V-22 can't autorotate. Say what?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kalifornica
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Badly Informed? Utterly Ignorant?
" As for people who think you can get out of VR using collective - I NEVER EVER want to be in a helicopter with you 
"
Try full down collective. Gets you out of VRS every time plank man!
"Try full down collective. Gets you out of VRS every time plank man!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Herk
Are you an Osprey pilot (or crewman) then?
I spent two days at Kirtland and never saw one fly!
Be a sport and look in that yellow/ sand CH-53 parked in the middle of the camp, if you have a moment (marked T0013) and tell me which one it is. The tail ramp is open.
Thanks.
Are you an Osprey pilot (or crewman) then?
I spent two days at Kirtland and never saw one fly!
Be a sport and look in that yellow/ sand CH-53 parked in the middle of the camp, if you have a moment (marked T0013) and tell me which one it is. The tail ramp is open.
Thanks.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by airsound
that V-22 is so noisy, especially in the hover and transition, that its use as an AFSOC vehicle could be compromised.
Originally Posted by Modern Elmo
In regard to to the size of the V-22, apparently the USMC specified that it have the same cabin size and folded deck parking footprint as an H-46. In hindsight, the V-22 should have been larger, at least as big as the proposed CH-53K.
Originally Posted by brain fade
Are you an Osprey pilot (or crewman) then?
Originally Posted by brain fade
I spent two days at Kirtland and never saw one fly!
Originally Posted by brain fade
Be a sport and look in that yellow/ sand CH-53 parked in the middle of the camp, if you have a moment (marked T0013) and tell me which one it is. The tail ramp is open.
"Part of the problems I alluded to very early in this thread about letting the Marines dictate the dimensions before AFSOC got involved..."
I also must take umbrage with this. You're either driving the bus or you're a passenger. With comparatively small participation from other services, the needs of the primary user dictate. That said, at least to my rudimentary understanding from a few AD contacts is that the USMC has given ground.
I also must take umbrage with this. You're either driving the bus or you're a passenger. With comparatively small participation from other services, the needs of the primary user dictate. That said, at least to my rudimentary understanding from a few AD contacts is that the USMC has given ground.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Herk
Yes, if you don't mind. (there will be a small metal plate in the cockpit somewhere).
Guess I was just unlucky re the flying Ospreys then.
Since you're such a helpful chap would you mind also keepimg an eye out for a HH-60 just marked '58 SOW'. It's tail no is also not known.
Sorry for being such a spotter.
Yes, if you don't mind. (there will be a small metal plate in the cockpit somewhere).
Guess I was just unlucky re the flying Ospreys then.
Since you're such a helpful chap would you mind also keepimg an eye out for a HH-60 just marked '58 SOW'. It's tail no is also not known.
Sorry for being such a spotter.
Last edited by brain fade; 9th Oct 2007 at 10:52.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by West Coast
I also must take umbrage with this. You're either driving the bus or you're a passenger. With comparatively small participation from other services, the needs of the primary user dictate. That said, at least to my rudimentary understanding from a few AD contacts is that the USMC has given ground.
[Opinion = ON] Regardless, and this in no way is a slam agasint USMC at all, letting the Marines run an aircraft acquisition program is akin to letting USAF run an amphibious ship acquisition program. It simply isn't their specialty. Doesn't mean they can't do it, simply means it's highly likely there will be problems. [Opinion = OFF]
Well, there are and have been problems & they're so well documented that the GAO has looked at transferring lead service duties to the USAF despite the disparity in delivered units to each. In the end, they left it to the USMC to sort out. [Opinion = ON] No doubt due to politics.[Opinion = OFF] The USMC carries a lot of clout (and rightfully so) on the hill.
As for the USMC "giving ground" - I'm sure that's how it could be characterized by folks wishing to incite inter-service rivalries, but not how anyone with a bit of understanding of the program would look at it. The intended implication of that volatile statement is that, 'USAF has demanded modifications to the plane & the USMC has acquiesed.' In reality what has happened is the USAF has said, "We want our SOF-specific software to do X, Y, & Z in addition to the baseline." and the USMC has said, "Wow, that's a great idea, let's just make that part of the baseline." This isn't limited to software either. For example, even the chin-mounted gun was never originally required/desired by USMC. Once AFSOC said we had to have one, USMC said, 'you know, that's not a bad idea at all - maybe we should include it in the baseline.' And when that particular poblem gets solved, it will be retro-fitted & added as part of the baseline config.
To date, the overwhelming majority of USAF modifications/upgrades to CV-22 have been retro-fitted to V/MV-22 baseline by USMC as lead service, not because of inter-service demands, but because the mods make sense. This is why many believe DoD would be better off if USAF was lead service because many of the mods that were integrated into baseline after USAF "demands" fell into the "Gee, why didn't I think of that?" category.
Again, much of this falls into the designed DT&E/OT&E function of identifying discrepancies & their corrective actions - where USAF experience (good & bad) pays dividends.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kalifornica
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
again...
" Gets you out of VRS every time plank man! Surely that depends upon rate of descent and altitude? So "every time" could be a "plank" statement..."
I only said it would get you out of VRS, I didn't say it would keep you from hitting the ground. I maintain the assertion. Full down collective will ALWAYS get you out of VRS. This may or may not be a good thing, depending on other factors.
Beez
I only said it would get you out of VRS, I didn't say it would keep you from hitting the ground. I maintain the assertion. Full down collective will ALWAYS get you out of VRS. This may or may not be a good thing, depending on other factors.
Beez
"the Marines run an aircraft acquisition program is akin to letting USAF run an amphibious ship acquisition program. It simply isn't their specialty"
Perhaps I didn't take the post in the tone intended. That said, you might want to check who does the procurement of amphibious ships. While the Marines have input, that bus is driven by the Navy. Spend some time on a LHD sized ship and you'll find plenty of unwanted compromises.
To the above, no it's not their specialty, but it's an aircraft that is largely intended for the Marines use. Dove tailing nicely to that, The bulk of VTOL experience within the military resides with the Marines.
The tail shouldn't wag the dog, I would hate to see the USAF run the program and have something the largest user doesn't want foisted upon them, an Air Force aircraft adapted (another word for compromised) for the Marines use. The Navy and the F111 come to mind.
Who else in the US military has the experience the Marines do in unconventional aircraft and vertical lift as the Marines? The Harrier 2.0 (F35) experience shows no particular brain trust within the USAF in that direction.
You're correct about the significant power the Commandant can focus on the hill, as evidenced simply by the Osprey's continued existence. I however have to believe the reason the program remains with the Marines is the unique nature of the aircraft, and as you mentioned, the procurement scandals within the USAF.
Perhaps the F35 program should be handed over to the Marines and the RN?
Perhaps I didn't take the post in the tone intended. That said, you might want to check who does the procurement of amphibious ships. While the Marines have input, that bus is driven by the Navy. Spend some time on a LHD sized ship and you'll find plenty of unwanted compromises.
To the above, no it's not their specialty, but it's an aircraft that is largely intended for the Marines use. Dove tailing nicely to that, The bulk of VTOL experience within the military resides with the Marines.
The tail shouldn't wag the dog, I would hate to see the USAF run the program and have something the largest user doesn't want foisted upon them, an Air Force aircraft adapted (another word for compromised) for the Marines use. The Navy and the F111 come to mind.
Who else in the US military has the experience the Marines do in unconventional aircraft and vertical lift as the Marines? The Harrier 2.0 (F35) experience shows no particular brain trust within the USAF in that direction.
You're correct about the significant power the Commandant can focus on the hill, as evidenced simply by the Osprey's continued existence. I however have to believe the reason the program remains with the Marines is the unique nature of the aircraft, and as you mentioned, the procurement scandals within the USAF.
Perhaps the F35 program should be handed over to the Marines and the RN?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MV-22 already has a take-off footprint as large as a CH-53E... making the aircraft the size of one would make the T/O footprint so large it would severly degrade deck ops on an LHD... and make operating from a Whidbey Island class LSD nearly impossible. A San Antonio LPD... yes, but only one vs the 2 they can now operate.
The MV-22 is the size it is in order to allow it to fly from the ships the USMC needs it to fly from, in the numbers they need... something your "should be" version couldn't.
There have been proposals for a larger tilt-rotor (using 4 of the MV-22 engine/rotors on two wings), with a CH-53K-like cargo and troop capacity... I believe this should be pursued, but they could only visit LHDs... not be normally operated from them.
The MV-22 is the size it is in order to allow it to fly from the ships the USMC needs it to fly from, in the numbers they need... something your "should be" version couldn't.
There have been proposals for a larger tilt-rotor (using 4 of the MV-22 engine/rotors on two wings), with a CH-53K-like cargo and troop capacity... I believe this should be pursued, but they could only visit LHDs... not be normally operated from them.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My intent isn't to poke fingers in eyes, yet that is how it seems to be taken.
Many folks have commented on size. As both of you point out, it is that size because of the initial design parameters established by USMC. Had AFSOC been in a position to begin the program, it would have been a different size.
As mentioned, AFSOC has no money to pursue acquisition of aircraft & even if they did, the small numbers would dictate even higher per-unit costs. The MFP-11 money used by SOCOM to modify service items (vehicles, aircraft, weapons, etc.) means that AFSOC takes standard items (C-130) & makes special mission variants (MC-130, AC-130, etc.). So we adapt the MV-22 to CV-22 & accept compromises. That these compromises, which are out of AFSOC's control, are now points of contention with Osprey critics seems to be lost on some...
My assertation that USAF should do the acquisition lies with experience & specialty. If it were a rotary asset shared jointly, I would say USA has the lead. Anything on the water, USN/USMC. Fixed wing, USAF. Osprey is unique - current DoD VTOL experience does indeed lie with USMC Harrier program. Special Mission experience most definitely lies in SOCOM & the air component of SOCOM is AFSOC. The Osprey is more than just VTOL & I would argue that Harrier VTOL is apples & oranges with Osprey VTOL & aligns more with special mission. But SOCOM doesn't do major acquisition, so we're back to square one - which service? I stand by my guns that USAF should do acquisition of Osprey & it is precisely the lack of experience in major aircraft acquisition by USMC that has caused some of the problems - put your hackles back down, this isn't a slam on USMC.
I'm sure there would be many concerns over big user (USMC) vs small user (USAF) with oversight/control, but that, I believe, is easily rectified with Joint acquisition & carefully delineated acquisition requirements. Maybe I'm too optimistic...
As for unconventional aircraft & vertical lift - as soon as you mention the term unconventional, we need to start defining things. My definition (all subject to my own personal biases) is SOCOM = unconventional. I'm sure yours is quite different. Such is the nature of discussions - we each enter with our own personal biases colored by our experiences. There is very little that is right/wrong, black/white, rather, best for a given situation - hence our different points of view. It'd be much simpler, yet very boring, if we all thought exactly the same way!
Of course, all of this would be much easier over a beer...
Many folks have commented on size. As both of you point out, it is that size because of the initial design parameters established by USMC. Had AFSOC been in a position to begin the program, it would have been a different size.
As mentioned, AFSOC has no money to pursue acquisition of aircraft & even if they did, the small numbers would dictate even higher per-unit costs. The MFP-11 money used by SOCOM to modify service items (vehicles, aircraft, weapons, etc.) means that AFSOC takes standard items (C-130) & makes special mission variants (MC-130, AC-130, etc.). So we adapt the MV-22 to CV-22 & accept compromises. That these compromises, which are out of AFSOC's control, are now points of contention with Osprey critics seems to be lost on some...
My assertation that USAF should do the acquisition lies with experience & specialty. If it were a rotary asset shared jointly, I would say USA has the lead. Anything on the water, USN/USMC. Fixed wing, USAF. Osprey is unique - current DoD VTOL experience does indeed lie with USMC Harrier program. Special Mission experience most definitely lies in SOCOM & the air component of SOCOM is AFSOC. The Osprey is more than just VTOL & I would argue that Harrier VTOL is apples & oranges with Osprey VTOL & aligns more with special mission. But SOCOM doesn't do major acquisition, so we're back to square one - which service? I stand by my guns that USAF should do acquisition of Osprey & it is precisely the lack of experience in major aircraft acquisition by USMC that has caused some of the problems - put your hackles back down, this isn't a slam on USMC.
I'm sure there would be many concerns over big user (USMC) vs small user (USAF) with oversight/control, but that, I believe, is easily rectified with Joint acquisition & carefully delineated acquisition requirements. Maybe I'm too optimistic...
As for unconventional aircraft & vertical lift - as soon as you mention the term unconventional, we need to start defining things. My definition (all subject to my own personal biases) is SOCOM = unconventional. I'm sure yours is quite different. Such is the nature of discussions - we each enter with our own personal biases colored by our experiences. There is very little that is right/wrong, black/white, rather, best for a given situation - hence our different points of view. It'd be much simpler, yet very boring, if we all thought exactly the same way!
Of course, all of this would be much easier over a beer...
"Of course, all of this would be much easier over a beer"
A man after my own heart.
Yes, FAR part one, definitions. At least as defined by me. Unconventional for purposes of this discussion is meant to describe the aircraft not the mission. Though somewhere the two cross.
"Had AFSOC been in a position to begin the program, it would have been a different size"
Agreed. However had the design been locked in larger or smaller driven by AFSOC needs, IMHO the Marines wouldn't have signed on but rather pursued a traditional rotary wing replacement for the phrog. Where would that have left a small component of the USAF? Again, my opinion, but Cheney would've successfully canceled the program in it's nascent stages. Something he tried but failed to accomplish.
A clean sheet medium lift transport is a utility player while an aircraft designed for special forces is a position player. (I know these sports analogies drive the Brit's looney) That said, the US military has a wealth of experience in converting trash haulers to suit the needs of special forces. Yours is the first that comes to mind, many others follow. How many special forces aircraft have been adopted for utility roles? Not going to say none, but I'm hard pressed to come up with one. I'm hard pressed to even name a major aircraft acquisition driven by the needs of any special forces component of any branch of the US military. It's late at night so there may be some escaping my fallible memory.
The Marines need a utility aircraft designed for their needs, not one compromised from a special forces application. An aircraft equally at home hauling Marines into a LZ, landing in a CAL site or maneuvering around the deck of a LHD. The AFSOC surely thinks the same, but the Marines are the ones who had the political wherewithal to power it from a paper airplane, through painful crashes, political turf wars and now to fruition
Either one camp or the other is going to feel overly compromised. The question is which operator is more able to work within those compromises.
I've made my argument as to why it shouldn't have to be the Marines.
I'd be interested to see the views of the other bit players who plan to or contemplate operating the aircraft.
A man after my own heart.
Yes, FAR part one, definitions. At least as defined by me. Unconventional for purposes of this discussion is meant to describe the aircraft not the mission. Though somewhere the two cross.
"Had AFSOC been in a position to begin the program, it would have been a different size"
Agreed. However had the design been locked in larger or smaller driven by AFSOC needs, IMHO the Marines wouldn't have signed on but rather pursued a traditional rotary wing replacement for the phrog. Where would that have left a small component of the USAF? Again, my opinion, but Cheney would've successfully canceled the program in it's nascent stages. Something he tried but failed to accomplish.
A clean sheet medium lift transport is a utility player while an aircraft designed for special forces is a position player. (I know these sports analogies drive the Brit's looney) That said, the US military has a wealth of experience in converting trash haulers to suit the needs of special forces. Yours is the first that comes to mind, many others follow. How many special forces aircraft have been adopted for utility roles? Not going to say none, but I'm hard pressed to come up with one. I'm hard pressed to even name a major aircraft acquisition driven by the needs of any special forces component of any branch of the US military. It's late at night so there may be some escaping my fallible memory.
The Marines need a utility aircraft designed for their needs, not one compromised from a special forces application. An aircraft equally at home hauling Marines into a LZ, landing in a CAL site or maneuvering around the deck of a LHD. The AFSOC surely thinks the same, but the Marines are the ones who had the political wherewithal to power it from a paper airplane, through painful crashes, political turf wars and now to fruition
Either one camp or the other is going to feel overly compromised. The question is which operator is more able to work within those compromises.
I've made my argument as to why it shouldn't have to be the Marines.
I'd be interested to see the views of the other bit players who plan to or contemplate operating the aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by West Coast
How many special forces aircraft have been adopted for utility roles? Not going to say none, but I'm hard pressed to come up with one. I'm hard pressed to even name a major aircraft acquisition driven by the needs of any special forces component of any branch of the US military. It's late at night so there may be some escaping my fallible memory.
The closest you get is pure programs vs evolutionary programs. For example - Talon II vs Talon I. Talon I was evolutionary - the penetrating infiltrator mission did not require much sophistication in the mid-'60s. As IADS evolved, so did requirements, and more equipment was bolted on as new missions & programs (Skyhook, Heavy Chain, Combat Spear/Knife/Arrow, etc.) - even the days of the old "Jungle Jim" program where individual unit commanders had access to funding to modify aircraft as they deemed fit led to a variety of Combat Talon I configurations until Mod-70, then Mod-90 standardized them all (mostly).
Talon II was the first infiltration platform designed with that mission in mind - everything is integrated.
Still, we bolted stuff onto a utility aircraft - the C-130. And while there are pure programs & evolutionary programs, there are also hybrid programs (Pave Low comes to mind) combining aspects of both...
Blah, blah, blah (more of my non-pertinent blather) - you make a good & valid point so long as money drives the boat. Which, invariably, it does. If mission drives the boat, you have to clean-slate everything.
I go back to my assertation that SOCOM should be its own service!
Originally Posted by West Coast
However had the design been locked in larger or smaller driven by AFSOC needs, IMHO the Marines wouldn't have signed on but rather pursued a traditional rotary wing replacement for the phrog. Where would that have left a small component of the USAF? Again, my opinion, but Cheney would've successfully canceled the program in it's nascent stages.
But that assumes USAF would have handled it better than C-130 AMP, KC-X, CSAR-X, etc. An argument could be made that it would've come online quicker too...before all our embarassing scandals. 
But when I say it would be bigger if AFSOC had been lead, I don't mean hugely bigger - actually it only needs to be slightly bigger. It might still fit within the footprint of the -46. The width of the cargo compartment is the main limiting factor - it's only about 5' (don't have exact figures handy) wide. Nothing fits.
Nothing fits because it was optimized to carry troops, not cargo, but 20 years is a long time ago - I believe USMC is now wishing it were wider so they could transport expeditionary fire support stuff.
Originally Posted by West Coast
The Marines need a utility aircraft designed for their needs, not one compromised from a special forces application. An aircraft equally at home hauling Marines into a LZ, landing in a CAL site or maneuvering around the deck of a LHD.
I say crank up the CH-60 program - open the tap. Transport troops with that & make the Osprey haul cargo - that would require fuselage redesign - completely unfeasible at this point. But then USMC could play more in SOCOM...
Amazing what 20 years of hindsight reveals!
One more tidbit that goes back to experience/expertise - KC-130J. USMC bought KC-130J w/o software upgrades. "We'll take version 1.0 software, thank you."
Also bought w/o much of the support USAF demanded (training, tech manuals, simulator, etc.) - just the plane & a couple spare parts. I know the Marines are experts at "making do" with what they've got in austere conditions - it's why they're so good at what they do - but why start off half hamstrung? I'm rambling again...
Sorry for the disjointedness - trying to stay up late so I can fly a late night sortie tomorrow, but the body/mind isn't cooperating!
Last edited by US Herk; 10th Oct 2007 at 07:25.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Age: 78
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jake319
I had direct contact with the V22 in the early 1990's . With Sundstrand systems. The problem we ran into transferring power from one engine to the other was electrical relays closing fast enough to transfer power with out the loss of control.
Imo, maintenance on this vehicle would be a nightmare aboard ship..
I remember discussions about the vehicle maintenance on the hangar deck would be impossible because of the height limits below deck.
Have they addressed this?
Imo, maintenance on this vehicle would be a nightmare aboard ship..
I remember discussions about the vehicle maintenance on the hangar deck would be impossible because of the height limits below deck.
Have they addressed this?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have addressed a lot of things since you were around it.
There are now more USMC medium-rotary squadrons equipped with MV-22 than CH-46F, and they have been deploying aboard the Wasp-class LHDs and for a couple of years now.
Both the USMC and USAF have conducted repeated deployments to Iraq & Afghanistan with Ospreys.
There are now more USMC medium-rotary squadrons equipped with MV-22 than CH-46F, and they have been deploying aboard the Wasp-class LHDs and for a couple of years now.
Both the USMC and USAF have conducted repeated deployments to Iraq & Afghanistan with Ospreys.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Tampa
Age: 38
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If any of you know about the 46 understand the main roles that this aircraft was assigned was troop insertion and medivacs. The main point that should silence anybody in regard to the validity of service of the V22, is the great impact this aircraft has on the golden hour hour for wounded personnel. There are many areas that this aircraft helps area commanders is first the increased area that he can control due to increased range. Second it allows for freedom of assets due to its increased speed its able to refuel at the same time as an F/A-18 therefore There's the removal of transition time between refueling and the ability to few two different aircraft that may have entered a critical level while waiting for deconfliction. Those who say that the USAF should have had the lead on the aircraft might be suprised to learned that they surrendered lead to the Marines realizing that this was an aircraft suited to them. The airforce has stayed on through all aspects of test and eval. Of the aircraft to include testing at Nellis airforce base. Its easy to cast stones based on info spoon fed to you. It's a lot harder to research and form an intelligent opinion.
