What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
three MV-22s in two waves into an "enemy controlled area" to serve as a blocking force for 3/6.
Well....we know the Marines have a great PR ability....but let's get real here!
21st's Osprey photo shows an Infantry platoon loading aboard an Osprey I think...maybe....perhaps....if I am counting weapons correctly.
Begs the question....."What is the make-up of a Marine Corps Rifle Squad?"
One rifleman and six photographers!
Okay, okay...hang on. I'm the biggest skeptic and critic of the V-22, but I've never said that it cannot do the job for which it is tasked, or that it's incapable. Nobody, not even I expected that the V-22 would fall flat on its face right off the bat. And they are telling us that it is doing what they need, and doing it pretty well. Okay. Fine.
However, this is in no way a complete and total vindication of the tilt-rotor concept in general, or the V-22 in particular. Yeah, it works...just like a helicopter...doing some things "better" because it's faster.
Big deal- we knew this going in. The Osprey is not a revolutionary aircraft, just evolutionary. CH-53's (or even CH-46's) could be doing the work, perhaps just as effectively. If what they're reporting is true and complete, in this case the V-22 is just...different.
(My boss is looking to buy a jet to replace the King Air we've been operating. The speed and altitude advantages of the jet are alluring. But on many of the shorter trips we take, like 150 miles or so, the difference in block time would only be one-tenth, maybe a little more. I know this is not an exact apples-to-apples V-22/CH-53 comparison, but it's relevant: Speed advantage diminishes on short trips.)
The military will only tell us what they want us to know. They will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER release anything bad about the V-22. I mean, even I wouldn't. Criticism of the platform will come from outside sources (like the free press) and it will be roundly derided as false, anti-progress, anti-aviation, or anti-American. That is the trend so far. We are to believe ONLY what the military reliably tells us, and nothing else.
One needn't stretch their imagination greatly to come up with an instance where the military deliberately lied to the American public in the past- distant or recent, your choice.
Not saying they're doing that now. Just saying that I take these rah-rah V-22 stories with a grain of salt. It's operating in the theatre- great. Let's keep an open mind and see how it continues to do.
We'll find out soon enough.
However, this is in no way a complete and total vindication of the tilt-rotor concept in general, or the V-22 in particular. Yeah, it works...just like a helicopter...doing some things "better" because it's faster.
Big deal- we knew this going in. The Osprey is not a revolutionary aircraft, just evolutionary. CH-53's (or even CH-46's) could be doing the work, perhaps just as effectively. If what they're reporting is true and complete, in this case the V-22 is just...different.
(My boss is looking to buy a jet to replace the King Air we've been operating. The speed and altitude advantages of the jet are alluring. But on many of the shorter trips we take, like 150 miles or so, the difference in block time would only be one-tenth, maybe a little more. I know this is not an exact apples-to-apples V-22/CH-53 comparison, but it's relevant: Speed advantage diminishes on short trips.)
The military will only tell us what they want us to know. They will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER release anything bad about the V-22. I mean, even I wouldn't. Criticism of the platform will come from outside sources (like the free press) and it will be roundly derided as false, anti-progress, anti-aviation, or anti-American. That is the trend so far. We are to believe ONLY what the military reliably tells us, and nothing else.
One needn't stretch their imagination greatly to come up with an instance where the military deliberately lied to the American public in the past- distant or recent, your choice.
Not saying they're doing that now. Just saying that I take these rah-rah V-22 stories with a grain of salt. It's operating in the theatre- great. Let's keep an open mind and see how it continues to do.
We'll find out soon enough.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our own experts here need to set this Hutmacher fellow straight !
Spec Ops Needs Faster Helos
By Richard Whittle
Arlington, Va.
The Army’s 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment is feeling the need for speed to contend with the sprawl of Afghanistan, the unit’s commander, Col. Clay Hutmacher, told an Assn. of the U.S. Army aviation symposium here in January The “Night Stalkers”—so-called because most of their missions are flown in darkness—conduct raids to capture or kill enemy leadership. Flying from Bagram AB often puts their MH-6 Little Bird, MH-60 Black Hawk and MH-47 Chinook troop-carrying helicopters 2 hr. from targets. “We’re looking to go farther and faster and carry more stuff,” Hutmacher said The top cruising speed for military helicopters is usually 150-160 kt. One reason is the aerodynamic phenomenon of “retreating blade stall.” The only operational rotorcraft that overcomes it is the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, flown by the Marines and Air Force Special Operations Command. By tilting its wingtip rotors forward after taking off vertically and flying like an airplane, the Osprey escapes retreating blade stall to cruise at around 250 kt. and fly farther, unrefueled, than helicopters. Hutmacher, though, said the V-22 doesn’t seem to be the answer for the 160th because it can’t hover as well as most helicopters.
Above 4,000 ft., there’s a significant [hovering] limitation on the V-22,” he said. Tiltrotor engineers concede that while the V-22 hovers well in many situations, the special twist and size of its “proprotors” leave it unable to carry as much useful load pound-for-pound as most helicopters hovering in similar conditions.
I’m not disparaging the V-22,” Hutmacher said. Hovering ability, however, is critical to the 160th, because “at the end of the day, our mission is going to terminate in a hover.”
Two technologies Hutmacher has seen might provide faster rotorcraft: Piasecki Aircraft Corp.’s X-49A SpeedHawk and Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.’s X2 technology. Both are “compound helicopters,” which have an extra means of forward thrust. Compounds have been tried for decades but none has gone into production, partly because the weight of the additional gear used for extra thrust tended to cut into range and payload. Another problem is the dramatic increase in drag a helicopter’s rotor and rotorhead create as speed increases.
Piasecki and Sikorsky say they’ve solved the retreating blade stall and drag problems. The Army, however, has no plan to develop SpeedHawk or X2 technology, and neither will be ready for years in any event .
The SpeedHawk, a modified Sikorsky SH-60F Sea Hawk with a vectored-thrust, ducted propeller on its tail for forward propulsion, might make it first. Piasecki is developing SpeedHawk on an Army R&;D contract. If the military funded a program to put SpeedHawk technology on Black Hawks, “you could transition this technology within five years,” says John Piasecki, president.
The aircraft has a small wing that provides lift so the rotor doesn’t have to provide it all. That delays the onset of retreating blade stall, Piasecki said, and its propeller allows the SpeedHawk to fly forward in level attitude, rather than having to pitch its nose down. Those features, coupled with a rotorhead fairing, he said, significantly reduce high-speed drag The sole SpeedHawk demonstrator has flown 86 hr., reaching 180 kt. indicated airspeed, a limit imposed by the Navy because the aircraft is a modified Sea Hawk. Pending a waiver of that limit, more funding and modifications to the aircraft, Piasecki hopes to soon reach 215 kt. Applying the technology to a new design could produce a helicopter capable of 270 kt. or more, he ventures
Sikorsky’s X2 technology combines two coaxial rotors with an 80-in.-dia. pusher propeller. The coaxial rotors delay retreating blade stall by rotating in opposite directions, eliminating the need to raise the pitch on a blade as it retreats and meets less lift-assisting relative wind. The advancing blades of each rotor create lift in balance, says Chief X2 Engineer Steve Weiner, making it unnecessary to add pitch to retreating blades. Fairings on both rotor hubs and a sleek body hold drag to acceptable levels, Weiner adds
The X2 demonstrator, which was built on a specially designed airframe, has flown only 6.2 hr. and no faster than 106 kt., but Sikorsky plans to take it to 250 kt. this summer. Sikorsky is funding the project, says Program Manager Jim Kagdis, and has no restrictions on reaching its goals if the technology performs as expected. Even so, X2 technology won’t be ready for prime time before 2018.
Spec Ops Needs Faster Helos | AVIATION WEEK
By Richard Whittle
Arlington, Va.
The Army’s 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment is feeling the need for speed to contend with the sprawl of Afghanistan, the unit’s commander, Col. Clay Hutmacher, told an Assn. of the U.S. Army aviation symposium here in January The “Night Stalkers”—so-called because most of their missions are flown in darkness—conduct raids to capture or kill enemy leadership. Flying from Bagram AB often puts their MH-6 Little Bird, MH-60 Black Hawk and MH-47 Chinook troop-carrying helicopters 2 hr. from targets. “We’re looking to go farther and faster and carry more stuff,” Hutmacher said The top cruising speed for military helicopters is usually 150-160 kt. One reason is the aerodynamic phenomenon of “retreating blade stall.” The only operational rotorcraft that overcomes it is the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, flown by the Marines and Air Force Special Operations Command. By tilting its wingtip rotors forward after taking off vertically and flying like an airplane, the Osprey escapes retreating blade stall to cruise at around 250 kt. and fly farther, unrefueled, than helicopters. Hutmacher, though, said the V-22 doesn’t seem to be the answer for the 160th because it can’t hover as well as most helicopters.
Above 4,000 ft., there’s a significant [hovering] limitation on the V-22,” he said. Tiltrotor engineers concede that while the V-22 hovers well in many situations, the special twist and size of its “proprotors” leave it unable to carry as much useful load pound-for-pound as most helicopters hovering in similar conditions.
I’m not disparaging the V-22,” Hutmacher said. Hovering ability, however, is critical to the 160th, because “at the end of the day, our mission is going to terminate in a hover.”
Two technologies Hutmacher has seen might provide faster rotorcraft: Piasecki Aircraft Corp.’s X-49A SpeedHawk and Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.’s X2 technology. Both are “compound helicopters,” which have an extra means of forward thrust. Compounds have been tried for decades but none has gone into production, partly because the weight of the additional gear used for extra thrust tended to cut into range and payload. Another problem is the dramatic increase in drag a helicopter’s rotor and rotorhead create as speed increases.
Piasecki and Sikorsky say they’ve solved the retreating blade stall and drag problems. The Army, however, has no plan to develop SpeedHawk or X2 technology, and neither will be ready for years in any event .
The SpeedHawk, a modified Sikorsky SH-60F Sea Hawk with a vectored-thrust, ducted propeller on its tail for forward propulsion, might make it first. Piasecki is developing SpeedHawk on an Army R&;D contract. If the military funded a program to put SpeedHawk technology on Black Hawks, “you could transition this technology within five years,” says John Piasecki, president.
The aircraft has a small wing that provides lift so the rotor doesn’t have to provide it all. That delays the onset of retreating blade stall, Piasecki said, and its propeller allows the SpeedHawk to fly forward in level attitude, rather than having to pitch its nose down. Those features, coupled with a rotorhead fairing, he said, significantly reduce high-speed drag The sole SpeedHawk demonstrator has flown 86 hr., reaching 180 kt. indicated airspeed, a limit imposed by the Navy because the aircraft is a modified Sea Hawk. Pending a waiver of that limit, more funding and modifications to the aircraft, Piasecki hopes to soon reach 215 kt. Applying the technology to a new design could produce a helicopter capable of 270 kt. or more, he ventures
Sikorsky’s X2 technology combines two coaxial rotors with an 80-in.-dia. pusher propeller. The coaxial rotors delay retreating blade stall by rotating in opposite directions, eliminating the need to raise the pitch on a blade as it retreats and meets less lift-assisting relative wind. The advancing blades of each rotor create lift in balance, says Chief X2 Engineer Steve Weiner, making it unnecessary to add pitch to retreating blades. Fairings on both rotor hubs and a sleek body hold drag to acceptable levels, Weiner adds
The X2 demonstrator, which was built on a specially designed airframe, has flown only 6.2 hr. and no faster than 106 kt., but Sikorsky plans to take it to 250 kt. this summer. Sikorsky is funding the project, says Program Manager Jim Kagdis, and has no restrictions on reaching its goals if the technology performs as expected. Even so, X2 technology won’t be ready for prime time before 2018.
Spec Ops Needs Faster Helos | AVIATION WEEK
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Osprey: She is High Maintenance, but Marines Love Her Anyway
April 2010
By Grace V. Jean
Marine Corps officials have raved about the MV-22 Osprey’s recent contributions to operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Haiti.
Commanders like the tilt-rotor aircraft’s advanced features and performance. The Osprey, however, is as high maintenance as it gets.
MV-22 maintenance squadrons in Iraq have faced reliability and maintainability challenges “stemming from an immature supply chain not always responsive to the demand for repair parts and aircraft and engine parts lasting only a fraction of their projected service life,” stated a Government Accountability Office report. The operations and support costs for the life cycle of the program, initially estimated at $75.41 billion, are expected to rise. As a leading indicator of potential increases, the GAO singled out the $11,000 cost per flying hour — more than double the target estimate.
“The Osprey’s Iraq experience demonstrated that the rise in cost is due in part to unreliable parts, the cost of some parts and required maintenance,” stated GAO’s Michael J. Sullivan, director for acquisition and sourcing management, last year before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “If there is no improvement, overall cost and maintenance hours may remain high.”
Because of the expense and labor associated with the large number of spare parts required to keep it in operations, Marine officials are now trying to come up with more efficient ways to maintain the fleet.
Classified as a medium-lift assault support aircraft, the V-22 carries 24 troops and can take off and land vertically like a helicopter but fly like an airplane. It has been operating in Iraq since late 2007 and is now flying combat missions in Afghanistan. A squadron en route to a war zone in January was diverted to Haiti to assist with the earthquake relief operations. Officials expect the demand for the aircraft to continue growing in the months ahead.
The Marine Corps’ fleet of combat-deployable Osprey aircraft in the last year has averaged an availability rate of 65 percent. The initial readiness level estimate for the aircraft had been projected at 82 percent. But since the tilt-rotor entered service three years ago, officials have discovered problems with the availability and performance of key parts.
“There are some select components that have not lived up to the reliability of the engineering predictions first conveyed,” said Lt. Col. Robert Freeland, aviation plans and medium-lift requirements officer at Marine Corps headquarters.
The GAO found that 13 components accounted for more than half the spare parts unavailable in Iraq. Of those, six lasted less than 10 percent of their expected service life.
Swash plate actuators, which help the aircraft’s rotor systems to turn and articulate, have topped the list of culprits. Those components were expected to last for 12,000 hours, but marines have discovered that in actual operations, they withstand only several hundred hours before they have to be replaced. Removing and repairing those parts account for almost half of the fleet’s repairable-parts cost, said Freeland.
Because the service designed its maintenance processes based upon the engineering predictions of component failures, it lacked adequate repair and production capability to keep pace with the demand for spare parts when failures occurred.
It took too many parts and cost too much money to fix broken aircraft, Freeland said. “That’s what got our attention,” he said. “That’s what we’re fixing.”
In the process of addressing that problem, marines also discovered a cuff seal that does not work properly on the swash plate actuator. That piece alone accounts for 84 percent of the items that have to be removed from the aircraft for repair or replacement.
Maintainers increased the repair capacity and asked the aircraft’s manufacturer, Boeing Co. and Bell Helicopter, to correct the problem. The Corps also has set up a testing check to monitor the status of those parts.
Marine officials have decided that repairing parts at the fleet readiness center in North Carolina will reduce costs and give them better control over the process. “There are more and more components that we can repair at that facility rather than sending them back to the original equipment manufacturer,” said Freeland. “That is going to take a big bite out of crime. One, we’re going to save a lot of money, two, we’re going to the keep components on the aircraft longer, which is really the goal: To keep the aircraft up for the war fighter to use.”
Despite the maintenance headaches, officials said that the MV-22s continue to meet commanders’ needs with the 65 percent average availability. That percentage is tallied based upon a “24-hour clock” metric based on the level of effort required to supply and maintain the aircraft on a continual basis. Marine air ground task force commanders measure availability with another metric, called an aviation management supply and readiness report, which captures a snapshot of the fleet at a specific time.
For example, during a span of 19 months of operations in Iraq, officials calculated an availability of 64.1 percent on the 24-hour clock. That same time period using the snapshot metric yielded a rate of 71.6 percent. “That tells you that if I’m looking across the fleet over the entire time, I’ve only got six out of 10 [Ospreys] up, but on a daily basis, I had a little better than seven out of 10 up,” explained Freeland. “You can meet your mission with seven out of 10.”
But as demand for the MV-22 grows, the Marine Corps wants to reduce the risk of aircraft not being available to fly missions, Freeland said. “With the proper application of the engineering resources and the funding resources, we know we’re going to get this thing licked,” he said.
Marines continue to defend the fledgling aircraft with a fierce passion. Though still haunted by its rocky 25-year development phase and tragic losses of life during testing, the MV-22 appears to be climbing out of the turbulence into calmer skies. Ensuring that the maintenance piece comes together will help solidify the trajectory, officials said.
Commanders have lauded the aircraft’s speed and reach in both combat and humanitarian operations.
“We’d find ourselves going from the border of Jordan going all the way back to Baghdad and even east of there in the same day, and with the same aircraft. That was something that they hadn’t seen before,” said Freeland, who flew the Osprey in Iraq from January 2008 to May 2008. He deployed on numerous missions that previously required a turboprop aircraft, such as a C-130, and some pre-positioned helicopters to reach out to greater distances. “Now we just send one or two MV-22s in one afternoon to do what previously required two type model series over two days,” he said.
The Corps is excited to have true medium-lift capability again — an aircraft that can transport troops and more supplies at greater distances, officials said. Commanders mostly rely upon the CH-53 heavy-lift helicopter to do the task. Having the MV-22 frees up the CH-53 to return to hauling supplies and equipment.
In Haiti, the Osprey was used to transport marines and assessment teams to outlying areas of the country that were too far and too difficult to reach in a timely manner by conventional means, said Maj. Gen. Cornell Wilson, commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces, South.
“The Ospreys were very critical in checking on some of the other areas that had not been checked on by the government of Haiti or the U.N. forces, or even by our own forces,” he said. The 12 aircraft, sailing aboard the USS Nassau that diverted while en route to a deployment to Afghanistan, also provided food, supplies and medical equipment to areas north of the capital city, Port-au-Prince. The northern part of the country suffered less damage from the magnitude 7.0 earthquake, but towns there required assistance because they were receiving an influx of displaced Haitians seeking shelter, food and safety.
The Osprey flew a total of 149 sorties and 137.2 flying hours in Haiti — the aircraft’s first humanitarian aid and disaster relief operation. In conjunction with the MV-22, Marines flew the UH-1Ns for aerial reconnaissance and also employed the CH-53E and MH-60 to fly assessment teams. Together, the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit aircraft flew a grand total of 355 sorties and 406.5 hours.
“We had a great reach” with the Osprey, said Wilson. “It’s certainly proving itself to be a capable aircraft.”
After spending two weeks assisting in the relief operations, the Ospreys departed with the Nassau amphibious ready group to resume transiting across the Atlantic Ocean to support U.S. European and Central commands.
The GAO report raised concerns about how the aircraft’s mission capability rate might be affected by the harsher climates and high altitudes in Afghanistan. Failures with the ice protection system, in particular, could jeopardize missions, the report stated.
Reliability of the ice protection system has been problematic, but when it has been used, it performed well, said Col. Kevin S. Vest, commanding officer of Marine Aircraft Group 40, deployed to Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan. The Osprey squadron there recently received new rotor blades with heater blankets along with updated hardware for the rotor system. Officials hope those items will improve the system reliability. Vest also pointed out that no other rotorcraft in theater has an ice protection system.
The MV-22 has been involved in a number of assault and support missions in Afghanistan, including an early morning raid that reportedly trapped a number of Taliban fighters in a “kill box” formed by Osprey-deployed marines and AH-1 Cobra helicopters. The aircraft have inserted Special Forces units and Afghan army units in nighttime operations and have ferried injured and wounded Afghan citizens to field hospitals.
“The Ospreys are invaluable and welcome assets in Afghanistan,” said Maj. Carl Redding, a spokesperson for the Marine Corps. Since arriving in early November, the aircraft have flown more than 11,000 hours in 650 sorties and counting. They have transported more than 9,000 passengers and more than 350,000 pounds of cargo. Their mission capable rating has been seven out of 10 each day, a comparable rate to their performance in Iraq.
“The MV-22 is the medium-lift assault craft of choice,” said Redding.
Freeland said marines are applying the lessons that they learned in Iraq about how to employ the aircraft. They understand its capabilities and are leveraging them. More importantly, they are treating the tilt-rotor like any other aircraft in the Marine Corps inventory. “That’s very, very good to see,” said Freeland. “We’re very pleased to see the normalization of the MV-22.”
The Osprey: She is High Maintenance, but Marines Love Her Anyway
April 2010
By Grace V. Jean
Marine Corps officials have raved about the MV-22 Osprey’s recent contributions to operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Haiti.
Commanders like the tilt-rotor aircraft’s advanced features and performance. The Osprey, however, is as high maintenance as it gets.
MV-22 maintenance squadrons in Iraq have faced reliability and maintainability challenges “stemming from an immature supply chain not always responsive to the demand for repair parts and aircraft and engine parts lasting only a fraction of their projected service life,” stated a Government Accountability Office report. The operations and support costs for the life cycle of the program, initially estimated at $75.41 billion, are expected to rise. As a leading indicator of potential increases, the GAO singled out the $11,000 cost per flying hour — more than double the target estimate.
“The Osprey’s Iraq experience demonstrated that the rise in cost is due in part to unreliable parts, the cost of some parts and required maintenance,” stated GAO’s Michael J. Sullivan, director for acquisition and sourcing management, last year before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “If there is no improvement, overall cost and maintenance hours may remain high.”
Because of the expense and labor associated with the large number of spare parts required to keep it in operations, Marine officials are now trying to come up with more efficient ways to maintain the fleet.
Classified as a medium-lift assault support aircraft, the V-22 carries 24 troops and can take off and land vertically like a helicopter but fly like an airplane. It has been operating in Iraq since late 2007 and is now flying combat missions in Afghanistan. A squadron en route to a war zone in January was diverted to Haiti to assist with the earthquake relief operations. Officials expect the demand for the aircraft to continue growing in the months ahead.
The Marine Corps’ fleet of combat-deployable Osprey aircraft in the last year has averaged an availability rate of 65 percent. The initial readiness level estimate for the aircraft had been projected at 82 percent. But since the tilt-rotor entered service three years ago, officials have discovered problems with the availability and performance of key parts.
“There are some select components that have not lived up to the reliability of the engineering predictions first conveyed,” said Lt. Col. Robert Freeland, aviation plans and medium-lift requirements officer at Marine Corps headquarters.
The GAO found that 13 components accounted for more than half the spare parts unavailable in Iraq. Of those, six lasted less than 10 percent of their expected service life.
Swash plate actuators, which help the aircraft’s rotor systems to turn and articulate, have topped the list of culprits. Those components were expected to last for 12,000 hours, but marines have discovered that in actual operations, they withstand only several hundred hours before they have to be replaced. Removing and repairing those parts account for almost half of the fleet’s repairable-parts cost, said Freeland.
Because the service designed its maintenance processes based upon the engineering predictions of component failures, it lacked adequate repair and production capability to keep pace with the demand for spare parts when failures occurred.
It took too many parts and cost too much money to fix broken aircraft, Freeland said. “That’s what got our attention,” he said. “That’s what we’re fixing.”
In the process of addressing that problem, marines also discovered a cuff seal that does not work properly on the swash plate actuator. That piece alone accounts for 84 percent of the items that have to be removed from the aircraft for repair or replacement.
Maintainers increased the repair capacity and asked the aircraft’s manufacturer, Boeing Co. and Bell Helicopter, to correct the problem. The Corps also has set up a testing check to monitor the status of those parts.
Marine officials have decided that repairing parts at the fleet readiness center in North Carolina will reduce costs and give them better control over the process. “There are more and more components that we can repair at that facility rather than sending them back to the original equipment manufacturer,” said Freeland. “That is going to take a big bite out of crime. One, we’re going to save a lot of money, two, we’re going to the keep components on the aircraft longer, which is really the goal: To keep the aircraft up for the war fighter to use.”
Despite the maintenance headaches, officials said that the MV-22s continue to meet commanders’ needs with the 65 percent average availability. That percentage is tallied based upon a “24-hour clock” metric based on the level of effort required to supply and maintain the aircraft on a continual basis. Marine air ground task force commanders measure availability with another metric, called an aviation management supply and readiness report, which captures a snapshot of the fleet at a specific time.
For example, during a span of 19 months of operations in Iraq, officials calculated an availability of 64.1 percent on the 24-hour clock. That same time period using the snapshot metric yielded a rate of 71.6 percent. “That tells you that if I’m looking across the fleet over the entire time, I’ve only got six out of 10 [Ospreys] up, but on a daily basis, I had a little better than seven out of 10 up,” explained Freeland. “You can meet your mission with seven out of 10.”
But as demand for the MV-22 grows, the Marine Corps wants to reduce the risk of aircraft not being available to fly missions, Freeland said. “With the proper application of the engineering resources and the funding resources, we know we’re going to get this thing licked,” he said.
Marines continue to defend the fledgling aircraft with a fierce passion. Though still haunted by its rocky 25-year development phase and tragic losses of life during testing, the MV-22 appears to be climbing out of the turbulence into calmer skies. Ensuring that the maintenance piece comes together will help solidify the trajectory, officials said.
Commanders have lauded the aircraft’s speed and reach in both combat and humanitarian operations.
“We’d find ourselves going from the border of Jordan going all the way back to Baghdad and even east of there in the same day, and with the same aircraft. That was something that they hadn’t seen before,” said Freeland, who flew the Osprey in Iraq from January 2008 to May 2008. He deployed on numerous missions that previously required a turboprop aircraft, such as a C-130, and some pre-positioned helicopters to reach out to greater distances. “Now we just send one or two MV-22s in one afternoon to do what previously required two type model series over two days,” he said.
The Corps is excited to have true medium-lift capability again — an aircraft that can transport troops and more supplies at greater distances, officials said. Commanders mostly rely upon the CH-53 heavy-lift helicopter to do the task. Having the MV-22 frees up the CH-53 to return to hauling supplies and equipment.
In Haiti, the Osprey was used to transport marines and assessment teams to outlying areas of the country that were too far and too difficult to reach in a timely manner by conventional means, said Maj. Gen. Cornell Wilson, commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces, South.
“The Ospreys were very critical in checking on some of the other areas that had not been checked on by the government of Haiti or the U.N. forces, or even by our own forces,” he said. The 12 aircraft, sailing aboard the USS Nassau that diverted while en route to a deployment to Afghanistan, also provided food, supplies and medical equipment to areas north of the capital city, Port-au-Prince. The northern part of the country suffered less damage from the magnitude 7.0 earthquake, but towns there required assistance because they were receiving an influx of displaced Haitians seeking shelter, food and safety.
The Osprey flew a total of 149 sorties and 137.2 flying hours in Haiti — the aircraft’s first humanitarian aid and disaster relief operation. In conjunction with the MV-22, Marines flew the UH-1Ns for aerial reconnaissance and also employed the CH-53E and MH-60 to fly assessment teams. Together, the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit aircraft flew a grand total of 355 sorties and 406.5 hours.
“We had a great reach” with the Osprey, said Wilson. “It’s certainly proving itself to be a capable aircraft.”
After spending two weeks assisting in the relief operations, the Ospreys departed with the Nassau amphibious ready group to resume transiting across the Atlantic Ocean to support U.S. European and Central commands.
The GAO report raised concerns about how the aircraft’s mission capability rate might be affected by the harsher climates and high altitudes in Afghanistan. Failures with the ice protection system, in particular, could jeopardize missions, the report stated.
Reliability of the ice protection system has been problematic, but when it has been used, it performed well, said Col. Kevin S. Vest, commanding officer of Marine Aircraft Group 40, deployed to Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan. The Osprey squadron there recently received new rotor blades with heater blankets along with updated hardware for the rotor system. Officials hope those items will improve the system reliability. Vest also pointed out that no other rotorcraft in theater has an ice protection system.
The MV-22 has been involved in a number of assault and support missions in Afghanistan, including an early morning raid that reportedly trapped a number of Taliban fighters in a “kill box” formed by Osprey-deployed marines and AH-1 Cobra helicopters. The aircraft have inserted Special Forces units and Afghan army units in nighttime operations and have ferried injured and wounded Afghan citizens to field hospitals.
“The Ospreys are invaluable and welcome assets in Afghanistan,” said Maj. Carl Redding, a spokesperson for the Marine Corps. Since arriving in early November, the aircraft have flown more than 11,000 hours in 650 sorties and counting. They have transported more than 9,000 passengers and more than 350,000 pounds of cargo. Their mission capable rating has been seven out of 10 each day, a comparable rate to their performance in Iraq.
“The MV-22 is the medium-lift assault craft of choice,” said Redding.
Freeland said marines are applying the lessons that they learned in Iraq about how to employ the aircraft. They understand its capabilities and are leveraging them. More importantly, they are treating the tilt-rotor like any other aircraft in the Marine Corps inventory. “That’s very, very good to see,” said Freeland. “We’re very pleased to see the normalization of the MV-22.”
The Osprey: She is High Maintenance, but Marines Love Her Anyway
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think so
"Vest also pointed out that no other rotorcraft in theater has an ice protection system".
Better not tell the Merlin guys that, they might "RIPU" a new one for telling porkies.
Better not tell the Merlin guys that, they might "RIPU" a new one for telling porkies.
UH60's have deice too.
-- IFMU
-- IFMU
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
never let the truth
They say never let the truth get in the way of a good story! I suppose saying that no other rotorcraft in theater CAN'T autorotate, doesn't have the same PR effect (laugh).
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try It, You'll Like It
April 2, 2010: The U.S. Marine Corps is trying to persuade SOCOM (Special Operations Command) to buy a squadron or two of marine MV-22 tilt-rotor transports, to augment the more expensive SOCOM CV-22 version. Last year, SOCOM sent its first six CV-22 tilt-rotor ("Osprey") transports to serve for three months of field testing in Iraq. Meanwhile, the marines have had MV-22s in Iraq for two years, and now have them in Afghanistan as well.
The U.S. Air Force component of SOCOM is using the CV-22 to replace the current MH-53J special operations helicopters. Unlike the U.S. Marine Corps version, the SOCOM CV-22s have lots more expensive electronics on board. This will help the CV-22 when traveling into hostile territory. The CV-22 also carries a terrain avoidance radar, an additional 3500 liters (900 gallons) of fuel and more gadgets in general. The 25 ton CV-22 is a major improvement on the MH-53J, with three times the range, and a higher cruising speed (at 410 kilometers an hour, twice that of the helicopter). The CV-22 can travel about nearly a thousand kilometers, in any weather, and land or pick up 18 fully equipped commandoes. The SOCOM CV-22 won't ready for regular service for another year.
The marines believe their cheaper version (because they lack the all-weather flight electronics and other extras) will prove ideal for most SOCOM operations. The marines have already been using their MV-22s for commando type operations, and are very satisfied with the results. Both versions of the V-22 have also been armed.
SOCOM, like the marines, has had a GAU-2B machine-gun fitted to the bottom of a V-22. This is a remote control turret using a six-barrel 7.62mm machine-gun. It has a rate of fire of 3,000 rounds per minute (50 per second), and max range of 1,500 meters. The system weighs a few hundred pounds and includes 4,000 rounds of ammo. A member of the crew uses a video game like interface to operate the gun. This weapon is part of the Universal Turret System (UTS) for Helicopters.
The need to arm the V-22 has been debated for nearly a decade. The original proposal was for a UTS equipped with a 12.7mm machine-gun. That has a longer range (about 2,000 meters), but the 7.62mm GAU-2B could lay down more bullets more quickly. Experience in Iraq and Afghanistan indicated this would be a more useful defensive measure. The UTS is mounted on CV-22s as needed. The armed SOCOM V-22 provides an option that the other users can easily adopt. The machine-gun turret is mainly there for protection from local threats, not for turning the V-22 into an assault aircraft.
The V-22 is the first application of the tilt-rotor technology in active service. The air force is already working on improvements (to make the V-22 more reliable and easier to maintain), but these won't be installed for another few years. The V-22 gives the marines and SOCOM a lot more capability, but, as is often the case, this is a lot more expensive. The initial production models of the CV-22 cost over $60 million each. SOCOM insists on a high degree of reliability for its aircraft. Commando operations cannot tolerate too many mistakes without getting fatally derailed.
ref: Special Operations: Try It, You'll Like It
April 2, 2010: The U.S. Marine Corps is trying to persuade SOCOM (Special Operations Command) to buy a squadron or two of marine MV-22 tilt-rotor transports, to augment the more expensive SOCOM CV-22 version. Last year, SOCOM sent its first six CV-22 tilt-rotor ("Osprey") transports to serve for three months of field testing in Iraq. Meanwhile, the marines have had MV-22s in Iraq for two years, and now have them in Afghanistan as well.
The U.S. Air Force component of SOCOM is using the CV-22 to replace the current MH-53J special operations helicopters. Unlike the U.S. Marine Corps version, the SOCOM CV-22s have lots more expensive electronics on board. This will help the CV-22 when traveling into hostile territory. The CV-22 also carries a terrain avoidance radar, an additional 3500 liters (900 gallons) of fuel and more gadgets in general. The 25 ton CV-22 is a major improvement on the MH-53J, with three times the range, and a higher cruising speed (at 410 kilometers an hour, twice that of the helicopter). The CV-22 can travel about nearly a thousand kilometers, in any weather, and land or pick up 18 fully equipped commandoes. The SOCOM CV-22 won't ready for regular service for another year.
The marines believe their cheaper version (because they lack the all-weather flight electronics and other extras) will prove ideal for most SOCOM operations. The marines have already been using their MV-22s for commando type operations, and are very satisfied with the results. Both versions of the V-22 have also been armed.
SOCOM, like the marines, has had a GAU-2B machine-gun fitted to the bottom of a V-22. This is a remote control turret using a six-barrel 7.62mm machine-gun. It has a rate of fire of 3,000 rounds per minute (50 per second), and max range of 1,500 meters. The system weighs a few hundred pounds and includes 4,000 rounds of ammo. A member of the crew uses a video game like interface to operate the gun. This weapon is part of the Universal Turret System (UTS) for Helicopters.
The need to arm the V-22 has been debated for nearly a decade. The original proposal was for a UTS equipped with a 12.7mm machine-gun. That has a longer range (about 2,000 meters), but the 7.62mm GAU-2B could lay down more bullets more quickly. Experience in Iraq and Afghanistan indicated this would be a more useful defensive measure. The UTS is mounted on CV-22s as needed. The armed SOCOM V-22 provides an option that the other users can easily adopt. The machine-gun turret is mainly there for protection from local threats, not for turning the V-22 into an assault aircraft.
The V-22 is the first application of the tilt-rotor technology in active service. The air force is already working on improvements (to make the V-22 more reliable and easier to maintain), but these won't be installed for another few years. The V-22 gives the marines and SOCOM a lot more capability, but, as is often the case, this is a lot more expensive. The initial production models of the CV-22 cost over $60 million each. SOCOM insists on a high degree of reliability for its aircraft. Commando operations cannot tolerate too many mistakes without getting fatally derailed.
ref: Special Operations: Try It, You'll Like It
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CV-22 crash not caused by mechanical failure
DATE:17/04/10
SOURCE:Flight International
CV-22 crash not caused by mechanical failure
By Stephen Trimble
The BellBoeing CV-22 crash in Afghanistan on 8 April was not caused by a mechanical failure, according to a source familiar with preliminary findings of the US military investigation.
The fatal crash, which killed four and injured others, occurred after the pilot lost situational awareness while landing in a wadi around 1am under brown-out conditions, the source says.
The incident killed the pilot, a flight engineer, an army Ranger and an unidentified civilian.
Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), which owns the CV-22 fleet, was not immediately available to comment.
US military officials have previously stated the cause of the CV-22 crash in Afghanistan was still under investigation. Military spokesmen, however, have ruled out enemy fire as a potential cause.
The 8 August crash is the first fatal accident involving a V-22 Osprey tiltrotor since December 2000, and is the fifth fatal crash in the programme's chequered history.
In 2000, two fatal crashes within eight months caused by a combination of design flaws and mechanical failures forced military leaders to put the programme on hold for two years while contractors re-designed systems and the airframe to improve safety.
After declaring the MV-22 fleet operational in 2007, the US Marine Corps has deployed its version of the Osprey in Iraq and Afghanistan without suffering a fatal crash.
USMC officials have praised the MV-22's performance, although the service has acknowledged concerns about unexpectedly high costs to operate and maintain the unique tiltrotor fleet.
AFSOC, meanwhile, had deployed six CV-22s delivered so far to Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan before sustaining the crash.
The brown-out scenario during landing is recognized as a major safety concern for all rotorcraft operating in areas with loose sand. A recent study by the Office of the Secretary of Defense has concluded that 80% of the US millitary's 320 rotorcraft crashes during the last decade has been caused by degraded visual awareness.
SOURCE:Flight International
CV-22 crash not caused by mechanical failure
By Stephen Trimble
The BellBoeing CV-22 crash in Afghanistan on 8 April was not caused by a mechanical failure, according to a source familiar with preliminary findings of the US military investigation.
The fatal crash, which killed four and injured others, occurred after the pilot lost situational awareness while landing in a wadi around 1am under brown-out conditions, the source says.
The incident killed the pilot, a flight engineer, an army Ranger and an unidentified civilian.
Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), which owns the CV-22 fleet, was not immediately available to comment.
US military officials have previously stated the cause of the CV-22 crash in Afghanistan was still under investigation. Military spokesmen, however, have ruled out enemy fire as a potential cause.
The 8 August crash is the first fatal accident involving a V-22 Osprey tiltrotor since December 2000, and is the fifth fatal crash in the programme's chequered history.
In 2000, two fatal crashes within eight months caused by a combination of design flaws and mechanical failures forced military leaders to put the programme on hold for two years while contractors re-designed systems and the airframe to improve safety.
After declaring the MV-22 fleet operational in 2007, the US Marine Corps has deployed its version of the Osprey in Iraq and Afghanistan without suffering a fatal crash.
USMC officials have praised the MV-22's performance, although the service has acknowledged concerns about unexpectedly high costs to operate and maintain the unique tiltrotor fleet.
AFSOC, meanwhile, had deployed six CV-22s delivered so far to Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan before sustaining the crash.
The brown-out scenario during landing is recognized as a major safety concern for all rotorcraft operating in areas with loose sand. A recent study by the Office of the Secretary of Defense has concluded that 80% of the US millitary's 320 rotorcraft crashes during the last decade has been caused by degraded visual awareness.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presidential Tiltrotor?
Pentagon pleased with V-22 Osprey's performance
Tue, May 4 2010
* Bell-Boeing interested in presidential helicopter contest
* Pentagon working to improve readiness
WASHINGTON, May 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. military is pleased with the performance of the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan, but is still working hard to improve its readiness, the Pentagon's program manager said on Tuesday.
Marine Corp Colonel Greg Masiello told reporters that the V-22 or Osprey built by Boeing Co <BA.N> and Textron Inc's <TXT.N> Bell Helicopter unit, had not missed a single operational mission since its first deployment.
He said the Pentagon still wanted to improve the current readiness level of the aircraft, which takes off and lands like a helicopter, but flies like a plane. The aircraft had a readiness level of 68 percent in Iraq, but the goal was to increase that around 80-plus percent by 2018, he said.
The V-22 program was nearly cancelled after several deadly accidents during its development, but officials say it is now winning kudos for the unusual capabilities it offers.
However, the Air Force is still investigating the crash of an Air Force V-22 in Afghanistan in April that killed four people, an incident some reports have blamed on a brownout effect caused when its rotors kicked up fine sand.
Masiello declined comment on the cause of the accident since the investigation is still underway. But he said that neither the Marine Corps nor Air Force grounded their other aircraft after the accident.
Masiello said the Pentagon was beginning to put together a business case for a second five-year multiyear procurement of the aircraft that would begin in fiscal year 2013.
"That should send a message on how confident we are on this platform," he said.
Gene Cunningham, vice president of the Bell Boeing joint venture that builds the aircraft, said production was going well and would reach 35 a year next, growing to 40 by 2014.
Masiello said 106 aircraft had been delivered, and two more were en route, and the government was working closely with the contractors to lower costs on the plane.
Cunningham said the companies expected foreign interest in the aircraft to pick up now that it was being used for military work, and said there could also be interest from other U.S. agencies, civilian and military.
He said Bell Boeing was clearly looking to sell more of the planes, and would respond to a request for information issued by the Navy for a new presidential helicopter competition.
Masiello said the aircraft could land at the White House, despite the fact that it is larger than the other helicopters in the competition.
Tue, May 4 2010
* Bell-Boeing interested in presidential helicopter contest
* Pentagon working to improve readiness
WASHINGTON, May 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. military is pleased with the performance of the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan, but is still working hard to improve its readiness, the Pentagon's program manager said on Tuesday.
Marine Corp Colonel Greg Masiello told reporters that the V-22 or Osprey built by Boeing Co <BA.N> and Textron Inc's <TXT.N> Bell Helicopter unit, had not missed a single operational mission since its first deployment.
He said the Pentagon still wanted to improve the current readiness level of the aircraft, which takes off and lands like a helicopter, but flies like a plane. The aircraft had a readiness level of 68 percent in Iraq, but the goal was to increase that around 80-plus percent by 2018, he said.
The V-22 program was nearly cancelled after several deadly accidents during its development, but officials say it is now winning kudos for the unusual capabilities it offers.
However, the Air Force is still investigating the crash of an Air Force V-22 in Afghanistan in April that killed four people, an incident some reports have blamed on a brownout effect caused when its rotors kicked up fine sand.
Masiello declined comment on the cause of the accident since the investigation is still underway. But he said that neither the Marine Corps nor Air Force grounded their other aircraft after the accident.
Masiello said the Pentagon was beginning to put together a business case for a second five-year multiyear procurement of the aircraft that would begin in fiscal year 2013.
"That should send a message on how confident we are on this platform," he said.
Gene Cunningham, vice president of the Bell Boeing joint venture that builds the aircraft, said production was going well and would reach 35 a year next, growing to 40 by 2014.
Masiello said 106 aircraft had been delivered, and two more were en route, and the government was working closely with the contractors to lower costs on the plane.
Cunningham said the companies expected foreign interest in the aircraft to pick up now that it was being used for military work, and said there could also be interest from other U.S. agencies, civilian and military.
He said Bell Boeing was clearly looking to sell more of the planes, and would respond to a request for information issued by the Navy for a new presidential helicopter competition.
Masiello said the aircraft could land at the White House, despite the fact that it is larger than the other helicopters in the competition.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Osprey for Obama?
Suggesting that the half Indian S-92 is "all American" and is safer than the VH-71 was bizarre enough, but putting Obama in the Osprey is just cruel. Do you yanks really hate him that much, or was it the Spanish Prime minister's suggestion? Even the thought of the presidential airborne cavalcade trying to keep up should be enough to disqualify the tiltrotor as an option. If you can only fly as fast as the slowest aircraft then all the aircraft must be tiltrotors, or none of them (or is that too logical?).
At least TATA have a contract with Boeing as well, so they win either way!
long live free trade.
Laugh!
At least TATA have a contract with Boeing as well, so they win either way!
long live free trade.
Laugh!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suggesting that the half Indian S-92 is "all American" and is safer than the VH-71 was bizarre enough, but putting Obama in the Osprey is just cruel. Do you yanks really hate him that much
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Osprey for Obama?
oldgrubber says:
Oldgrubber:
The yanks in the military don't hate Obama -- it is actually Obama who is keen on travelling in the Osprey after his experience in Iraq when he was a Senator (flying fast, and high, and not getting hit by anything from below was a good thing!!).
Senator McCain also flew in the Osprey on a trip to Iraq during the pre-presidential campaign and is a staunch supporter of the technology:
I cannot account for why Senator McCain was offered a flak jacket and Obama was not, but I'm sure it was just an oversight...
So again Oldgrubber, there is no attempt to put Obama at risk on the part of the US military by having him travel in the Osprey which will certainly be safe, and offer him shorter travel times and greater distances than would be available to him with any other vertical lift aircraft available in the U.S inventory at this time.
However, there was a reported event where the USAF did in fact take the mickey out of him at Andrews AFB with Air Force One -- see below:
Air Force General: "Mr. President, we've just invented an invisibility cloak for Air Force One."
Obama: "No sh*t?"
General: "That's right, sir. Will you be going along on its maiden flight?"
Obama: "Wouldn't miss it for the world."
General: "Have a good trip, sir..."
...putting Obama in the Osprey is just cruel. Do you yanks really hate him that much...
The yanks in the military don't hate Obama -- it is actually Obama who is keen on travelling in the Osprey after his experience in Iraq when he was a Senator (flying fast, and high, and not getting hit by anything from below was a good thing!!).
Senator McCain also flew in the Osprey on a trip to Iraq during the pre-presidential campaign and is a staunch supporter of the technology:
I cannot account for why Senator McCain was offered a flak jacket and Obama was not, but I'm sure it was just an oversight...
So again Oldgrubber, there is no attempt to put Obama at risk on the part of the US military by having him travel in the Osprey which will certainly be safe, and offer him shorter travel times and greater distances than would be available to him with any other vertical lift aircraft available in the U.S inventory at this time.
However, there was a reported event where the USAF did in fact take the mickey out of him at Andrews AFB with Air Force One -- see below:
Air Force General: "Mr. President, we've just invented an invisibility cloak for Air Force One."
Obama: "No sh*t?"
General: "That's right, sir. Will you be going along on its maiden flight?"
Obama: "Wouldn't miss it for the world."
General: "Have a good trip, sir..."
I am all for Barry Boy flying high and fast.....this is my choice of new rides for him!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Logic??
Oldgrubber says:
With that same "logic," we would have said that when a gas-powered ground vehicle first became available to transport the King of England at higher speeds than the the security forces were capable of (because they were riding on horseback), we should make sure the King continues to ride in a horse-drawn carriage.
In modern day scenarios there are a lot more options. No need to worry Oldgrubber, the Fixed-Wing fighters above, and Rotary-wing assets deployed along the route, will provide high speed and low speed capabilities so somebody will always be "in the neighborhood" to protect Mr. Obama when he travels.
SAS:
What is the a/c you recommended for "Barry Boy's" ride? It looks familar, but need a little more background information...
thanks,
Even the thought of the presidential airborne cavalcade trying to keep up should be enough to disqualify the tiltrotor as an option. If you can only fly as fast as the slowest aircraft then all the aircraft must be tiltrotors, or none of them (or is that too logical?).
In modern day scenarios there are a lot more options. No need to worry Oldgrubber, the Fixed-Wing fighters above, and Rotary-wing assets deployed along the route, will provide high speed and low speed capabilities so somebody will always be "in the neighborhood" to protect Mr. Obama when he travels.
SAS:
What is the a/c you recommended for "Barry Boy's" ride? It looks familar, but need a little more background information...
thanks,
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Um... lifting says:
You are exactly right -- He may well need to make himself the "President for Life" to pay off the debt that is accumulating now. So perhaps that is part of the overall "plan"?
Well, unless he makes himself "President for Life", there's no danger he'll ever fly in a new Marine One.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Osprey for Obama
OFBFLF,
It's a fair cop, my sources of information for US politics are CNN web page and the Simpsons.
As for the rest of the benefits of the Osprey, well....
Higher, not above 12,000 feet I hope, don't want him passing out do we!
I still can't see the White House lawn being big enough to do the famous "nacelles fully horizontal and glide her in". (assuming you're above above 1600 feet according to the POGO report).
21st,
See what your saying, but from what I've read even the military were concerned that the limiting factor in operations was the speed of the supporting aircraft accompanying the beastie. I like your solution, but it does seem to be a bit "resource heavy", what with all those assets positioned along his route. Still it's his train set as they say.
Cheers all
It's a fair cop, my sources of information for US politics are CNN web page and the Simpsons.
As for the rest of the benefits of the Osprey, well....
Higher, not above 12,000 feet I hope, don't want him passing out do we!
I still can't see the White House lawn being big enough to do the famous "nacelles fully horizontal and glide her in". (assuming you're above above 1600 feet according to the POGO report).
21st,
See what your saying, but from what I've read even the military were concerned that the limiting factor in operations was the speed of the supporting aircraft accompanying the beastie. I like your solution, but it does seem to be a bit "resource heavy", what with all those assets positioned along his route. Still it's his train set as they say.
Cheers all
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obama's Ride
Oldgrubber says:
Correct, SAS advised it is a "WWII Japanese air dropped suicide rocket powered aircraft....750 built....some used.
Had three rocket engines giving about 600mph in a dive towards surface ships....very hard to shoot."
Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka (Cherry Blossom) aircraft, powered by three rocket motors, were the fastest Japanese aircraft of World War II.
When the Japanese started running out of Kamikaze aircraft used in actions against U.S. ships off the coast of Okinawa, they designed the Ohka. The aircraft was easy to mass produce for the one specific function, and inexpensive.
The rocket aircraft was slung under the belly of a bomber. When the host aircraft was within range, it was released. The pilot would ignite the rocket motors and go into a steep dive. Most aircraft failed to reach their destination because the host aircraft that carried it was relatively slow and vulnerable to interception.
Records with regard to the Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka in combat are spotty and unclear. It appears that around 750 aircraft were produced. It is uncertain how many were actually launched on missions.
Perhaps six of the aircraft scored hits on U.S. warships off the coast of Okinawa. Three of the ships sustained heavy damage.
Japanese "Cherry Blossom", I think.
Had three rocket engines giving about 600mph in a dive towards surface ships....very hard to shoot."
Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka (Cherry Blossom) aircraft, powered by three rocket motors, were the fastest Japanese aircraft of World War II.
When the Japanese started running out of Kamikaze aircraft used in actions against U.S. ships off the coast of Okinawa, they designed the Ohka. The aircraft was easy to mass produce for the one specific function, and inexpensive.
The rocket aircraft was slung under the belly of a bomber. When the host aircraft was within range, it was released. The pilot would ignite the rocket motors and go into a steep dive. Most aircraft failed to reach their destination because the host aircraft that carried it was relatively slow and vulnerable to interception.
Records with regard to the Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka in combat are spotty and unclear. It appears that around 750 aircraft were produced. It is uncertain how many were actually launched on missions.
Perhaps six of the aircraft scored hits on U.S. warships off the coast of Okinawa. Three of the ships sustained heavy damage.
McCain's Vest
21st
With McCain's track record in war and marriage he probably demanded it (never know when an ex-wife or Viet Vet may be around). Does anyone think Adm Stockton would have been surprised.
The Sultan
With McCain's track record in war and marriage he probably demanded it (never know when an ex-wife or Viet Vet may be around). Does anyone think Adm Stockton would have been surprised.
The Sultan