What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
V-22 Payload in Afghanistan
Question:
With the new defensive armament system installed , with combat crew and full normal tanks, what is the remaining payload at Hd = 10K feet?
Thanks,
John Dixson
With the new defensive armament system installed , with combat crew and full normal tanks, what is the remaining payload at Hd = 10K feet?
Thanks,
John Dixson
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heli1,
You 'hit the nail on the head.' The tiltrotor is not a great helicopter, and we could bring in some turbo-prop design engineers to prove to us that it is not the optimum airplane either. On the other hand, we could also have tiltrotor experts come in to testify that helicopters and airplanes do not make good tiltrotors! The point is that the V-22 can perform some missions that no helicopter or airplane in existence today can perform. It will NEVER replace helicopters, and it will NEVER replace airplanes -- but it was NEVER designed to replace either.
You 'hit the nail on the head.' The tiltrotor is not a great helicopter, and we could bring in some turbo-prop design engineers to prove to us that it is not the optimum airplane either. On the other hand, we could also have tiltrotor experts come in to testify that helicopters and airplanes do not make good tiltrotors! The point is that the V-22 can perform some missions that no helicopter or airplane in existence today can perform. It will NEVER replace helicopters, and it will NEVER replace airplanes -- but it was NEVER designed to replace either.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really? What exactly then, was the V22 expected to do for the MC since its been touted now for two decades that it would be the CH-46's replacement...amongst other things? Apparently I and others have been misslead all these years.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V-22s will add tremendously to the mission capabilities previously offered by the CH-46. However, there are other helicopters that will be and should remain operational in the MC OOB to allow them to respond to a wide range of mission requirements.
They did deploy to Iraq I guess....but as to making combat insertions and extractions....probably not many. I seem to recall one took two hits or something like that.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More bogus anti-V22 reporting! When will it end?!
V-22 Faces Mission Capable Rates Issues
May 4, 2009
By Bettina H. Chavanne
It may be flying every mission in theater, but the MV-22 is still facing reliability issues due to inaccurate predictive modeling, according to Lt. Gen. George Trautman, U.S. Marine Corps deputy commandant for aviation.
“We’re working on it, but that’s one concern I have in the Osprey program,” Trautman told Aerospace DAILY April 30. Reliability and maintainability are “not meeting my full expectations yet.”
The V-22 was sent into combat “sooner than we should have,” Trautman said. Typically, an aircraft is deployed only after its has passed its Material Support date, which the Osprey did Oct. 1, 2008. The first squadron was deployed a year prior, in October 2007. That early deployment had an effect on the way the Marine Corps purchased spare parts for the aircraft.
With 55,000 flight hours on the V-22, it has become evident that early predictions of mean time between failures on certain parts were inaccurate. “If [mean time between failures] is worse on the kinds of spares that have a long lead time, you start getting into a problem of how you dig out of that hole,” Trautman said. The goal then is sparing models based on reality, not predictions. “We’re struggling with that a bit,” he said.
The Marine Corps has told Bell Boeing that by 60,000 flight hours, the service would like to achieve 80 percent mission capable rates. Trautman is pleased with the company’s response. “The good news is they’re standing behind the product, they’re engaged,” he said.
Sustained shipboard deployment of the V-22 also has posed a slight challenge to the service. It was discovered that on smaller deck amphibious ships, heat from the downward-pointing nacelles could potentially warp the stringers underneath the deck plates. “We’re concerned with heat on the LPD and LSD decks because the steel is so thin,” Trautman said, adding that the service has “worked through that challenge.”
One solution is to tilt the nacelles forward slightly, which gives 35 minutes of operational time on deck.
The other option is deck plates that provide protection up to 90 minutes. The Marine Corps is working with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Office of Naval Research to find coatings for the deck, particularly in light of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The exhaust from the JSF’s auxiliary power unit has the potential to cause similar heating problems, so the joint program office is working on the issue now, Trautman said.
May 4, 2009
By Bettina H. Chavanne
It may be flying every mission in theater, but the MV-22 is still facing reliability issues due to inaccurate predictive modeling, according to Lt. Gen. George Trautman, U.S. Marine Corps deputy commandant for aviation.
“We’re working on it, but that’s one concern I have in the Osprey program,” Trautman told Aerospace DAILY April 30. Reliability and maintainability are “not meeting my full expectations yet.”
The V-22 was sent into combat “sooner than we should have,” Trautman said. Typically, an aircraft is deployed only after its has passed its Material Support date, which the Osprey did Oct. 1, 2008. The first squadron was deployed a year prior, in October 2007. That early deployment had an effect on the way the Marine Corps purchased spare parts for the aircraft.
With 55,000 flight hours on the V-22, it has become evident that early predictions of mean time between failures on certain parts were inaccurate. “If [mean time between failures] is worse on the kinds of spares that have a long lead time, you start getting into a problem of how you dig out of that hole,” Trautman said. The goal then is sparing models based on reality, not predictions. “We’re struggling with that a bit,” he said.
The Marine Corps has told Bell Boeing that by 60,000 flight hours, the service would like to achieve 80 percent mission capable rates. Trautman is pleased with the company’s response. “The good news is they’re standing behind the product, they’re engaged,” he said.
Sustained shipboard deployment of the V-22 also has posed a slight challenge to the service. It was discovered that on smaller deck amphibious ships, heat from the downward-pointing nacelles could potentially warp the stringers underneath the deck plates. “We’re concerned with heat on the LPD and LSD decks because the steel is so thin,” Trautman said, adding that the service has “worked through that challenge.”
One solution is to tilt the nacelles forward slightly, which gives 35 minutes of operational time on deck.
The other option is deck plates that provide protection up to 90 minutes. The Marine Corps is working with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Office of Naval Research to find coatings for the deck, particularly in light of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The exhaust from the JSF’s auxiliary power unit has the potential to cause similar heating problems, so the joint program office is working on the issue now, Trautman said.
Hmmmmmmmm......tall grassy field....well after the growing season....some ground time waiting for wounded to be carried to the aircraft?
Are we talking a real bit of "ground" fire here?
Or....with the prop rotors tilted forward.....now we have a danger of heads getting lopped off the unwary?
Someone tell me how well this thing autorotates!
My....what a wonder concept this tilt rotor thing!
Are we talking a real bit of "ground" fire here?
Or....with the prop rotors tilted forward.....now we have a danger of heads getting lopped off the unwary?
Someone tell me how well this thing autorotates!
My....what a wonder concept this tilt rotor thing!
V-22 Mission Capable Rates
With the V-22 making its first flight 20 years ago this March, the comment by LtGen Trautman that it was sent into combat too early was telling.
The other comment that caught my attention was the reference to "poor predictive modeling". Sounds lame. Fly a ship for twenty years and then claim that you don't have a handle on the failure rates?
The V-22 has performance that makes it uniquely capable of performing a class of missions, but the management of the program has not served it well. One wonders. Like Comanche, it is a three cornered affair: two private companies and one branch of DOD . Not a coincidence.
Thanks,
John Dixson
The other comment that caught my attention was the reference to "poor predictive modeling". Sounds lame. Fly a ship for twenty years and then claim that you don't have a handle on the failure rates?
The V-22 has performance that makes it uniquely capable of performing a class of missions, but the management of the program has not served it well. One wonders. Like Comanche, it is a three cornered affair: two private companies and one branch of DOD . Not a coincidence.
Thanks,
John Dixson
Sent into "Combat" too early.....after only twenty years!
What of this "609" thing.....how long has it been in "development"?
What of this "609" thing.....how long has it been in "development"?
Leder said Bell-Boeing had stockpiled about $100 million in spare parts in the past year so that it could be ready for this deployment and any that will follow. It also sent 14 technicians with the Thunder Chickens, a common precaution for major weapon systems when they deploy.
The Marines are keeping tight control on information about the deployment.
The Marines are keeping tight control on information about the deployment.
Last edited by SASless; 5th May 2009 at 13:53.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: tx
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how long should it take?
Given that the average program from start(program awarded) to IOC is:
10.2 years for an upgrade/derivative of an existing airframe (VH-71, S92, CH148, UH-1Y, AH-1Z, ARH [projected IOC of 2011 from 2008 GAO report], CH-53K)
18.3 years for a new model (EH101, NH90, RAH66[if it had gone to production it would have increased the average])
is 25 years for a new type design (V22) really out of line with historical averages?
If so could you please provide examples of recent examples?
10.2 years for an upgrade/derivative of an existing airframe (VH-71, S92, CH148, UH-1Y, AH-1Z, ARH [projected IOC of 2011 from 2008 GAO report], CH-53K)
18.3 years for a new model (EH101, NH90, RAH66[if it had gone to production it would have increased the average])
is 25 years for a new type design (V22) really out of line with historical averages?
If so could you please provide examples of recent examples?
Well lessee here Marine,
What say we start with the 1981 RFP and start the clock there and ignore the first thirty years between the V-3 and V-22 RFP....despite all three programs being directly related. By my Army math....that is Twenty Six years from RFP to first deployment in Combat (and that was described as being "premature" by the USMC!)
From the V-15 to Combat deployment of the V-22 was Thirty Years.
But in reality....this aircraft was under development for over Fifty -Six Years!
Let's start with the original prototype.....the Bell V-3.
Original concept... 1951
First Flew... 1955
Then there was the V-15......
First flew in 1977......
Along comes the V-22....
The Department of Defense began the Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program in 1981, first under U.S. Army leadership, then the U.S. Navy/Marine Corps later took the lead.
The Bell Boeing team submitted a proposal for a enlarged version of the Bell XV-15 prototype on 17 February 1983. This was the only proposal received.
The JVX aircraft was designated "V-22 Osprey" on 15 January 1985.
Full-scale development of the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft began in 1986.
The first V-22 was rolled out in May 1988.
What say we start with the 1981 RFP and start the clock there and ignore the first thirty years between the V-3 and V-22 RFP....despite all three programs being directly related. By my Army math....that is Twenty Six years from RFP to first deployment in Combat (and that was described as being "premature" by the USMC!)
From the V-15 to Combat deployment of the V-22 was Thirty Years.
But in reality....this aircraft was under development for over Fifty -Six Years!
Let's start with the original prototype.....the Bell V-3.
Original concept... 1951
First Flew... 1955
Then there was the V-15......
First flew in 1977......
Along comes the V-22....
The Department of Defense began the Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program in 1981, first under U.S. Army leadership, then the U.S. Navy/Marine Corps later took the lead.
The Bell Boeing team submitted a proposal for a enlarged version of the Bell XV-15 prototype on 17 February 1983. This was the only proposal received.
The JVX aircraft was designated "V-22 Osprey" on 15 January 1985.
Full-scale development of the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft began in 1986.
The first V-22 was rolled out in May 1988.
Last edited by SASless; 5th May 2009 at 17:59.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goodness! All these FACTS are making my mind spin even though these questions hae been asked countless times and explained. Its almost like everytime some Johnny-Come-Lately comes to the V22 program, they have to be reducated past their hysterical, emotional loyality to whatever a service buys, regardless of its record. Uh-oh, more hand wringing on the way.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: tx
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and your point is?
Which one of those went into production? Which one had fly by wire? Which one had a folding wing? Which one was designed for combat?
Both were R&D concepts and nothing more. Neither was FBW, which is no easy task (any idea how The S92F is coming? Rumour is it's been put on hold until the 60M and 53K are complete and the 2008 FAA cert date has come and gone.), and neither had anything in common with the V22 other than the concept.
From what you're saying we should see X2's darkening the skies in the next couple of years, since the original concept flew in 1973 there really shouldn't be much for them to develop, right?
Furthermore you do nothing to address the question. If it takes on average 10 years to upgrade, 18 years to develop a new model helicopter, is 25 years to develop something that's never been certified before out of line? If so why did the EH101 (just another helicopter) take 19 years (1981-2000) to get into service? What's up with the CH148? Heck, the civillians are already flying them so why another 9 years (or more) to get that into service with the Canadians? Why does the CH53K need 12 years to upgrade engines, install a glass cockpit, fly by wire and stick some new rotor blades on it? Why did they decide not to use the viscoelastic lag damper? It's just another damper right, can't be that hard?
I'll answer for you. Because development is hard, it's even harder when you're on new ground (V22 and X2). How long do you really think it will be until we see operational version of the X2? Will anyone be surprised if the CH53K doesn't deliver in 2015 but sometime later, considering it hasn't flown yet so it hasn't run into it's first development issue, of which there will be more than one.
Both were R&D concepts and nothing more. Neither was FBW, which is no easy task (any idea how The S92F is coming? Rumour is it's been put on hold until the 60M and 53K are complete and the 2008 FAA cert date has come and gone.), and neither had anything in common with the V22 other than the concept.
From what you're saying we should see X2's darkening the skies in the next couple of years, since the original concept flew in 1973 there really shouldn't be much for them to develop, right?
Furthermore you do nothing to address the question. If it takes on average 10 years to upgrade, 18 years to develop a new model helicopter, is 25 years to develop something that's never been certified before out of line? If so why did the EH101 (just another helicopter) take 19 years (1981-2000) to get into service? What's up with the CH148? Heck, the civillians are already flying them so why another 9 years (or more) to get that into service with the Canadians? Why does the CH53K need 12 years to upgrade engines, install a glass cockpit, fly by wire and stick some new rotor blades on it? Why did they decide not to use the viscoelastic lag damper? It's just another damper right, can't be that hard?
I'll answer for you. Because development is hard, it's even harder when you're on new ground (V22 and X2). How long do you really think it will be until we see operational version of the X2? Will anyone be surprised if the CH53K doesn't deliver in 2015 but sometime later, considering it hasn't flown yet so it hasn't run into it's first development issue, of which there will be more than one.
Well at least we aren't arguing the number of years now and are down to seeking excuses. That at least is progress of a sort.
Now....as the 22 was going to replace the 53D.....just how is it going to do that when the 53D could haul up to 55 passengers with center row seating?
Was not the USMC going to move to 53E's or K's before the 22 Mafia got in power?
It also begs the question why the USAF CSAR contract went to Boeing for the Chinook and not the V-22 which is already in production in an "MH" version (as in MH-47, MH-53)?
The 22 has some very special capabilities that surpass regular helicopters but the question has got to be at what COST?
Now....as the 22 was going to replace the 53D.....just how is it going to do that when the 53D could haul up to 55 passengers with center row seating?
Was not the USMC going to move to 53E's or K's before the 22 Mafia got in power?
It also begs the question why the USAF CSAR contract went to Boeing for the Chinook and not the V-22 which is already in production in an "MH" version (as in MH-47, MH-53)?
The 22 has some very special capabilities that surpass regular helicopters but the question has got to be at what COST?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: tx
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
trying to change the argument, you must be a liberal
Sasless,
I can only assume that you either need to get your bifocals checked or you don’t understand the question. The XV-15 has as much in common with V-22 as the S-76 does with the CH-53K or the X2. If it takes 12 years to install new engines, add a blade, glass cockpit, develop some control laws and probably some airframe mods, then is it unrealistic that it takes twice that to do everything from the wheels up? My point being that 25 years IS too long, so is 12. I would hope we could do a new type in 12 and an upgrade in half that, but we can’t. Not on V-22, not on CH53K, not on EH101. Why does it take 19 years to develop the 101 and then another 9 to make it VH-71? Why does it take Sikorsky 12 years to develop the S92 and then 9 more to turn it into a CH148? Looking at historical averages the V-22 is not out of line, unfortunately. Whilst you place the blame with the aircraft and conspiracy theories, I place it with a faulty procurement system and scope creep. Having worked at NAVAIR as a Marine (not on the V-22 program by the way) I would blame at least half of the cost and schedule overruns on the inefficiencies of developing an aircraft with the govt. I’ve seen stuff that OEM’s could have done in a week take 6 months to get thru NAVAIR red tape. Perhaps you've never been on a development program and therefore don't understand the issues.
Dan,
No need to wring your hands, we all know that you are hysterical and emotionally loyal to your cause, why would you need facts when you have ideology? I have grave concerns about someone who (I assume) graduated from Naval Flight School and believes what he reads on Carltons blog much less post from it. Like the V-22 or not at least get a better source of intel, perhaps then we won’t need to worry about reeducating you.
Like you I’m not sure about the utility of the gun on the V-22. Unlike you I’ll trust the people operating the aircraft and whose lives are on the line to decide what they need. I agree with Sasless that looking over the barrel of the gun is light years better than looking thru a 12 inch display. But I’ll trust our Marine and Airmen to make it work. I’ve been to Iraq, flown from the same operating areas that the CH-46s, 53s and 22s are flying from. While there were not any V-22s there during my deployment I don’t recall ANY of the 46’s or 53’s going into a hot zone. We are not in Vietnam anymore nor are we using the same tactics.
I can only assume that you either need to get your bifocals checked or you don’t understand the question. The XV-15 has as much in common with V-22 as the S-76 does with the CH-53K or the X2. If it takes 12 years to install new engines, add a blade, glass cockpit, develop some control laws and probably some airframe mods, then is it unrealistic that it takes twice that to do everything from the wheels up? My point being that 25 years IS too long, so is 12. I would hope we could do a new type in 12 and an upgrade in half that, but we can’t. Not on V-22, not on CH53K, not on EH101. Why does it take 19 years to develop the 101 and then another 9 to make it VH-71? Why does it take Sikorsky 12 years to develop the S92 and then 9 more to turn it into a CH148? Looking at historical averages the V-22 is not out of line, unfortunately. Whilst you place the blame with the aircraft and conspiracy theories, I place it with a faulty procurement system and scope creep. Having worked at NAVAIR as a Marine (not on the V-22 program by the way) I would blame at least half of the cost and schedule overruns on the inefficiencies of developing an aircraft with the govt. I’ve seen stuff that OEM’s could have done in a week take 6 months to get thru NAVAIR red tape. Perhaps you've never been on a development program and therefore don't understand the issues.
Dan,
No need to wring your hands, we all know that you are hysterical and emotionally loyal to your cause, why would you need facts when you have ideology? I have grave concerns about someone who (I assume) graduated from Naval Flight School and believes what he reads on Carltons blog much less post from it. Like the V-22 or not at least get a better source of intel, perhaps then we won’t need to worry about reeducating you.
Like you I’m not sure about the utility of the gun on the V-22. Unlike you I’ll trust the people operating the aircraft and whose lives are on the line to decide what they need. I agree with Sasless that looking over the barrel of the gun is light years better than looking thru a 12 inch display. But I’ll trust our Marine and Airmen to make it work. I’ve been to Iraq, flown from the same operating areas that the CH-46s, 53s and 22s are flying from. While there were not any V-22s there during my deployment I don’t recall ANY of the 46’s or 53’s going into a hot zone. We are not in Vietnam anymore nor are we using the same tactics.
Development Examples
Just to assist in keeping some of the development histories straight:
Thanks,
John Dixson
- CH-53A. First flight October 1964. First USMC production aircraft deliveries in fall of 1966.
- UH-60A. First flight in October 1974. First production deliveries to US Army in October 1978. And that history includes a full fly-off competition with Boeing, with an evaluation period following the fly-off and then getting production going.
- S-76A. First flight in March 1977 and following FAA certification, the first delivery to Air Logistics took place in February 1979.
- S-92A. First flight in December 1998, with FAA Certification in December 2002 and first delivery in September 2004. This longer development history was controlled by available corporate finance, with the program coming to a stop about four times as I recall.
Thanks,
John Dixson
NavAir.....nay laddy I spent my time digging thru NavSea's dirty linen less one small foray into the Cruise Missile Program. I completely agree with you about the needless bureaucracy and cost the DOD and in particular the NAVY procurement system plays in getting things done. The Army of late has been horning in on that bit of glory it seems.
I worked for a separate command tasked with ferreting out culpable individuals and corporations involved in fraud and the like. You would have loved the reception a Naval Officer got at Athens, Geogia when he tried to convince us hammers for the F-18 program were not overpriced.
I happened to have a GSA Catalogue in my mitts when he made the famous statement ".....so you see there was no effort to hide the item or disguise it in any way!" He was referring to the "Device, impact, manually operated" that was billed to the government a bit over Four Hundred Dollars.
In all of that catalogue.....I found about a thousand different hammers....and not one of them was a "Device, impact, manually operated" and not one of them exceeded a hundred dollars no matter how esoteric in design or application.
Go Army....Beat Navy!
As to being a "Liberal".....I am on your Department of Homeland Security list of potential Right Wing Radical Rascists....due to my membership in a Racial Hate Group as identified by some in the current government as the American Legion.
I worked for a separate command tasked with ferreting out culpable individuals and corporations involved in fraud and the like. You would have loved the reception a Naval Officer got at Athens, Geogia when he tried to convince us hammers for the F-18 program were not overpriced.
I happened to have a GSA Catalogue in my mitts when he made the famous statement ".....so you see there was no effort to hide the item or disguise it in any way!" He was referring to the "Device, impact, manually operated" that was billed to the government a bit over Four Hundred Dollars.
In all of that catalogue.....I found about a thousand different hammers....and not one of them was a "Device, impact, manually operated" and not one of them exceeded a hundred dollars no matter how esoteric in design or application.
Go Army....Beat Navy!
As to being a "Liberal".....I am on your Department of Homeland Security list of potential Right Wing Radical Rascists....due to my membership in a Racial Hate Group as identified by some in the current government as the American Legion.