What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
Sure, Dan, sure. 
Did anyone in the USMC, at NAVAIR, or in DoD, ever posit the V-22 as a heavy lift asset, or as a 53D follow on? 
That makes little to no sense, as the medium lift was Frogs, was it not?
When did the 53D become "Medium Lift" helicopters?
(Was this like the Navy reclassifying the Spruance class as "destroyers" rather than "cruisers" (it was a cruiser sized hull) in order to get around some acquisition language in the mid 70's and get the program funded/running?) If what he says is true, it seems a shame that they won't replace the 53D with the 53E, but then, there is nothing in the force structure that requires the Marines to always have the same number of heavy lift squadrons. The choice to go to more medium lift may have to do with mission requirements and changing ROC and POE. Still confusing.
The 53E was already in place long before Osprey got into its early development cycle. As I recall, the Super Stallion was dubbed "crowd killer" by no few of my colleagues who flew them. (A pretty infamous wreck, 30+ dead, mid 80's, the tail disconnect coming loose out in FMFPAC somewhere ... )
Aside: some of the Marines called the 53E the "S_h_i_t_t_e_r" for reasons that are unclear to me.
Originally Posted by Sans
I wouldn't argue the V22 is a good 53D replacement for heavy lift either way.
But then Trautman used his July 28 interview to quietly change policy, claiming that MV-22s–not Sikorsky’s new heavy-lift CH-53Ks–were going to replace the CH-53D helos!
When did the 53D become "Medium Lift" helicopters?
(Was this like the Navy reclassifying the Spruance class as "destroyers" rather than "cruisers" (it was a cruiser sized hull) in order to get around some acquisition language in the mid 70's and get the program funded/running?) If what he says is true, it seems a shame that they won't replace the 53D with the 53E, but then, there is nothing in the force structure that requires the Marines to always have the same number of heavy lift squadrons. The choice to go to more medium lift may have to do with mission requirements and changing ROC and POE. Still confusing.
The 53E was already in place long before Osprey got into its early development cycle. As I recall, the Super Stallion was dubbed "crowd killer" by no few of my colleagues who flew them. (A pretty infamous wreck, 30+ dead, mid 80's, the tail disconnect coming loose out in FMFPAC somewhere ... )
Aside: some of the Marines called the 53E the "S_h_i_t_t_e_r" for reasons that are unclear to me.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf_50
I figured since you were able to rebuke everything the author reported to the world, surely your information would have been earth-shattering to his ego and reputation !
So, who is right? You or him?
The world awaits your rebuttal.
I figured since you were able to rebuke everything the author reported to the world, surely your information would have been earth-shattering to his ego and reputation !
So, who is right? You or him?
The world awaits your rebuttal.
CH-53D a Medium Lift helicopter....yep indeedy! Ever since the 53E and now 53K came into being.
As the artilcle confirms....the Osprey is to replace BOTH the 53D and 46.
Since Vertrep is being done by Evergreen Helicopters using Civilian Puma's...I guess Osprey's don't get involved in much sling loading. If it does....how does it cope with Hi-Drag Aerodynamic loads?
The US Navy -- Fact File: CH-53D Sea Stallion helicopter
CH-53D Sea Stallion | NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation
As the artilcle confirms....the Osprey is to replace BOTH the 53D and 46.
Since Vertrep is being done by Evergreen Helicopters using Civilian Puma's...I guess Osprey's don't get involved in much sling loading. If it does....how does it cope with Hi-Drag Aerodynamic loads?
The US Navy -- Fact File: CH-53D Sea Stallion helicopter
CH-53D Sea Stallion | NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation
Last edited by SASless; 12th Apr 2011 at 20:19.
Dan, every weapons system seems to have growing pains. Were you around for the Pentagon Paradox and the F-18? If you were the gullible person you present yourself as, why, we should never have bought the F-18! Well, we did anyway, and it pretty much works.
Oddly enough, the F-111 came in for the same sort of criticism when it first arrived, with much complaint and mockery of its being designed to fit numerous roles, doing neither particularly well, but turning into a decent strike aircraft anyway, and a fine fast E jamming platform.
You ought to take what the media puts out with a more critical eye, as I did up there, because this is simply more of the same.
Whatever complaint you, or the author have, with V-22, is about fifteen years late. The opportunity cost has been paid, the decision taken.
You don't get the money back, the Frogs aren't coming back, and the Marines still need medium lift.
Beyond that, it's all about the whining, which you FOD the thread with.
How's that bridge working out, Dan?
Oddly enough, the F-111 came in for the same sort of criticism when it first arrived, with much complaint and mockery of its being designed to fit numerous roles, doing neither particularly well, but turning into a decent strike aircraft anyway, and a fine fast E jamming platform.
You ought to take what the media puts out with a more critical eye, as I did up there, because this is simply more of the same.
Whatever complaint you, or the author have, with V-22, is about fifteen years late. The opportunity cost has been paid, the decision taken.
You don't get the money back, the Frogs aren't coming back, and the Marines still need medium lift.
Beyond that, it's all about the whining, which you FOD the thread with.
How's that bridge working out, Dan?
SASless, I don't find the assertion that 53D is medium lift to make sense. It was the original heavy lift, and the 53E "more and better" heavy lift.
That said, thanks for the link.
I see what they did there. "The Spruance is no longer a cruiser, it is a destroyer." Thanks. 
They could just as well have chosen to replace the 53D's with K's but probably didn't want to wait. 53D is a bit long in the tooth, yes? But what they chose to do was, in order to support the size of the desired buy, reclassify 53D as Med Lift in order to replace it with more of their favorite medium lift new plane.
Reminds me of the old F-20 and F-16 shell game ...
That said, thanks for the link.
Description
The CH-53D is a medium lift helicopter designed to transport personnel, supplies and equipment in support of amphibious and shore operations.
The CH-53D is a medium lift helicopter designed to transport personnel, supplies and equipment in support of amphibious and shore operations.
Background
The CH-53D was ordered in the early 1960s to satisfy a Marine Corps requirement for a heavy lift helicopter. It has since been replaced in the heavy lift mission by the CH-53E Super Stallion. All Marine Corps CH-53D helicopters are currently assigned to Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay. The CH-53D, along with the CH-46E, is slated for replacement by the MV-22 Osprey.
The CH-53D was ordered in the early 1960s to satisfy a Marine Corps requirement for a heavy lift helicopter. It has since been replaced in the heavy lift mission by the CH-53E Super Stallion. All Marine Corps CH-53D helicopters are currently assigned to Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay. The CH-53D, along with the CH-46E, is slated for replacement by the MV-22 Osprey.
They could just as well have chosen to replace the 53D's with K's but probably didn't want to wait. 53D is a bit long in the tooth, yes? But what they chose to do was, in order to support the size of the desired buy, reclassify 53D as Med Lift in order to replace it with more of their favorite medium lift new plane.
Reminds me of the old F-20 and F-16 shell game ...
I don't find the assertion that 53D is medium lift to make sense. It was the original heavy lift, and the 53E "more and better" heavy lift.
The Osprey was sold as a replacement for both.
The Osprey Program's problems resulted in the 53D being retained and some drawn from storage to keep the combat capability of the USMC where it needed to be.....and are being retained long after their "retirement date" despite the growing numbers of the Osprey fleet.
When the 53K arrives adding to 53E numbers....then perhaps the 53D might be allowed to fade away.
Don't count on it however!
A Dress and some lipstick doesn't stop the Pig from showing through.....which the 22 Program is.
The Osprey Program's problems resulted in the 53D being retained and some drawn from storage to keep the combat capability of the USMC where it needed to be.....and are being retained long after their "retirement date" despite the growing numbers of the Osprey fleet.
(I'd have to research whether or not any new E's were produced there. I heard some talk about selling E's to Turkey, made in Alabama due to cost per labor hour being a lot less, but that was years ago, not idea how that turned out. Apparently, the sale based on FMS credits never got finalized.)
OK, SAS, I'll bite.
Did the USMC not have any Frogs in Hawaii?
Any Medium Lift? Maybe in the past, they did, but at present, no, they don't have any Medium Lift Squadrons in MAG 24. Marine Aircraft Group 24
They do have three Heavy Lift Squadrons at MAG 24 in Kanahoe Bay.
Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadrons 362, 363, and 463
Funny, I don't find any Medium Lift Anywhere that the CH-53D is assigned and operating, do you?
All very confusing, isn't it? I am not spinning anything here, SAS.
It is very possible that the USMC has been playing a bit of a shell game, however.
"The Spruance is a Destroyer, Mister Senator, not a Cruiser."
So you complain that the Osprey Program is a pig. I quite agree that this combat transport is insanely expensive. See also the cost of a B-2, some of this silly "littoral combat ships" the surface Navy wants to buy, the Virginia Class submarine, and the F-22. All incredibly expensive on a per unit basis, and I'll grant you on a program basis as well.
Got an aviation major acquisition program in the last ten to fifteen years that isn't a pig?
We should raise a glass to that program, given the company it's in.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 12th Apr 2011 at 20:59.
A Little Background Might Help the Discussions
In June 1962 the Marines developed a requirement for a 33,000 lb machine that would carry 33 troops at 200 mph. The competition came down to the CH-53A and the CH-47A both medium lift machines in the eyes of the US Army, who at the time was developing the HLH a true Heavy lifter. Each machine had the capability to dash at 170 kts (196 mph) while carrying 33 troops. The first flight followed 2 years and 4 months later in Oct 1964. The first CH-53As were introduced to the fleet in June 1966, fours years from the program inception. (Pretty amazing by todays standards) The D was just a growth version of the A. The E was conceived as an improved D being developed as an ECP to the D. Initially, only 16 were to be built as an interim heavy lift machine. The program then grew to a full production of new machines built from the ground up. A total of 152 CH-53Es were built followed by 31, MH-53Es for the Navy and 11, S-80M-1s built for the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces. It is my belief that the CH-53A/Ds were medium lifters while the E was an interim quasi- heavy lifter. With an empty weight of 35,000 lbs and a gross weight of more than 50,000 lbs, the V-22 is more suited for comparison the 53 series. As a side not the CH-53As were purchased for approximately $300,000, a staggering figure at the time as it was compared to purchasing a C-130 for the same price.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
A further 'aside,' but since Jack mentions the CH-53's 196 mph dash speed: it was a shame that the CH-53E's maximum (as opposed to cruise) speed seems to have been deliberately understated in the recent GAO report on the Kilo program, presumably in order to make the CH-53K look good. There was no need to do this, given that the K's lifting capabilities speak for themselves.
I/C
I/C
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gee Lonewolf_50, I cut and paste an article, you say it's wrong, I point out it's available worldwide and state your beef is with the author and you go hysterical. Why? If you have facts contrary to the authors' the world wants to know about it. He stuck his pee-pee out there and you resort to calling me names because you don't want to stick yours out there and prove him wrong.
How juvenile is that!
If you have better, more accurate data send it to him and share his reply please or zip your lips.
Got it?
How juvenile is that!
If you have better, more accurate data send it to him and share his reply please or zip your lips.
Got it?
Fast Movin E
I/C
Sikorsky actually demonstrated the dash speed capability of the E as part of a medium lift helicopter study project for NAVAIRSYSCOM. A CH-53E at approximately 40,000 lbs with the aux tanks removed demonstrated a Vh of 194 kts at maximum continuous power. There are many facets of the 53 that went on with little or no recognition.
JLC
Sikorsky actually demonstrated the dash speed capability of the E as part of a medium lift helicopter study project for NAVAIRSYSCOM. A CH-53E at approximately 40,000 lbs with the aux tanks removed demonstrated a Vh of 194 kts at maximum continuous power. There are many facets of the 53 that went on with little or no recognition.
JLC
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CH-53D from HMH-363 Kaneohe crashes, I Dead
ry
<1|2>
One dead, 3 hospitalized after military helicopter crash
5:00
UPDATE: 1 dead, 3 hospitalized after military helicopter crash
3:25
Military helicopter crashes in Kaneohe Bay
1:33
A Honolulu Fire Department copter is used to search for the downed copter
The site of the accident
KANEOHE (HawaiiNewsNow) - One Marine is dead after a CH-53D Sea Stallion helicopter carrying four crew members crashed in Kaneohe Bay. The aircraft issued a mayday call shortly after it left Marine Corps Base Hawaii.
One crew member was removed from the helicopter, pronounced dead by the state medical examiner and later taken to Tripler Army Medical Center. The name of the deceased will be released 24 hours after next of kin notification.
The other three crew members were transported from Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay to Queens Medical Center. At last check, two were listed in critical condition and one in stable condition.
The aircraft made an emergency landing in shallow water on the Kaneohe Bay sandbar around 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, approximately two miles from the air station. The downed helicopter remains on its side in Kaneohe Bay and the salvage operation is being planned.
The emergency startled residents who live near the bay.
"One big boom like thunder, and then about 10, 15 minutes after that I noticed military helicopters was unusually circling around," said Kaneohe resident Glenn Pang.
"We're working with the Kaneohe Marine Base waterfront ops, working with US Coast Guard. Fed fire is on the base, and HFD, Coast Guard and waterfront ops are in the ocean with the patients," said Capt. Terry Seelig of the Honolulu Fire Department.
Containment booms have been placed around the wreckage as a precaution. The Coast Guard is enforcing a temporary safety zone extending 500 yards around the aircraft.
Rescue responders included the Marine Corps Base Hawaii Waterfront Operations, aircraft from the U.S. Coast Guard and Army and the Honolulu Fire Department as well as another CH53D from HMH363.
This incident is under investigation by the Marine Corps.
Copyright Hawaii News Now 2011. All rights reserved.
One dead, 3 hospitalized after military helicopter crash - Hawaii News Now - KGMB and KHNL Home
<1|2>
One dead, 3 hospitalized after military helicopter crash5:00
UPDATE: 1 dead, 3 hospitalized after military helicopter crash3:25
Military helicopter crashes in Kaneohe Bay1:33
A Honolulu Fire Department copter is used to search for the downed copter The site of the accidentKANEOHE (HawaiiNewsNow) - One Marine is dead after a CH-53D Sea Stallion helicopter carrying four crew members crashed in Kaneohe Bay. The aircraft issued a mayday call shortly after it left Marine Corps Base Hawaii.
One crew member was removed from the helicopter, pronounced dead by the state medical examiner and later taken to Tripler Army Medical Center. The name of the deceased will be released 24 hours after next of kin notification.
The other three crew members were transported from Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay to Queens Medical Center. At last check, two were listed in critical condition and one in stable condition.
The aircraft made an emergency landing in shallow water on the Kaneohe Bay sandbar around 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, approximately two miles from the air station. The downed helicopter remains on its side in Kaneohe Bay and the salvage operation is being planned.
The emergency startled residents who live near the bay.
"One big boom like thunder, and then about 10, 15 minutes after that I noticed military helicopters was unusually circling around," said Kaneohe resident Glenn Pang.
"We're working with the Kaneohe Marine Base waterfront ops, working with US Coast Guard. Fed fire is on the base, and HFD, Coast Guard and waterfront ops are in the ocean with the patients," said Capt. Terry Seelig of the Honolulu Fire Department.
Containment booms have been placed around the wreckage as a precaution. The Coast Guard is enforcing a temporary safety zone extending 500 yards around the aircraft.
Rescue responders included the Marine Corps Base Hawaii Waterfront Operations, aircraft from the U.S. Coast Guard and Army and the Honolulu Fire Department as well as another CH53D from HMH363.
This incident is under investigation by the Marine Corps.
Copyright Hawaii News Now 2011. All rights reserved.
One dead, 3 hospitalized after military helicopter crash - Hawaii News Now - KGMB and KHNL Home
Dan, no, I will not zip much of anything, thanks so much for asking.
EDIT: Upon further review, I was rude to you for no reason, and for that I apologize, Dan. Won't do it again.
If you take what he writes at face value, then I'll repeat my advice to use critical thinking. Beyond that, read the Pentagon Paradox and tell me why we still fly the F-18. We do, despite a veritable Greek Chorus of sniping and complaining about both the aircraft and the program when it was in similar stages to the V-22. (I'll leave to those who flew it to explain how to screw up the Vector Grid in the Coral Sea Battlegroup (86) thanks to F-18's comparatively short legs ... )
The decision to continue with V-22 program has been reviewed and reaffirmed frequently since the program's inception. When you consider which states, and which senators, and which congressmen had a stake in where high priced defense contracts were to arrive, you may find an even more worthwhile context for the actual decisions taken.
What are the alternatives, Dan? Were you around for those decisions?
Take for example the Blackhawk alternative (which does not hold a squad if you are the Marines). Consider the deck multiple of a CH-46 on an amphib, to get 25 Marines from point A to point B. Your Blackhawk gets 11 there, so you have to use 2.2 Blackhawks to replace 1 CH-46. You also have to house more pilots and crew to fly said Blackhawks. If you operate on an amphib where space is at a premium, that is an easily defeated option. It was doubtless defeated for that and other reasons.
Take the All CH-53E alternative. (Which I personally thought was a better idea, based on how it would fit into the infamous 90's era Helo Master Plan). Depending on configuration, you might be able to carry 37 Marines (don't know if the Marines typically used "50+ with centerline seats installed") which you balance against the deck multiple on an amphib and see if you come out ahead. I suspect there were pros and cons considered for that option within the USMC, but you still run into the speed limitation of rotary wing aircraft. And at that time in the program, the belief was that the technical issues (and associated risks) were solvable in the near term.
But politically, <--- and that's very important -- if you had gone with the all 53 option, that would move the manufacture of Marine helicopters out of PA and into CT ... or AL ... so you get a grand battle that has little to nothing to do with aerodynamics, payload, or mission effectiveness, or even unit cost.
With Boeing in the mix in the V-22, their influence on "where and what" becomes a non-trivial program approval factor ... as does the location in Texas of the proposed production facility, in Amarillo (can't recall when that became final, sometime in the 90's).
That has little to nothing to do with cost, mission effectiveness, airworthiness, or mods and options (guns or no guns?) and everything to do with how you actually get your hands on a new aircraft: it requires dancing the Congressional dance.
When the GAO puts a costs on that political skullduggery -- it creates a real cost -- I'll be less cynical when reading their reports and assessments of weapons acquisition programs. For journalists with axes to grind, the cynicism remains.
From the GAO report:
Between 1990 and LRIP, the "alternatives" were indeed considered, and abandoned. I'll leave to you, the reader, to figure out why.
Cheers
EDIT: Upon further review, I was rude to you for no reason, and for that I apologize, Dan. Won't do it again.
If you take what he writes at face value, then I'll repeat my advice to use critical thinking. Beyond that, read the Pentagon Paradox and tell me why we still fly the F-18. We do, despite a veritable Greek Chorus of sniping and complaining about both the aircraft and the program when it was in similar stages to the V-22. (I'll leave to those who flew it to explain how to screw up the Vector Grid in the Coral Sea Battlegroup (86) thanks to F-18's comparatively short legs ... )
The decision to continue with V-22 program has been reviewed and reaffirmed frequently since the program's inception. When you consider which states, and which senators, and which congressmen had a stake in where high priced defense contracts were to arrive, you may find an even more worthwhile context for the actual decisions taken.
What are the alternatives, Dan? Were you around for those decisions?
Take for example the Blackhawk alternative (which does not hold a squad if you are the Marines). Consider the deck multiple of a CH-46 on an amphib, to get 25 Marines from point A to point B. Your Blackhawk gets 11 there, so you have to use 2.2 Blackhawks to replace 1 CH-46. You also have to house more pilots and crew to fly said Blackhawks. If you operate on an amphib where space is at a premium, that is an easily defeated option. It was doubtless defeated for that and other reasons.
Take the All CH-53E alternative. (Which I personally thought was a better idea, based on how it would fit into the infamous 90's era Helo Master Plan). Depending on configuration, you might be able to carry 37 Marines (don't know if the Marines typically used "50+ with centerline seats installed") which you balance against the deck multiple on an amphib and see if you come out ahead. I suspect there were pros and cons considered for that option within the USMC, but you still run into the speed limitation of rotary wing aircraft. And at that time in the program, the belief was that the technical issues (and associated risks) were solvable in the near term.
But politically, <--- and that's very important -- if you had gone with the all 53 option, that would move the manufacture of Marine helicopters out of PA and into CT ... or AL ... so you get a grand battle that has little to nothing to do with aerodynamics, payload, or mission effectiveness, or even unit cost.
With Boeing in the mix in the V-22, their influence on "where and what" becomes a non-trivial program approval factor ... as does the location in Texas of the proposed production facility, in Amarillo (can't recall when that became final, sometime in the 90's).
That has little to nothing to do with cost, mission effectiveness, airworthiness, or mods and options (guns or no guns?) and everything to do with how you actually get your hands on a new aircraft: it requires dancing the Congressional dance.
When the GAO puts a costs on that political skullduggery -- it creates a real cost -- I'll be less cynical when reading their reports and assessments of weapons acquisition programs. For journalists with axes to grind, the cynicism remains.
From the GAO report:
A month after the first flight, the Secretary of Defense stopped requesting funds for the program due to affordability concerns. In December 1989, the Department of Defense (DOD) directed the Navy to terminate all V-22 contracts because, according to DOD, the V-22 was not affordable when compared to helicopter alternatives, and production ceased. Congress disagreed with this decision, however, and continued to fund the project. In October of 1992 the Navy ordered development to continue and awarded a contract to a Bell Helicopter Textron and Boeing Helicopters joint venture to begin producing production-representative aircraft.
Between 1990 and LRIP, the "alternatives" were indeed considered, and abandoned. I'll leave to you, the reader, to figure out why.
Cheers
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 13th Apr 2011 at 16:04.
http://defensetech.org/2011/04/13/v-...its-in-combat/
So, a couple of years ago some V-22 critics were saying that the Osprey was only being used as a sort of VIP ferry in Iraq during its initial combat deployments. Well, it turns out that the V-22 has been shot at, and hit, quite a bit in subsequent combat deployments around the world with the Air Force and Marines, the Osprey’s program manager revealed this week.
“The aircraft, as I mentioned, has been engaged, it has been hit and every time it’s been hit by enemy fire the aircraft has returned safely to base,” said Marine Corps Col. Greg Masiello, NAVAIR’s V-22 program manager during a press conference at the Navy League’s annual Sea, Air, Space conference held just outside Washington.
While the colonel wouldn’t give too many details about what kinds of weapons have hit the Ospreys, he repeatedly said that a “spectrum” of munitions had been fired at, and hit, the birds when asked point-blank if it was just small arms fire or heavier weapons such as Rocket Propelled Grenades.
“I think it’s safe for me to say that it’s been engaged by a spectrum of different weapons systems and in each case we’ve seen success as far as I would term the aircraft’s ability to perform, fly safely and return back to the fight after it’s been hit,” said the colonel.
Interestingly, the relatively low-tech RPG is one of the deadliest threats to low flying rotor-wing aircraft due to the fact that the rounds have no guidance system to confuse with countermeasures.
He also said the birds are used for a range of operations from troop transport to search and rescue ops.
Furthermore, the Osprey’s composite skin has proven to be tough and flexible enough to absorb hits better than metal, according to Masiello.
“Traditional steel, you hit that and you might hit the structural integrity but composite kind of goes throughout the fibers so if you hit that you’re able to maintain that strength in that area,” said Masiello. “We’ve been able to repair composites and we’re able to effectively go out and repair the damage that was incurred and return to the fight; that’s over a spectrum of different types of engagements.”
Still the V-22’s relative quiet, its speed and flight tactics used by its crews also play a big role in keeping the tiltrotor safe from enemy fire, said Masiello.
“What makes survivability? It’s the vulnerability, its susceptibility [or lack of those] it’s the speed of the aircraft and the tactics they’re able to employ in remaining above the small arms fire,” said Masiello. “It’s also as simple as things like acoustics. … This is a quiet aircraft, it’s able to come in at a speed and at altitude in airplane mode, and we have plenty of footage of very surprised people in a target area as the aircraft comes in out of nowhere, seemingly to them.”
The Marines and their MV-22s deployed to Afghanistan recently logged more than 100,000 flying hours all without the loss of an aircraft. Meanwhile, Air Force Special Operations Command has used its fleet of CV-22s for classified missions around the world. While the missions frequently put the tiltrotors in harm’s way, not one has been lost to enemy fire. One CV-22 did crash-land in Afghanistan, killing four, due to what may have been a case of mechanical failure, pilot error or some combination of those. The service’s investigation into that incident failed to recover the flight data recorder, meaning the cause of the first combat loss of a V-22 may never be fully understood.
While the colonel wouldn’t give too many details about what kinds of weapons have hit the Ospreys, he repeatedly said that a “spectrum” of munitions had been fired at, and hit, the birds when asked point-blank if it was just small arms fire or heavier weapons such as Rocket Propelled Grenades.
“I think it’s safe for me to say that it’s been engaged by a spectrum of different weapons systems and in each case we’ve seen success as far as I would term the aircraft’s ability to perform, fly safely and return back to the fight after it’s been hit,” said the colonel.
Interestingly, the relatively low-tech RPG is one of the deadliest threats to low flying rotor-wing aircraft due to the fact that the rounds have no guidance system to confuse with countermeasures.
He also said the birds are used for a range of operations from troop transport to search and rescue ops.
Furthermore, the Osprey’s composite skin has proven to be tough and flexible enough to absorb hits better than metal, according to Masiello.
“Traditional steel, you hit that and you might hit the structural integrity but composite kind of goes throughout the fibers so if you hit that you’re able to maintain that strength in that area,” said Masiello. “We’ve been able to repair composites and we’re able to effectively go out and repair the damage that was incurred and return to the fight; that’s over a spectrum of different types of engagements.”
Still the V-22’s relative quiet, its speed and flight tactics used by its crews also play a big role in keeping the tiltrotor safe from enemy fire, said Masiello.
“What makes survivability? It’s the vulnerability, its susceptibility [or lack of those] it’s the speed of the aircraft and the tactics they’re able to employ in remaining above the small arms fire,” said Masiello. “It’s also as simple as things like acoustics. … This is a quiet aircraft, it’s able to come in at a speed and at altitude in airplane mode, and we have plenty of footage of very surprised people in a target area as the aircraft comes in out of nowhere, seemingly to them.”
The Marines and their MV-22s deployed to Afghanistan recently logged more than 100,000 flying hours all without the loss of an aircraft. Meanwhile, Air Force Special Operations Command has used its fleet of CV-22s for classified missions around the world. While the missions frequently put the tiltrotors in harm’s way, not one has been lost to enemy fire. One CV-22 did crash-land in Afghanistan, killing four, due to what may have been a case of mechanical failure, pilot error or some combination of those. The service’s investigation into that incident failed to recover the flight data recorder, meaning the cause of the first combat loss of a V-22 may never be fully understood.
DoD Buzz | New V-22 Multiyear Could be Near
The Navy hopes to hear back from Bell-Boeing on a proposal for a second multi-year contract for 122 V-22 Ospreys on May 26, such a deal would round out the Air Force and Marine Corps buy of 50 and 360 aircraft, respectively.
If the five-year deal is approved, it means that the Pentagon will save a minimum of ten-percent over a one year buy of the tiltrotors, according to Col. Greg Masiello, NAVAIR’s V-22 program manager. The flyaway cost for each bird is roughly $65 million.
“At this point we’re confident of ten-percent savings over a single year price,” is all John Rader, Bell Boeing’s executive in charge of the V-22 program, would say when asked if the deal will save more than ten-percent.
Congress must approve the deal before it can go forward.
Meanwhile, the Air Force variant of the tiltrotor is seeing readiness rates pushing 80-percent for deployed units while Marine MV-22 squadrons operating in the field are up to around 70 percent, according to Masiello. Stateside units are still a little lower than that.
And in a very interesting piece of Osprey news, HMX-1, the Marine chopper squadron that flies Marine One presidential helicopters will receive 14 MV-22 Ospreys to haul the president’s gear starting in 2013, said Masiello. The tiltrotors will replace the VH-53D Sea Stallions used to carry the president’s gear (not the president) that are being pulled out of VIP duty and back into regular cargo hauling squadrons. Last year, Boeing announced that it was offering up the V-22 in response to a NAVAIR request for information on a new Marine One replacement chopper.
“At this point we’re confident of ten-percent savings over a single year price,” is all John Rader, Bell Boeing’s executive in charge of the V-22 program, would say when asked if the deal will save more than ten-percent.
Congress must approve the deal before it can go forward.
Meanwhile, the Air Force variant of the tiltrotor is seeing readiness rates pushing 80-percent for deployed units while Marine MV-22 squadrons operating in the field are up to around 70 percent, according to Masiello. Stateside units are still a little lower than that.
And in a very interesting piece of Osprey news, HMX-1, the Marine chopper squadron that flies Marine One presidential helicopters will receive 14 MV-22 Ospreys to haul the president’s gear starting in 2013, said Masiello. The tiltrotors will replace the VH-53D Sea Stallions used to carry the president’s gear (not the president) that are being pulled out of VIP duty and back into regular cargo hauling squadrons. Last year, Boeing announced that it was offering up the V-22 in response to a NAVAIR request for information on a new Marine One replacement chopper.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
HMX-1, the Marine chopper squadron that flies Marine One presidential helicopters, will receive 14 MV-22 Ospreys to haul the president’s gear starting in 2013
Surreal.
I/C
It would be interesting to see another GAO report, similar to the 2008-2009 based report cited earlier (linked in Dan's post up there) and compare program goals (80% mission capable) with achieved readiness goals. (The above post cites the USMC getting about 70% and the USAF 80%) as the fleets grow and mature. Collecting data based on over a hundred aircraft gives a little more depth to the analysis than analysis of 12, yes?
Also of interest would be the MTBF analysis, on systems and subsystems, and whether or not the same "13 items" are flagged as the critical readiness degraders in the next analysis. If other parts/systems began to crop up as the long poles in the Mission Capable metric tent, how fast has either service been able to react to that? (Logistics question as much as anything else ... )
Let's see, if one takes at face value the "it's 112 million a copy" criticism, and apply this whopping ten percent discount for a multi-year buy (which has the added political/economic incentive of keeping more subcontractors alive and well for a five year program) then you are "only" paying 101 million per copy.
Still a very expensive bird.
The price of speed, and breaking new technological ground.
As to using Frogs for the President ... why not? They used the H-3 for decades as the VIP bird ... old, but pretty dependable.
EDIT: don't they still use the VH-3D? IIRC, the 101 replacement was nixed.
Also of interest would be the MTBF analysis, on systems and subsystems, and whether or not the same "13 items" are flagged as the critical readiness degraders in the next analysis. If other parts/systems began to crop up as the long poles in the Mission Capable metric tent, how fast has either service been able to react to that? (Logistics question as much as anything else ... )
Let's see, if one takes at face value the "it's 112 million a copy" criticism, and apply this whopping
ten percent discount for a multi-year buy (which has the added political/economic incentive of keeping more subcontractors alive and well for a five year program) then you are "only" paying 101 million per copy. Still a very expensive bird.
The price of speed, and breaking new technological ground.
As to using Frogs for the President ... why not? They used the H-3 for decades as the VIP bird ... old, but pretty dependable.
EDIT: don't they still use the VH-3D?
IIRC, the 101 replacement was nixed.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
No criticism of the Phrog, or of the prioritization of lift assets. But if 30 years ago you'd have predicted that HMX-1 would be transitioning to CH-46s in 2011, you'd have been section 8'd.
I/C
I/C
Good point, Ian, which is perhaps a caution to us all if we wish to become seers and fortune tellers. 
SASless, I had understood that the Navy's Vertrep bird (to replace the CH-46) is the CH-60S (Now MH-60S) Seaknight.
Has this changed?
Originally Posted by SASless
Since Vertrep is being done by Evergreen Helicopters using Civilian Puma's...I guess Osprey's don't get involved in much sling loading. If it does....how does it cope with Hi-Drag Aerodynamic loads?
Has this changed?
You guys do realize there are already CH-46 assets in HMX-1, do you not?
I imagine existing ships will simply be taking over the 53s duties in the interim.
Lone, yes the VH-3D fleet is still current. The completed VH-71s are gathering dust in a hangar somewhere on the east coast with rumors of a possible sale to canada as spare parts for the Cormorants.
I imagine existing ships will simply be taking over the 53s duties in the interim.
Lone, yes the VH-3D fleet is still current. The completed VH-71s are gathering dust in a hangar somewhere on the east coast with rumors of a possible sale to canada as spare parts for the Cormorants.