vertical lift aircraft. But it cannot come into a confined compound with 'guns blazing' from all directions.

That's one of the reasons that tiltrotors will NEVER replace helicopters. They will perform missions better suited for their capabilities, and we should all be thankful for the flexibility and capability to support missions across the board.

Thanks so much to the guys that did the job that needed to be done in Pakistan. It doesn't matter what aircraft they rode in on, what they accomplished was the "ultimate mission" for this decade that so many people have been waiting for -- and how great it is that helicopters were able to carry them in to do the job!!!

[Dan Reno]

Balance? Huh?

"we should all be thankful..."

We would be thankful if it did perform all the missions of the aircraft it was contracted to replace.

But then, there we go again rehashing the V-22's obvious shortcomings, again and again, and again and...

[SansAnhedral]

Interesting laud for "obsolete blackhawks and chinooks"....especially when one MH60 decided to crash land due to mechanical problems.

You guys make me sick, theres absolutely no real detail about the logisitcs of the operation and you have to post up online some irrelevent disparaging commentary about the "absence" of the V22 in a specific mission, which was tactically obviously more suited for a traditional helicopter anyway. Also, how many V22s does the 160th have right now? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

V22 makes a successful long range CSAR extraction last month
Dan/SAS say "V22 sucks"

V22 accumulates 100,000 flight hours in theater
Dan/SAS say "V22 sucks"

V22 steadily raises mission readiness rates
Dan/SAS say "V22 sucks"

V22 becomes the safest flying vehicle in marine inventory
Dan/SAS say "V22 sucks"

...

MH60/MH47s make successful short range urban tactical operation
Dan/SAS say "V22 sucks"

:ugh:

[Lonewolf_50]

SASless: a few years back the 155mm naval mount, with proposed "RAP" round was supposed to reach farther than the 11-13 NM of the 5" mount.

Not sure what happened there ... probably "missiles" or airborne fires were presumed to suffice. :confused:

[The Sultan]

This operation ended up in a success, but not due to the UH-60. 50% of the assault aircraft were lost. Only by excellent piloting was another disaster like Cambodia, Desert One, Grenada, and Somalia due to the shortcomings of conventional helicopters (read Sikorsky products) avoided. Imagine the slaughter of our guys if the two ships had collided due to the mechanical failure of one of the aircraft.

The Sultan

[SASless]

Sans.....get it straight....I merely asked where it was?

Where were the "Cat's Ass" of SpecOps aviation recently......seems it were obselete Blackhawks and Chinooks carrying the Lads on their house call at Chez Bin Laden!


As to an engine failure....wasn't one of the explanations for the USAF CV-22 crash in Afghanistan a dual engine failure?

[SansAnhedral]

sorry for lumping you in with Dan, but you were the one who had to make the completely irrelevant jab in this thread

As to an engine failure....wasn't one of the explanations for the USAF CV-22 crash in Afghanistan a dual engine failure?

It was a suspected single engine power degradation, which was categorically ruled out by the air force as the only suggestions for that conclusion was from prop rotor divot spacing in loose sand and IR video feeds from an A10 at 10,000'.

The air force concluded that was hardly conclusive evidence in the face of the way-too-hot approach profile taken by the first chalk, in addition to absolutely no supporting evidence from the pax testimony and crew during descent.

Did the MH60 suffer an engine failure to bring it down? I havent read a single story detailing what happened exactly.

[SASless]

The simple answer is the US Army opted out of the program early on for what was supposed to be "Cost Issues" and the effect it would have had on the Army's budget for acquiring and/or updating aircraft.

I submit they made entirely the correct decsision and "dollar costs" was not the only cost they saved by that decision.

At least the Army does not put all of its eggs into a single basket....but tailors its aircraft decisions to the mission rather than fitting mission set to the aircraft.

Nothing heard yet about the causes for the Blackhawk to park in the compound. That technique was used at Son Tay....deliberately writing off some aircraft to achieve surprise. I cannot think that was the case here.

[Lonewolf_50]

It is possible that during the fast rope drill the tail "hit something" and very shortly thereafter pilots had to put it down while still in control.

Other possibility is that while fast roping, something (fired) hit the tail, and once again, pilots had to put it down while still in control.

Other chances are a main rotor blade hit something (building? ) and the whole thing began to shake so they set it down.

Coulda been any number of things.

[Devil 49]

and asked how the V22 refueling had gone there recently. Some strong language later, I was told that they'd sold $20,000 worth of fuel on a single stop, but the Marines had done $50,000 worth of damage. At my incredulous response, he pointed to the auto parking lot near the refuel pad. A week or so after the fact, lots of vehicles with plastic tarps taped over tops. The gravel in the margin of the pad and lot, blown by the rotorwash was reported to have done the damage.

[Bygollyman]

All. I am trying to determine what airfoil is used on the V22 Osprey. Can anyone help?

Thanks and regards

[SansAnhedral]

you ask like the V22 uses some off-the-shelf NACA airfoil or something

clearly not.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/64/193870387_81c5a8ec15.jpg

[Ian Corrigible]

There are plenty of papers out there on the Osprey's proprotors - try Googling for XN28, XN18, XN12 and/or XN09.

I/C

[Dan Reno]

Okinawa decries reported plans to locate Ospreys at Futenma

By Travis J. Tritten (http://www.stripes.com/reporters/Travis_J_Tritten?author=Travis_J_Tritten)
Stars and Stripes
Published: May 31, 2011

A V-22 Osprey, assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 162, 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit makes its final approach for landing on the island of Crete for a stopover in 2010.
Paul Farley/Courtesy U.S. Navy
CAMP FOSTER, Okinawa — The Okinawa government said it will oppose any plans to locate the U.S. Marine Corps’ duel rotor Osprey aircraft on the island following reports that the Department of Defense is set to notify Japanese leaders of the change later this week.
Okinawa Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima called the aircraft “dangerous” and said it should not be operated out of the Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, which sits in a densely populated area of the island where local opposition and a helicopter crash in 2004 have raised tensions between the U.S. and Japan.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Japan Minister of Defense Toshimi Kitazawa will both attend a security summit in Singapore this week. Gates plans to tell Kitazawa that the Marine Corps will begin moving Ospreys to Futenma in 2012 to replace the aging fleet of Sea Knight helicopters, according to Kyodo News, which cited unnamed sources.
“The Osprey had many accidents in its development stage, giving us an image that the aircraft is accident prone therefore dangerous,” Nakaima said Monday during a press conference, according to Tatsuo Oyakawa, chief of the Okinawa prefecture military affairs office. “At this point when the (Japanese) government provides us with no information on the aircraft, I have no other choice but to oppose the reported plan.”
The Osprey, which can take off like a helicopter and fly like a propeller airplane, was criticized during development for its high maintenance needs and poor reliability. A crash during a test run killed 7 crewmembers and passengers in 1992, and 23 Marines died in two separate crashes during 2000.
It was put into combat service in Iraq in 2007 and in Afghanistan in 2009 and so far suffered only one reported deadly accident that killed four during a night landing in Afghanistan in April 2010.
The Osprey can carry more cargo and go faster and farther than the Sea Knight helicopter, which was first put in service during the Vietnam War, and the newly developed hybrid is set to slowly phase out the older bird.
But it is unclear what the Marine Corps plans for the Sea Knights at the Futenma, which is targeted for closure and relocation in the coming years to a site farther north on Okinawa. The Marine Corps did not return requests for comment Tuesday.
Deployment of Ospreys would surely ignite local opposition across Okinawa and further complicate the political problems revolving around the air station relocation and a larger plan for an historic shift of U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific region.
President Barack Obama and Japan Prime Minister Naoto Kan affirmed last week that the plans to relocate Futenma and realignment of U.S. forces would not be changed despite sharp criticism from Congress and federal auditors over the potential costs.
Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., called the military plans “unrealistic, unworkable and unaffordable” last month.
Also, the Government Accountability Office issued a report strongly criticizing the U.S. military for not developing accurate cost estimates for the shift of forces, which includes relocating Futenma and moving 8,600 Okinawa Marines to Guam. The plans could cost the U.S. and its allies $46 billion over the next decade, according to the GAO.
As questions rise over the plan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Gates are expected to meet later in June with Kitazawa and Japan Foreign Minister Takeaki Matsumoto as part of an annually U.S.-Japan security alliance gathering.
The meeting is likely to shed light on how the agreements on Futenma and the realignment might proceed despite persistent problems.
Chiyomi Sumida contributed to this story.
[email protected] (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:void%28location.href=%27mailto:%27+String.fromCharCode% 28116,114,105,116,116,101,110,116,64,112,115,116,114,105,112 ,101,115,46,111,115,100,46,109,105,108%29+%27?%27%29)

Okinawa decries reported plans to locate Ospreys at Futenma - Okinawa - Stripes (http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/okinawa/okinawa-decries-reported-plans-to-locate-ospreys-at-futenma-1.145167)

[Lonewolf_50]

CAMP FOSTER, Okinawa — The Okinawa government said it will oppose any plans to locate the U.S. Marine Corps’ duel rotor Osprey aircraft on the island following reports that the Department of Defense is set to notify Japanese leaders of the change later this week.

Okinawa Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima called the aircraft “dangerous” and said it should not be operated out of the Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, which sits in a densely populated area of the island where local opposition and a helicopter crash in 2004 have raised tensions between the U.S. and Japan.

A little learning is a dangerous thing. Glad to hear the Governor is an aviation authority. :rolleyes:

If you've ever flown around Atsugi, Japan, another are of seriously dense population, you'll note that Helicopters (which sometimes crash -- WHOA, Those Are Dangerous!) and Jets "which sometimes crash -- WHOA, stop, Those Are Dangerous) come in and out of that airfield day and night.

Goodness gracious, all these dangerous aircraft flying about, what's a governor to do?

Engage in a little fear mongering.

It's what politicians are good at.

[SansAnhedral]

“The Osprey had many accidents in its development stage, giving us an image that the aircraft is accident prone therefore dangerous,” Nakaima said Monday during a press conference, according to Tatsuo Oyakawa, chief of the Okinawa prefecture military affairs office.

A microcosm of the popular worldview of the Osprey. :rolleyes:

“At this point when the (Japanese) government provides us with no information on the aircraft, I have no other choice but to oppose the reported plan.”

Google is your friend, Oyakawa-san. A cursory search on this new-fangled interweb would give you all the information you need...including the fact that the Osprey is the safest flying vehicle the marines have. Amazing!

[Dan Reno]

June 03, 2011

V-22 widows: Pilots not to blame for Marana crash; one Marine Osprey pilot agrees

Connie Gruber and Trish Brow say it's time to clear the records of their late husbands (http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/06/03/3126874/v-22-pilots-not-to-blame-for-crash.html). Marine pilots Maj. Brooks Gruber and Lt. Col. John Brow were at the controls the night of April 8, 2000, when the MV-22 Osprey they were attempting to land in Marana, Ariz., suddenly rolled uncontrollably, crashed and exploded. All 19 Marines aboard died.
The official finger of blame was pointed at Brow and Gruber. A "combination of human factors" -- a series of mistakes and misjudgments -- caused the crash, according to the Marine Corps investigation. That explanation was translated into "pilot error" by the media, commentators and even some Marines.
It's a verdict that Connie Gruber and Trish Brow want to see changed -- for their husbands' legacies and for their children. "That tragic accident was the direct result of the crewmen being tasked with an insurmountable, premature mission in a dangerously immature aircraft," Connie Gruber said.
Now a fellow Marine V-22 pilot, Lt. Col. James Schafer, is making much the same argument. The accident was a result of too much pressure from the Marines and others who were trying to get the Osprey program into production. The Marines and the secretary of the Navy "should exonerate" the pilots, Schafer said. "Let's remove the dishonor."



Read more: Sky Talk: V-22 widows: Pilots not to blame for Marana crash; one Marine Osprey pilot agrees (http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2011/06/v-22-widows-pilots-not-to-blame-for-marana-crash-one-marine-osprey-pilot-agrees.html#ixzz1OPWYtrYf)

[SASless]

Have the omitted test points been tested since the Marana Accident? If so...what were the results? Did any restrictions, warnings, cautions result from that testing?

Seems odd 68% of a test flight programme could become victim to a lagging schedule? Is this a regular practice of the USMC, Department of the the Navy, Bell Helicopters?

Any of you folks driving the things now care to enlighten us?

[SansAnhedral]

Another shocking hit-piece by Bob Cox against Bell/Textron and the V22. Since he cant find anything new to try and malign he has to dig up old dirt and try to keep these decade old events in the forefront of the media.

Its a tragedy whenever anyone perishes during flight testing. I agree that the term "pilot error" has harsh implications...but it is not actually what was ruled. Read the article: "A Marine spokesman, Capt. Brian Block, said the finding of "human factors" as the cause of the accident should not be equated with pilot error or blaming the pilots."

So if the marines themselves say that "human factors should not be equated with pilot error", why does anyone else?


As an aside, can we all agree at least that anything written by Bob Cox regarding the V22 is going to be anything but objective?

[Dan Reno]

"As an aside, can we all agree at least that anything written by Bob Cox regarding the V22 is going to be anything but objective?"

Sure, as long as we do the same for Bell/Texron and any V-22 customer.

[SansAnhedral]

Last time I checked, "Bell/Textron and V22 customers" are not members of the media who cheekily pose as unbiased journalists.

[Dan Reno]

Last time I checked, "Bell/Textron and V22 customers" are not members of the media who cheekily pose as unbiased journalists.


I guess we'd have to have more than one opinion on the author's biased reporting, whereas we know for a fact that it's money and a career that bias the manufacturer and it's customers.

[SansAnhedral]

Nobody is arguing the merits of bias of a company, what do you suppose PR departments and marketing are for?

Now as for a customer, a dissatisfied one would have little reason to laud, would they not? A restaurant doesnt get a five star review for serving cold duck.

When Mr Cox decides to make a career out of maligning a company on all fronts, which is crystal clear if you take even a half hearted approach to a little historical research on his journalistic "contributions", my opinion is of little significance. Anyone with an iota of insight can read any given piece of his and detect a tongue-in-cheek disdain for anything related to Bell/Textron, the V22 usually his favorite whipping boy.

[Dan Reno]

Now as for a customer, a dissatisfied one would have little reason to laud, would they not? A restaurant doesnt get a five star review for serving cold duck.



Libellous remarks removed.

Splot

[Dan Reno]

Pentagon unveils plan to deploy Ospreys at Futenma in late 2012

Tuesday 07th June, 06:44 AM JST

WASHINGTON —

The U.S. Defense Department said Monday it plans to deploy MV-22 Osprey vertical takeoff and landing transport aircraft at the Marine Corps’ Futenma Air Station in Japan’s Okinawa Prefecture in late 2012.
The MV-22 will replace the CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters currently at Futenma. ‘‘We have recently begun discussing the mechanics of the notification process involving with introducing this important alliance capability to Okinawa,’’ deputy Pentagon spokesman Dave Lapan said in a statement.
The decision is likely to draw criticism from local governments and residents in Japan’s island prefecture as the aircraft suffered a series of accidents during its development.
But Lapan said, compared with the CH-46, the MV-22 is ‘‘even safer, generally quieter, and considerably more capable.’‘
Japanese Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa told Okinawa Gov Hirokazu Nakaima in their talks in early May that the United States will likely announce the deployment plan soon.

[SansAnhedral]

CV-22 Beats MV-22 in CSAR Race (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a00bd2c17-f048-4779-9f72-9feb486c2447&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Posted by Robert Wall (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/community/persona/index.jsp?newspaperUserId=25764&plckUserId=25764) at 6/7/2011 4:34 AM CDT

The U.S. Marine Corps has gotten a lot of attention for its MV-22 mission, this year, to rescue one of two downed F-15 pilots when the fighter went down in Libya owing to mechanical problems. But the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), not as publicity hungry or savy, has quietly carried out a far more significant search and rescue mission using its tiltrotor.

Almost exactly a year ago, a CV-22 operating out of Kandahar rescued 32 personnel stranded in difficult conditions in northeastern Afghanistan, according to USMC Col. Greg Masiello, the V-22 Joint Program Manager. The CV-22 was based in Kandahar and flew 800 naut. mi. without refueling to recover the troops.

One reason the CV-22 was used for the mission was its ability to fly above 15,000 ft. and thereby fly over the Hindu Kush mountain range. What is more, Masiello says the high altitude capability allowed the CV-22 to fly over extremely bad weather that persisted at lower altitudes and made a rescue using a helicopter impossible.

The mission lasted about 4 hours.

AFSOC currently still sustains a CV-22 deployment to Afghanistan.

Next year, AFSOC will also be the first to stand up an overseas V-22 base, when CV-22s will be based at RAF Mildenhall, U.K.

[SansAnhedral]

VIDEO: MV-22's shining moment - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/06/video-mv-22s-shining-moment.html)

Lt Col Romin Dasmalchi, former commanding officer of VMM-266, briefs reporters in Philadelphia on 6 June about the operation in which an MV-22 from his squadron rescued the crew of a Boeing F-15E that crashed in Libya.

[SansAnhedral]

V-22 vertical aircraft gets rave reviews - TheHill.com (http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/165271-v-22-vertical-aircraft-gets-rave-reviews?page=2#comments)

By John T. Bennett - 06/07/11 08:27 PM ET

NEW YORK — Military and industry officials rave about the V-22 tiltrotor’s performance in Afghanistan but know they need to show the aircraft is worth its high price tag.
The Marine Corps are flying V-22 Ospreys in theater and “it’s more effective than we expected,” Maj. Gen. Jon Davis, Second Marine Corps Air Wing commander, told reporters here recently. “We have only scratched the surface with this aircraft. … “We’re doing things with the V-22 we did not plan to do.”
The V-22 takes off vertically but can fly like a plane, allowing it to travel faster than traditional helicopters. The military is using the craft to haul teams of Marines, special operators, combat rescue personnel and cargo.
But there are questions in defense circles about whether — after years of technical delays and cost spikes —such glowing reviews will be enough to avoid future cuts as White House, Pentagon and congressional officials look for ways to trim the annual Defense budget.
Despite rave reviews from war fighters, the program is among the most expensive at the Pentagon.
Each Osprey has a flyaway cost of $65 million. The Pentagon already has spent over $30 billion on the V-22 program, according to the Congressional Research Service.
In its 2012 budget request, the Defense Department is seeking another $3 billion to buy Marine Corps and Air Force special-operations versions of the V-22.
The Pentagon intends to buy around 450. The majority would go to the Marine Corps, with the Air Force slated to buy around 50.
Those kinds of cost figures lead many fiscal hawks to place the V-22, being built by Boeing and Bell Helicopter, on their lists of Defense programs that should be ended.
For instance, a high-profile debt-reduction panel led by former Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and former Clinton White House budget director Alice Rivlin targeted the V-22 for termination last fall.
The panel targeted Pentagon weapon programs that “might exceed the needs for a mission, that are unduly costly for the capacity they deliver, or that have manifestly failed to fulfill performance expectations.”
Liberal lawmakers often come after the Osprey initiative when looking for places to trim Pentagon spending.
Last month, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) offered an amendment to a Pentagon policy bill that would have directed the department to spend no monies on the program in 2012.
Woolsey dubbed the program a “boondoggle” for the “military-industrial complex.” Terminating the program would save more than $12 billion over 10 years, and $2.5 billion in 2012 alone, she claimed.
The House overwhelmingly defeated her amendment, but not before Woolsey said the aircraft has gotten “mediocre marks” from independent auditors and “underperformed across the board.” There are reports the V-22 has struggled in “high-threat environments,” she said.
She also said it has failed to “prove its worth” operationally and has had a number of major crashes. But Davis says it has proven its value, citing the fleet’s strong record in a rugged war theater.
Program officials and advocates are ready to fight back as Washington continues talking about an era of federal spending cuts.
Their embryonic message, as Davis put it: “Why would we terminate something that works?”
Marine Corps and Bell-Boeing officials also say to avoid budget cuts or a reduced buy, they will have to show critics like Woolsey that the fleet is reliable.
Right now, the Osprey’s closely monitored reliability rate in Afghanistan is around 73 percent, according to program officials.
Davis wants to push that figure to 80 percent, saying that would make the V-22 among the military’s most reliable aircraft.
DOD and Bell-Boeing officials are working on plans to make the fleet more reliable.
The challenge, Davis said, “will be getting the dollars to get us there.”

[Aser]

Israelis favor V-22 Osprey for special ops (http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Israelis_favor_V-22_Osprey_for_special_ops_999.html)


Tel Aviv, Israel (UPI) Jun 7, 2011

The Israeli air force is sending a team to the United States this month to evaluate the controversial V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft that it's eyeing for search-and-rescue and covert special operations.

The successful March rescue of a downed U.S. Air Force F-15 pilot in Libya by an Osprey crew has doubtless enhanced the prospects of the multi-mission aircraft built by Bell Helicopter and Boeing Rotorcraft Systems.

"The (Israeli air force) has had its eye on the V-22 for a number of years and senior officers, including Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz have flown in it and were impressed with its capabilities," The Jerusalem Post reported Tuesday.



Regards
Aser

[Lonewolf_50]

Last month, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) offered an amendment to a Pentagon policy bill that would have directed the department to spend no monies on the program in 2012.

Woolsey dubbed the program a “boondoggle” for the “military-industrial complex.”

Representative Woolsey's remarks can be read as follows:

"No subs or primes in my district."

Sorry, I have become cynical over the years. People use that loaded term for specific reasons in their talking points.
Terminating the program would save more than $12 billion over 10 years, and $2.5 billion in 2012 alone, she claimed. The House overwhelmingly defeated her amendment, but not before Woolsey said the aircraft has gotten “mediocre marks” from independent auditors and “underperformed across the board.” There are reports the V-22 has struggled in “high-threat environments,” she said.
It's an expensive bird, no question.

But the "savings" is made by removing capability, since the Phrogs are not coming back. :p She may, however, be at the root of this gambit be questioning force level numbers, (Do the Marines, need 200, 250, 350, 400? and why a given number?) That line of argument may be very productive in terms of the final buy numbers getting changed.
She also said it has failed to “prove its worth” operationally and has had a number of major crashes.
While she is reading old news, it isn't news that aircraft crash.

What galls anybody who pays for them (to include our congressional reps) is how bloody expensive aircraft are , and how easy it is to crash any aircraft. Budget dollars are a zero sum game. Rep Woolsey doubtless has other projects or programs she'd rather see get the funds. So where's her full disclosure? ;) On the other hand, her objections are part of the process.

The operators and supporters have reported back that the value is paying off in operations ... so who do you believe, and why?

Well, what program do you want funded? :}

[21stCen]

Operating Costs Come Down for V-22 Tiltrotor

By: Bill Carey (javascript:linkTo_UnCryptMailto('ocknvq,dectgaBckpqpnkpg0eq o');)
June 13, 2011
Military Aircraft


http://www.ainonline.com/images/the-u-s-marines-and-special-operations-command-are-currently-flying-a-total-of-142-ospreys-70.jpg (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/) The U.S. Marines and Special Operations Command are currently flying a total of 142 Ospreys.

The cost of operating the Bell-Boeing V-22 Tiltrotor has been significantly reduced in the past year, according to U.S. Marine Col. Greg Masiello, V-22 Joint Program Office manager at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. He said that the program has achieved an 18-percent reduction in hourly operating costs by identifying 43 specific “reliability, maintainability” changes to components and 72 “consumable” parts that can be repaired and maintained. He did not provide absolute numbers for the cost gains.
Masiello briefed reporters on the V-22 program status recently at Boeing Defense, Space & Security facilities in Ridley Park, Pa., where the V-22 fuselage is built and then shipped to Bell Helicopter for final assembly in Amarillo, Texas.
The Bell-Boeing team is on contract to produce 288 Ospreys and is in the third year of a five-year program. The V-22 program of record calls for 458 aircraft. John Rader, Bell Boeing V-22 program manager, said the industry team now is responding to a request for proposals for a second multiyear procurement to 2019.
In addition to the component efficiencies, Masiello said the program is working with Rolls-Royce on changes that could increase time-on-wing of the Osprey’s Liberty AE1107C turbines by 45 percent. He said a software change to an engine-control device could yield another 80-percent improvement in time on wing. The software update is scheduled to fly in August.
There are currently 142 Marine Corps MV-22 and U.S. Special Operations Command CV-22 Ospreys in service with test and training as well as deployed squadrons. The fleet has logged some 115,000 flight hours in theaters that include Iraq and Afghanistan, and about half of those hours were flown in the past two years.
“These aircraft are excelling in the combat environment,” Masiello said. “They’ve been engaged by the enemy; they’ve been hit. All the assumptions that we’ve made with respect to survivability are proven out. We haven’t lost an aircraft due to enemy action.”

Operating Costs Come Down for V-22 Tiltrotor : AINonline (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/operating-costs-come-down-for-v-22-tiltrotor-30004/)

[SASless]

Operating Costs Come Down for V-22 Tiltrotor



Hard to make them go up based upon past experience!:E

[SansAnhedral]

House Panel Trims $9 Billion From Obama (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-14/house-trims-9b-from-obama-s-defense-budget.html)

The committee strongly endorsed the new Army Ground Combat Vehicle and buying more Textron Inc (TXT) (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=TXT:US).-Boeing Co. (BA) (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=BA:US) V-22 Osprey aircraft. Representative Norm Dicks, a Washington Democrat, said an Osprey was used to ferry the body of Osama bin Laden (http://topics.bloomberg.com/osama-bin-laden/) to a Navy ship after he was killed in a U.S. raid in Pakistan (http://topics.bloomberg.com/pakistan/) on May 2.

[SansAnhedral]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/06/22/pas11-is-v-22-the-next-big-u-s-export-prospect/


PAS11: Is V-22 the next big U.S. export prospect?


DoDBuzz.com By Philip Ewing Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011 10:32 am
Posted in Air
PARIS — Foreign militaries are in preliminary talks with DoD and its contractors over the possibility of buying the V-22 Osprey, defense and industry officials here said Wednesday. Although it’s still so early in the discussions that neither the V-22’s program manager nor a top official with Boeing would go into much detail, their hints at new international customers could mean the American tilt-rotor may begin serving in ever larger numbers around the world.
For the U.S. military, that would be no wonder. Marine Col Greg Masiello, the V-22’s program manager, told reporters Wednesday that both the Corps and the Air Force love their versions of the V-22, which he said have redefined how troops can move and fight in the field. But not only that, Masiello made a case DoD probably hopes will appeal both to Washington and international audiences: The Osprey is a business success, as well as an operational one, and it not only deserves to be spared from the U.S. budgetary guillotine, foreign buyers might consider it even amidst austerity measures.
Masiello said the V-22 is the most cost-effective rotorcraft in DoD’s inventory when measured by cost per passenger, and also its safest. Buzz readers already know about the Osprey’s 100,000 flight hour milestone, but what Masiello said many people don’t know is that half of those hours have been flown just in the past two years. He showed a chart comparing the costs of moving a Marine infantry company with Ospreys as opposed to “utility helicopters” — he didn’t identify which:

The Marines need four Ospreys to move all the troops and their gear, as compared with 16 helos; that means a cost of $296 million for the V-22s as compared to $488 million for the helos; the Osprey crew costs are $5 million, compared to $21 million; the Osprey doesn’t need a forward refueling point or security, but the helos do, so the Marines factor a cost of $15 million; but the Ospreys’ operation and sustainment rate is “.23,” as compared to “.14.” Bottom line: According to Masiello’s chart, the Osprey costs $301.2 million, as compared to $524.1 million for the “utility helicopter.” The conclusion: “Utility helicopter alternative is 74 percent more costly than V-22.”
The chart did not give a time scale for those costs, but they’re presumably over a fiscal year.
Jeff Kohler, vice president of business development for Boeing Military Aircraft, said the Osprey had to prove itself before it attracted the attention of other militaries. “A lot of countries wanted to wait and see how it performed,” Kohler said, “It’s been performing brilliantly.”
Masiello said the most effective showcase for the Osprey has been in Afghanistan, where American allies have gotten a chance to see firsthand how the Marines and U.S. special operators have been using their aircraft. Although he did not say so, that suggests the interest in Ospreys is coming from NATO countries, possibly Great Britain, which has had a series of political dustups over British forces’ lack of helicopters.
Kohler did acknowledge that discussions over international V-22 sales have matured to the point that, if potential customers ask about custom modifications for their own versions of the aircraft, Boeing is discussing the possibilities.

[Dan Reno]

I doubt it very much.

[SASless]

It just keeps on.....more spin!

OK...you just moved the Infantry Company....now how about the Artillery, LAV's, bulk supplies, POL supplies.....and please do explain why the Osprey requires no "Security" at the LZ and the Utility helicopter does? Are they referring to "enroute security" then where does the LZ security come from?

Do a cost comparison using CH-53E's and K's.....for the total move....Infantry and the rest of the Kit...then come back to us will you?

How does a Huey Cobra keep up with the Osprey.... or get to this mystical LZ without a FARP somewhere in the area? Or....does this magical Osprey always go it completely alone...unafraid....and unarmed as you have to have a cargo hook to tote anything underslung and with the BAE belly blistestinger with associated XBox video control installed there is no cargo hook?

If a Marine Rifle Company consisting of a dozen riflemen and and about 162 Cameramen and assorted others....makes up the numbers of troops being moved....it would appear four CH-53's could do the job in one lift. Then be able to tote all the other kit needed including LAV's.....which the Osprey cannot do. Or....do Marine Rifle Company's always operate all by their lonesome?

Will some of you Osprey guys lay out all this for us nay sayers?

Any time you cook the books....one can make the Osprey shine....but let a real comparison using real world events and I fear it returns to being a Turd no matter how well someone tries to polish the thing.

[Lonewolf_50]

Who, besides the US DoD, can afford these aircraft? (And even that wallet gets bruised paying for them).

I'm guessing the prospective customers all speak Arabic. :p

[jeffg]

Sasless,

please do explain why the Osprey requires no "Security" at the LZ and the Utility helicopter does?
The quote from the Marines was:

the Osprey doesn’t need a forward refueling point or security

If one does not need to FARP then one does not need FARP security, true enough?


If a Marine Rifle Company consisting of a dozen riflemen and and about 162 Cameramen and assorted others....makes up the numbers of troops being moved....it would appear four CH-53's could do the job in one lift. Then be able to tote all the other kit needed including LAV's.....which the Osprey cannot do. Or....do Marine Rifle Company's always operate all by their lonesome?

A true enough statement with one exception, it assumes that the USMC would fly the 53 with a full load of Marines in the back. This didn't use to be so for the simple reason that if you lost one 53 enroute due to combat or maintenance reasons, you would lose 25-30% of your combat force(assuming a Marine Co). Therefore they spread load the Marines over a larger number of aircraft, thus the use of platforms that carry a smaller number of Marines. As an example when we would swap out aircrews at a FOB we would spread load 30 to 40 Marines over two 53s, sometimes three. This may have changed now, I admit that I do not know the current utilization. Also keep in mind that the 53s primary mission is to haul trash, not Marines. With respect to the LAVs, during my time in Iraq as a Marine pilot not once did I see a 53 external anything other than boxes full of bottled water or MREs, not a single LAV or hummer. I'm not saying it didn't/doesn't happen but I think you over estimate the requirement to perform such task is todays environment.

[Lonewolf_50]

jeffg:

As I am sure you know, the external load requirement is a pretty old design spec for the 53 that won't go away any time soon.

That spec will stand regardless of what a particular operation demands of the 53 due to geographic and other factors in a given op.

Change your op to somewhere with more water, less land, fewer roads ... and you may see a whole lot more external loads. If I am the ground commander, I figure that if I can drive it there over land I will.

I doubt I'll go through the trouble of getting it helo lifted there (one does not simply snap one's fingers and get access to that 53) via external load unless the circumstances are novel.

My two cents.

Good point in the FARP.

That said, SASless has a point. Unless one arms the Osprey, how do you provide fire support, or suppressive fires, for the Osprey flight or section when it arrives at LZ "x" in "Injun Country?" Cobras can't quite keep up. I suppose you could launch the Cobras ahead of time ... but doesn't that possibly telegraph the op?

There's probabaly a work around.

I recall there being much grousing a few years back when EF-111 was retired to be replaced by EA-6B, and Air Force Strike packages no longer had fast electronic tools that could keep up. EF-18G Growler may slightly address that complaint, but what I think happened was that a work around was figured out.

[SansAnhedral]

Do a cost comparison using CH-53E's and K's.....for the total move....Infantry and the rest of the Kit...then come back to us will you?


That shouldnt be too hard to determine, with the CH53K now ringing in at $55-65 million each.

SEAPOWER Expo Online (http://www.seaairspace.org/2011/stories/20110411-ch53k.html)

Wasnt that around the same "holy cow"/"gheez-whiz"/"gold plated goose" price touted in the earlier pages of this thread for the Osprey?

[21stCen]

How does a Huey Cobra keep up with the Osprey.... or get to this mystical LZ without a FARP somewhere in the area? Or....does this magical Osprey always go it completely alone...unafraid....and unarmed

Sas,
It appears that the tactical support a/c of choice for the Osprey is not the Cobra, it is the AV8B Harrier as was the case in the rescue of the downed F-15 pilots in Libya. Launched from the USS Kearsarge, the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit used the Harriers to provide air cover for the extraction. In fact the Harriers were there in advance of the extraction to clear potential threats using 500-pound laser-guided bombs and other armament to bear that Cobras are not capable of delivering. Of course the dream a/c of support for future operations is the F-35, but the fate of that program is yet to be determined.

[Dan Reno]

Osprey engines are logging less than 200 hours of wing time in Afghanistan !

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/blog/2187) http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/091022_meta_block.gif Wednesday, June 22, 2011 - 11:32 AM http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/091022_meta_block.gif


http://foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_images/110622_Aircraft%20resized.jpg
And then they must be shipped home for overhaul, reports Bill Sweetman.

There is a good PhD dissertation to be written on the whole V-22 Osprey mess -- how many billions of dollars have been spent over the decades to produce a fast but very expensive long-range troop transport helicopter. One of the biggest untold stories in the military, I think, is the sorry state of Marine aviation -- ancient CH-53 helos, hangar queen V-22s, and multi-role expensive fighter jets -- when what the Corps should be flying is Black Hawks and A-10s, or even long-legged prop-driven aircraft.

[SASless]

The point of my post minus the camouflage was to suggest figures lie and liars figure when it comes to Statistics. One presents the data one desires to prove one's point of view. That being said....when we use such an example as was used....the moving of one Infantry Company of Marines....a "passenger with baggage" evolution....then of course the Osprey shines. If we pick another sort of evolution....such as a "passenger flight with excess baggage, camping gear, fuel supplies, rations, water, fuel, entertainment center (comms with generators), and First Aid kits)...the Osprey begins to show its shortcomings.

In otherwords....we have to use a Universal View as the Osprey is being billed as being the replacement for machines that can do things the Osprey cannot....and that is where I find my opposition to all of these glowing reports.

The Osprey is a great machine in certain mission sets....but it isn't the "Only" right answer. When you are trying to prove you are right having invested so much money, lives, and credibility into the program.....the only resort one has is to find examples that proves you right....and avoid the hell out anythiing that proves you wrong or mistaken.

As to FARP's....every aicraft demands a "FARP"....even if it is a Carrier, Air Field, as there must be fuel close enough to the action to allow the use of that particular aircraft....and the use of a "FARP as conventionally known" greatly extends the ability to extend time on station, speedy return to the area of operation, both of which are very important in combat situations.

As Army and Marine units are operating in the same evironments in Iraq and Afghanistan....how do we arrive at such a different view of operational need in the way of aircraft? The Marines are devoted to Over The Horizion amphiibous assault because the Navy does not want to expose their ships to hostile attack and that alone is the driving force for the Marine's need for the Osprey. At what cost do we insist on having OTH capability as compared to a conventional amphibious assault capability? When was the last real Amphibious Assault? We used the "threat" of an assault during Gulf War I as a feint.

[jeffg]

Sas,

Who is billing the V-22 as a “replacement for machines that can do things the Osprey cannot..”? It was meant to replace the CH-46 and CH-53D and does so. It was never meant to replace the 53E and no one is saying it can. What “machine” is it being billed to replace that it cannot?

“The Osprey is a great machine in certain mission sets....but it isn't the "Only" right answer.”
-Cannot the same be said of every aircraft that exist? Many of us ‘Osprey guys’ have said as much which is why we support a mix of aircraft. In fact it’s many of the ‘nay sayers’ who have advocated that the Marines essentially get rid of their medium lift assets and go to an all 53 force. Are there not missions a V-22 can do that a 53 can’t?

‘The Osprey is a great machine in certain mission sets....but it isn't the "Only" right answer. When you are trying to prove you are right having invested so much money, lives, and credibility into the program.....the only resort one has is to find examples that proves you right....and avoid the hell out anythiing that proves you wrong or mistaken.’

-In other words V-22 supporters are cherry picking the mission profiles they use to support the aircraft, isn’t that exactly what you did in your example? Do you have any doubt that 53K supporters will do any different to support their product?

“As to FARP's....every aicraft demands a "FARP"....even if it is a Carrier, Air Field, as there must be fuel close enough to the action to allow the use of that particular aircraft”

-A FARP by definition is temporary in nature and located in the main battle area. Therefore Carriers and friendly air fields are not FARPs, their logistics and security requirements are very different from those of a FARP.

[SansAnhedral]

Sweetman had to pick up the slack with Bob Cox on vacation in trying to get his jabs in on the V22 in the face of positive feedback from the operators.

[TukTuk BoomBoom]

Some of the people on this thread crack me up, after years of V22 operations in war zones they cant accept that the military, (the operators after all), consider the aircraft to be a success.
No one cares what anonymous people on a website forum think of the V-22.
The V22 is here to stay and shrill internet postings by aviation fan boys is not going to change that, no ones listening, get over yourself.

[SASless]

As to FARP's....every aicraft demands a "FARP"....even if it is a Carrier, Air Field, as there must be fuel close enough to the action to allow the use of that particular aircraft....and the use of a "FARP as conventionally known" greatly extends the ability to extend time on station, speedy return to the area of operation, both of which are very important in combat situations.


I believe I covered the difference between FARP's in the conventional sense....but suggest every aircraft is limited by its available fuel sources. For some aircraft a FARP might very well be a KC-130 although purists would not call it a FARP. The point is turn-around time and time on target are key issues.

Load a Harrier up with things that go bang....thus limiting the amount of fuel it can carry.....put the 22 out at its max range....both operating from a Gator Navy Carrier....and how does that play? Does the Harrier follow the 22 home or stay to provide cover for the recently landed Infantry? How many Harriers can you flow into the area around the LZ while cycling 22's?

I know what it like waiting for the Cavalry to arrive while the Indians were on t he war path......it gets very lonely sometimes when you are in a bad neighborhood and the locals are showing you the door. Calling up the Arty folks and hearing that Rounds were out was mighty comforting.

Or.....do the Marines operate outside their Arty Fans on a routine basis?

[jeffg]

Sasless nice conversation about FARPs and all but I would refer you back to your original question in post 1113. .and please do explain why the Osprey requires no "Security" at the LZ and the Utility helicopter does?
The Col was referring to a FARP "as conventionally known" sense. He was not referring to OTH, using an LPD as a lillypad or landing at the last available friendly airfield. Therefore no FARP equals no security.

[Dan Reno]

Sensible Defense Cuts

How to Save $400 Billion Through 2015

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/img/defense_cuts_onpage.jpg SOURCE: AP/Haraz N. Ghanbari An aerial view of the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77) aircraft carrier in Norfolk, Virginia. The United States currently fields 11 aircraft carriers, while no other country has even one of comparable size and power. The Pentagon could cancel procurement of the CVN-80 aircraft carrier and retire two existing carrier battle groups and associated air wings, saving $7.74 billion.


By Lawrence J. Korb (http://www.americanprogress.org/experts/KorbLawrence.html), Laura Conley (http://www.americanprogress.org/aboutus/staff/ConleyLaura.html), Alex Rothman (http://www.americanprogress.org/aboutus/staff/RothmanAlex.html) | July 6, 2011


Defense spending skyrocketed 70 percent (http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2012/FY12_Green_Book.pdf) under the Bush administration, and President Barack Obama inherited a defense budget at highs not seen since the end of World War II. There is much room for savings with military spending far out of step with the threats facing our country.
As the Obama administration and Congress try to agree on a deal to raise the debt limit, they should keep in mind that they can cut $150 billion in defense spending annually and still keep our military budget at the Reagan administration’s peak Cold War levels. Bringing the defense budget down to the levels instated by Presidents Eisenhower, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/historical_defense_budget.html) would require reductions of $250 billion to $300 billion annually.
Here are our recommendations on how to save $400 billion through 2015 without harming U.S. national security:

Cancel the V-22 Osprey program ($9.15 billion through 2015)

The V-22 Osprey helicopter has been long hampered by cost overruns and technical problems. A May 2009 Government Accountability Office report (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09482.pdf) found that “in Iraq, the V-22’s mission capability (MC) and full mission capability (FMC) rates fell significantly below … rates achieved by legacy helicopters.” There is no reason for DOD to continue sinking money into this program given the V-22’s high price tag—it costs five times as much as other models—and lackluster performance.
Lawrence J. Korb is a Senior Fellow, Laura Conley is a Research Associate, and Alex Rothman is a Special Assistant at American Progress.

V-22 Report here: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09482.pdf (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09482.pdf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref: Sensible Defense Cuts: How to Save $400 Billion Through 2015 (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/defense_cuts.html)

[SansAnhedral]

How about that. A left wing special interest group advocating canceling a customer-loved defense program to save a platry sum compared to where real money can be had by cutting entitlements.

And did we not notice this was basically a republishing of the exact same "suggestions" from April?
Defensible Budget Cuts (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/korb_obama.html)
and early February?
Defense Cuts Are Mandatory (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/defense_cuts_mandatory.html)
and mid February?
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/pdf/responsible_defense_cuts.pdf

I suppose at this rate we can watch the same article grasping at mainstream media regurgitation once again in September.

File this one away under "Gee, there's a shocker". Getting military budget advice from the Center for American Progress is tantamount to asking the Tea Party for their take on welfare reform. Or maybe asking Bob Cox to write an objective column on the V22 in the Star Telegram.

[GreenKnight121]

Or like asking the Green party their opinion on SSBNs.

You know what the knee-jerk, pre-programmed auto-response is going to be, no matter the actual situation in play.

[21stCen]

Defense Budget Increase Sailing Through House

July 6, 2011

The following appeared July 5th in The Fiscal Times (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/07/05/Cowardly-Congress-Cant-Cut-Bloated-Defense-Budget.aspx):
The White House and Republican leaders may be locked in a bruising battle over how to slash the long-term deficit, but defense cuts (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Policy-Politics/Big-Decisions/Defense.aspx) seem to be off the table. This week, House lawmakers are moving rapidly toward approving a $649 billion defense appropriation bill that would boost baseline Pentagon spending by 3.4 percent in 2012...

The procurement portion of the bill includes:

$15.1 billion for the Navy’s ship-building program, which is enough to launch ten new ships next year from shipyards in Portsmouth, Va., Kittery, Maine, Brementon, Wash., and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The overall budget will support a 288-ship Navy, an increase of four ships over 2011.
$5.9 billion to build 32 F-35 jets (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/02/10/F-35-Has-Plenty-of-Support-in-Congress.aspx) and $2.7 billion for continued development of the advanced fighter, which is slated to replace the military’s entire jet fleet over the next several decades at a cost approaching $400 billion. Some analysts say the program could be scaled back by slowing purchases and substituting updated versions of older, cheaper planes.
$2.5 billion for 35 new Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/05/24/National-Defense-Bloated-Contracts-They-Wont-Kill.aspx), that can take off and land like helicopters. Local legislators from just outside Philadelphia, where it is built have beaten back repeated efforts to curtail a program that was bedeviled by technical problems in its early days. The Osprey’s use in rescuing a downed pilot in Libya “has laid to rest all doubts about its operational effectiveness,” the report that accompanied the appropriations bill asserted. The report also called for “a new multiyear procurement contract for fiscal year 2013 and beyond.”

[21stCen]

Israeli AF Looks at MV-22 Capabilities

July 07, 2011
Marine Corps News|by MCAS New River Public Affairs


MARINE CORPS AIR STATION NEW RIVER, N.C. -- For the second time in two months, a team from the Israeli Air Force visited 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing units at Marine Corps Air Station New River to evaluate the Marine Corps' MV-22 Osprey, and aircraft that the Israelis, according to some reports, see as a possible platform for search and rescue operations, and for covert special operations.
The first IAF visit, May 16-26, was conducted by Lt. Col. Nimrod Golan, a UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter pilot, and Lt. Col. Avi Carmeli, a CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopter pilot and Navy graduate test pilot, both with the Israeli Air Force. That was followed June 13-23 by a seven-man team led by Golan and Carmeli.
"An invitation came from the Marines to the Israeli Air Force to explore this aircraft and though currently, there is no procurement process on the table, we were very happy to follow this invitation," said Golan. "We are looking at the aircraft, trying to understand how the Osprey can contribute to our operational requirements and also have an understanding of its implementation. In addition, this is a great opportunity to enhance our relationship and cooperation with the Marines."


The Israeli pilots spent their first visit with Marines of Marine Medium Tiltrotor Training Squadron 204 gaining an overall familiarization of the Osprey and examining its capabilities related to reducing the risks to pilots, aircrews and passengers on the battlefield. The overall intent of the visit was to learn about MV-22 systems and performance, and to become "well oriented" with the aircraft.


"In order to be prepared for our June visit, we had to get some basic knowledge and basic skills, which is what '204 gave us," said Golan. "We were exposed for the first time to this technology called tiltrotor, and not just exposed academically ... it was an amazing experience."
Their second visit, with Marine Tiltrotor Test and Evaluation Squadron 22 and Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 365, "... was the core of the whole evaluation process," said Golan, as the Israelis looked more deeply into the aircraft's capabilities and maintenance process. "We conducted a variety of flights in order to operationally evaluate the aircraft. We got the tools the last time we were here," said Golan. "Now we are flying to learn to operate."
After spending time in simulators, the visitors experienced the full capabilities of the aircraft with training flights that included familiarization, tactical approaches, confined area landings, low altitude tactics, formations and night flights with the goal of assessing the aircraft's potential value to the IAF. With only 10 hours of MV-22 flight time, one of the visiting CH-53 pilots, flying a VMM-365 Osprey, conducted aerial refueling with a KC-130J from Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 252, where he was rated as "on par with any other transition pilot."
Perhaps most importantly, the visiting pilots experienced the MV-22's trademark features of speed, range and maneuverability - proven advantages over the helicopters that the Osprey has replaced. They learned, first hand, how the Osprey can keep its crews and passengers above the threat of ground fire during flight, and how its maneuverability, particularly its ability to rapidly accelerate and decelerate, reduces exposure to threats during approach and departure. As 2nd MAW Commanding General Maj. Gen. Jon Davis has been known to say, "By the time the bad guys know you're there, you're already gone.
As with any military personnel exchange, other benefits were realized. Both visits were a learning experience for the seasoned Israeli pilots on how U.S. Marines operate, and for the Marines who worked with them.
"We are not too different from each other, we think the same and understand each other very well," said Carmeli.
"We came to agree on most topics and how to accomplish the missions." Golan added, "The Marines did a marvelous job with their hospitality and professionalism, it took a lot of effort and they are very good people here."



Israeli AF Looks at MV-22 Capabilities (http://www.military.com/news/article/marine-corps-news/israeli-af-looks-at-mv22-capabilities.html)

[SASless]

"By the time the bad guys know you're there, you're already gone.


Provided there are no Bad Guys where you are going....or where you land...anyway!

What happens when your Intel is wrong....as it has been known to be completely wrong?

The Marine Corps must have embraced Coca-Cola company policy....work for Coke and get caught drinking a Pepsi....and you best have your Resume up to date because you shall need it to be.

[Lonewolf_50]

Marine aviation -- ancient CH-53 helos, hangar queen V-22s, and multi-role expensive fighter jets -- when what the Corps should be flying is Black Hawks and A-10s, or even long-legged prop-driven aircraft.
For Dan Reno: possibly the most ill considered post I've seen in re USMC aviation in a while.

A-10 not ship capable.

We discussed the Black Hawk problem before. USMC didn't replace the Phrog with a Black Hawk due to both space limitations on a gator, and having to DOUBLE your pilot manning to lift the same number of Marines anywhere.

USMC and all services are still looking at where manpower can be cut or better allocated (been watching that nut roll since the mid 90's, it's an interesting process).

At the same time, the political leadership requires a huge variety of response capability. With that reality in mind, you get force packages that are chosen on more than the basis of GAAP. (Hence the CVNs continued life ...)

[Dan Reno]

lonewolf

For Dan Reno: possibly the most ill considered post I've seen in re USMC aviation in a while.

I'm just the messenger in this case so in the future, kindly direct your opinions to the author if you have a beef with the article and tell us ALL what he says. We'd really be interested to hear his rebuttal.

[Lonewolf_50]

Dan, by posting that, you are choosing to be the advocate for that position on this discussion forum.

I respond here because you post it here.

If you don't wish to engage in discussion of points you introduce, why bother to introduce them? :confused:

Later Edit:

By the way, Dan, the whole "use Blackhawk" (which would relate to the Navy Helo Master Plan, also a child of the 90's that amounted to single source procurement) is an issue put to bed in the 90's.

Current year is 2011.

Might be useful to keep up.

[21stCen]

Provided there are no Bad Guys where you are going....or where you land...anyway!
What happens when your Intel is wrong....as it has been known to be completely wrong?


Sas,
You are right, but that applies to both helicopters and tiltrotors alike. The point is that tiltrotors can in fact get in and out faster and more quietly. The debate comes down to whether or not that additional capability is worth the very high price increase. The USMC after their experience in Iraq and Afghanistan have answered with a resounding positive vote.
21stC

[Dan Reno]

lonewolf wrote:


you are choosing to be the advocate


Ha! Ha! Show me where that is written!

Like I said, if you have a problem with what's written here, write the author and whine to him about it AND please SHARE with us what he tells you.

Ha! Ha!

[Lonewolf_50]

Back under the bridge, Dan. You'll get sunburned if you stay out too long.

[SASless]

21st....in a post a year or so ago I described the airshow I attended over an 18 hour period in the netherlands of Camp LeJeune while anchored in Mile Hammock Bay. Along with the airshow (USMC Ospreys, 46's, and 53's) that took place in both daylight and dark (added to by Recon Marines doing swim quals) I was given a wonderful way to compare the various aircraft doing their thing into the very same LZ's all within very close proximity to my location.

At that time (both the day and later the post recounting it) I expressed my view that the Osprey was fast but that it was not really all that quieter. Depending upon the angle it was approaching from in its flight path it was quieter than the 53 but once in the approach and hover modes all of the aircraft were just about as loud as the other. At a hover the Osprey is much louder than the 46 and quite a bit louder than the 53 due to Prop Rotor noise

Yes...staying high and flying in airplane mode is faster and higher than normal helicopter speeds and heights but once you near the LZ.....that advantage is lost. The one thing I did notice....the approach speeds of all the aircraft seemed way too slow for Tactical Conditions. Whether that was a function of stage of training of the pilot flying or Unit SOP is unknown. Looking back on two combat tours flying Chinooks in Vietnam.....all the aircraft were way too slow on approach and take off and none used any maneuver that could be considered "evasive tactics". Again....being not knowing of what they were tasked to do that day....it would be unfair to suggest they were not training to reality but....but....in a genuine combat enviornment....pretty text book approaches and takeoff's just don't get it.

As to proximity of my view....I could easily see the individual lights on the aircraft at night and tell whether the crewmen on the helicopters were sticking their heads out of the hatches. I was close.

The Recon guys were good fun....every now and then I would pound on the side of the boat to get their attention when it was plain they were missing their turn point next to my boat. I sent them home with a case of ice cold Heinies!

[Dan Reno]

Personal attack..how classy lonely wolf, I guess we can assume the article's author also told you to take a hike.

No need to get hysterical over anything posted here.

[21stCen]

Hi Sas,
Thanks for that. I do remember your 'airshow' post well although I thought there was a green rum drink or something being consumed rather than the Heinies??
:)

I have seen Osprey approaches (as well as XV-15 and 609), but never had the opportunity to see side by side approaches with other a/c as you had the opportunity to see:
....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.

You have been around the block more than a couple of times, so I completely trust your comparison assessment, although if you're like me our hearing capability after a few decades in the business makes all the sound seem quieter than it actually is!

From what you observed I think we can agree that the tiltrotor is much more quiet enroute and on approach to the LZ. My point would be that once you arrive at the LZ, it doesn't make much of a difference if you are 'loud' like a CH-53 or 'louder' like a V-22 in the hover. If the bad guys are there when you arrive, they will already know you are there regardless.

I previously linked the video below that shows how much more quiet an approaching tiltrotor is compared to what we fly now. I don't know if it is purely the decibel numbers or if it is the frequency of the sound, but there is a very big difference.
9dtdoiR-NRA&feature

BTW, could you PM me the recipe for that green rum drink, it sounded very interesting!
:)
21stC

[Lonewolf_50]

Dan:

Assumption fail, on your part.

Your lack of a point to make, your own lack of argument, your own lack of counter argument, remain noted. Post and run tactics (again) noted. Post and hide tactic is an age old symptom of bridge-shadow dwelling.

Have a great weekend, Dan.

[Lonewolf_50]

SASless: just a point, which got eaten last time I tried to post it.

Hot LZ's have been a non trivial tactical problem for a while. I imagine you were in a few yourself. What has happened since your days in the field is that LZ's have become more lethal as they get "hot" given that MG, small arms, mortars, hand held rockets, hand held SAMs, and other weapons have gotten more lethal and more accurate.

(Somalia "Blackhawk Down" incident a fine case in point).

It's the year 2011. Some things haven't changed.

Something that has changed are the means by which one can assess and recon an LZ. I am pretty sure that it isn't just V-22's that are averse to hot LZ's. I don't think any Blackhawk, Huey, Chinook, or 53 driver has a squadron tactical SOP that mandates flying into hot LZ's as the prefered option.

Seems to me that in the intervening 40 years, with sensor ability improving, the tactical mind set is to find LZ's that aren't, or to bring significant supressive fires along to do some temperature control.

The means of doing that has improved as well.

The outstanding feature that the Marine's paid for, it seems, is speed.

What the Congress funded, and continues to fund, is a non-trivial number of high tech jobs, and improving and sustaining the industrial base, and industrial capability. Whether or not that's a perfect discharge of their duties is open to debate, but I suspect that the representatives and senators in the Prime's state, and the states of the subs, entered that feature into their calculus right along with the USMC's need for speed.

Remember that trick question in flight school?

"What makes a plane fly, young man?"
"Lift and thrust, sir."
"Not so, young man," says the instructor.

He reaches into his wallet for a dollar bill. He tosses it into the air, then watches it drift to the floor.

"What makes airplanes fly is money." :cool:

[Dan Reno]

Geeze lonely wolf,

I cut & paste an article you don't like and you're giving me grief, twice, even after I reminded you I'm the messenger and you need to talk to the originator. You still want me to argue with you. Huh? There's life outside the V-22 Pal and I suggest you take up any beef you have with the article's author. I suspect he'll simply direct here to talk: Talk to Me - I WIll Listen (http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/we_listen/)

[SansAnhedral]

I think the simple fact here is that unlike 46/s53s/60s/etc, which can be heard MILES away from an LZ during approach, especially in the valleys, the V22 is almost audibly undetectable until it starts conversion. Thats what is universally being referred to when you read these anecdotes regarding its quietness.

Sure, in hover its as loud as anything, but you didnt announce your presence 15 minutes prior.

[SASless]

LW,

Feel free to challenge my comments here....the Somalia shoot downs were due to our guys becoming predictable and doing the deal in the daylight rather than in the dark. The Skinny's had also figured out how to shoot RPG's vertically by modifying the exhaust ends of the launchers.

Our guys put themselves into the situation where the bad guys knew their tactics....took advantage of that....had daylight instead of darkness...and sought out our weaknesses and expolited that.

The senior commanders failed to plan for the contingency that occurred....Blackhawks getting shot down....becoming fixed in place...losing the advantage of maneuver....did not have a fall back plan....and had not arranged for a relief force in advance of the operation.

Bottom line....our guys diddled the pooch and some very brave young men paid a very heavy priice for the failure of the Commanders to properly plan and execute the operation. Exactly the same as happened in Afghanistan during the Takur Ghar debacle.

My point is despite all the hi-tech gear and sophisticated systems....well thought out SOP's.....when you underestimate your enemy or over value their capabilities....bad things happen. Bad guys have good days too!

The Osprey is fast, quieter than helicopters in cruise....but in the final analysis....it takes guns to counter hostile threats. That is not the Osprey's strong suit....especially when compared to the helicopters it is to replace.

Plans only work right up to the point where contact is made with the enemy.

All the sensors failed at Takur Ghar....and helicopters got shot down....folks died. Be it today or forty years ago...when the shooting starts it is all the same. Fifty One's at close range today are the same as used forty years ago....RPG's are RPG's....and yes....SA-7's are the same. Human presence and their capabilities to view the battlefield and make accurate judgements were overruled by Commanders literally thousands of miles away and completely isolated from the battlefield. Input from the guys on the scene was ignored.....and good brave men died as a direct result.

Need I refer you to accounts of that combat action to support my statements?

[The Sultan]

SAS

You need to run to another thread as your boy Dan Reno has thrown the Chinook under the bus. Apparently it is coming out that two competent pilots can not fly a Chinook in peace time without anyone shooting at them and expect to not crash in IMC. An Osprey would have flown above the fog.

What was it 29 dead because a Chinook can not fly in anything except VFR conditions?

The Sultan

[Dan Reno]

Sultan

Geeze,

Another guy who doesn’t realize the difference between someone who's a messenger and someone who's an author. Unless of course you're just being a troll today and wanting to stir something up with immature name-calling. Wise up. This is an adults ONLY blog.

Ha Ha!

[Senior Pilot]

Sultan

Geeze,

Another guy who doesn’t realize the difference between someone who's a messenger and someone who's an author. Unless of course you're just being a troll today and wanting to stir something up with immature name-calling. Wise up. This is an adults ONLY blog.

Ha Ha!

Dan,

It is obvious to any reader of this thread (PPRuNe is not, and never has been, a blog) that you have taken a firm anti V-22 stance. To try to derail the discussion by intimating that you are 'just the messenger' shows a degree of immaturity that astounds me.

You have had a massive amount of latitude with the posts that you have made over the years, but that forbearance has now reached its limit. Either discuss the issue, or stay away.

Enough is enough :=

[Dan Reno]

I wasn't aware that negative articles on ANY subject required quotation remarks around it so that it wouldn't be directly attributed to oneself. I must have missed that in the rules as I assumed a reference to the source of the article would have been sufficient as others here neither use quotes or reference the originators. I apologize for this error.

[SASless]

You need to run to another thread as your boy Dan Reno has thrown the Chinook under the bus. Apparently it is coming out that two competent pilots can not fly a Chinook in peace time without anyone shooting at them and expect to not crash in IMC. An Osprey would have flown above the fog.

What was it 29 dead because a Chinook can not fly in anything except VFR conditions?


Sultan....you being a newcome to pprune I must assume you have not gone back through the thousands of posts in that thread to gain any kind of understanding of the issues that were under discussion over the years.

The British Chinooks have a speckled history when it comes to RAF mods to the Avionics fit on the various models thus they are quite different from the US Army aircraft.

As to your post quoted here.....I find it offensive....flat stupid....and boringly typical of you standard attempted contribution to the discussions here. Dan Reno is not my "Boy", is not one of my many friends or acquaintances who frequent Rotorheads, and is no less a gentleman than you are as I find that to be an impossibility.

[Lonewolf_50]

Try to understand the RoE, Dan. You post it here, we argue it here. If you don't like that, sorry.

OOPS, I just noticed that Senior Pilot has spoken. :eek:

Nothing further.

@ SASless:

The Osprey is fast, quieter than helicopters in cruise....but in the final analysis....it takes guns to counter hostile threats. That is not the Osprey's strong suit....especially when compared to the helicopters it is to replace.

OK, so arm the Osprey. (Or, as they say, make sure AV-8 or other FW is around for fire support. )
That still won't change the fact that coming into an LZ that is hot will make for a bad day.
EDIT:
Case in point, even before Osprey, organic guns on Helicopters insufficient to handle Hot LZ, your chosen fight being Taku Ghar:
An AC-130 gunship, Nail 22, flew a reconnaissance mission over the peak prior to the landing and saw no enemy activity, but was called away to support other troops before Razor 03 and 04 arrived at the Landing Zone. At around 0245 hours, Razor 03 landed at the LZ and was immediately struck in the left side electrical compartment by an RPG

If Spectre is still overhead when Razors arrive, things change a bit, eh? :cool:
Plans only work right up to the point where contact is made with the enemy.
We are in violent agreement. :ok: That said, there are tools available now that weren't available thirty years ago. Some risks and unknowns can now be accounted for and dealt with, but certainly NOT all.
All the sensors failed at Takur Ghar....and helicopters got shot down....folks died. Be it today or forty years ago...when the shooting starts it is all the same.
That was sort of my point, except I think it's more lethal now, as there are more weapons choices.
Human presence and their capabilities to view the battlefield and make accurate judgements were overruled by Commanders literally thousands of miles away and completely isolated from the battlefield. Input from the guys on the scene was ignored.....and good brave men died as a direct result.

That hasn't changed much in the past century, and applies to more than vertical assault. :cool:
Need I refer you to accounts of that combat action to support my statements?
I think we mostly agree on that. I just find it curious logic to single out the Osprey as uniquely vulnerable to lead in an LZ. Maybe that isn't your point.

I don't think that anyone has made the claim that it is less vulnerable. If they have, then your call of "BS" gets my support.

A few weeks/months back, someone opened the line (I think in re the Lybian OPS F-15 pilot retrieval mission) about how Osprey is somehow "more stealthy" and quiter than a helicopter.

I made some criticisms of that approach.

Cheers.

[SASless]

LW,

As you rightly state....it isn't just the Osprey that is vulnerable in a Hot LZ....but at least the 53/60/47/46 have door guns and door gunners perhaps even Ramp Gunners if it all goes ugly. That is my point in comparing the Osprey and generic helicopters in that regard.

Door mounted Mini-guns certainly put out lots of Suppressive Fire.....M2-.50 cals not so much but they do heaps of hurt if they hit something....M-60's/M-240's make the aircrew feel better but do not compare in effectiveness.

That is a shortcoming of the Osprey in that regard.

The Razor's got whacked by RPG's.....which have been around forever. They are first class kit...simple...effective...and combined with Machineguns and small arms are definitely a threat to be reckoned with.

As you rightly say....in the absence of gun cover on site ready to provide immediate cover to the landing aircraft....very bad things are goiing to happen if the Bad Guys are where you alight no matter how fast you approach the site.

I am not saying the Osprey is "uniquely vulnerable" but due to the lack of adequate and effective defensive armament....it is more vulnerable than the aircraft it is supposed to replace.

At Takur Ghar....the aircraft were landing within very close proximity to a fortified bunker with automatic weapons and RPG's....with supporting infantry with RPG's and automatic weapons which made for a very tragic situation.

What was particularly troubling to me in the accounts of that fight....Medavac aircraft were withheld long after the immediate threat had been reduced with the onsite troops with wounded begging for help....a second SpecOps unit in an overwatch position telling their chain of command the area was secure enough for helicopters and neither chain of command coordinating their operations in such close proximity to one another.

That is why I challenge those who say we use different tactics, equipment, and can rely upon speed and "stealth" to land in hostile controlled areas without having defensive armament on board the aircraft.

That is why when the Marine General said....."We land and are gone before they know we are there! (or words to that effect)"....I wave the BS flag!

I am not bashing the Osprey.....but rather those who insist upon pushing the compay line without giving pause when issues arise.

The danger is when one begins to believe one's own propaganda.....bad things are bound to happen!

Last thought....."Arm the Osprey." How does one do that? The reason it is not armed....is it really isn't practicable from the design of the aircraft. While hovering it might be feasible as the proprotors are overhead but in the airplane mode....it might be an intersting situation. Also....it would take a major redesign of the airframe I bet to allow the use of door gunners and door mounted guns. That is why they have tried to justify the belly gun concept as being the answer. Shall we discuss what a silly notion that is?

[21stCen]

LW,

Your post is spot on for almost all points made, but particularly the importance of air cover provided by support aircraft including the AV-8B. Both the Osprey and Harrier can be launched from the same platform. Other a/c like the AC-130 or A-10 would be great to have for providing air cover, but cannot be counted on in a theatre engagement launched from ship born platforms.

As has been stated previously on this thread, lines should not be blurred when applying intelligence support/limitations to vertical lift aircraft. To be valid they cannot be directed at the tiltrotor exclusively, they need to be applied across the board to all vertical lift aircraft.

The only place I would disagree is a mention that there was a claim that the Osprey is "more stealthy" than a helicopter. I have not seen any claims to that effect on this thread (see post 1012 and subsequent on p. 51). The 'boxy' nature of the Osprey fuselage is similar to the CH-47 and other helicopters and certainly does not have the angular design to provide the reflective qualities necessary to characterize it as 'stealthy' with regard to radar returns. The 'stealth qualities' that it does possess are the ability to get in and out faster and more quietly than conventional helicopters. True "radar stealthiness" based on physical design attributes of the aircraft more likely resides with the modified Blackhawks that were able to avoid detection on their recent visit to Pakistan.

[SASless]

The Stealthy Blackhawks were accompanied by Chinooks twere they not? Seems to recall most the SEALs were extracted by a Chinook after the crash of the one Blackhawk.

In my post....I was not referring to true "Stealth" ala Radar cross section but rather to it being a bit quieter than perhaps its gun cover like the Cobra, Harrier, for instance.

I am not all that convinced of the quietness but to my tired ol' helicopter pilot ears....it did seem so....although they are noisy. Anytime you get all those blades beating the air into submission there has to be some noise made.

[SansAnhedral]

A lot of the discussion here seems to be made under the assumption that the V22 has not already been deployed to and operating in hot LZs. At a recent display of the V22 I was speaking with a Marine aviator who was telling stories of getting hit by RPGs and having them fired clear through the fuselage, in addition to safely sustaining copious amounts of small arms fire in the Osprey.

[SASless]

Any photos of these RPG hits?


Here is what a Chinook looks like when it gets hit by one!

The aircraft was in the process of recovering a downed Army Cobra when it got hit by the RPG as it was just above translational lift speed on takeoff. The aircraft made a forced landing, the FE was killed, the other four crewmembers were wounded by ground fire after landing.

The photo is taken looking aft from the front of the cabin. The RPG entered from the right and below and departed through the small hole it made on the left side of the aircraft....the one the guys are standing by.


http://members.tripod.com/frenchys_205/0b952e00.jpg

[Dan Reno]

"The Littoral Combat Ship and the Newly Enabled ARG"

"A New Capability for the USN-USMC Team"

"By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake"
"07/12/2011 - The USN is buying the LCS but its Con-Ops remain to be developed. No platform fights alone, and this asset is best understood in terms of the synergy which can be brought to it by how it is connected to other combat systems. The clear partner is the newly configured Amphibious Ready Group or the ARG, built around the F-35B.
These two forces – the LCS and the newly configured ARG – can be conjoined and forged into an enlarged littoral combat capability. But without the newly configured ARG, and the core asset, the F-35B, such potential is undercut.
This is a good example of how buying the right platform – the F-35B – is part of a leveraging strategy whereby greater value is provided for the fleet through the acquisition of that platform.
In a time of fiscal stringency, good value acquisitions need to be prioritized. Such acquisitions are able to leverage already acquired or in the process of being acquired capabilities and provide significant enhancement of capabilities.
They are high value assets, both in terms of warfighting and best value from an overall fleet perspective."



"A newly configured USMC ARG is emerging from several new assets:"

The new ARG built around the LPD 17 has a larger deck to operate from, with modern C2 capabilities.
The F-35B can be launched as a 360 degree presence asset to do electronic warfare, C4ISR and preparation for kinetic or non-kinetic strike.
The CH-53K can take off from the amphibious ships and carry three times the cargo of a CH-53E, to include 463L pallets (normally used in KC-130s).
The USMC Ospreys can support insertion operations with speed and range."
"What the newly equipped ARG does is provide a significant shaping function for the President. And this shaping function allows significant flexibility, any hard 3000 foot surface is available for the Navy/Marine amphibious forces to seize and hold. This world class uniquely American battle capability is a redefinition of the dichotomy between hard and soft power.
And such capability in turn draws upon the decade of innovation which the USAF has engaged in in shaping the Air Dropping Revolution. As the commander of the Tanker Airlift Control Center (TACC) underscored (http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=17883):
"Question: When you put that data out there about air dropping trends, it’s impressive in and of itself, but when you think of the CONOPS implications they are significant as well. I don’t even need to use roads to actually start inserting a force. Interestingly for the Marines when they’re looking at the amphibious ready group (ARG) and what they could do with the future ARG, with their MC-130Js that can land in 3,000 feet or less, the Ospreys and the B’s that they could put basically on almost any paved highway worldwide. They could be anywhere in the world, and then people say, “Well how would you supply them,” and I would say, “Well what do you think we’ve been doing in the last ten years?” So if we marry up this revolutionary air dropping capability with projection of force from the sea, we could have a much more flexible and powerful insertion force if we wanted to.
General Allardice: I agree. Our new air dropping capabilities can be used to support our global operations in new and innovative ways. And honestly, innovation is really the essential takeaway. Through collaboration we are able to optimize the performance of the global mobility enterprise and orient it toward the effect we need. There will always be a tension between capacity and requirements, but we have found a way to manage it that allows us to respond rapidly and address those tensions in ways that would be much more difficult without the processes we have in place."
"The USN-USMC amphibious team can provide for a wide-range of options for the President simply by being offshore, with 5th generation aircraft capability on board which provides 360 situational awareness, deep visibility over the air and ground space, and carrying significant capability on board to empower a full spectrum force as needed."
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/f-22-600.jpg (http://www.sldinfo.com/?attachment_id=21151)F-35B in Supersonic Flight Test (Credit: Lockheed Martin)
"Now add the LCS. The LCS provides a tip of the spear, presence mission capability. The speed of the ship allows it to provide forward presence more rapidly than any other ship in the USN-USMC inventory.
It was said in fighter aviation “speed is life” and in certain situations the LCS can be paid the same complement. The key is not only the ships agility and speed but it can carry helicopters and arrive on station with state-of-the art C4ISR capabilities to meld into the F-35B combat umbrella. Visualize a 40+ knot Iron Dome asset linking to Aegis ships and the ARG air assets."




"Inserting an LCS into the Maersk Alabama incident can see an example of the impact of speed. As one naval analyst put it, the impact would have been as follows:"

LCS at 45kts would have been on scene in less than 7 hours (6.7), or 37% sooner than a ship transiting at 28 kts.
LCS fuel consumption for such a sprint 40% less than the 28 kt sprint.
LCS would consume less than 23% of her fuel capacity in such a sprint.
A helo launch within 150 nautical miles from Maersk Alabama puts helo overhead within four hours (4.3) from the time of the initial tasking.
Two H-60’s permits LCS to maintained a helo overhead Maersk Alabama for a sustained period of time.
With a response time of four hours the probability of thwarting a piracy attack is increased—especially if the naval ship is called upon the first realization of the targeted ship’s entry into piracy infested waters.
If an LCS was tasked to respond when Maersk Alabama encountered the first group of pirates craft on 7 April 2009, it would have arrived on scene well in advance of the attack on 8 April and may well have prevented it."
"And if you add the LCS to the USN-USMC amphibious team you have even more capability and more options. As a senior USMC MEU commander has put it:"
"You’re sitting off the coast, pick your country, doesn’t matter, you’re told okay, we’ve got to do some shaping operations, we want to take and put some assets into shore, their going to do some shaping work over here. LCS comes in, very low profile platform. Operating off the shore, inserts these guys in small boats that night. They infill, they go in, their doing their mission.
The LCS now sets up — it’s a gun platform. It’s a resupply, refuel point for my Hueys and Cobras.
Now, these guys get in here, okay. High value targets been picked out, there is an F-35 that’s doing some other operations. These guys only came with him and said hey, we have got a high value target, but if we take him out, we will compromise our position. The F-35 goes roger, got it painted, got it seen. This is what you’re seeing, this is what I’m seeing. Okay. Kill the target. The guys on the ground never even know what hit them."
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/lcs-big-600.jpg (http://www.sldinfo.com/?attachment_id=21152)USS Freedom (Credit: USN)
"In World War II the Imperial Japanese Navy Admirals were said to call the US PT, or Patrol Torpedo Boats—“Devil Boats”—The LCS is not a PT boat but the LCS ocean presence with 21st Century capabilities may make it a modern “Devil Boat” to vex any enemy combat action.
Similar to the PT boats of WWII the LCS by itself has limited staying power; connected to the ARG, the LCS announces presence and is connected to significant full spectrum combat capability.
Several LCS’s could be deployed with Osprey and F-35B cover. The F-35B provides the 360 degree multiple of hundreds of miles coverage. The LCS becomes a node in the combat system of the F-35 and any weapons on the LCS can be cued up by the F-35B.
With the new aviation assets, the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) can be split at sea allowing it to cover hundreds of miles more than historical operations with unexpended speed and maneuverability.. And adding an LCS to each of the disaggregated elements can further enhance the presence and combat functions of the MEU.
An Osprey pilot has already indicated (http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=11992) that Ospreys have already allowed the splitting of the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) at sea."
"I saw so much potential for the short take-off vertical landing attack aircraft, fixed-wing aircraft and the V-22 working together. In the future, I would have those two, the V-22 and F-35 working very closely together and even for extended operations when you add the refueling piece. The paring of these two aircraft are far better than paring the V-22 with any of the helicopters."
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/in-flight-600-300x225.jpg (http://www.sldinfo.com/?attachment_id=21153) Osprey in Afghanistan (Credit: USMC)
"Because of speed, range. And not only that. It’s the endurance of the aircraft itself. Basically you might say once it’s flying, it’s flying. And we had a lot of missions that required flight time above six hours, which is very taxing for the jet guys and for us, it is as well, but maybe not so bad because we can trade off in the cockpit. The fact is that you can have airborne assets, both as a package as well as a trap for sensitive site exploitations, being airborne all at the same time for hours at a time to respond to something that happens in the AOR. It will give you the maximum flexibility for response time down to something like thirty minutes, depending on where it is. And then sanitize the scene from there and then everybody returns home. It’s a capability that I’m not going to say it’s been overlooked but it just hasn’t been utilized like that."
"The LCS-ARG team cannot only levera"ge each other’s capabilities, but can lay the groundwork for a significant robotics revolution. The new maritime capabilities built around robotic vehicles, on the sea, under the sea, and over the sea, can be launched and managed by either LCS’s or LPDs."
As the Prospective Commander of the LPD-24 noted (http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=17311), “We have a lot more space of carrying robotic assets. And can work effectively with the LCS. We can easily work with the LCS, especially with her different mission capabilities. And if she needs to change out mission capabilities, we have the cargo space to fulfill her mission.”
And in an interview with the retired head of NAVAIR (http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=12665), Admiral Dyer now COO of iRobot provided a sense of how this team could work with the robotics revolution:"
"At iRobot, we have a vision of integrated Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV’s), Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UAV’s) and Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV’s). A way I like to think about that is to envision a littoral combat ship that shows up off the coast of some bad guy’s country. Let’s take a look at how different that will be compared to the way we do it today:
Let’s consider UUVs, which I think are one of the most exciting developmental areas that are underway. UUV’s are, by the way, the area where autonomy is needed more than anywhere else. Why? Well, while you’ve good radio frequency bandwidth when you’re airborne, you have very little bandwidth when communicating with UUVs. Underwater, you’re limited to acoustic modems for un-tethered operations. An acoustic modem is slower than your first dial-up PC connection to the web. But as you start to introduce more autonomy, you start to tremendously increase the utility of unmanned underwater systems. Autonomy is important for the future of all robots, but critically important for UUVs. That is what iRobot is building at our unmanned underwater systems group in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina. But let’s continue with this Navy ship showing up with a Navy/Marine Corps team on an adversary’s littoral during the next decade. The preparation for entering that battle space will be tremendously improved in many ways by unmanned systems.
I worry that the Navy has not taken full notice of the IED threat. Our Navy’s interest in and focus on maritime IEDs (mines) is episodic and our attention has always been short. Unmanned systems will offer new capabilities at sea, just as unmanned ground robots have for ground forces. "
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/lighthouse-600.jpg (http://www.sldinfo.com/?attachment_id=21154)USS Freedom in Transit (Credit: USN)
"When asked how one would deliver such capabilities into the battlespace, the airborne assets of the LCS and the ARG were highlighted:"
"I believe UUV’s offer great potential but there are challenges. The prime challenges for UUVs are range and power,area coverage. UUVs have the disadvantages of being relatively slow and of limited search duration. So you can’t efficiently transit them; you have to deliver them to the area of interest. At iRobot, we’re coming at this problem with our Ranger program, which we’re funding atop some basic work sponsored by the Office of Naval Research. We are designing a Ranger UUV that’s “A-size.” “A-size” means it fits into a sonobouy launcher. And there are literally thousands of tubes out there on multiple patrol and tacair platforms. Marry the capability to air-launch with swarm capability and you cut out the transit time, greatly reduce the power requirement and introduce UUVs directly into the area of interest."
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/missile-350.jpg (http://www.sldinfo.com/?attachment_id=21155) Irobot's Sea Glider (Credit: Irobot)
"Using swarm techniques, which DARPA has funded iRobot and others to develop; you start to see the operations research numbers get much, much better. This isn’t something that’s awaiting better batteries and more power; it’s awaiting further development of a new concept."
"No platform fights alone, but often when the LCS gets discussed it is discussed only alone, but it has very little staying power in and of itself, as has been clearly noted by a senior USN Admiral (http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=11279) in discussing the approach to LCS sustainment."
"Question: The LCS is really a collaborative ship, so you’re doing collaborative con-ops and the sustainment approach is part of those collaborative con-ops. It seems that what is crucial for a new built platform, whether it be air or whatever, is that you’re doing in terms of maintenance from the initial shaping of the con-ops. So presumably the relationship of the LCS to other ships is a key part of the distance support and not just to the shore.
Admiral McManamon: Part of what the exploration is doing is shaping the build as we get new information from the maintenance efforts. For the initial deployment for USS Freedom, much of what we are doing is ringing out the basic mechanics, the engineers, being able to put the ship in the water, being able to communicate with other ships, being able to talk to an operator or air assets, etx : all this has been extremely successful from February to the end of April this first year. And from this deployment we start to shape standards of performance. She was able to do the connectivity essential to distance support; she was able to operate in ways that took advantage of a 2,800 ton ship going 40 plus knots. As one of our commanders indicated just last week, there’s this whole psychological power to itself for a 2,800 ton ship to go after a go-fast and actually be able to sustain in, keep up and take it down, which we simply can’t do in the current environment with regular navy ships.
But did I design and build LCS simply to run after a cigarette runner? No. But does it give me that capability when I need it? Yes, and as we now understand that capability and that connectivity necessary to do the con-ops, I think that’s exactly what we’re moving forward with to shape future ships and operations."
"And the glue which generates LCS-ARG synergy are the aviation assets on the two entities, notably the Osprey and F-35B which have the speed and range to create a moving 360 degree combat and presence bubble over an operation. Without that glue, these platforms become disaggregated and vulnerable. Linked together, the resulting synergy creates a force multiplier effect.
And such a multiplier effect can have a significant deterrent effect. General “Dog” Davis, the Commander of the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing at Cherry Point, North Carolina, underscored such an impact (http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=17319) when discussing the newly enabled ARG."
"I’m Muammar Gaddafi. I’m whoever, and I’ve got an ARG with this new gear embarked – and I can’t help but think its going to change the way I view that force. That ARG can reach out and touch me from long range, landing high-end infantry forces deep inside my territory, and do so with a speed that twice as fast as anyone else can. Our MEUs have never been used as effectively as they are today. These new capabilities are going to make them exponentially more potent and useful to our nation’s leadership.
The F-35Bs give the new ARG a very high-end air superiority fighter, that’s low observable if I want it to be. I can roll from Air to Air to Air to Ground quickly and be superior to all comers in both missions. That’s bad news for our adversaries. I can use the F-35s to escort the V-22s deep into enemy territory. With those V-22s we can range out to a 400-500-mile radius from the ship without air refueling. I can go deliver Marines deep in the enemy territory or wherever and do it at 250 miles an hour, so my speed of action, my agility is exponentially increased, and I think if you’re a bad guy, that would probably give you a reason to pause. It’s a very different animal that’s out there. We are good now, but will be even more so (by more than a factor of two in the future).
I also have significant mix and match capability. And this capability can change the impact of the ARG on the evolving situation. It is a forcing function enabled by variant mixes of capability. If I wanted to strip some V-22s off the deck, to accommodate more F-35s – I could do so easily. Their long legs allow them to lily pad for a limited period of time — off a much large array of shore FOBs – while still supporting the MEU. It’s much easier to do that in a V-22 than it is a traditional helicopter.
I open up that flight deck, or I can TRANSLANT or PAC additional F-35s. If I had six on the deck and I want to fly over another six or another four, we could do it rather quickly. Now the MEU has ten strike platforms. So if I need to have a TACAIR surge for a period of time, that deck provides a great platform for us. We’ve got the maintenance onboard that ship, so we can actually turn that Amphib very quickly from being a heliocentric Amphib to a fast jet Amphib. Conversely, I could also take the F-35s off, send them to a FOB and load it up with V-22s, 53Ks, or AH-1Zs and UH-1Ys.
Flexible machines and flexible ships. The combination is exceptional.
We will have a very configurable, agile ship to reconfigure almost on a dime based on the situation at hand. I think the enemy would look at the ARG as something completely different from what we have now. I think we have to change the way we do things a bit in order to allow for that, but I think we will once we get the new air assets. The newly enabled ARG, or newly whichever the term you’re using, will force our opponents to look at things very differently. We will use it differently, and our opponents are going to look at it differently."
"Finally, being connected to the newly enabled ARG can intelligently facilitate LCS modernization. The LCS can carry a range of assets, from missiles, to helos, to unmanned assets, to a complement of distributed “cyber warriors” all of which can much more potency by being part of the ARG team. The F-35B can perform the function of the battle manager, without the presence of large USAF aircraft, or a carrier presence. This is truly a combat revolution in the making.)"

"Do not reply to this neutral post"


"Do Not Reply" Why not? You were advised to either discuss the issue or stay away, not to continue with unattributed ramblings. Rotorheads are expected to stand up for what they post, whether it is a quote or an original contribution.

Senior Pilot

[SASless]

When is the VTOL version of the F-35 going to be operational?

"....Covered by F-35 and Osprey aircraft..." how does an Osprey "cover" a MEU's ships....dumping "****cans" (meaning a ship's rubbish cans) off the ramp maybe?

[OFBSLF]

When is the VTOL version of the F-35 going to be operational?
My bet? Never.

Are the LCSs operational yet? I was under the impression that the weapons packages were not yet complete.

[21stCen]

Marine pilots recount daring rescue mission

By Dan Lamothe - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Jul 16, 2011 10:14:53 EDT

Minutes after an Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle crashed in Libya late on March 21, the pilot of the downed aircraft made a simple radio plea: “Tell my wife I love her.”
Air Force pilot Maj. Kenneth Harney and his weapons system officer, Capt. Tyler Stark, ejected safely but faced uncertain danger on the ground. They landed in rebel-held territory east of Benghazi, far from the heavily armed forces advancing on the port city in support of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, but didn’t know if the armed rebels posed a threat, too.
Harney followed Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape training “perfectly,” evading Libyans while on foot for nearly four miles, until a team of Marines rescued him in an MV-22B Osprey, Marine Col. Mark Desens, whose 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit responded from the amphibious assault ship Kearsarge, said during a June luncheon at a Washington think tank. Stark “did everything by SERE training wrong,” Desens said, and ended up in a Benghazi hotel that night after being taken in by Libyan rebels.

For the F-15 pilot, the fear was real, Marine officers said. It spiked when he heard dogs barking and guns firing, and saw vehicles with searchlights roaring toward him, said Marine Capt. John Grunke, an AV-8B Harrier pilot who responded to the call for help.
“Initially, when I made contact with him, I could see the vehicles he was talking about,” Grunke said. “I looked out … and I could see their searchlights on as they were making their way through the desert trying to find him.”
Grunke said he promised to assist the downed pilot. He dropped a GBU-12, a 500-pound laser-guided bomb, on an advancing vehicle after a low-flying show of force. He dropped another when other vehicles didn’t stay away from the airman.
“At that point, after two impacts, I got the indications that, ‘Hey, let’s take a step back,’” Grunke said. “I started soaking in the whole objective area, seeing if there were any other movements coming inbound of other vehicles.”
The comments about that night were made at the Institute for the Study of War, providing a better understanding of the situation as the 26th MEU, out of Camp Lejeune, N.C., launched a daring Tactical Recovery of Aircraft Personnel, or TRAP, mission.
Grunke and other officers with the unit said they were concerned they would face anti-aircraft fire, especially because they weren’t sure why the F-15E had crashed. The Air Force later determined an engine malfunction brought it down.
“That area was still contested,” said Marine Capt. Erik Kolle, who picked up the pilot in his Osprey. “We were planning for the worst case.”
‘Fearing for his life’
Dozens of Marines, two CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters, two Ospreys, two Harriers and a KC-130J tanker were involved in the TRAP mission, which remains one of the highest profile incidents in the U.N.-backed military intervention in the Libyan civil war.
The crash occurred on the third night of the operation, as NATO planes bombed military forces advancing on Benghazi. The plane was based at RAF Lakenheath, England, but was flying out of Aviano Air Base, Italy.
Stark, the weapons system officer took an unconventional path to safety, accepting shelter and medical treatment from Libyan rebels. He eventually left the country after resting in a Benghazi hotel room and rejoining U.S. forces, Desens said. Harney followed the conventional route, communicating his position to U.S. forces and searching for cover until he could be rescued.
The Harriers launched at 12:50 a.m., joining an F-16 already over the downed pilot and communicating with him by radio, Grunke said. The gravity of the situation quickly struck him when the tactical air-control squadron linked him with the radio frequency being used by the pilot.
“As I made my way to the target area and I took over, the F-16 [ahead of me] had just done a couple of gun attacks to deter the pursuers, and at that point, I took over as on-scene commander. I was probably 60 miles from his position, and I could hear him whispering to the other aircraft that were on station ahead of me about how he could see the pursuers,” Grunke said.
“That was really the first moment where I said, ‘This is really no longer training. That’s really a guy on the ground down there that is fearing for his life,’ ” Grunke said.
After dropping the two 500-pound bombs, Grunke ordered other Air Force pilots in the area to search elsewhere along the ground for intruders. He selected a possible landing zone for the TRAP mission, but had to leave shortly afterward because he was low on fuel.
Into the fray
At that point, the TRAP team was scrambling to reach the pilot. The Ospreys — each carrying about 15 reconnaissance Marines with Lejeune’s Battalion Landing Team, 3rd Battalion, 8th Marines — launched at 1:33 a.m. from the Kearsarge, about 130 nautical miles from the crash site. They crossed the beach line at about 300 mph, flying just 200 feet off the ground all the way to the landing zone, Kolle said.
The Osprey pilots could hear Grunke reassuring the downed pilot by radio that Marines were on the way. Sensing urgency, they “started cutting the corner a little bit” on the original route they had planned to avoid possible surface-to-air missiles, Kolle said.
The first Osprey — reportedly flown by Maj. B.J. Debardeleben — took the lead, but its personnel were unable to find the pilot before the aircraft was out of position to land. It circled back as Kolle landed his Osprey at 2:38 a.m. with the help of a laser designator from an F-16 overhead.
“I landed in front of him maybe 50 yards,” Kolle said. “We were on deck about five seconds and the crew chief said, ‘Hey, we got him.’ So I was like, ‘Roger that, we’re getting out of here!’ and they said, ‘Hold up, all the recon guys are off the back!’”
It took about 30 more seconds to get all the Marines on board and to take off, he said. The two Ospreys turned back toward the Kearsarge. The CH-53s, carrying a quick-reaction force from Lejeune’s 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines, never needed to land.
The QRF Marines had been on the Kearsarge only a matter of days, after being called in to supplement the MEU. They were needed because most of BLT 3/8, the MEU’s ground combat element, was in Afghanistan after being called off the ships in January.
Desens, who has since stepped down as the MEU’s commander, said uncertainty about the Libyan rebels complicated the mission, especially for the rescued pilot.
“If you’re that pilot and you’d just had a bad event with your aircraft, you probably didn’t have reason to believe” they didn’t mean him harm, he said. “It was terrifically uncertain early on.”

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/tiltrotors/F-15DownLibya.jpg
Downed F-15 Remains

[SASless]

So........we bomb and strafe the friendlies....the Harrier could not stay long enough due to a lack of fuel...the back up force flew in to the area on Sikorsky's....and Security was needed at the scene which was provided mostly by Air Force F-16's....organic infantry assets had been deployed to Afghanistan and replacements had to be flown in to replace them. The lead aircraft tasked to pick up the downed pilot missed the LZ and Chase landed. The aircraft started to leave with the pilot but not the Recon Marines who were doing the on-ground security task?

Did I get that right?

Important thing is both Air Force crew are back home safe and the Good Guys all got home unhurt!

Now....lessons learned from this?



One article noted seven Marine Aircraft involved....two each Harriers, Ospreys, and CH-53's, and one KC-130. In a previous post I suggested a KC-130 could serve as a FARP of sorts and that access to fuel would be of importance as would be shuttle time for the "Escorts" and "Airborne Security". If the Harriers operated as a pair....the Ospreys in a pair...and the helicopters also in a pair....then Time Over Target proves to be a problem for any aircraft that has to lead the parade and stay until everybody else departs. This proved to be the case here. Fortunately the Air Force was able to fill the gaps for the Marines this time.

The lack of coordination on the ground was complicated by the absence of liasion with friendly forces due to the half assed way this "Non-War" is being waged. This puts our guys and gals in harms way unnecessarily and also presents every opportunity for our attacking friendly ground forces by mistake.

Perhaps that Marine General I considered an idiot when he said "We are in and out so fast they don't even know we were there....." was referring to the Recon guys who almost got left in the LZ.

Where were the Air Force CSAR guys on this....I am sure they must have some of their own Ospreys in theater some where. Did they launch on this or was this a Navy only TARP task?

[SansAnhedral]

Textron: V-22 may sell to 10-12 foreign countries (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/07/20/359746/textron-v-22-may-sell-to-10-12-foreign-countries.html)

Looks like more popular anti V22 rhetoric (no foreign sales) may become invalidated.

[Lonewolf_50]

Who can afford the V-22, besides the US DoD?

Oil Producer Shieks and Emirs
China
A few Russian Mafia bosses :E
A few Narco Cartel bosses
The Germans, if they wanted them, but I doubt they do
The Israelis? (Guess who really pays for the IV-22? (Heh, neat acronym there, IV ... sometimes I crack myself up ... ) The US Taxpayer via the usual shell game). :=
Richard Branson
Bill Gates
Warren Buffet
George Soros
Owner of Mexico Telecom
(and folks of that ^ ilk)

Outside of the above, who can afford a V-22?

Who is really paying? :mad:

It's a neat bird, but it ain't cheap.

[SansAnhedral]

none of this same rhetoric for the CH53K? Same unit cost (that is unless it goes even further over budget). Israelis are buying those, but no complaints?

what about Japan? South Korea? Taiwan? Saudi Arabia? I think those governments might have budgets exceeding Richard Branson.

[21stCen]

Marine Corps Osprey squadrons transfer authority in Afghanistan

2nd Marine Aircraft Wing (Forward)
Story by Cpl. Samantha H. Arrington (http://www.dvidshub.net/portfolio/1072501)


Date: 07.21.2011
Posted: 07.21.2011 05:26
News ID: 74052
CAMP BASTION, Afghanistan - Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 264 transferred responsibility of providing aerial assault support to Marines and coalition troops on the ground in southwestern Afghanistan to VMM-162, at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan, July 18.

With VMM-162 in place to support combat operations, the Marines of VMM-264, commanded by Lt. Col. Brian G. McAvoy, are now slated to return home to Marine Corps Air Station New River, N.C.

“Our goal when we do a transfer of authority is to have the replacements confident that they can pick up where we left off, and maybe do better,” said Sgt. Maj. George P. Aurelio, the VMM-264 sergeant major. “I think VMM-162 is going to do extremely well. I have the trust and confidence in their leadership that they are going to do everything they can to accomplish the mission and take care of their Marines.”

During the outgoing Osprey squadron’s seven month deployment to Afghanistan, VMM-264 completed 475 combat operation missions, transported 965,700 pounds of cargo and more than 23,000 passengers around southwestern Afghanistan.

“If someone was to ask me about my Marines, I would say they are truly magnificent. Now it’s time to go home and get some well deserved rest,” said Aurelio, a native of Mangilao, Guam. “When we get back we are going to have the Marines reset, refocus and rearm and get ready to do it again. It’s a never ending cycle. We’re going to hit the ground running again because we may be out here again.”

VMM-162 is also deployed out of Marine Corps Air Station New River, N.C. This will be VMM-162s first deployment to Afghanistan as a medium tiltrotor squadron using the MV-22 Osprey.

Sgt. Maj. Christopher G. Combs, the VMM-162 sergeant major, alongside the squadron’s commanding officer, Lt. Col. Michael S. Ducar, will lead the nearly 200 Marines of the squadron during their deployment.

“The squadron is excited to be here,” said Combs, a native of Forestport, N.Y. “I think we are going to perform phenomenally. I am 110 percent positive that they will be able to go above and beyond what is expected of them.”

“We’re going to continue to provide the same uninterrupted assault support to ground troops,” said Lt. Col. Michael S. Ducar, the VMM-162 commanding officer, and a native of O’Fallen, Mo. “We’ve got an exceptional group of Marines here and we’re going to carry on the fight.”

[Lonewolf_50]

Sans, I think Saudi fits in with the oil sheikhs I mentioned earlier. :cool:

Taiwan? South K? Maybe. Japan? Maybe. Have they flown the fatigue life out of their 53E variants? But I suppose they can indeed afford a V-22.

As to why on the difference in noise, 53K is heavy lift, and has more payload than V-22. (It also hasn't yet had a spectacular crash near DC during a development flight ...)

It covers a different part of the mission mix.
K is less risk, tech wise.
K is less controversial in its development timeline.
Note: the GAO report from last year and program move to the right is a concern. Cost is still a concern. GAO report seemed to indicate to me that program has mostly sorted out such problems.

Given that large helicopter tech is pretty mature, there isn't as much need to hype this aircraft, so it makes sense there isn't as much blather about it as Osprey. Nearly thirty years to IOC (Osprey) isn't an impressive timeline, is it?
That's what can happen when one takes risk with bleeding edge or new tech.

[SASless]

VMM-264 completed 475 combat operation missions, transported 965,700 pounds of cargo and more than 23,000 passengers around southwestern Afghanistan.


I am 110 percent positive that they will be able to go above and beyond what is expected of them.”


My Gawd Mi'Lord! I take back everthing I ever said about the unjustly maligned Osprey!

Any aircraft that can carry 2033 pounds of cargo and 48.42 passengers (most of which were wearing combat gear).....is one hell of a machine!

Bull Crap....Bull Crap....the making of a US Marine! (a refrain from a song much favored during my Army days....comes to mind as I read this PR piece from the Marines!)

Or....is my calculator lying to me again when I run Osprey numbers on it?

[SansAnhedral]

Is every passenger and every pound lifted on a "combat operation mission"?

I read that blurb as 3 distinctly seperate factoids.

[ron-powell]

>My Gawd Mi'Lord! I take back everthing I ever said about the unjustly maligned Osprey!

>Any aircraft that can carry 2033 pounds of cargo and 48.42 passengers (most of which were wearing combat gear).....is one hell of a machine!

Maybe there was more than one aircraft involved in each “combat operation mission”.

Just sayin’……

[Lonewolf_50]

21st, I've read enough, and had to make input into enough, public affairs releases to be mildly skeptical of any of their pronouncements at face value. That said, seems that the folks in that squadron got good service out of their Ospreys. 'Tis a good thing.

[The Sultan]

SAS claims to be a combat vet, however he apparently does not know the definition of a mission versus a sortie. Brings into question his "combat" cred.

The Sultan

[SASless]

Sultan,

Let's be very clear about this.

I know "Combat" having dwelled in the middle of a two way machine gun range for the best part of two years, the difference between "sortie count/mission count from multiple sources, and can differeniate between accurate data and improperly reported statistics having studied Statistics during my part of my University stay.

The USMC Press Release was misleading in the numbers reported.....which is what I pointed out by my post.

[21stCen]

Oops, I misread your numbers at a glance. I'd say that 'mission vs. sortie' is a possible explanation for the discrepancy...

[SASless]

21st....or the numbers of missions includes multiple aircraft taskings on the same mission (which would then be sorties) or as stats can be manipulated....multiple stop flights where folks drop off and some are picked up....when the aircraft load is counted towards Pax carried and Cargo carried for a daily Sum....the numbers can grow exponentially. I have seen that game played at several places both military and civilian.

Example.....a Bell 212 with an eleven pax seating arrangement departs from the home heliport with eleven passengers aboard....arrives back at the heliport after making five stops and the load sheet shows Sixty-Six passengers carried. Yet only Twenty-Two humans ever rode as passengers.

[21stCen]

Sas,
I have no doubt your experience is not unique and purposeful attempts to deceive or stretch the truth are certainly out there. I have to say that my experience with the intent of those conducting passenger/cargo counts have always been done 'by the numbers' (showing how many pax on each leg and not giving a false 'total count' at the end of the flight), but occasionally anomalies arise.

When we look at numbers that don't match up we don’t automatically declare fraud, as more often than not there is a legitimate explanation behind it. Having said that, if there is evidence that shows numbers are being purposely falsified there should be no hesitation to expose it (military or civilian).
21stC

[SASless]

Just suggesting it is not the statistic given.....but the method the data was built within.

The example I gave is an example.

Sortie count for pax carried would be 66....Mission count 22.

I did not accuse the Marines of cooking the books....but note the numbers given are not worth a darn until one knows the method used to do the accounting.

The FBI's infamous National Crime Report is yet another example of garbage statistics....once you understand the methodology used to frame their stats.

A good local Police Chief can use those very methods to make his department look good (if he is wanting to keep his job) or justify more Officers and resources (if he wants to build up the force) just by applying varying rules of defining crimes.

The classic example (drawn from real life first hand) regarded reporting of Break-In's. Under one Chief we reported pretty much what actually happened, under another the Thief could get inside the house but not steal anything of value and it was only a Damage To Property....and with a third if the window pane was broken and no entry was made.....it was a Burglary. In other words the same crime could be a Misdeameanor or a Felony but only the Felony Crime made it to the NCR Database.

They also report only the most serious crime committed in one event....Drug deal goes bad, Buyer shoots dead the Dealer, rapes the dealer's daughter, robs the Buyer's wife, sets fire to the house and steals a car and kidnaps the driver, runs over a Police Officer, and holds a school bus full of children hostage....then surrenders......One Crime...Murder gets reported for stats use.

[SansAnhedral]

Im still completely confused as to how the numbers are misleading or even considered implausible.....with the only reason to doubt them the fact that the stated number of combat missions doesnt correlate with the given payload numbers.

Where was it implied that one had anything to do with the other?

[SASless]

the only reason to doubt them the fact that the stated number of combat missions doesnt correlate with the given payload numbers.


Q.E.D......in math talk....you have demonstrated the validity of the statement.

[SansAnhedral]

I would have demonstrated the validity of the statement had I said total flights, not combat missions. Hence the earlier discussion of sortie vs combat missions.

[Dan Reno]

Marines in Afghanistan Honor Fallen Crew Chief
July 18, 2011 Marine Corps News | Cpl. Samantha H. Arrington
CAMP LEATHERNECK, Afghanistan -- Deployed Marines and Sailors gathered at the Regional Command Southwest Memorial Chapel on Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan, to honor the life of Staff Sgt. Thomas J. Dudley, July 18.
Dudley fell to his death from an MV-22 Osprey while conducting combat operations in southwestern Afghanistan, July 7.
“We will we commemorate his life and not his death,” said Sgt. Maj. George P. Aurelio, the Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 264 sergeant major. “We’re gathering to remember him for who he was, which was a great father, husband and Marine.”
Dudley, a native of Tega Cay, S.C., is survived by his wife, Mary, and three children.
“He’ll be missed dearly but he will be with us forever,” said Gunnery Sgt. Shawn A. Howard, the quality assurance chief for VMM-264, and a native of Brooksville, Fla. “This was not just a loss for the squadron, his family and friends, but for the Marine Corps as a whole.”
Dudley served with VMM-264, as an MV-22 Osprey crew chief. He deployed with the squadron out of Marine Corps Air Station New River, N.C., to Camp Bastion, Afghanistan, in December 2010.
“He was a great man, he was the kind of guy who would do anything to help someone,” said Cpl. William Alder, a fellow crew chief with VMM-264, and a native of Flintstone, Md. “He will always be with us. He taught and led all of us and because of that he will live on with us.”
http://m.military.com/news/article/marine-corps-news/marines-in-afghanistan-honor-fallen-crew-chief.html?ESRC=marine.nl (http://m.military.com/news/article/marine-corps-news/marines-in-afghanistan-honor-fallen-crew-chief.html?ESRC=marine.nl)

[Dan Reno]

SOF Looking for new vehicle — Jeep vs. Flyer


In the beginning, one of the stipulations around this project was that the vehicle be compatible with the VTOL capable, V-22 Osprey. Finally, this requirement was given the chop in favor of seeking a platform specifically compatible with the MH-47 helicopter preferred by Army Special Operations teams.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2011/07/sof-looking-for-new-vehicle-jeep-vs-flyer.html#ixzz1TamJKlxP
Kit Up!

[SansAnhedral]

IAF ups pressure for V-22 buy (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/02/360269/iaf-ups-pressure-for-v-22-buy.html)


The Israeli air force (IAF) will increase the pressure on the country's ministry of defence to fund the purchase of Bell-Boeing (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/boeing.html) V-22 tilt rotors, following a positive evaluation of the aircraft.
A delegation from the IAF, including pilots and technical experts, recently visited US Marine Corps sites in the United States, to inspect the USMC's MV-22B Ospreys.
Israeli sources said that feedback from the IAF was overwhelmingly positive.
The IAF now wants to include an initial order for "limited" numbers of the V-22 in the multi-year spending plan being prepared by the Israeli Defence Force.
That wish may not be granted, however, but as a contingency the IAF may use reserve budgets to fund the purchase.
Scott Donnelly, chief executive of Bell parent company Textron, recently suggested that up to 12 countries, including Israel, would end up purchasing the Osprey.

[21stCen]

All you wanted to know about Osama bin Laden's burial at sea


http://community.warplanes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/100115-N-6247V-562.jpg



Monday, August 1, 2011 21:51 IST


New details have emerged on how US navy SEALs gave Osama bin Laden a "blunt" sea burial to end his myth, after they killed the al-Qaeda chief during a raid in Pakistan's garrison town of Abbottabad.
The US navy SEALs planned disposal of Laden's body on the basis on a similar burial they carried out for Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, a top al-Qaeda leader in East Africa, in 2009.
But, US deputy national security advisor John Brennan did call up a former Saudi intelligence official, asking him whether the country was interested in taking the body of Laden as his relatives were there and once he was a citizen of Saudi Arabia. However, there was no positive response from the other side," The New Yorker magazine reported.
"All along, the SEALs had planned to dump Laden's corpse into the sea — a blunt way of ending the Laden myth," it said.
Nabhan's corpse was flown to a ship in the Indian Ocean and was given proper Muslim rites before being thrown overboard.
In the case of Laden's corpse, flip-wing V-22 Osprey flew the body from a US base in Afghanistan's Bagram to USS Carl Vinson—a thousand-foot-long nuclear-powered aircraft carrier sailing in the Arabian Sea, off the Pakistani coast --in another violation of Islamabad's airspace.
Once the body reached Carl Vinson, it was washed, wrapped in a white burial shroud, weighted, and then slipped inside a bag.
The process was done "in strict conformance with Islamic precepts and practices," Brennan later told reporters in Washington.
The shrouded body was placed "on an open-air elevator, and rode down with it to the lower level, which functions as a hangar for airplanes. From a height of between twenty and twenty-five feet above the waves, they heaved the corpse into the water," the magazine said.
Earlier Jalalabad where the corpse was brought, a pair of SEALs unloaded the body bag and unzipped it so that man in charge of the mission Vice Adm William H McRaven and the CIA station chief could see bin Laden’s corpse with their own eyes. Photographs were taken of Laden’s face and then of his outstretched body.
Laden, 54, was believed to be about six feet four, "but no one had a tape measure to confirm the body’s length. So one SEAL, who was six feet tall, lay beside the corpse: it measured roughly four inches longer than the American," it said.
Minutes later, McRaven appeared on the teleconference screen in the Situation Room in the White House and confirmed that Laden's body was in the bag. The corpse was sent to Bagram.

[Lonewolf_50]

In the case of Laden's corpse, flip-wing V-22 Osprey flew the body from a US base in Afghanistan's Bagram to USS Carl Vinson—a thousand-foot-long nuclear-powered aircraft carrier sailing in the Arabian Sea, off the Pakistani coast --in another violation of Islamabad's airspace

How is a US carrier operating off of the coast of Pakistan a violation of Islamabad airspace? Or, is the assertion that the flight did not have standard dip clearance to go from Afghanistan to feet wet?

Not sure our intrepid reporter has it right ... this is confusing.

Minutes later, McRaven appeared on the teleconference screen in the Situation Room in the White House and confirmed that Laden's body was in the bag. The corpse was sent to Bagram.
How's that, again? OK, they dumped the bag in the sea, but sent the corpse to Bargram?

Someone needs to talk to his editor.

[21stCen]

How is a US carrier operating off of the coast of Pakistan a violation of Islamabad airspace? Or, is the assertion that the flight did not have standard dip clearance to go from Afghanistan to feet wet?
Not sure our intrepid reporter has it right ... this is confusing.


LW,
Keep in mind that Afghanistan is a land-locked country. The only alternatives to flying the body out would be through Pakistani airspace or to ask for the kind permission of the Iranian government.
http://www.sitesatlas.com/Maps/Maps/801.gif

[21stCen]

A more DETAILED version of the event. Wow!
The Mission to Get Osama Bin Laden : The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle?currentPage=all)

Americans breached Pak airspace not once, but twice in Osama raid


Wednesday, August 3, 2011 14:53 IST

It seems Pakistani military was caught off guard not once but twice by the Americans who not only breached its airspace during the May 2 raid to kill Osama bin Laden but also flew in back from Afghanistan hours later with the body of the al-Qaeda leader on way to his sea burial.
At dawn on May 2, Laden's body was loaded into the belly of a flip-wing V-22 Osprey chopper in Afghanistan, accompanied by a Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) liaison officer and a security detail of military police, the New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue detailing finer aspects of the entire operation.
The Osprey flew south, destined for the deck of the USS Carl Vinson, a 1,000-foot-long nuclear-powered aircraft carrier sailing in the Arabian Sea, off the Pakistani coast for the sea burial of the slain al-Qaeda chief.
"The Americans, yet again, were about to traverse Pakistani airspace without permission. Some officials worried that the Pakistanis, stung by the humiliation of the unilateral raid in Abbottabad, might restrict the Osprey's access. The airplane ultimately landed on the Vinson without incident," the report said.
Interestingly, the report said the Abbottabad raid was not DEVGRU's (Naval Special Warfare Development Group that killed Laden) maiden venture into Pakistan.
"The team had surreptitiously entered the country on ten to twelve previous occasions," a special-operations officer, who is deeply familiar with the Laden raid, was quoted as saying.
Most of those missions were forays into North and South Waziristan, where many military and intelligence analysts had thought that Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders were hiding.

DNA: World - Americans breached Pak airspace not once, but twice in Osama raid (http://www.dnaindia.com/print710.php?cid=1572170)

[Lonewolf_50]

I am fully aware of that, 21st century. Suffice to say, I am more than passing familiar with the lay of the land out there, and the littoral, and the problems of Afghanistan being bloody well landlocked. :mad: Hell of a place for America to run a war.

Did you read my post?

How is a US carrier operating off of the coast of Pakistan a violation of Islamabad airspace? Or, is the assertion that the flight did not have standard dip clearance to go from Afghanistan to feet wet?

Are you a military pilot? Do you not remember the fun of getting diplomatic clearance for flights over various nations' airspaces?

The presumption of an airspace violation (as opposed to one of many routine flights through Pakistani airspace (yes, we do have agreements with them)) seems to me a leap of inference by our intrepid reporter. Now, if we have in our agreements with them some language that we'll not transport dead terrorists without providing a passenger manifest, or if the flight can be shown to not have been on the air tasking order, with copy to USDAO and with appropriate bits releasable to his Pakistani MoD contacts** and more, then perhaps our intrepid reporter can show that this flight was done on the sly.

All he has done is made a claim, and I am skeptical of his supporting sources.

(Mind you, he may be right)

No further comment.

I was being a bit facetious, eh? Tone sometimes doesn't come across well on the internet.

** = yes, such things are done, no kidding. There was a time in my life not too long ago that I had to deconflict various and sundry stuff with the :mad::mad: among the MoD in that country through USDAO, about some :mad::mad: those useless :mad::mad:'s ... I better stop. Got no love for some of the lads who serve our "ally" there. :yuk::yuk::yuk:

[SASless]

LW......actually they were probably just hauling "Baggage" that required some "Special" handling!

[21stCen]

LW,
Glad my geography lesson was able to help you out there. ;)

Did you read your post?

How is a US carrier operating off of the coast of Pakistan a violation of Islamabad airspace? Or, is the assertion that the flight did not have standard dip clearance to go from Afghanistan to feet wet?
Not sure our intrepid reporter has it right ... this is confusing.

In Pakistan there is no longer any such thing as a "standard clearance." Even before the bin Laden operation each clearance must be painstakingly secured despite the billions of dollars that we have been contributing to their government (windows did open up temporarily for the humanitarian efforts after the earthquake and floods in recent years). The Pakistan military does not trust the US military (and vice versa!). I guess our uninvited Predator visits don't help much either.

Even if there had been a standing clearance it is pretty obvious that after the public humiliation of the violation of their airspace the night before, any clearance would have been immediately rescinded. As you know from your experience -- mitigating potential 'loss of face' situations is the one item that is on the top of the list for an immediate action response above all others.

...then perhaps our intrepid reporter can show that this flight was done on the sly. All he has done is made a claim, and I am skeptical of his supporting sources.


If you click on the first link of my last post you will see that the original author of the article was Nicholas Schmidle reporting for 'The New Yorker.' He mentions in the full article (9 pages long in the magazine) the names of who he spoke to in the CIA and military. He has some incredibly detailed descriptions about things like which Seal did what, the type of weapons each individual carried, what they encountered along the way, etc (even down to the name of the dog!). So far the only denial coming from the US government about the article is the assertion that the Seals had no intention to take bin Laden alive.

Like you I cannot say how accurate the reporting is, particularly with the experience that all of us have had with reporters in the past -- sometimes it seems like journalists must take a course in 'how to inaccurately report the facts.' But given the direct sources quoted in the article I'd say his reporting does appear to have some degree of credibility. 'The New Yorker' PR people are claiming that everything was verified, but then again Rupert Murdoch didn't think he had a problem in his organization (or so he says).

[SASless]

From the New Yorker article......


“I want to meet that dog,” Obama said.

“If you want to meet the dog, Mr. President, I advise you to bring treats,” James joked. Obama went over to pet Cairo, but the dog’s muzzle was left on.




Dogs being very good judges of character.....wise decision!

[Lonewolf_50]

Thank you, 21st, looks like a few things have changed since the increase in Preadator attacks inside Pakistan's air volume (after my time) that began in 2008. Appreciate the update.

As to reporters ... I'll remain skeptical, and yes, he may be telling it straight.

[SansAnhedral]

Bell Boeing Submits V-22 Osprey Multiyear II Contract Proposal (http://bellhelicopter.com/en_US/News/PR-08042011.html)


News Press Releases

Bell Boeing Submits V-22 Osprey Multiyear II
Contract Proposal Proposal would fortify industrial base, yield substantial savings to U.S. Government


Aug 4, 2011 Press Contact

Bill Schroeder (817) 280-7651 (office) (817) 600-4209 (mobile) [email protected] ([email protected])
PATUXENT RIVER, Md., Aug 4, 2011- The Bell Boeing V-22 Program, a strategic alliance between The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] and Bell Helicopter - Textron [NYSE: TXT], announced today that it has submitted its proposal to the U.S. government for a second multiyear procurement (MYP II) contract for the production and delivery of V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft. The five-year, fixed price incentive proposal would provide the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) and Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) with the full complement of Ospreys outlined in the U.S. Department of Defense program of record and yield double-digit percentage savings over a single-year procurement strategy. In addition, the proposal would fortify Osprey production through 2019.
"Bell Boeing is very pleased to respond to the Navy's request for proposal for a second multiyear contract for V-22 Osprey production," said John Rader, Executive Director, Bell Boeing V-22 Program. "In an era that demands greater fiscal responsibility, the MYP II contract would enable us to most-efficiently deliver this revolutionary capability to our customers while generating further savings for the American taxpayer and bringing strength and stability to the industrial base."
The Bell Boeing V-22 program is presently on-time and under budget in successfully executing its first multiyear procurement contract, which includes fiscal years 2008-2012 and calls for the production of 174 aircraft including 143 MV-22 variants for the Marine Corps and 31 CV-22s for AFSOC. The MYP II proposal includes 122 aircraft (115 MV/ 7 CV) over fiscal years 2013-2017, continuing deliveries through 2019. Bell Boeing now awaits the results of the government's evaluation of its MYP II proposal.
Ten USMC and five AFSOC V-22 Squadrons are operational today and the two services have together logged sixteen successful combat, humanitarian, ship-based and special operations deployments since 2007. The worldwide Osprey fleet has amassed more than 115,000 flight hours, with nearly half of those hours coming in the past two years alone.
Safety, survivability and mission efficiency have become hallmarks of the operational fleet. According to Naval Safety Center records, the MV-22 has had the lowest Class A mishap rate of any tactical rotorcraft in the Marine Corps during the past decade. Further, Fiscal Year 2010 Navy flight-hour cost data also show that the Osprey has the lowest cost per seat-mile (cost to transport one person over a distance of one mile) of any U.S. Navy transport rotorcraft.
The V-22 Osprey is a joint service, multirole combat aircraft using tiltrotor technology to combine the vertical performance of a helicopter with the speed and range of a fixed-wing aircraft. With its nacelles and rotors in vertical position, it can take off, land and hover like a helicopter. Once airborne, its nacelles can be rotated to transition the aircraft to a turboprop airplane capable of high-speed, high-altitude flight.
The tiltrotor aircraft is manufactured under a 50-50 strategic alliance between Bell Helicopter, a Textron Inc. company, and Boeing. The current V-22 Osprey program of record calls for 360 aircraft for the Marine Corps, 50 for AFSOC, and 48 for the Navy.
More than 130 Osprey tiltrotors are currently in operation. Marine Corps MV-22 Ospreys are currently deployed in Afghanistan supporting Operation Enduring Freedom and with the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit supporting contingency operations, while AFSOC CV-22s are preparing to deploy once again in support of ongoing Special Operations missions.

[Lonewolf_50]

Ya gotta spend money to save money, eh? :cool:

Double digit savings? Multiyear buys can be a way to keep program costs down, yes.

Do you have a link to the numbers in the proposal, Sans?

[SansAnhedral]

Havent seen any more info yet outside what was in this release. Posted on Bell and Boeing's sites.

[Dan Reno]

Boeing and Textron Try to Prevent Osprey from Going the Way of the Dodo

By ANDRE FRANCISCO

A new multi-year contract for 122 V-22 Ospreys has been submitted to the Navy for consideration by Boeing and Textron. The contract would renew the current deal for five more years at a cost of $8 billion, according to Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-04/navy-weighs-8-billion-contract-for-ospreys.html).
The current contract is on time and under budget, but you may remember that POGO and others have raised a number of concerns (http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2005/09/pogos_v22_conce.html) about the Osprey, including questions about its safety, cost and how thoroughly the Pentagon tested the aircraft (http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2005/02/testing_the_v22.html).
As part of our blueprint to reduce the deficit (http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/07/how-to-trim-the-deficit-by-nearly-600-billion-a-blueprint-for-spending-less-and-spending-smarter-on-.html), POGO and Taxpayers for Common Sense recommended declining to renew the V-22 program. In our report, we recommended that the program not be renewed because it was not cost effective and the V-22s could be replaced by MH-60 or Ch-53 helicopters. “According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09692t.pdf), the V-22 costs over $11,000 per hour to fly and had a full mission capability (FMC) rate of just 6 percent in Iraq,” the report said.
The current $10.9 billion contract for 174 Ospreys has each aircraft costing about $62.6 million, but the new proposed contract puts the cost at $65 million each, according to the Bloomberg article. Shouldn’t the cost of building V-22s go down over time as experience and the economies of scale kick in? Why the $2.4 million increase for each aircraft?

Some people have offered their support of the Osprey. A Defense Daily article (http://www.defensedaily.com/publications/dd/Bell-Boeing-Submits-Proposal-For-Second-V-22-Multiyear-Procurement-Contract_14778.html)about the new proposal said “the MV-22 has had the lowest Class A mishap rate of any tactical rotorcraft in the Marine Corps during the past decade. Fiscal year 2010 Navy flight-hour cost data also show that the Osprey has the lowest cost per seat-mile, or the cost to transport one person over a distance of one mile, of any U.S. naval transport rotorcraft,” according to the Naval Safety Center.
But at the same time, a number of reports have questioned the safety and cost problems of the Osprey. In January, we wrote about a National Journal article (http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/01/intricate-marine-weapons-systems-increasingly-targeted-in-cut-proposals.html) that summarized four separate, independent reviews of Pentagon spending that all included cutting the V-22 program as part of a larger program of spending reduction.
As the Bloomberg article said, “Signing a multi-year contract also virtually guarantees those aircraft can’t be canceled because the military would face steep termination costs.”
We are sticking with our recommendation from the blueprint for debt reduction—don’t renew the procurement contract. We need the money elsewhere, and we don’t need the risks of the V-22.
Andre Francisco is a POGO Associate. Follow Andre on Twitter (http://twitter.com/andrefrancisco).

[The Sultan]

Dan,

With the flight hour costs of a 53E the V-22 is cheap. Hell the S-92 as reported by Heli-one in commercial service is near $10K.

After the loss of our brave war fighters in one obsolete slow helicopter I believe the V-22 will surge ahead and the Army will begin buying.

The Sultan

[SansAnhedral]

Some people have offered their support of the Osprey. A Defense Daily article (http://www.defensedaily.com/publications/dd/Bell-Boeing-Submits-Proposal-For-Second-V-22-Multiyear-Procurement-Contract_14778.html)about the new proposal said “the MV-22 has had the lowest Class A mishap rate of any tactical rotorcraft in the Marine Corps during the past decade. Fiscal year 2010 Navy flight-hour cost data also show that the Osprey has the lowest cost per seat-mile, or the cost to transport one person over a distance of one mile, of any U.S. naval transport rotorcraft,” according to the Naval Safety Center.
But at the same time, a number of reports have questioned the safety and cost problems of the Osprey.

So, citing sources showing the V22 has the lowest cost and best safety, which flies in the face of every point the author is trying to make, is countered by his assertion regarding "a number of reports" that state otherwise which he fails to detail or link (either because they dont actually exist or are so old and outdated he knows they are no longer even relevent). Stellar journalism and objectivity there.

[SASless]

If the Chinook is slow, lumbering, and lands slowly.....why not replace them with Ospreys which we are all told are fast, manuverable, and land quickly?

It would seem that would sort it out pronto! Or do I miss something here?

Are Osprey's immune to RPG's?

Are Osprey's immune to small arms fire?

Do Osprey's not land where the Bad Guys are by some onboard kit we know nothing of yet?

Or....should we be asking questions like....."Did we plan this mission properly? Did we become predictable in our Tactics and thus fall prey to the enemy adapting to our tactics? Did we have airborne surviellance assets over head scanning the LZ and surrounds for enemy activity? If we did...was there a failure in capability, command and control, and/or application of technology/assets? Were on-scene Troops properly tasked/resourced for the mission? Was there effectively coordination of all units tasked? Was Command and Control elements properly informed, knowledgeable, and in effective control of all units/assets/resources? Are we getting complacent due to the sheer number of these operations being undertaken? Are the units involved in these missions experiencing over-saturation? Are the Rules of Engagement too restrictive? Did the engaged units receive adequate and timely support from Tube Artillery, Scout and Attack helicopters, and Tactical Aircraft?"

This smacks of another Takur Ghar fight (Robert's Ridge) where things went down hill fast after pre-assault intel was inadequate and command and control was absolutely a disgrace. Senior officers in Bahrain have no reason to be involved in local goings on in Afghanistan. That kind of decision making and coordination is best done by the commanders on the scene.

[Dan Reno]

The V-22 is Safer Than Helos, Effective, Says Man Who Wrote the Book

http://o.aolcdn.com/os/global/gcp40/noimage.gif
By Richard Whittle (http://defense.aol.com/bloggers/richard-whittle)
Published: August 09, 2011

I commissioned this story from one of the foremost -- if not the foremost -- independent authorities on the V-22 because I thought it important to address the basic question: is the V-22 worth the lives and treasure it has cost America? The answer by reporter Richard Whittle -- the man who literally wrote the book on the Osprey -- is a resounding yes. That yes, I believe, should be taken note of by those less expert who reside at august institutions such as the New York Times, who persist in viewing the V-22 as a "troubled" aircraft. But enough of that. Read Richard's piece for as close to ground truth on this issue as we are likely to get. The editor.

Once upon a time, the evil ogres of the military-industrial complex spawned a mutant flying machine, a freakish helicopter-airplane hybrid so dangerous and costly it deserved to die. Yet tribes of pork-addicted toadies and blind intellectual dwarfs shielded the beast from knights in shining armor who sallied forth tirelessly -- heavily armed with GAO reports -- to slay it.
That's the fairy tale the V-22 Osprey's bitterest critics like to believe, but the facts about the tiltrotor transport, which the Marines fought a quarter of a century to get into service, tell a far happier story. This ugly duckling is turning out to be a swan.

The Marines and the Air Force Special Operations Command have been flying Ospreys in combat zones nearly four years now and they love them, for while the V-22 isn't a very pretty bird to look at, it has a graceful and extraordinary way of flying. It tilts two big rotors on its wingtips upward to take off and land like a helicopter but swivels them forward to fly like an airplane. That lets it cruise at nearly 290 miles an hour – more than twice as fast as military helicopters, whose top speeds are limited by the aerodynamics of rotors to about 140 to 175 mph.

By the time the Marines first put the Osprey into service in Iraq in 2007, though, it had cost more time, money and lives than any other piece of equipment the Corps has ever bought -- 25 years, $22 billion and 30 deaths in crashes during its development. The Osprey was a very ugly duckling.

Since then, the saga has taken a very different turn, but many of the Osprey's loudest critics – notable among them the New York Times editorial page – went to sleep in the middle of the story. In February, the Times declared that "the unsafe V-22 Osprey aircraft should...be scaled down now." In April, the Times again called for cutting the "accident-prone V-22 Osprey." (http://defense.aol.com/2011/06/19/top-marine-aviator-rejects-calls-to-cut-v-22-funding/)
Labeling the Osprey "unsafe" and "accident-prone" could be justified a decade ago, when two of the three fatal crashes that occurred during its development had just occurred. Yes, that number is correct; there were only three fatal crashes before the Osprey went into service. Thirty people died in them because the Osprey is a troop carrier, and 19 Marines – 15 of them passengers – were killed in one star-crossed test flight alone. After the last of those terrible crashes, though, the Pentagon grounded the Osprey for 17 months – and fixed what was wrong with it.

As I described in The Dream Machine: The Untold History of the Notorious V-22 Osprey, between 2001 and 2005, the Osprey was redesigned and retested. Sloppily laid out hydraulic lines were rerouted, putting a stop to frequent and dangerous leaks. Flaws in flight control software, which in combination with a hydraulic leak had caused one fatal crash, were fixed. A trio of brave test pilots deliberately and repeatedly flew the Osprey into the little-understood aerodynamic condition that caused its worst crash and figured out how a pilot could get out of it. Cockpit warning devices were installed to keep future pilots from putting an Osprey into this "vortex ring state" in the first place.

The result is that Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., unwittingly spoke the truth in May when she futilely tried for the umpteenth time to cut the V-22 from the defense budget by arguing that the "Osprey's mishaps have become practically the stuff of legend."

"Legend" is the right word. Since Dec. 11, 2000, the Osprey has suffered one fatal accident – one in 11 years. On April 8, 2010, an Air Force V-22 hit the ground rolling half a mile short of its intended landing zone while carrying Army Rangers on a night raid in Afghanistan, then flipped over onto its back after its front wheels hit a ditch, killing four of the 22 souls aboard. Other than that, the only Osprey since 2000 to suffer a "Class A Mishap" – an accident causing fatalities, permanent disability or more than $2 million in damage – was a V-22 from the Marine training squadron in North Carolina that made an emergency landing on Nov. 6, 2007, after a dirt and dust filter at the mouth of one of its engines started a fire. No one was injured in the incident, and the design of the filter, known as an Engine Air Particle Separator, was subsequently modified.

Sadly, the helicopters the critics would buy instead of Ospreys can't claim such a sterling safety record. Compare the record of conventional helicopter safety with the Osprey. Since Oct. 1, 2001, the military has lost 405 helicopters worldwide at a cost of 583 American lives (http://defense.aol.com/2011/07/07/they-just-got-osama-so-put-your-money-where-the-rotors-are/), and less than one third of those were brought down by enemy fire. Those figures include the 30 U.S. troops killed Aug. 6 when Taliban insurgents apparently shot down a CH-47 Chinook transport with a rocket-propelled grenade. The statistics also include 20 other American deaths since 2001 in six losses of CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters -- the primary aircraft the Marines are buying the Osprey to replace.

The redesigned, retested Osprey's safety record is so good that it's actually the safest rotorcraft the Marine Corps flies, based on Class A mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. Those are official Naval Safety Center statistics.

Given that record, anyone who calls the Osprey "unsafe" or "accident-prone" these days either hasn't bothered to learn the facts or is willfully ignoring them.d

One reason for the Osprey's great safety record is that while the Marines and Air Force have flown their V-22s for roughly 20,000 combat hours since 2007, not one has been shot down, though some in Afghanistan have been hit by 7.62mm rounds, the type fired by AK-47s, and they all returned to base safely. Why things don't happen is often impossible to prove, but one probable reason for this is that it may be harder to hit a V-22 than a helicopter with the sort of weapons at the Taliban's disposal. The Osprey takes off and lands much the same way as a helicopter but can get out of small arms range quickly when leaving a landing zone by converting to airplane flight and climbing. Marine Ospreys also spend most of their time in the air at 8,000 feet or more, well above most threats. Helicopters generally fly low in combat zones because they're slower, and hugging the ground makes it harder for the enemy to see them in time to shoot at them. Unlike flying above 8,000 feet, though, flying low doesn't make it impossible to get hit by small arms.

The Osprey's capabilities are saving lives in combat in other ways, too. Just ask the F-15E pilot who was picked up by an Osprey in Libya last March after bailing out of his aircraft. Two Marine V-22s sent from the USS Kearsarge covered the 150 or so miles between him and the ship in about 45 minutes and got him to safety before dictator Moammar Gaddafi's forces could find him.

The only valid reason to oppose the Osprey these days might be cost, but many of the V-22's critics have trouble keeping up with the facts on this point, too.

"The V-22 Osprey helicopter has been long hampered by cost overruns," the liberalish Center for American Progress declared in early July, repeating history as if it were current news. True, the Osprey suffered plenty of cost overruns when it was still an ugly duckling, and it cost a lot to correct its original inadequacies. But since 2008, when the Naval Air Systems Command signed a five-year contract with co-manufacturers Bell Helicopter (http://defense.aol.com/tag/Bell+Helicopter/) and Boeing (http://defense.aol.com/tag/Boeing/), the program has actually enjoyed substantial cost underruns -- savings Bell and Boeing project will amount to around $200 million over the life of the $10.9 billion deal, according to a senior official who's been briefed on the figures. Costs have come down because Bell and Boeing have learned how to make the aircraft more quickly, and thus cheaper, and NAVAIR has subjected the Osprey to a stringent cost reduction campaign.

On Aug. 4, Bell-Boeing gave the government a proposal for a second five-year contract to produce the last 122 Ospreys needed to give the Marines and Air Force the 410 those two services plan to buy between them. The price the companies offered is secret and subject to negotiation, but by law, the government can't sign such deals unless they offer "substantial savings" over a series of single-year contracts for the same period. By informal congressional fiat, "substantial savings" means at least 10 percent.

As the Marines, the Air Force, NAVAIR and Bell-Boeing gain more experience with the 21st Century Osprey, its operating expense is also coming down. Over the past year, its cost per flight hour declined from more than $11,000 an hour to about $9,500, according to Marine Col. Greg Masiello, the program manager at NAVAIR.

At this year's Paris Air Show, Masiello also unveiled an analysis showing that because of the Osprey's greater speed, which means greater range, it can be a far cheaper way to transport troops in a war zone than a utility helicopter, such as the Army's UH-60 Black Hawk, the alternative critics often advocate. According to this analysis, to carry a company of troops requires either four Ospreys or sixteen helicopters. The Ospreys could deliver those troops 250 nautical miles in one hop, but the helicopters would have to stop at a Forward Arming and Refueling Point, or FARP, which requires more people to operate and guard the facility and to deliver fuel to it via ground convoys. Add up all the expenses avoided by using four Ospreys instead of 16 helicopters and the savings are about $224 million, Masiello said.

Another internal Marine Corps analysis done last year that employs a measure of efficiency favored by civilian airlines – cost per seat mile, meaning cost per flight hour per passenger per mile – found that the Osprey's speed and range make it much cheaper on that basis than Marine Corps and Navy helicopters. Using the Osprey's fiscal 2010 flight hour cost of $11,651 per flight hour, this study pegged the 24-passenger V-22's cost per seat mile at $1.76 compared to $2.84 for the Navy's seven-passenger MH-60S Black Hawk, $3.17 for the 12-passenger CH-46 Sea Knight, and $3.12 for the 24-passenger CH-53E Super Stallion.

Against that background, foreign interest in buying Ospreys, which evaporated after the crashes of 2000, is warming up. Israel recently showed serious interest by sending a team of experts to New River Marine Corps Air Station in North Carolina to spend some time kicking the tires and flying the Osprey. Bell-Boeing says as many as a dozen nations may end up buying V-22s. This suggests that those who take the time to learn the latest facts about the Osprey are impressed (http://defense.aol.com/2011/07/18/cutting-navy-carrier-maybe-maybe-not/). And that's no fairy tale.

[The Sultan]

Sas,

The Osprey's secret is not letting your enemy know your coming 10 minutes ahead of time as it is so quiet in cruise, and not lumbering off of an LZ after a mission, but departing at a high level of acceleration.


The Sultan

[SASless]

The Osprey's secret is not letting your enemy know your coming 10 minutes ahead of time as it is so quiet in cruise, and not lumbering off of an LZ after a mission, but departing at a high level of acceleration.


You are a broken record here as usual Sultan.....you talk lots and say nothing.

You have been asked time after time to provide some data, facts, figures, videos, reports, first hand accounts to buttress your statements......but yet all you do is repeat the same ol' generalities.

Do you think we are giving you any credence when you post such thins as that quoted above?

Have you served in combat flying Osprey's or helicopters....and if so when, where and in which unit so we can assess your bona fides? Seems only fair as you present yourself as an expert on the Osprey and we know there are very few of them about the place.

[jeffg]

Or....should we be asking questions like....."Did we plan this mission properly? Did we become predictable in our Tactics and thus fall prey to the enemy adapting to our tactics? Did we have airborne surviellance assets over head scanning the LZ and surrounds for enemy activity? If we did...was there a failure in capability, command and control, and/or application of technology/assets? Were on-scene Troops properly tasked/resourced for the mission? Was there effectively coordination of all units tasked? Was Command and Control elements properly informed, knowledgeable, and in effective control of all units/assets/resources? Are we getting complacent due to the sheer number of these operations being undertaken? Are the units involved in these missions experiencing over-saturation? Are the Rules of Engagement too restrictive? Did the engaged units receive adequate and timely support from Tube Artillery, Scout and Attack helicopters, and Tactical Aircraft?"


For once I couldn't agree with you more. My question to you is this. If instead of a CH-47 it was a V-22 that this happened to would the V-22 naysayers ask these questions or would they immeadiately assume it was the fault of the aircraft and insinuate that something was being covered up when officials said otherwise?

Fact of the matter is none of us on here has enough information to say that one aircraft would have been better suited for this mission than another, so we shouldn't.

[SansAnhedral]

You have been asked time after time to provide some data, facts, figures, videos, reports, first hand accounts to buttress your statements......but yet all you do is repeat the same ol' generalities.

Fact is, the studies have been done. There is data. And it is currently classified, as it should be.

[Dan Reno]

Gee, why didn't I think of that.

[SansAnhedral]

So if the F22 is operated by the USAF, and they can claim that its stealth attributes prevent it from being detected effectively by modern SAM systems, you want them to give you the actual ranges at which it would be detected to assuage your suspicions, and justify their commentary?

The marines say over and over how much quieter the Osprey is upon approach prior to conversion. Most normal human beings who have seen one at an airshow will agree on the spot.

I dont understand what you want here.

[SASless]

Sans,

Having lived smack dab in the middle of the New River training area for the Osprey....and having a wee bit of experience listening to them and other aircraft to include every single helicopter in the military's inventory and those of the UK, France, Italy, and more than a few other countries I know what the Osprey sounds like. As you state in the quote....in cruise mode it is perhaps a bit quieter but in helicopter mode that is another thing altogether. Likewise we are aware of the limits placed upon the aircraft during descent and slow airspeeds while in the "Hover" mode of flight. We also know what avionics are installed as that is not a "secret".

Combine that with the capabilities and method of operation of an RPG....and most normal people you refer to would have reasonable questions as to just how superior the Osprey really is as suggested by your dear friend and colleague "Sultan".

He is the one calling the Chinook noisy, slow, lumbering and obselete. All I am asking is he prove his claim.

Don't give us this "If I tell you I will have to kill you!" hogwash. As usual, you and Sultan cloak yourself in flag and country when challenged to support your comments.

Sultan stated the "interconnect shaft" was excess to need for if it fails on the Osprey all that happens is a Caution Light illuminates. Now I suggest to you that is not a classified system and is not protected by OpSec criteria. If you insist I can hit google and within five minutes give you a full description of the technology and engineering design concept published by Bell-Boeing on the issue.

When asked to substantiate that claim....we hear nothing more from Sultan.

All I asked for is a technical discussion of Tilt Rotor technology that is incorporated into the AW-609 and earlier models of the Bell Tilt Rotor aircraft dating back to probably the 1950's.

Now how about you take a position.....is the Osprey Interconnect Shaft a required item or is it not as Sultan states?

Is that an impossible question for you to answer.....but as we do know the right answer you will find it impossible to answer and side with Sultan at the same time.

[Dan Reno]

Crickets.....

[heli1]

I think SASless is losing the plot ...and the argument.The only advantage the Chinook would have had in the situation was that it could carry a heavier payload ,maybe that was the need?
Otherwise the Osprey could indeed have moved in and out more quickly and presented less of a target opportunity...but huge propoganda kudos for the Taliban if they managed to shoot a tiltrotor down.

[Dan Reno]

Would the Taliban Have Hit an Osprey?

By Carlo Munoz (http://defense.aol.com/bloggers/carlo-munoz)
Published: August 10, 2011

http://o.aolcdn.com/mars/10436/471/265/mv-22--sand.jpg
Washington: The loss of 38 American soldiers, including members of SEAL Team Six, this week is spawning more questions than answers as DoD begins to piece together what happened that night in eastern Afghanistan.

Gen. John Allen, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, tried to answer some of those questions (http://www.pentagonchannel.mil/?pid=xPanjuxUzIxWF_S0JLO9fkszdSRXU0jg&player=GovDelivery) during yesterday's briefing at DoD.

One question was why an regular Army CH-47 Chinook, and not a special operations-type aircraft like a Blackhawk or Osprey, was used during the mission.

The 30-man quick reaction force deployed late Tuesday night to Wardak province, where Army Rangers had come under fire while hunting down a regional Taliban leader in the area.

As the force entered the landing zone, the helicopter was hit by enemy fire, destroying the Chinook and killing all aboard.

Allen said the incident was not "a decision point" to judge the Chinook's battlefield capability, adding the helo would continue to perform similar ops in the future.

But as the details of the incident begin to surface, the question still remains: If the team was on a different aircraft, would they have had a better shot of coming home alive?

One long time defense observer and reporter suggests they could have, if they had been aboard a Osprey.

In an article penned by Richard Whittle (http://defense.aol.com/2011/08/09/the-v-22-safer-than-helos-effective-worth-buying/), the man who literally wrote the book on the V-22, the aircraft's speed and durability may have been the edge those U.S. troops needed to get out of the Tangi valley.

During its entire time with the Marine Corps and Air Force Special Operations Command, an Osprey has never been brought down because of hostile fire, Whittle says.

"Why things don't happen [in theater] is often impossible to prove, but one probable reason for this is that it may be harder to hit a V-22 than a helicopter with the sort of weapons at the Taliban's disposal," he added.

While the V-22 does land and takeoff in the same way as a helicopter, it can get out of dangerous landing zones -- where helos are most vulnerable to attack -- faster, since it can switch to a fixed-wing aircraft in mid flight.

But speed and maneuverability alone may not have been enough to save those troops, defense aviation expert Joel Johnson said.

"I would think that anything that [can fly] higher and faster is going to be less susceptible" to enemy fire, including the type of rocket-propelled grenade that hit the Chinook, he said.

For his part, Allen would not confirm the helo was hit with an RPG as has been reported by several news outlets.

However, even if Ospreys were used that night, the situation on the ground may have prevented it from using its speed to full effect, Johnson pointed out. "Were they coming in high and going down fast, as you learn to do in a place like Iraq where they did have missiles," he said.

Another defense source with knowledge of counterterrorism operations noted there are just too many unknowns to say for sure an Osprey would have made a difference.

What altitude was the Chinook flying at when hit? How many RPG's were fired at the helo before it was hit and were Ospreys even available at the time of the mission, the source said.

"We have no idea how the engagement was," the source said. "You get three or four of those [RPGs] coming at you at fairly short range, you're hosed."

But until the answer to that question and others surrounding the mission are resolved by DoD (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=64980), it is unclear whether any kind of aircraft would have changed the outcome of what is now the single largest loss of U.S. soldiers in the Afghan war.

[SansAnhedral]

SAS

Once again.....what could possibly be used as evidence here???

How does anyone "prove a claim"??? How does anyone "substantiate a claim"?

What is it you want to see posted? Give an example of what could be considered proof of anything. This doesnt cut it I assume.


Compared to both helicopters and conventional turboprops, the Osprey has a lower acoustic signature due to the tiltrotor's reduced rotor rotational speed. It also uses very low thrust for cruise propulsion. The V-22 flying in aircraft mode produces a distinctive sound, described by observers as a "throaty and muted hum - more like a vehicle than a helicopter." The observers noted that, in combined operations, the steady buzz of the MV-22 was frequently masked until the last minute by the "whop-whop noise" of AH-1 Cobras and UH-1 Hueys that were supporting nearby. Overall, as compared to the CH-46, the MV-22 is less noisy while in the aircraft mode, and provides comparable acoustic acquisition cues while operating in the helicopter mode.


Regarding the ISS, to me, its a system of shafts and your claim of a singular "shaft" being necessary is flawed.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/2eng.gif
Under normal, two engine operations, each engine delivers its power to its corresponding proprotor through the PRGB. Only a small amount of power (511 hp max) is transferred down the pylon mounted drive shaft, through the TAGB and down the interconnecting drive shaft to the MWGB. The MWGB contains the auxiliary power unit (APU), the constant frequency generator and the variable frequency generator. The MWGB transmits power between the left and right interconnecting drive shafts without changing speed or direction of rotation.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/1eng.gif

During single engine operation, power is distributed from the remaining engine to both proprotors through the interconnecting drive shaft. This diagram shows this condition with the right engine failed.

So basically outside of OEI conditions, there are a pair of shafts feeding the MWGB. If one is lost, APU and generators should still be fed by the other. If both shafts were lost, you would lose the generators, and I would assume there are other backups to keep the system airworthy (DC bus battery?).

Do you interpret this differently?

[SASless]

During its entire time with the Marine Corps and Air Force Special Operations Command, an Osprey has never been brought down because of hostile fire, Whittle says.


Sounds good to the ear doesn't it?

Now let's ask the same old questions.....what data is that comment based upon?

Is there a comparative analysis of exposure rates, numbers of flights in similar circumstances, has the Osprey been exposed to equal risks, have a study been done to critically examine the comparisons?

I think it is plain to all the Chinook and Black Hawk have borne the brunt of operations in Afghanistan and common knowledge also confirms the Marines have been transported by Army Chinooks as well as the Osprey.

To merely say no Osprey has been lost to hostile fire does not tell the whole story....after a thorough analysis of this particular event....one cannot make any valid claim to superiority of one airframe over another. If the Taliban did set a trap as has been suggested by some sources....perhaps the end result would have been the same no matter which aircraft was attempting to enter that valley.

By the way....I haven't lost the plot.....just suggesting there does in fact exist a "plot" to over-sell the Osprey for "political" reasons.


Sans,

You posted while I was writing this post. I just went back using the "Search" feature to locate the exact post Sultan made which kicked off this discussion of the "I Shaft's". Alas, I was unable to find that post either by going back through the thread here or while using the search feature. I wanted to quote that post so we could each see exactly what was posted and thus clarify the issue at hand.

Being unable to do that now.....for what ever reason the post is gone....I hope you will accept my recollection of what Sultan said that prompted my question about the validity of his very vague description of the Shaft System.

I understood him to be comparing the Chinook Synch Shaft, a single long shaft made up of several shorter shafts, that connect the combining gear box to each of the Main Transmissions whose purpose is to drive the main rotors and keep them from meshing....to the Osprey system and was suggesting the Osprey system of shafting was not really needed (or words to that effect) as if there was a failure of the shaft(s) or for reason, the only thing that happened was a cockpit caution/warning light would illuminate.

I am sure in the Osprey such a failure is far more significant than merely lighting up a caution light....which is why I took issue with Sultan's comments.

The Chinook does have a weak link in the the Synch Shaft as if it fails for whatever reason.....the aircraft will self destruct quickly, fatally, and catastropically. That being said.....the old girls have been around for a very long time and are remarkable helicopters.

Likewise, I am sure the Osprey has its Achilles Heels failures as well. Hopefully with the improvements in design and technology as many of these as possible have been elimaated as possible.

I will give your post a good read and get back with a response. No doubt but you have it right. By providing us with the diagram and explanation, you are advancing the discussion and I appreciate it.... I am sure others do as well.

[Dan Reno]

Sans

Are you saying that should a DS be severed, the other rotor would be able to maintain an RPM close enough to the other, via engine control, so that there would be no loss of flight control?

[SASless]

Looking at the diagram Sans provided....it appears each engine/prop rotor could mechanically operate individually without benefit of the I-Shaft system. Without both engines running and a failure of the I-Shaft system I can see the end result is not pretty....only one Prop Rotor being driven. Depending what mode of flight and Airspeed/Altitude combination it might be possible (I am assuming here....)to continue flight with the one remaining engine. If the aircraft was in the Hover Mode (Helicopter Mode) at a low forward airspeed...and less than about 1600 feet or so....it would be a very interesting proposition re surviving the Emergency Landing as we know the Height/Velocity Curve for that conditon of flight has lots of bright RED. (Hover Mode/OEI....Hover Mode/Both Engine Fail). The odds of both engines failing simultaneously/almost simultaneously are very slim. One engine failing after entry to Hover Mode and below the Minimum Safe Height for recovery to Forward flight in the Airplane Mode is the range of flight that needs explaining as well. Just how large a Red Area is there on the H/V chart for that flight condition.

Compared to the Chinook and its Synch Shaft....the Osprey would have a distinct advantage.

Now the question that is begged....how does the Crew controlled Prop Rotor Speeds, pitch settings and the like to equalize the Torque/RPM/Power output for the Engines with such a failure.....which is up to the Osprey knowledgeable folks here to answer as I have no clue. It sounds doable in theory...but in reality I wonder. Hopefully, someone will come forth and enlighten us.

Did find the post made earlier by Sultan that prompted this exchange about the I-Shaft on the Osprey as compared to the Synch Shaft on the Chinook.

Saturday Shows Crippling Flaws

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

The Chinook: big, slow, noisy and with a critical flaw. If you hit the interconnect shaft game over as the rotors collide and destroys the aircraft. On the V-22 take out the interconnect shaft and you get a caution light.

The Sultan

[The Sultan]

Sas

Been around Chinooks and V-22's many times. These videos say it all (cannot cheat science):

Chinook, imagine sneaking up on someone with this:

fly by chinook - YouTube

V-22 or this:

2009 Indianapolis Air Show MV-22 Flyby - YouTube

In my extensive experience these are representative.

As to your other post on how a tilt rotor handles a failed interconnect shaft they are call standard inputs to cyclic, pedal, and thrust lever (collective to you)

The Sultan

[JohnDixson]

Sultan, you wrote:

"As to your other post on how a tilt rotor handles a failed interconnect shaft they are call standard inputs to cyclic, pedal, and thrust lever (collective to you)"

Not quite the case OEI, is it?

Thanks,
John Dixson

[SASless]

Again Sultan......same sound systems, same location, same distance from the sound sensors?

No.....thus apples and oranges as to being an empirical test.

Now tell us again how it is only a caution light that comes on after a failure of the I-Shafts? How does that work?

If Ali Taliban smacks an RPG into the engine nacelle of an Osprey....and takes out one end of the I-Shaft and the ass end of the engine at the same time...and the Osprey is at three hundred feet AGL and say fifty knots....thus rendering the aircraft OEI and no I-Shaft....how does the Pilot handle that situation?

An excerpt from an Aviation Technical Magazine article about the Osprey....

Traditionally, autorotation is a required air-worthiness capability for military rotorcraft. High rotor disk loading and low rotor inertia places V-22 well outside the nominal autorotation envelope of existing rotorcraft. Basic rotorcraft engineering analysis indicates that the V-22 will have a difficult time achieving a stable autorotation following a sudden power failure at high power setting, and that the probability of a successful autorotational landing from a stable autorotative descent is very low.

Seems to be pretty much like a Chinook at the same point, speed, and all when an RPG takes out the Synch shaft is it not?

[SansAnhedral]

Sultan, you wrote:

"As to your other post on how a tilt rotor handles a failed interconnect shaft they are call standard inputs to cyclic, pedal, and thrust lever (collective to you)"

Not quite the case OEI, is it?

Thanks,
John Dixson

No its not! Nor was it ever claimed! Nor the case TEI, is it? I completely fail to see the relevence of that post here.

We talk about and basically verify the fact that the ISS does not need to be intact during normal flight/both engines operating. Therefore, the argument has now shifted to the fact that if the ISS fails, AND the V22 goes OEI, there will be trouble.

Gee, ya think so???

[SASless]

It is very much the case Sans.....as you quoted Sultan.....I now again quote him....care to address the issue now? His post is the reason we are having this discussion.....patently plain to see what he said and meant by his comment.


If you hit the interconnect shaft game over as the rotors collide and destroys the aircraft. On the V-22 take out the interconnect shaft and you get a caution light.

Now lets assume it is an RPG hit....and that hit whacks the I-Shaft and takes out the engine at the same time....which is quite possible with a lucky hit....same as a lucky hit on the Chinook. As they are both possible and certainly within the realm of consideration...how do you see it turning out for the Osprey on final for the LZ while in the "Hover Mode" used for landing and at whatever airspeed the aircraft would be at 300-400 feet agl (remembering our 800 FPM ROD restriction below 40 knots IAS)?

Or....to keep things in perspective....what if we take an engine slap off the side of a Chinook and do the same thing to an Osprey...Which aircraft is superior? The modern hot to trot Osprey or the ancient lumbering obselete Chinook?

[SansAnhedral]

Seems to be pretty much like a Chinook at the same point, speed, and all when an RPG takes out the Synch shaft is it not?

We could agree to that statement if we would equate a lucky "shot to the side of the nacelle, taking out the engine and ISS half shaft" with "shot anywhere on a chinook that takes out the sync shaft"

The chinook fails catastrophically with a single point of failure. Rotor self annihilation, no autorotation.

The V22 needs to fail BOTH the engine and ISS shaft to be in a similar situation.

:confused:

[SASless]

But a single hit at their common meeting point is the same as as single point isn't it?

There is only so many ways to separate critical bits....and I would assume the Osprey is prey to that problem if you introduce something like and RPG that can knock out a Tank and make huge holes in aircraft.

Dare we bring up the subject of autorotational capabilities of the Osprey?

Did not the Marine Corps say it wasn't really necessary as a dual failure of engines was a one in a billion chance.....shortly before an aircraft on a flight out west had icing problems that caused both engines to fail. Fortunately the aircraft was at altitude and in airplane mode and had time to restart the engines on its way downhill. Had it been in another situation it could have been a lot different.

[rjsquirrel]

The crashworthiness and ballistic tolerance of the V-22 is literally decades ahead of the Chinook, basically because it was designed decades afterward. The Chinook meets the basic standards of a civil helicopter from 1965 or so, because the Army had no special standards for crew protection, crashworthiness, fire resistence or battle damage back then. The same can be said of the Huey, BTW. Literally all the changes that the Chinook has seen since then have been for performance or operational capability, but have done little in the survivability area.
The V-22 meets standards that are tough, similar to the Black Hawk or Apache.
That doesn't mean that either is able to take an RPG hit and keep on flying, but it does tell a bit about what would happen after the hit, regarding breakup and or fire.

[SASless]

http://members.tripod.com/frenchys_205/0a2ad1c0.jpg


Photo of a Chinook downed by an RPG while recovering a Cobra Helicopter. The FE was killed and the rest of the crew were hit by groundfire while exiting or outside the aircraft. The aircraft was hit while departing from a hostile LZ with the underslung Cobra...and was beginning to climb when hit.

The RPG killed the Port side engine, severed fuel lines, and wiring harnesses in the area of the engine after punching a hole through the fuel cell on the starboard side of the aircraft. At least one of the main transmissions lost all luubrication fluid.

Fortunately there wasn't anything solid enough to slow the round and the explosive charge went off after it had penetrated the starboard side of the aircraft (It was assumed.....) and there was only a flash fire. The aircraft was recovered by a CH-54 later and was sent back to the factory for rebuild. It is very likely it wound up being a "D" model and could still be flying today.

[Furia]

Although many details about its operations in Afghanistan and "other countries" are not much public, the fact is that the people using it, just love it.
Since this is the first kind of aircraft of a new class, I am sure there are is a lot of things to improve and learn, but I am sure that we are going to see a lot of Tiltrotors in short future in the military and in the civilian world.

For those of us flying maritime SAR, having such a platfform, with that range, speed and capabilities would be a dream and honestly if the hover perfomance and maneurability are like the one you can appreciate on the videos, I would trade my AW139 or the S-92 or the EC225 by such aircraft riight away.
I am wonder how long it will take to see US Coast Guard Ospreys.

IVoksf_2y5k

And although the AW609 is a little bit small for my taste, it is expected to get its civilian certification shortly.

UCqET_9NSJc

[The Sultan]

For a single hit to take out both and engine would be a golden bullet as the nacelles and fuselage protect any critical point. As the V-22 travels so much faster this is really extremely improbable (not the extremely improbable that Sikorsky used to explain the S-92, but a real one).

On the Chinook you need not only to only hit one gearbox or the shaft, but can have total loss from a seemingly minor event (initiated by a chip light):

Daily Union - Google News Archive Search (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=LzVcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tFUNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5293,6329593&dq=chinook+crash&hl=en)

As most who died were parachutist many lives could have been saved by ordering an immediate evacuation instead of trying to return to the field.

The Sultan

[Lonewolf_50]

After the loss of our brave war fighters in one obsolete slow helicopter I believe the V-22 will surge ahead and the Army will begin buying.
Nope. Army doesn't have a mission requirement for Osprey.
The UH-60M seems to meet their needs. As I understand the program, eventually ~ 1200 UH-60M will flesh out the Blackhawk fleet, mixed in with UH-60L. I don't know if final AoB will closer to 2500 or 3000, since some of that is driven by how many divisions // RCT's remain after the next DoD belt tightening, and how TOE for Guard and Reserve units get restructured. There are a lot of unanswered questions on that score.
I am wonder how long it will take to see US Coast Guard Ospreys.
I seriously doubt they'll buy any.
Given its cost, see above on mission requirement.
Heck, I'm a bit surprised they keep Dolphin and Jayhawk. I am sure there's a reason, but for my money, Jayhawk is the better capability for the budget dollar. (We got any Coasties posting?)

[SASless]

Army Aviation takes up 7 percent of the Army's manpower and 20 percent of the Army budget. The Army spends about 7.5 Billion Dollars per year on Aviation. The Army is trying to organize its 13th Active Duty Aviation Brigade which is a five year project. Army Brass are waiting to see how deeply the Army's budget gets cut....to see what the future budgeting will allow them to do.

Top of the list for desired purchases is a replacement for the OH058 Warrior. The Army delayed the purchase while spending 250 Million Dollars converting 58D models to 58F models. The 101st Combat Aviation Brigade shall field a mixed unit of UAV's and 58F's for testing operational procedures.

The Army Blackhawk and Chinook fleets have seen an operational tempo five times planned due to Iraq and Afghanistan without a decrease in readiness or an increase in accident rates.

The Army is committed to building a new generation of helicopter by 2030 but have yet to finalize what the design shall be.

With budget cuts coming.....there is fat chance the Army will buy Ospreys due to the cost alone.

[Jack Carson]

The Blackhawk and the Apache were both designed in the 1970s to meet Mil Std 1290. This was a very aggressive approach to ballistic and crash worthiness. Attributes included in Mil Std 1290 were: 32 fps crash attenuating landing gear, 42 fps crash attenuating airframe structure, fuel cells drop tested from 65 ft and a ballistic tolerant main airframe structure for up to 23 mm weapons. This capability was provided for at a significant weight penalty. The Blackhawk was procured to replace the 14 passenger UH-1H. The UH-1H’s empty weight was approx. 6000 lbs. while a similar 14 passenger Blackhawk has an empty weight of 11,500 lbs. Most of the weight difference was due to meeting Mil Std 1290. If you fast forward to the V-22 and Bell’s UH-1Y, both aircraft received wavers from Mil Std 1290 citing an inability to meet mission requirements at the higher weights required to meet spec. I do not believe that any aircraft subsequent to the Blackhawk and Apache have had to meet the requirements of Mil Std 1290. I am sure that the V-22 is a relatively robust machine but it cannot be compared to the Blackhawk or Apache for survivability.

[SASless]

Here is an interesting propaganda pamphlet about the Osprey. It does answer some questions but there are some "interestng questions begged".

I really enjoyed the deck space requirement diagram comparing the H-46 and MV-22.......as they orient the two aircraft cross ways.....which only shows the fact that the Osprey is as wide as the 46 is long. I don't think that is what they were trying to say....but then it is a sales brochure and not a fair discussion of facts.

They also mentioned a 3000 pound payload at 10,000 feet.....in helicopter mode....not bad for what....12,300 horsepower or something like that?



http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/MungoBlobs/212/888/V-22%2021010%20Guidebook.pdf

[Dan Reno]

SAS

Are you saying the written material that claims that payload isn't correct? Careful SAS, I had a comment deleted when I spouted that false data had been given out.

Dad

[Jack Carson]

You have to love numbers, especially when you only have half of the facts. The V-22’s 3000 lb. payload at ISA 10,000 ft. was for a 70 NM flight. The V-22’s takeoff weight at 10,000 ft PA is approximately 40,000 (per the brochure). As SAS stated, this is accomplished starting with almost 13,000 ESHP. For comparison the UH-60M will carry two times the payload (6000 lbs.) 70 NM using only 3988 ESHP and the CH-53E would carry 15,000 lbs of payload 70 NM on the same 13,000 ESHP.

[SASless]

Dan, I make no editorial comment beyond that I did about the length/width diagram.

When was the last time a 46 landed cross ways on a LHA deck? I always thought they landed longways as ships by nature are long and narrow.

I posted the link to the Bell-Boeing source so anyone can read what they say....and make their own observations about what they read.

[Lonewolf_50]

SAS, as you know, a comms and data handling suites are required kit in currently procured military helicopters. That is rooted in Command and Control requirements that get overlaid on most systems (so that the brass can better micromanage the battlespace :p ).
So too is all weather capability.
Each of these required features adds weight.

If all you want is a VFR only load picker upper (a stripped down pick up truck if you will), get an off-the-shelf KMAX. :)

In other news regarding weight penalties, have heard that USN is going forward with aluminum gear boxes on Seahawks (a mod, I think) to begin within the next five years. This puzzles me, since gearbox positioning will (with the added weight) probably necessitate a non trivial retuning of the tail boom.

This change of material is apparently driven by the corrosion bogey and the environmental bogey (chromate primers, for example, becoming environmentally non-PC).

We'll see if this actually pans out.

Anyone familiar enough with that angle in NAVAIR or Sikorsky to comment?

If that's the case, I'd expect Knighthawks (CH-60S/MH-60S) to be backfitted. Don't think Army will pony up for Al gearboxes, not in the thousands, due to above cited fiscal realities.

IOC on OH-58F: is it in the field? D is still alive and well.

FWIW: my guess is that Sikorsky S-97 is a player for the follow on to OH-58D.

[The Sultan]

Sas.

Need to go back to flight school. Often vertical lift approach from the side to their spot not down the deck. As to deck spacing their are no amphibs which can take two side by side running 46's next to the island. By deck configuration and geo probably more running V-22's can be fitted on a LHD than 46's.

As to the high altitude capability of the UH-60 only this needs to be considered (and carrying only four crew):

Shockwave Mount Hood Helicopter Crash *Edited* - YouTube

Looks like a prequel to Abbotabad except they had only a few feet to fall.

The Sultan

[SASless]

By deck configuration and geo probably more running V-22's can be fitted on a LHD than 46's.



Sultan,

More than a few of us have landed aboard ship and other decks and know the procedures for landing aboard. No one said anything about landing down the deck. It was said....the aircraft landed oriented fore and aft.....as compared to athwartships on the Gator carriers.

If you use the diagram from the Guide....it shows the 46 overlayed on the 22...and what stands out is the 22 is as wide as the 46. When was the last time a 46 was spotted for turn-up and takeoff athwartships next to the island of a Gator Carrier?

Simple point being made....perhaps beyond your grasp is the 22 is one very wide aircraft with rotors in the 90 degree position (helicopter mode) and there are certain areas of the Gator Carriers that are not much wider thus a reduced safety margin as compared to the 46.

As to the Mount Hood crash....did you read the accident report for the cause of that? Perhaps you might and explain what that has to do with the Osprey's Guide Book figure of 3000 pounds payload for a landing in helicopter mode at 10,000 feet and enough fuel to fly 70 NM after takeoff?

Do you know what the difference between an out of ground effect hover and a landing to the ground is? You grasp what trying to hover in a downward column of air is like on the side of a mountain such as Mt. Hood does for helicopter perfrormance?

Have you even ridden in a helicopter?

[Jack Carson]

Sikorsky gear box housings have traditionally been made from magnesium. It was determined that the housings were a weak element in the in the system. Gear boxes returned for repair or overhaul required housing replacements well short the overhaul cycle due to corrosion. In response to this Sikorsky began coating the outer surfaces to protect the housing against corrosion. This began in the early 1990s. I believe that it was either a substance called sermatech or rockhard. It was baked onto the outer surface as part of the manufacturing process. Aluminum would have a similar problem with corrosion in the salt environment. Any change may be driven by NAVAIR.

[The Sultan]

Sas,

The 46 is an old Vietnam tail shedding not to good helicopter. Competent pilots have no problem landing the V-22.

I do know well the difference between IGE and OGE. Hate to tell you, you eventually have to be OGE before or after IGE unless you want to get whacked by some R. Read Roberts Ridge.

The Sultan

[SASless]

The 46 is an old Vietnam tail shedding not to good helicopter. Competent pilots have no problem landing the V-22.

I do know well the difference between IGE and OGE. Hate to tell you, The 46 is an old Vietnam tail shedding not to good helicopter. Competent pilots have no problem landing the V-22.

I do know well the difference between IGE and OGE. Hate to tell you, you eventually have to be OGE before or after IGE unless you want to get whacked by some R. Read Roberts Ridge.
Read Roberts Ridge.


Can someone translate this post into understandable English?


you eventually have to be OGE before or after IGE unless you want to get whacked by some R.


R....R....Huh?


As to your suggested reading assignment.....that is but one of the three books about that fight where very Brave Men flew, fought, were wounded, and were killed. In the past you attempted to denigrate the service of those folks and I pointed out how offensive that was. You sought at that time to suggest the Chinook Pilots had somehow contributed to the tragic outcome to that event. You were wrong then and you are doubly wrong now because you know better.

The complete reading list of the three books in recommended order of reading:

Robert's Ridge: A Story of Courage and Sacrifice on Takur Ghar Mountain
Author: Malcolm McPherson 9780553803631

Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operaton Redwing
Author: Marcus Luttrell 978031607591

Not A Good Day To Die: The Untold Story of Operation Anaconda
Author: Sean Naylor 9780425196090

The first two will tell the story of what happened on the ground.

The third book will explain why it happened and what went so terribly wrong.

Micro-managing combat from thousands of miles away is paramount to Murder! During Vietnam, Battalion Commanders flew overhead in their C&C helicopters and caused problems....but the modern version of that is absolutely ridiculous!

[Furia]

Lonewolf.

I will not discard that idea so fast. Considering that the Osprey can do most of the jobs the actual fleet of 30 Coast Guard C-130, the CG could have a multirole platform that can patrol and operate at distances never seen before for a helicopter.

Many other countries Coast Guard services use also maritime parol aircrafts for multitude of roles.

I am not flying for the US Coast Guard but for the Spanish one however I believe the USCG would be more than happy to have such platfform that can fly farther, avoid weather better, hoist up a sizeable number of people and if equiped with mid air refueling equipment they can bring SAR anywhere and as long as it is needed.
This is what I would call, "more punch for the buck"
Now for less range range hoist operations, the Coast Guard have a fleet of HH-60, hh-65 and the C-130.
In the age of "multirole" platforms, it doesn't seems to me such a bad idea to consider a platform that could make more and better.

I would trade my Aw139 SAR any minute for an V-22.
:O

[SansAnhedral]

The Blackhawk and the Apache were both designed in the 1970s to meet Mil Std 1290. This was a very aggressive approach to ballistic and crash worthiness. Attributes included in Mil Std 1290 were: 32 fps crash attenuating landing gear, 42 fps crash attenuating airframe structure, fuel cells drop tested from 65 ft and a ballistic tolerant main airframe structure for up to 23 mm weapons. This capability was provided for at a significant weight penalty. The Blackhawk was procured to replace the 14 passenger UH-1H. The UH-1H’s empty weight was approx. 6000 lbs. while a similar 14 passenger Blackhawk has an empty weight of 11,500 lbs. Most of the weight difference was due to meeting Mil Std 1290. If you fast forward to the V-22 and Bell’s UH-1Y, both aircraft received wavers from Mil Std 1290 citing an inability to meet mission requirements at the higher weights required to meet spec. I do not believe that any aircraft subsequent to the Blackhawk and Apache have had to meet the requirements of Mil Std 1290. I am sure that the V-22 is a relatively robust machine but it cannot be compared to the Blackhawk or Apache for survivability.

First of all, survivability /= crashworthiness. The V22 is by far much more survivable than either of those machines in the current threat environment.

Secondly, strict adherence to full 1290 conformity was determined not to be necessary or cost effective.

A systems approach to crashworthiness was used in the V-22 design to assure a high level of occupant crash protection for minimum weight. An estimated 90th percentile level (i.e., 36.5 ft/sec vertical velocity change) of crash protection was found to be most cost-effective for the advanced development model V-22 with a total crashworthiness weight impact of 1.4 percent DGW compared to 6 percent DGW for a MIL-STD-1290, 95th percentile (i.e., 42 ft/sec vertical velocity change) design.

[SASless]

How was this decision arrived at? Where does the V-22 differ and what trade-offs offset the 1290 standards that would provide an equal or better level of protection?

It would be interesting to see the rationale used where differences exist just to understand the validity for the variance as there might be some very good reasons for it.

As the Army opted out of the V-22 program very early on....is there a coorealtion between that decision and the Navy/Marine Corps/Air Force standards being in variance to that of the Army re crashworthiness standards.

As the Air Force and Navy operate Blackhawks....there should be some commonality between the standards it would seem.

[JohnDixson]

Sans,

Are you saying then that unlike the UH-60, your rotors were not subjected to to 23 mm test hits?

Thanks,
John Dixson

[SansAnhedral]

John,

Not sure what you mean by "my" rotors. I'm merely a tiltrotor fan, I dont own one.

And, I didnt think I would need to go over this, but it sounds like you dont understand the concept of survivability as defined. Its a combination of susceptibility, vulnerability, and crashworthiness. On the susceptibility level particularly, the V22 is leap years beyond other rotorcraft assets in the field today, directly due to its flight profile abilities.

And during LFT&E: 7.62 API, 12.7mm API, 14.5mm API, 23mm API and HEI, and 30mm HEI. 592 shots in all. DOT&E considered the MV22 as suitable for a medium threat environment.

Extensive ballistic vulnerability live fire test program in which the threat weapons did not succeed in disabling the aircraft

http://pogoarchives.org/m/dp/dp-V22-dote-092005.pdf

So I am not sure what you were getting at with the question?

[SASless]

Read page 35 an on....particularly about Engine failures and the note that confirms the vulnerability of the 22 while in Helicopter mode and external load operations.

Also...the report stresses avoidance as a means of survivablilty which makes sense up to the point the aircraft encounters hostile fire close to the Landing Area....which ramps up the threat level to Hi-Intensity and also challenges the maneurablitly of the 22.

Just reading from the linked report......not making any personal commentary.

[JohnDixson]

Sans,

I read the report and did not read a simple statement that the prop rotors were shot at by 23 mm shells and survived the hits. I know it was a very high profile test on our UTTAS design, and the pictures of the MR blade/spar after the hits were shown all over the place ( in fact the Army was quite specific about how the blades were to be fired at ). Judging by the various other pictures in that report, I'm wondering where the ballistic damage pictures are.

Thanks,
John Dixson

[SansAnhedral]

Read page 35 an on....particularly about Engine failures and the note that confirms the vulnerability of the 22 while in Helicopter mode and external load operations.

Sure everything is vulnerable in the "all hell breaks loose" TEI or magic bullet RPG that takes out the engine and ISS scenario.

I seemed to read much more into the following comment, which seemingly flies in the face of the low altitude hover survivability argument against the V22:

Page 35
Due to its high power, the ability of the V22 to survive single engine failures during low altitude hover is excellent -- better than the legacy transport helicopters it replaces.

[SansAnhedral]

I read the report and did not read a simple statement that the prop rotors were shot at by 23 mm shells and survived the hits. I know it was a very high profile test on our UTTAS design, and the pictures of the MR blade/spar after the hits were shown all over the place ( in fact the Army was quite specific about how the blades were to be fired at ). Judging by the various other pictures in that report, I'm wondering where the ballistic damage pictures are.

So, are you operating under the assumption that the statement

Extensive ballistic vulnerability live fire test program in which the threat weapons did not succeed in disabling the aircraft

excludes the un-arguably flight critical rotor blades? The lack of pictures in this report does not surprise me, since its only making passing reference to the seperate LFT&E report from 2000.

[JohnDixson]

Sans,

Color me skeptical, I guess. The prop rotors should have been fired at along the critical axis, and the the specimen put in a test rig and subjected to flight light loads, derived from flight test. No chance of seeing the relevant part of that other report, I guess? I'm not saying Bell/Boeing didn't do some testing, just that the grammar in the report you provided reads more like marketing material.

I'm also skeptical about the assertion that the low hover HV capability is superior to legacy machines. I have an older copy of the V-22 HV curve marked Change 1. Do you have access to the current chart? The chart I have shows the low hover limit for 12 fps at 10 ft.


Thanks,
John

[Jack Carson]

Quote:
Due to its high power, the ability of the V22 to survive single engine failures during low altitude hover is excellent -- better than the legacy transport helicopters it replaces.

I guess it depends on which legacy helicopters you are going to use for comparison. The CH-53E loses just 24% of its installed ESHP with single engine failure power. (2X 5000 ESHP two engines operating vs 13110 ESHP with all three operating). Similarly, the Blackhawk has a robust contingency power rating available for emergency OEI conditions. I believe that the Blackhawk loses only 36% of its duel engine power available. JD may be able to help me out here on the specifics of the Blackhawk OEI capabilities. In the case of the CH-53E two engine fly away is capability is present under most mission scenarios.

[SansAnhedral]

John

Not sure where you might be able to find the previous report. Only took 5 minutes of google searching to find the pogo copy, though, so it might be out there.

Here is a good overview of multiple programs

http://www.jasprogram.org/images/archive/pdf/2010_summer.pdf

Ballistic Vulnerability Reduction
Figure 3 includes a listing of the wideranging vulnerability reduction techniques that have been utilized to meet the vulnerability reduction of the V-22 airframe. These technologies range from inherent structural design requirements such as multiple load paths and allowable load requirements to active fire suppression systems to prevent sustained fire in the aircraft. All the technologies were extensively tested at the component and subsystem level and demonstrated in flight aircraft structure configurations. This included ballistic testing with aircraft light load levels and for fire suppression testing with flight air flows for representative conditions and confirmation of system sizing.

[SansAnhedral]

Jack,

I guess it depends on which legacy helicopters you are going to use for comparison.

It doesnt depend....the quote read "the legacy helicopters it is replacing"

Pretty straightforward, as the V22 is replacing the CH46.

Do you have numbers for a CH46 OEI?

[Lonewolf_50]

Jack Carson:

Sermetel(TM) and Rockhard(TM) coatings were both used at one point on Mg. From what little I know, Rockhard seems to have become the coating of choice. The company (parent company UK based) have a lot of different coating flavors and sealants, one of which is used on the Mg alloys in Sikorsky gear boxes based on a Sikorsky driven spec.

Rockhard clear stoving enamel protection magnesium aluminium (aluninum) (http://www.indestructible.co.uk/rockhard-in-detail/)

The real key to protection, in my opinion, is vigilance in the field and aggressive touch up.

Furia: I don't see V-22 as a C-130 replacement, but I appreciate your perspective. With USCG, however, traditionally cost has been a huge factor in any procurement. Osprey is very pricey.

Maybe as it matures USCG might find a niche for it.

If the cost comes down.

SASless:

Grrrr. Must get up on soap box here.


As the Air Force and Navy operate Blackhawks....there should be some commonality between the standards it would seem.


No, the US Navy does not operate Blackhawks. :p They operate Seahawks.

(Yes it's an S-70 variant ... but ...)

[Jack Carson]

I have limited experience in the CH-46D/E. I do know from flight experience that it had very good OEI capabilities above 40KIAS. It also demonstrated, as part of its FAA certification, satisfactory dual engine out autorotations. As part of my checkout we did OEI cut guns from a relatively high hover (mid to High IGE). It was a very docile maneuver.

[The Sultan]

JohnD

If the rotor on the 60 is so tolerant to damage why was it sucking rotor blades in peace time operations? The same vintage design on the 76 could not survive a small mark do to a lighting strike. Bell's blade desighs on the 412 and 58D which are similar in concept to the V-22 have demonstrated significant survivability. Pictures are available which shows what an RPG can do to a 58D (if did go off) and the ship recovered to its base.

The Sultan

[JohnDixson]

Sans,

Thanks and read the report. While it does not say exactly what they fired at the V-22, it reads that the UH-60M and 53K meet similar criteria. I can check into those two and find out what projectiles were fired at the rotors ( the 60M having a different construction blade than the A and L, the ballistic testing would have had to be redone ). I will advise on what I learn.

Thanks,
John Dixson

[JohnDixson]

Sultan,

You wrote:

"If the rotor on the 60 is so tolerant to damage why was it sucking rotor blades in peace time operations? "

What does that mean?

Thanks,
John Dixson

[tcufroggie]

so this conversation has diverged to a back and forth discussing the merits of the effectiveness of a magic golden bullet and requests to basically post details of classified survivability reports of various US helos. Nothing good can come out of this..... [SMH]

[JohnDixson]

TCU,

I tend to agree. I am curious about the 60M and am pursuing that. If classified I won't receive an answer to my inquiry. Too early for 53K blade specimens to be available anyway.

The thread had asked a question about the Army and the V-22. I'd guess hover payload is uppermost in the Army's mind, so they must be quite happy with the 47F. Certainly that hover chart included in the Bell.Boeing document on this thread, coupled with the V-22 empty weight getting to about 35K with the defensive gun, makes for a notable difference in hover payload between the two.

Update on 8/17: Received confirmation citing the unclassified (but SA proprietary) engineering report that the 60M had completed and passed the requisite 23mm testing: took the required number of hits while loaded, inboard and outboard blade specimens, at requisite shot angles and then completed the requisite fatigue test under the flight loads to confirm survivability.



http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb434/johndixs/RPGGround.jpg

http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb434/johndixs/RPG2.jpg




Thanks,
John Dixson

[Lonewolf_50]

In re the article:

Dan, do you remember the original LHX "vision" of the 80's, where there was only one pilot? :eek: Guess that vision didn't work out.

Were you around for the Navy's "Helo Master Plan" in the 90's? It boiled down to "Sikorsky makes it" in a practical sense, except for the USMC element. ( Seem to also recall a Navy Secretary trying to build an all Grumman Air Wing for the carriers, F-14's and A-6's and naught else.)

With that in mind, I'll take the article you presented with a grain of salt. These vision things are mutable. But it is interesting to see what some of the Army planners are looking into. Thanks for the post.
For industry, the implications of making the transition to JMR are stark. The military services currently support three large rotorcraft companies based in the USA, as well as two relatively recent entrants from Europe with the army's EADS (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/eads.html) North America UH-72A Lakota and the US Coast Guard's AgustaWestland MH-68. At least 25 basic helicopter and tiltrotor models are in service across the fleet, which include trainers, cargo, utility, scout and attack systems.
I have reason to believe that scout roles will all become more and more UAV centric, with attack roles shared between UAV and manned, in the time line (2020-2040) that the article discusses.

I too may be wrong.

I think the assumptions on the breakdown between manned and unmanned is not going to be as rosy as this author proposes, nor the panel suggests.

As for the four engined C-130 tilt rotor ... that idea's been around since the mid 90's ... will be interesting to see if it ever comes to fruition.

[JohnDixson]

A Turkish Jandarma S-70 that met an RPG in an LZ ( a dangerous place to be no matter what one is flying) :
Thanks,
John Dixson

http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb434/johndixs/RPG2.jpghttp://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb434/johndixs/RPGGround.jpg